City Council - Regular Meeting

All right, good afternoon everybody. It is uh Thursday, April 30th, and this is our city council study session. This one's going to be on critical areas ordinances as it relate to our comprehensive plan update. And for that, we'll go to Claire Lust, our community development director. Thank you, Mayor. Um before we kick off our study session on critical area ordinance update, environmental element of the comp plan, uh Mr. Stewart, I believe you may have wanted to give a brief update on um county council decisions. I'm going to I'm going to make you Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you, Director Lust. Uh just a quick update on where we are in the county's comprehensive plan update process. Obviously, the county's EIS is one that we use and all of the other cities except for the city of Vancouver are actually piggybacking on the county's EIS process as part of our update. Their process is at the point where they have a draft EIS. They needed to determine a preferred alternative to take into the final EIS. They had a hearing on Monday evening of this week. Uh, Mayor Cole spoke, Director Lust spoke, uh, David Toyer, who is the, uh, outside expert that we've engaged with on TDR programs. He also spoke at that public hearing. Uh, they went until about 7:00 that evening. They adjourned, came back on Tuesday, and then deliberated on a preferred alternative. Ultimately the preferred alternative that they are taking into the final EIS is the planning commission county planning commission's recommendation uh which includes the north industrial urban reserve properties uh north of Ridgefield as well as the mall property. It does not include Jones and McFersonson on the east side of Ridgefield. Uh they did make a couple of adjustments to the planning commission recommendations but none of them were relevant to the city of Ridgefield. The next steps in that process is that they will now begin work on a final EIS. They expect that to be done sometime in June I think Claire

probably get a more solid schedule next week at our coordination meeting but um I was hearing July previously. Okay. So sometime this summer they will have the final EIS completed. There will be additional public testimony at that time and input before they make their final determinations on a map that will at least set the outlines of what we do as a city. Obviously once areas are brought into the city's UG, it is up to you all as a council and certainly our community to determine uh what we do with those lands and how we uh accomplish the goals that you have set forth. So, that is just the brief update. I'm happy to answer any questions before we move into the next phase of this.

Um, I I I want to really quick follow up on something that was presented on Monday night prior to all of the public testimony that was given. Uh, at that meeting, uh, county staff actually came forward and and provided some updated housing and jobs numbers. I don't know, Miss Lester or Mr. Stewart, if you guys have had a chance to kind of go through those a little bit more and everything. I I think that those were fresh to everybody uh in the room that night, but what they essentially did was they drastically reduced the amount of jobs and housing capacity needed, especially for Ridgefield. And so I know that that that doesn't impact our our um land use alternatives request like for the expansion areas, but it does probably impact some of our planning. So is could you speak briefly on that?

Sure. Yeah. So you're correct. We hadn't seen that particular document yet, but um we have been working um with Clark County staff to make some adjustments to our assumptions um with the goal of um showing that our capacity within the existing UG is is lower than they had originally shown in the the DEIS documents. Um so that what they showed um prior to the hearing on Monday was sort of evidence of that progress. Um still When we get that document, we'll review it in more detail to make sure they've captured the work we've done. Okay, great. Thank you. Any other questions? Council, mayor, say why they wouldn't accept the

use is your um Did they say property? It's not on still. Sorry. Did they say why they wouldn't accept the Jones property?

No, they really didn't go area by area in the alternatives. There was a conversation amongst the county councilors about whether they should go area by area, city by city in the planning commission recommendations. Ultimately, the determination was made that they would just look at the planning commission recommendation as a whole and then tweak it individ in individual pieces that they had counselors that wanted to bring up. None of those counselors brought up Jones and McFerson. So, it just didn't get brought up at all. So, no, there was no conversation about Jones McFerson. And to be clear, the the planning commission's recommendations actually excluded Jones McFerson. Correct. So, and alternative to So, it was alternative to

pulling the uh that that section out of it. So, any other questions for staff before we get started on that? Uh just real quick, I you know, um I know that we're we still have a lot long way to go, but I do want to thank our staff, city manager, Miss Lust, and our consultants who have been on board. I know it's been an arduous process. Uh but for us, uh it's always been about preserving our vision and and what we are trying to do here in Ridgefield for the next 20 years and and so coming away from Tuesday morning's vote, I think is a real victory for Ridgefield and our residents uh to maintain that long-term vision. So, thank you everybody for that and thank you council for the support along the way. Okay, we can move forward.

Great. Thank you. So this evening we will be looking at and discussing our critical areas ordinance update. This is work we're required to do as part of our um growth management planning our our 20-year comp plan update. Um so there's the code work itself and then a bit about how how it might tie into um some environmental policy in the comp plan. With me this evening is Eric Eisman. Eric's a planning consultant who has been working in and for the city of Ridgefield since 1994. Um so someone who is incredibly familiar with um Ridgefield's history and and present um has done a lot of work on long range planning including the previous comp plan update um as well as development review in Ridgefield including on sites with um a lot of complicated critical areas considerations. So, with that, I think I'll go ahead and turn it over to Eric to get us started.

Thank you, Miss L. Can you all hear me? Yep. And good evening or good afternoon, members of the council, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Stewart. Um, as Claire said, Eric Eisman is my name. I go by Eric, so please call me that if you don't mind. Um I would I have prepared some materials for your review and um Miss Le sent out the PowerPoint presentation. So I don't intend to go through this line by line. It's rather tedious. But there's no other way to really talk about code language unless you really talk about the language itself. Um so what I'm going to do is kind of jump through the slides as we go forward. And I encourage you to ask questions all along the way. um it would be helpful for me to have a dialogue so that I can take your information and try to bring it back into a format and and a policy direction that you want to go. Um before we get started also I want to just say that um we've reached out to members of the community. We've gotten good responses u from the stakeholders that we've talked to and so the directions that went to the planning commission are the are the materials that went to the planning commission and then came out as a recommendation from the planning commission to you represent conversations with um agencies with stakeholders in the community who know the community um and also just some conversations we've had amongst ourselves with staff and staff level. So with that I'll jump right into it. So, if I can just say next slide real quick. Uh, Eric. Yes.

Yeah. Oh, just wanted to get dive a little deeper on what that looked like. Like, how many people in the Pope did we talk to? What is that? I can I can I can basically tell you this. We talked to representatives from the Department of Ecology, Department of Fish and Wildlife, uh, Department of Natural Resources, uh, Department of Health, uh, the Clark County, uh, Natural Resources Program. We talked to, uh, Pacific Lifestyle Homes. and we talked with uh MAGE development. So those are the agencies. Thank you.

All right. Uh next slide please. So um just some key points that I'd like to emphasize here. We get directions on what from the state and the legislature as to what the um uh what the comprehensive uh critical areas policies and directions have to consider. Let's just put it that way first. Um, and so these these are the things that we're supposed to looking at. Designation, no net loss of ecosystem functions and values, which I'm trying to address later on in here, relying on best available science recommendations from the agencies, keeping in mind that best available science, like a lot of things in this world, evolves over time. Um, and then also something that's really important is supporting viable populations of of fish and wildlife over longterm periods. And of course the neandropous fisheries are always important in this community in this state. Next slide please. Unless there's a question and I will try to ask questions after under every slide. If I forget jump right in please. Um all right. So the the basis for the the comp plan is is not comp plan but the critical areas are these things that are on the screen right now. I would just highlight as we just mentioned earlier that we did conduct the interviews with the stakeholders. We got a very supportive response from the agencies. I would have to say that I was I was pleasantly surprised um and uh and they've given us good advice um and they listen to our suggestions. We also of course have to look at the comprehensive plan policies which I'm going to talk about in a little bit later. And then we also reached out to Miss Lust and other members of your staff particularly in engineering and parks and recreation to get some feedback on some of the planning commission proposals. Any questions? Next slide. Good. All right. So, the record to date, these are the things that we've have worked on since we started this project in late November of 2025. I'm going to go down to the very end. Uh, Miss Lust

sent out the ordinance uh and the draft amendments to the Department of Commerce on April 16th. They have a mandatory 60-day review process by state law. That process ends uh late June before your June 25th council meeting. Um we also and what we've heard back so far is the Department of Natural Resources has responded already with some good comments. Nothing unusual in what they said. Um and Department of Ecology uh contacted Miss Lust and they're willing to get their comments back to us by the end of the sea comment period which is and coming up in uh April 20, excuse me, May 11th. Thank you. So that's good because I've been a little nervous that we would get agency comments back and then have just a week to respond to that. So they are being responsive questions. Next slide. So one of the things you need to do when you're looking at ordinance development um is make sure that the ordinance uh and the recommendations that come out of it are consistent with the comprehensive plan that you all have adopted. Um that's basic growth management planning. policies, regulations have to be consistent with your comprehensive plan. So, as we looked through it, we went back and looked at these environmental uh plan policies, EN1, 3, and five. And I've highlighted some key words in your existing plan policies, promote and facilitate ecosystem restoration and enhancement. And then also under EN5 to um form contiguous networks of wildlife habitat. That's an important um uh those those two points kind of drove what the planning commission and we've been thinking about because over time and I've looked at a lot of development review projects in the city since the 90s um there's a lot of emphasis on setting aside critical areas and setting aside buffers but if you just set aside

uh re canary grass and you just set aside blackberries you don't enhance you don't restore and you don't form contiguous networks and so in some ways those plan policies haven't really been um uh initialized much as they could have. Now, as we go forward in the next slides, you'll see some orange labels, city um one back if we could. All right, sorry. Oh, never mind. You'll see some orange names, city, agency, um and stakeholders. And that's those those orange names are attached to a a policy or a direction and indicates where the idea came from. So, okay, now we're ready for the next one. Okay. So, now we're in uh in the proposed comprehensive plan policies for climate resiliency. So, we reviewed those as well and and um I'm going to jump down to policy 3.3 and 733 and 734 because the language that's proposed in there is to expand habitat protection and and improve habitat quality and connectivity. And in 734, it's to provide biological and hydraological connectivity that fosters resilience. So what I'm seeing um as a planner is some is that you've got existing plan policies and proposed plan policies that support each other. If they support each other, then your regulations should also um implement those policy directions as well. Any questions about that? Okay. Um, so the language that we have that's coming out from the planning commission includes some methods and some suggestions as to how we can expand the protection and improve the habitat and how we can can foster connectivity more so than we have so far. All right, I'm going to go to the next slide. Okay. All right. This is just a quick little thumbnail sketch of where we are

in the proposed amendments from the planning commission. no changes, substantive changes that relate to fish and wildlife habitat, critical area rechar aquifer recharge areas um and uh wetlands. Those are the big changes that are we're going to present to you here in this material. There are a few other minor changes uh geology uh related to slopes. There are some slope hazards in the community. There are some land hazards in the community that the current code doesn't really address very well. And then another idea that came through one of the stakeholder interviews and that's third-party review to help try to resolve some disputes between applicants and regulators. All right. All right. I'm going to move on to the next slide. So the major themes um trying to break this down for you again you can see the orange lanes. So avoidance this is something that ecology is very eager for jurisdictions to work on. avoid impacts to the resources first. Don't go straight to mitigation. So, we're going to propose we're looking at some ways to help that um move through the RIP planning review process. Buffers, both ecology and fish and wildlife have new buffers uh for uh habitat and for wetlands. Um but what we are coming with to you today from the planning commission is a pri is a is a possibility of creating a compromise situation between the larger buffers that are being proposed and the buffers and uh that you currently have and I'll explain those a little bit more in detail as we go along. U mitigation this came again from the the city and from the stakeholders. What we're looking at is a sort of a a sliding scale or a priority of how one if you can't avoid and you're going to impact then you have to mitigate. That's that's the sequencing that we have to work with. So the first priority back going

back to the plan policies current and proposed would be to require some kind of mitigation on site as a priority if possible if feasible to do that because that improves the quality environment in the city which is consistent with your plan policies. If that's not possible or feasible then mitigate somewhere else in the city to improve the city's environment. If that's not possible, then the mitigation banks are clearly an option that's blessed by the agencies and and are still um a reasonable alternative. But the planning commission's goal perhaps was um was to try to find more ways to enhance the local environment first. Not saying only, but make that a priority. Third party review, the stakeholder uh came from one of the stakeholders. actually was Pacific Lifestyle Homes and they had some concerns with how long it sometimes takes to get some resolution between what their qualified expert says and what their experts say and those things can drag out for a while. And so it was suggested that we set up a mechanism here in town um to help resolve that problem.

Would would we be the place to essentially be like a mitigator for that? That seems like more of a state role. That's what I was going to say. Yeah, I you're absolutely correct. Um, and so the city of Ridgefield does not have any jurisdiction over the Department of Ecology, period or the Army Corps of Engineer. That'd make a lot of things a lot easier. But you don't.

Yeah. Um but what was suggested by one in the development community is that can we establish a process whereby the their when when they get into a situation where an agency says well we don't really like what your qualified expert says. This is what our qualified expert says. Can we set up a situation where the community development director can hire a qualified professional to make a recommendation to the community development director who could then allow the project to move forward in one way or the other. What that does is doesn't override the agencies. It just sets them up for um an appeal, if you will. Is appeal the best tool or do we have other tools available to us to expedite that review process? Because I know like we just were joking about ecology that can take sometimes 9 12 months in order to get something back from them and that stalls everything out. So what tools do we have available to us? We have the tool that I think is probably the most gerine is not that effective. Under the state law, there's a 120day clock. And so once an application is found technically complete, we have to uh make a final decision within 120 days from that technically complete period.

What happens frequently or has happened I should just say in the past in my experience is that we get into a situation where there's a disagreement and then we ask the developer to toll the clock, stop the clock um and then they then they they negotiate amongst themselves. So, that's not a very good tool, but that is one that's legislatively possible.

Uh, this is more for Claire. How often do you think that would occur? Maybe on an annual basis. I'm kind of concerned about how much staff time her being inserted as kind of facilitator referee, how much how often that would occur if you had to guess. We haven't had a lot of cases where there's a a serious drug out dispute between an applicant's um you know biologists that they've hired and experts at state agencies who are reviewing their work. Um typically if issues come up it's something we can and do solve at a staff level. Um I think this is being proposed for those kind of one-off cases where things are going sideways.

Okay. Okay, that helps clarify. Thanks. Correct. That it's it doesn't happen that frequently, but it does provide a mechanism in the code to at least help the city the city to help kick the can a few bit faster. I'm going to move on if there if that's okay. Oh, of course. I had something else about ear on the mitigation piece

with the mitigation bank uh and buying credits. How does what is the cost of that compared to actually paying for the work the mitigation work in the city? I guess I'm trying to get an understanding. Is it relatively even? Is one of them generally noticeably less expensive to facilitate than the other? I'll take a quick Go ahead, Mr. Mr.

I think it's shifted over time. It used to be that on-site mitigation was the preferred uh avenue and it it used to be less expensive, took less time. I think more recently uh mitigation banks have really taken over uh the lion share of mitigation and it takes years and we have someone who actually has gone through years of process to get a mitigation bank certified. But once you have the certification of a mitigation bank, it becomes a lot easier for developers to be able to just buy into that mitigation bank and pay for those credits. And we have literally had conversations with resource agencies where we've offered to do on-site mitigation and enhance wetland areas. And they said, "Yeah, we're happy to do that. it'll be another 9 to 12 months of process to determine whether your on-site mitigation achieves the goals that are necessary and you're still going to be paying for it. So, we've ended up not doing it. Um, so I think the landscape has shifted toward uh off-site mitigation and mitigation banks being the more cost-effective alternative.

Okay. And I mean, I guess my thought would be, you know, my my initial feeling would be, yeah, you'd want to see that mitigation happen close to home, right? If the impacts happening here, you want to see the mitigation happen here. But, you know, you could have a situation where it maybe technically checks the box, but really the impact is blah. As opposed to something where if you're buying credits, it could be really going to a, you know, a project, a larger project that's really going to make an impact. And so if it's not, you know, I would rather contribute to something outside of Ridgefield that's really going to make an impact than something in the city that just sort of checks the box, too. I think um one of the things that I would say is that when talking to the two developers that I spoke with that I mentioned, they both indicated that they had an interest in doing something more proactive in the community, making something better. The system is extremely easy for them right now, but they would have an interest in doing something better in the community. And and the thing about the the the mitigation process is it's it's not a you must mitigate into the city. It's try to do that first. It's a first it's it's the first step and that is inclusive. That includes that idea that the agencies are saying try to avoid first. If you can't try to avoid then your plan policy is saying try to make the city better. If you can't do that of course there are other options that are out there. All right. And then the critical area aquifer uh critical aquifer recharge area. Cara, uh, this is very much related to the Department of Health. Um, and I'll explain that in just a little bit more detail a little later on. So, we'll keep moving on. That's all right. Um, avoidance. We've just hit on that idea, but I just going to mention a few bullet points here. Planning Commission um suggested that at the very first uh line uh was the new section D, the city strongly encourages avoiding adverse impacts to critical areas and their buffers. And that would be part of the

per the policy or the purpose statement in the critical areas code. And then from the department of health, there are a number of recommendations that come down, but the purpose of this critical areas ordinance would then also include language that the degradation of potable groundwater is simply not permitted. You can't mitigate your way out of of polluting drinking water. Um, period. And so that's that's the department of health. Um some other things that we're doing in terms of avoidance um under halfway down under approval criteria making a demonstration of avoidance something that the applicant does first. Show us whether this is feasible or not. If it's not feasible let's move on to the next step. Um and those are the the um those are the the key items in avoidance. I'd be happy to answer questions about them without going into all the details if you want.

Okay. Just one question and maybe we're going to get into this but and this is premature but um what what are some of the impacts like the market impacts of of these efforts? So if you have mitigation and an ecology comes back or another agency says hey we have to go back and redo this or you have to mitigate it and it's going to stop you from doing what you need to do for you know 6 n 12 months. What does that do to the cost of development in either residential or commercial areas? Does that drive cost up? I assume so. Yeah. I mean I mean it's a leading question. I'm just curious like money, correct?

Yeah, totally. So, I mean, you know, we we talk all the time about the need for affordable housing. There's a housing shortage and we have you Lord knows we have plenty of critical areas inside the city of Ridgefield. So, if we're constantly dealing with mitigation or, you know, um other efforts, does that is that going to drive up the cost of housing? Essentially, uh there are a lot of factors that drive up the cost of housing. Um and that would be probably one of them. The more land you set aside, the more expensive land becomes. Uh the more you mitigate, the more expensive somebody's going to pay for that. There's no question about Thanks. All right. Um other questions about avoidance.

What what I would say to your question also is that this doesn't change the review process that the city has. You still have the 120 days for technical completeness where the staff has to issue a decision. And so that time frame doesn't change. The time frame when you're dealing with agencies can stretch out, but I think the development community, I mean, look at the success of Richfield when I started working here where but there were thousand people as Mr. Wells would would vouch for um because I think I met him back then. Um you're a much bigger community now and you have been following the the this the state law regarding critical areas. Um, and you have been developing and you're building industry and you're building colleges and so something seems to be working and I would not be one of with my long history with this community. I would not be one who wants to see that stop. I'm going to move on to the next slide please. Buffers another big issue. Um, again fish and wildlife is is saying that we need to prioritize avoidance first. asking the applicant in their development review package, how did you try to avoid? Show us what steps you took. Um, moving halfway down under approval criteria, again, no net loss of the functions and values is something that city currently looks at, but it's something that they would continue to look at in the future. Under the one uh below WDFW city, um I'll talk about this in more detail, but the Department of Fish and Wildlife has a new regiment for buffers. It's called sightsp specific tree height at 200 years. It's a very complicated um formula um and I'll don't really want to bore you with all the details of it, but I'll tell you what it is. But we are offering an alternative from the planning commission to what fish and wildlife is saying right now based upon what you currently do. That's allowed a lot of development to happen already. Um

the other important part under ecology the buffer with reduction is strongly disfavored. So the city of Ridgefield has the ability a developer can take a wetland and can and can reduce the wetland buffer and can average the wetland wetland buffer. And so the ecology is saying well that's really double dipping on buffers. You can't do that. And they're pretty adamant about that. And so what we're suggesting is that in order to be consistent with ecologyy's direction, we're saying you can't do that on the same segment of the wetland because a wetland is like an amoeba. It's got to push out here and push down here. You might be able to average over here and buffer uh reduce down here. That's a possibility. You just can't do the buffer averaging and reduce on the same wet node of the wetland. So I think that that probably will work. Um questions. I'll move on get through this. So, next slide, please. Uh, mitigation. Um, again, we started talking about this and that when the city permits impacts to critical areas, um, it has to require mitigation and the priority would be to first look at mitigating within the community. If that's not possible, use the wetland mitigation banks. That's the that's the general theme behind this whole idea. Um the other thing that I want to mention down here under priority established city this came um both from the city and from ecology um 20 well the city is suggesting that you should look at least trying to do 25% of your mitigation effort on your property. If you can't you can't then try to do it somewhere else in in the city. If you can't move on to mitigation when I spoke with ecology about this they said we're not opposed to the idea but I'll wait and see what their formal comments are. Um some other things that are happening here. Um there are some new mitigation ratios which you've seen in the tables that I

gave you. Um they do change the buffer widths for some wetlands particularly in this community that's going to have an impact on category 3 wetlands and we're proposing some kind of compromised solution for that. And I'm going to stop there and move on to the next slide if that's okay. Okay, keep going. Uh, critical. Oh, did I skip one here? Third party review. Sorry. This is that new idea that we were talking about just a little bit ago where when there's a dispute, the city is allowed to go hire a qualified professional. When I spoke with the development community developers, they said, "We'll pay for that because we want to get this thing resolved. We need certainty and we need things expedited as much as possible. Time is money as we said earlier." And so that idea came from them as to who should pay for it. Um when uh the qualified professional makes the decision again the community development director makes the ultimate decision as to what what they're going to rely on. Okay. But again city has no jurisdiction in binding an agency. Next slide please. Critical aquifer recharge area. Um this is one of the more difficult parts of to to work through trying to understand what a critical aquifer recharge area is. It's essentially where your drinking water comes from. And so this is why health, Department of Health is so insistent that you cannot mitigate for impacts to your drinking water. It's just not possible to do that. And they pointed out to me that the city of Ridgefield entirely and even with the growth boundary expansion sits at top something called the Coutdale Soul Source Aquafer. And by statute, soul source aquifers are critical aquifer recharge areas. So legally the city statutoily the city is the entire city is a critical aqua recharge area but the

health department of health doesn't designate cars. You do um and so what we talked about with health they said well you could just designate the entire city as a car because it is. We're not going to do it, but you could do that. And if you do that, you might be able to streamline your review process because everybody every development that happens would have um would be would impact a critical oaf for recharge area. That would be the car one, the lowest form of recharge area. The important thing about caras is that you're trying to protect the wellheads. You want to make sure that the water the contamination doesn't get into your drinking water and the source is your wellhead. So the idea is to streamline the care process so that when you're developing closer to the well head there is more review that goes on. Now the city historically has not looked at residential um uh units close to aquifer recharge areas to the to the wellheads and that's not changing in this. We would suggest that you keep that exemption for for residential use um except for mixed use where you can have um commercial activities that might generate waste that could impact the wellhead. The zone of travel would be for which would call a 10-year zone of travel. Department of Health has six months, one year, five year and 10 year zones of travel. How long does it take water that hits here to get down to this well right here? And that's that's the that's the that's the time frame. And you don't want to pollute your water by excuse me for doing that. I'll just leave it alone. Um and so what we're suggesting is that that zone of travel is one year. And so that would limit that would require development that takes place within a one-year zone of travel from the wellhead to go through a more rigorous review process to prove that they're not contaminated

groundwater. That one-year zone travel um It varies dependent upon the soils, but Abrams Park is all within a one year zone of travel or 10 year one zone of travel. All right, questions? Moving on. Some of the there's some minor changes on the next slide. Um, we're basically adding some definitions that from the planning commission's recommendations as to define some of those terms that we're now talking about avoidance, enhancement, well, wellhead protection areas. just it's a it's it's a it's a minor change but you need definitions and codes. Uh if no questions to that I'm going to move on. Um also um the agencies have been very concerned. All three of the major agencies that we talked to um all four actually wanted to make sure that the that the qualifications for the professionals who do the reports that the city of reviews are done by people who are licensed in the state of Washington and they have qualifications based on the state of Washington work. That's that's the big change there. I got a question. I just want to go back one screen backwards. I saw something about the aquafer recharge areas that was right at the bottom of that last screen and then it flipped really quick.

We didn't get to we didn't get to that. Okay. But I don't see it up there. What I Huh? Yeah, she's flipped back, but I don't see want go ahead and flip ahead. Advance. M. Mr. Wells, the last second to the last line on the previous slide talked about critical recharge areas. qualify. I keep going. So if you look at the second to the last bullet.

Oh, there we go. Wellhead protection area WHPA public drink water. Okay. I didn't see any um par parameters that were put around that. That was what I I thought there was something on on that fact, but it isn't. Okay. The the whack that's identified defines what a wellhead protection area is. So, the city would adopt the whack.

Okay. Very good. Thank you. Moving on. Um lesser changes. We've done that. Um let's do we're there. Okay. Um, one of the things the department of health wanted to clarify and it was interesting because we were talking about the UG expansion. They said technically city only has land use jurisdiction over the city limits. So take out your reference to the urban growth boundary as having jurisdiction over it. When you annex you do have jurisdiction over that land, but not until that time. Um, also they were they three out of the agencies were very insistent that we identify those five critical areas right up front at the beginning of the ordinance which which makes sense. Um and again, Department of Health says you can't have um you you can't reduce the function of a wellhead period. Moving on, proposed amendments. This came out from both the college and from a development review application. Um under the red under D regulatory flexibility, that line in the blue is current code. Right now, the red strikes out what is current code. And what the red did does today still is it allows an applicant to say, "Well, I've used my property as a lawn for all these years. It may be in a wetland buffer, but it's a lawn." And so this exempts them. And ecology came back and said, "Well, there's no best available science to support that at all. You have to go look at what the soils are and you have to look at the hydraology before you can say whether it's a wetland buffer or not." just the fact that you've used it as a lawn, it's true, but it's not best available science. So, they were recommending that we take that out. And it also did come up with um with the development review in the last year and a half, maybe. Yeah, that same issue. And we've

received that kind of comment. All right, question. Moving on. Exemptions. U very briefly here. Um, health wants us to increase the the buffer from 25 feet to 50 feet where where you can use um harmful chemicals around wellheads. Um, and that could impact parks and recreation maintenance crews a little bit. Um, walk behind motorized vehicle equipment for vegetation removal that doesn't cause ground compacts. Right now, that requires a permit in the city, but it's standard operating procedure and so we're suggesting remove that. Um and then the application of pesticides uh within 50 feet would be limited. Beyond 50 feet, as long as you follow the application of pesticides in the zone of travel, you're okay. But you'd have need to follow the packaging and the and the state guidelines on how you apply those things. No questions. I'll move on to the next slide. The approval process. This is mostly inhouse. Um and the point I would want to clarify if we haven't really talked about this yet at the very last uh under item J um increase the required financial security from 110% to 125%. Uh this is coming from the department of ecology. Um and they said that that's more standard operating procedure. Um when you have the bonding the financial security for the mechanisms are for the mitigation. Um showed that to Mr. uh cast and he didn't have an objection to that. So that's but that is a financial burden that's would increase. All right. Um a lot of this other material is still we've talked about already. Also, health said there is a code requirement right now that you can't put a building or a structure um within five feet of the wellhead um and the zone of travel and

that doesn't make any sense really because you have to have pumps and you have to have oper you have to have structures in order to move the water around. So, eliminate that. Next slide please. We're getting close to the end. Um there's nothing really new in this slide, but it does show what I've tried to do is show you how the different parts of the code will be affected. This is the procedure section of the code. Um and it just reiterates that during the review process, um you can make exceptions, but you still and you can have minor exceptions um that are allowed, but you can't impact water quality, drinking water quality. It does allow for the third party review. So, these are just ways to reinforce the ideas that we've been talking about. Next slide, please. Unless there's questions. Did I skip one?

It's repetitive. Yeah, we're just trying to go through the code so you understand what's going on. I'm going to go down to geologic hazards. We talked about that. That's what I was just talking about. There we go. Geological hazards. Department of Natural Resources. We don't really regulate landslides in the city. There are landslides that have occurred in the city. I remember one down on Pioneer Street years ago where part of the roadway slumped away in a slide and so we've added that and department of natural resources is very concerned that geologists who do the analysis in the town are certified and licensed in the state of Washington. Different states have different licenses procedures and qualifications. All right, I'm going to move on then. I don't think there's anything really that we haven't talked about in this slide, but we're basically we're dealing with the approval criteria for a critical area review. And so these are where we back fill into the approval criteria, the things that we've been talking about. I'll move on. We've talked briefly about this, but this is where I want to get into the specifics about the SPTH200 site potential tree height at 200 years. Um, it's based on soil types, it's based on hydrarology, and it's based on vegetation. Please don't ask me more than that, okay? Ke Kevin was here, he could explain it, okay? But what ecology is or fish and wildlife is now saying is that when you look at a riparian area, main corridor. You've got the the riverine area itself, the aquatic area, and then you've got the ordinary high water mark, the bank, and then you've got a buffer around that. And so, instead of using the current buffers that we have right now in the city, ecology, excuse me, fish and wildlife is saying, "No, best available science says you need to use

this new SPTH200 rule." Clark County has adopted it. Pierce County has not. Um, what do you do? I talked to the agencies about this. They said, "Well, it's up to you what you're going to do and what risks you want to take." And so, what we're suggesting is that, and the planning commission acknowledged this, is adopt the SPTH200, which sets wider buffers for streams, but keep the buffers that you've had for the last 10 years that have allowed the city to grow, and allow the developer to use those smaller w not as wide buffers. So long as they do the things that im that implement your plan policies of improving and enhancing the buffer area. Blackberry patch doesn't do anything for for wildlife habitat doesn't do anything to cool the water temperatures in the stream. But if you enhance and you can reach those same levels of function and value that the SPTH200 it says then I suggest that you can allow that smaller buffer to to move forward. It's a compromised position um acknowledging the agency's best available science but saying yes but best available science you had 10 years ago still pretty good

please.

You said so Clark Countyy's adopted Pierce County hasn't and you said depends on what risks you want to take. Can you highlight what risks what that means? And then on a case by case basis there would be the agency looking at the applications that come forward perhaps more stious and creating more conflict between the development application and the agencies which would then have to be resolved. So that's why we're proposing a way sort of it's the best of both worlds perhaps or the worst of both worlds. That's um that's that's the the the the important part about this fish and wildlife buffer that we're working on right now. If any questions uh I will continue to move on. Wetlands is another area of ecology had quite a number of comments and we'll see what they say in a couple of weeks. Um but some of the things I want to draw to your attention is that um based on their recommendation they are ask if if we allow buffer averaging or buffer reduction they want to see the science behind it to show that buffer average and the buffer reduction doesn't um result in a net loss of functions and values. It's something that that the city already does but this would this would codify it perhaps a bit more. Um the other thing that's important here is that under C1 at the very bottom trails and wildlife viewing ecology is very concerned that about what happens in the buffers and they would like trails to be and wildlife viewing areas only allowed in the outer 25% of the buffers. That's not too unusual from what the city does right now. The other change is that the the trails would have to be pvious. They couldn't be asphalt. um so that the water would infiltrate down through and back and feed the wetland again and that they would be limited to pedestrians

which I find kind of burdensome. I talked to your parks and recreation manager about it and he said if we do that we have to change the engineering standards. I said does it impact your long range plans for the for your parks or your trail system in the city? And he said well we still have the trails but it does limit who gets to use the trails. Well, yeah. I mean, and that that turns into an equity issue because we had this conversation not too long ago where we were talking about our our trail system and wanted to make sure that as many trails as we have in the city are accessible um to people with disabilities and the way you do that is is private services. And so, what is DOE taking consideration into those types of um I guess repercussions that are involved there? Yeah, sorry. Um was jotting down a note about that too. Um I think the short answer on that is no. Um I will add that our current standards we do require trails and buffers to be pvious. Um that can include something like a crushed gravel that um is a bit more durable and usable than like a hog fuel wood chip kind of situation. Um, and currently we allow trails in buffers full stop, not limited to an outer percentage such as 25%. So, just to reiterate what the difference would be if we were to fully adopt or not fully adopt these recommendations.

Okay. I I've got a comment and my comment is that the city does not on in some instances it sounds like we got a double-edged sword because you do not allow gravel to be considered as pvious. You put gravel down and it's impervious or if you put asphalt down it's impervious. Uh, so I guess what I'm trying to question is that we're talking about putting gravel down on the trails and yet in another instance on the other hand it doesn't qualify for being impervious.

So compacted gravel is impervious. Um, there are gravel surfacings that have been used in trails in buffers that are a pvious solution. To my understanding, um, there have been a couple developments recently where our engineering public works department has said, you know, this probably isn't an appropriate place to just throw down wood chips. It's going to erode. We're going to have to spend a bunch of time fixing it. Um, but here's this pvious non-compacted gravel solution that that will work in the buffer. So, I I I don't know all the ins and out of like types of gravel surfacing, but there are pvious gravel solutions that have been used in buffers in accordance with our our current critical areas and engineering standards.

Yeah.

Okay. You can put in down 2 inch gravel which Burlington uses, Northern uses on all their rail lines. It's compacted and it's impervious. I mean, it depends on the amount of fines in it, but yet they have water flow through their rail beds and it doesn't other than down towards Morgans and it pumps pumps mud up through They have to clean it out back by the marrow by the narrows. But so there is a difference between gravels. I guess it needs to be defined helpful. I could go reach out to engineering and see what they say about that. That might help clarify this. Okay. And and I take a note of the equity issue. I had not considered that, but I think that's that's definitely worth mentioning. making a note for myself. I only have three more slides. Next slide. Wetlands. Um, we've talked quite a bit about the wetlands. We've talked about um the the solutions that we're proposing in terms of um well, let me let me back up for a second. Under under C2 wetlands, one of the issues with wetlands is that ecology assumes that the wetlands are are fully vegetated um and that they're vegetated with appropriate That's not always the case. And that's when they do their habitat rating system, habitat value rating system, they have a score system for that. So, what we're we're wanting to put into the code is a recognition that those values change um depending upon on the ground circumstances and that there's not a one size habitat score for each use. And so, we want want that to be recognizable. The other thing that um we're doing in

here is that we are at the very bottom we're We recommending adopting the eciesy's current buffer widths, which does increase buffers for wetlands two and three. But what I'd like to suggest is that um we did not really go into this in much detail with the planning commission, but that we with with your encouragement to to propose a compromised solution again to rely upon the new adopt the new buffer with. So a colleague is okay with that but still give the applicant the option of using the smaller buffer width based on that's still in the code today but enhance that buffer so that you reach the functions and values that the wider buffer is supposed to accomplish. I I'd be supportive of that. I think a good compromise is is necessary there just because there's not a one-sizefits-all there and we have to rely on what our local data shows too.

Right. I'm almost done here then. Um I think there's one more wetland slide, right? Um we've talked about this already, but this is just we're moving this into the wetlands chapter. We're talking about um the buffer widths. There's a hard and fast rule apparently in ecology right now that that um let me rephrase that. We can't red when you do allow buffer reduction or buffer averaging, you can't do more than 25 ft. of that reduction. It has to stop there and they were fairly adamant about that rule. So percent sorry percent sorry my mistake.

Thank you. Um I think that another thing that I would mention is that we're adding a new we're proposing a new table. This comes from ecology strategies for avoiding under new table near the very bottom of the slide um for avoiding impacts to wetlands and um and for enhancement and those strategies include what kind of lighting do you put on there which is compatible with your dark sky regulations. What kind of fencing do you put on there that allows habitat migration those kinds of things that can basically enhance in ecy's mind the buffers and the wetlands themselves. Um I'll move on to the net last slide then if there no questions here. So the next steps um we are at the April 30th point right now. Uh in May I believe it's going to be the 28th 28th of May would be the first reading and then there will be the second reading uh in and the 25th. The comment the 60-day comment period that we're required to observe ends on June 13th. So that 12 days before final reading and hopeful adoption and then under the state law, you have until you have 10 days to after adoption to send all of your materials up to ecology and the attorney general's office. So what I'm hoping is that there there are suggestions as to how to approve what the planning commission has recommended that give us some direction so I can come back to you for the first reading guidance or with some recommendations. It's a lot to digest.

It is. I think and I would just suggest Oh, sorry. So, Mr. Stewart, if we were to accept, you know, accept this, does this have any adverse effect on our project for the for the community center? No, this is actually the conversations that are occurring right now with the department of ecology um reflect a lot of this work. So a lot of the conversation we're having right now is how can we enhance buffers to minimize the identified buffer areas um but provide the same function and value. So there they're a lot of what you see here is already being reflected in the conversations occurring. Thank you.

Our project's already vested to the current code. So none of these proposed changes would challenge that review process. Yeah,

it sort of. But there's a 401 permit that Ecology is actually working on for 401. Yeah. So, the 401 permit that Ecology is working on 404. I always get that backwards. So, the 404 permit that Ecology is working on for the project is integrating their newest updated standards. So, when we're having those conversations, they're using their latest guidance for those even though our review processes wouldn't include those. All right. Thank you. It would be my hope that that if we go down these paths of the compromises that we've been talking about and the on-site mitigation preferences that this would apply to future projects, not just city projects, but to all developments that happen in the community. Hopefully, it does more to protect the resources and and also allow the development to continue. I I think that's kind of um I don't want to speak for everybody here, but that's been sort of the way that we approach things is is how do we maximize uh efficiency and getting something done, but also making sure that we're protecting the critical areas and do what we do just to just to be good stewards of the land around us. Would council kind of agree with that as as finding like those compromises are worthwhile to pursue? Yeah,

there's a lot of dense material in here. One of the things that would be helpful for us at a staff level is what are those concerns? What are those concerns from a council policy level that you have whether it is the protection of the resource or it's the equity or it's the affordability? Uh what are the things as you're looking at this that you're thinking about that I wonder how this affects that? I think of the things that you just mentioned there, the equity and the affordability are the two that stand out to me. Um I was I made a couple notes on here and then uh the mayor mentioned you know asking about development costs and stuff like that. So that was a a concern and just like even the mitigation requirements like limiting feasibility if that's going to favor larger developers versus smaller ones just those kind of those are concerns that come up for me. That's a really good process point in that is how are we making sure that our processes do not negatively impact you know smaller uh builders developers and positively impact those larger ones that can afford the people the the plans to be able to just work through it.

Yeah. And and I I think the word that just keeps I just keeps coming to mind for me is just efficiency and and like you know not um necessarily reducing the regulatory environment but making sure that it is sustainable on the development side too because as a fast growing city there's always a lot going on and and like you said time is money when you stop um that drives up affordability that that creates all sorts of kind of backup issues. We don't want to do that. I the way I see it is I hear from builders and developers all the time how how much they love working with our city just because of the level of service we can provide and how we can be quick and efficient with it. I know that a lot of these things that we were talking about are more kind of above the municipal level and out of our control, but anything we can do, I I don't want to give another inch on those things if that's going to create more constraint on the local level, you know, to get done what we need to get done. I don't know if this is totally relevant here and we might have addressed it, but I did make a note when I was reading through the packet just of like how are we ensuring consistent staff interpretation across all projects.

There are certainly there are some tables that have been integrated into the work um which can help provide objective criteria um but that's something we can call out as well. I can see where some of these rules are counterproductive and some of where I'm coming from. I went to Wilco today and bought uh two two and a half gallon jugs of Roundup, not Round Up, excuse me, crossbow. Crossbow to eliminate blackberries. What I heard Eric say is you better let your blackberries grow on the development side because you can turn around take them out and use that for mitigation for as increasing the buffer uh where you got standing trees and that. So instead of pull it's counterproductive where people are trying to eliminate the blackberries so the birds aren't scattering the seeds all over. Now I guess you better let them grow because a buffer there. Uh then you get a buffer encroachment out farther then you can mitigate by taking that the blackberries out. That's that's what I heard in my head comment

there. It's blue light. Okay. Um what I what what the planning commission and what these documents are suggesting is that leaving the buff buffers in just blackberries is counterproductive for for habitat values. Definitely. So it's and if you're going but but the goal would be to enhance the buffers using native plants, native materials that create the functions and values that you're trying to obtain. The blackberries don't create any lasting functions and values for habitat or for stream. So you want to get rid of them.

I agree. But I I'm getting rid of the blackberries so I won't have that option to enhance because I'm taking care of it now rather than doing it down the road. I'm I'm looking at a developer side of it. So, I would I would suggest that if you if you or the person takes all the blackberries away and all that's left is shrubs or grasses, whatever those are, you still have the opportunity to plant native materials that are appropriate for that riparian area or that wetland. That would be the enhancement that you're looking for

in that area. So, then in that area, that's the only So, you're just filling in the uh buffer area have have a bigger but I think I heard you say if you had trees wrong stream and you don't have to increase the buffer there if you enhance the area the blackberries and that you take those out that's your mitigation for turnar around letting wildlife habitat use that area I that that was what was working in my gray matter

I think it's an either or you could either of those solutions. So, if you have the blackberries in place and you're looking to develop, you could do the invasives removal as an enhancement to minimize the buffer and actually shrink your buffer. Or if you've already done it, you've already got rid of the blackberries, um, but you still are looking to minimize your buffer, you can look at plantings to be able to actually enhance and shrink your buffer. So, there's just there's multiple methods to be able to shrink the buffer, I think, is what he was trying to bring forward. I don't know if that answers your question though.

No, I think I better leave the two uh two and a half gallon jugs sat on the shelf till down the road when I need to do the enhancement and then I can turn around and make use of it there. I I'm just playing the Well, no. I mean, I think what we're saying is if you got rid of them now, like you use the crossbow now, you get rid of them. Um but you're not getting any credit for that, right? Uh what we're saying is then later on if somebody came in to develop it and there's the buffer, well then you do some plantings of native grasses or shrubs and that that can shrink your buffer. So there's extra work that you would be doing. You would not be getting the credit for the invasives removal on that, right?

Um that's true. Thank you. I just got to throw my order in the water once a month. What other kind of

I guess this is in line with you know we were talking about the equity issue but you know like it anytime you have layers and layers of of uh of code in a regulatory environment it often you find that when you pull one string you loosen another right and and so I know that we have a whole lot more to our code other than just critical areas ordinance. So just making sure that we are thoughtful and consider of those things too to make sure that we're not unraveling something on the other end of it of our development code that's really high level and vague but

no it makes good sense. One of the things that we look at is this is part of the infrastructure deduction uh that when we're looking at the developable area that we have within our city um one of the things that we look at is how much of that land that we have inside the city is critical areas and if we if we actually enlarge buffers then that's additional critical areas which cannot be built on which means we need more land. So ultimately it does you pull this string here and it affects your land capacity as well. So that is something that we look at and we will be looking at.

Yeah. And and to that end, I guess I look at that and I think of certain areas around around the city where um they're zoned for I guess residential development or just any type of development and knowing that we have a there's a lot of pressure on us to hit some density targets to to make sure we're building the right areas that that we're meeting those targets that we're meeting the jobs numbers like we're talking about with the overall comp plan. I want to make sure that this doesn't inhibit that process as well, like kind of handcuff us where we shouldn't otherwise be handcuffed. And I don't I don't know the answer to that because again, it feels like a lot of that is above the city level, but it's just a consideration on our end and to do what we can do at this level.

Richfield's always thought outside the box where we got 25% set aside on the we're a lot different than the rest of the city. So, we've always been more environmentally sensitive and so then they come out with new roles that hamstring us a little more even though we've went up and beyond what really is called for our state agencies and that go. So, that was just the perspective that I wanted to throw out there that we've been doing a good job. Other thoughts or questions at this point? Council,

councelor Wells, you just mentioned something that we may want to actually think about is with the 25% parks and open space set aside, half of that has to be active, half can be passive. We do count critical areas in a portion of that. Um, if there are enhancements within those critical areas, I'm wondering if we might be able to actually create credit for that within the developed uh environment. So uh as part of the 25% that an additional percentage could be the critical areas or open space or non-active if it was enhanced. But basically if we're looking at the function and value of the area if we say all right you have this area that's critical area you have these buffers. Well if you enhance these buffers you know maybe you get to count some of that as part of the active space. Um and without prejudging the outcome, just thinking outside the box, what could we be doing to actually achieve a better result, meet the ecology guidelines, but do it in a way that actually doesn't uh negatively impact affordability or capacity. So, we can look at some different ideas for that if that's of interest.

Okay. All right. We can bring some ideas back. Yeah. To that point, I I would guess that the answer may be yes. We're currently in a lot of PUDS folks are building pvious trails and buffers and that is counted as part of their active open space. So there's already an overlap there that seems to be working pretty effectively.

Is anything else? Um, yeah, I guess just to close, um, I know it's like pretty dense information. I would say two things. One, a lot of this is sort of clarifying and defining work we're already doing. Um, there are definitely things in here that would be changes from our status quo. Um, and I think Eric's done a good job of of highlighting those those themes that are actually significant changes. Um, that said, I I know there's a lot to think through, so we definitely, you know, welcome follow-up feedback if there are things you're percolating on after the study session um that you want us to hear. I would point to in the packet for this meeting, we did include um sort of a summary matrix similar to what you've seen before for our code updates that's organized thematically. Um, I think like going forward, this is probably a good guide if you want to put yourself to sleep. And um, like if if you if you want anything to comb through and be like, "Okay, here's this area. I think I want Claire and Eric to know XYZ, like this is the document I'd point you to to do that."

I guess to that end, you know, like between now and I guess our first reading, you know, because it is so dense and we have the packets in in your inboxes. And so council, I'd encourage you even just pick one area to look into and just, you know, to dive into a little bit and come back with um other insights that you might have or questions for staff to make sure that we're thorough with this. I it's it's weighty, heavy stuff, but it it is important as far as it impacts our development code. So, you know, making sure that we're we're being good stewards of the code as well. Councelor Hamilton,

thank you. Uh just towards you, Miss Lust, is there any area that you think we should particularly focus on that you need additional feedback for? Or is there anything we can do to be the most helpful in that or areas of concerns that you want to highlight, challenges, anything like that? Um, I think we got good feedback in this meeting about one of the my main area of concern and interest, which was just whether or not council supports some of those compromises on like buffer width versus buffer enhancement. Um, so thank you for that. That's one I was looking for in this meeting. Um yeah, I do think some of the specific proposals around like limiting trails to outer 25%. Um that's like a would be a pretty impactful change. Um so I'd appreciate some thought on that. Um Eric, are there any areas in particular that you feel like you need more feedback on

in the in Thank you. in this um this matrix here and then also in this larger document which is the plan what the planning commission is recommending in terms of adoption or at least your consideration I should say there are towards the back there are a series of tables and those tables for example there are buffer enhancement strategies that are we're proposing for fish and wildlife and for wetlands and these these do come from the agencies. I would also encourage you to take a look at the um the buffer width changes for both wetlands and for fish and wildlife habitat. Uh because you can see we've highlighted them in red so that you can see what your current code says and what the proposed change would be and um and that you'll get a better sense of what the expansion of those buffers is being proposed. that's what I would be interested in.

I've sat through a couple three of these uh comp plans and every time the agencies come up with recommendations uh we used to have 25 foot buffers off of uh a ditch. I'm trying to think of what to call it. And then uh they switched and recommend going to 50 and the city has adopted 50. Now the agencies are recommending more. They never do quit asking for an ask and if you don't question it, they go for it. I sat in Olympia in testimony with the Farm Bureau when they were talking about wetlands originally and they talked about the uh efficiency or the of I'm going to say the side of the road off of a road and uh what it took to filter the water out. I've got a prime example for you right now. And back then they said five feet to 15 feet it almost had it perfect. I mean it more almost filtered all the water out. When you drive to Vancouver tomorrow, next day, I've just been I didn't know this was coming up, but I've been looking. You watch along the asphalt all the pollution that comes off off the road. There's about a two feet, maybe three foot yellow strip like somebody had sprayed, but it's pollutants. After that it start turning green and within 10 feet you got foot and a half tall grass. Look just what I'm saying. I made a

comment to my wife two days ago. I you got the yellow zone, you got a impacted zone, and then you got grass that's normal. So and and we've got just a little short area there. Eric, when you go home tonight, take a look. Okay, that was two days ago. Okay, I'm done.

Uh, one more area just because I I thought of it that would be um maybe good to have some more feedback on going forward would be that mitigation sequence. Um, you know, we have the the planning commission recommendation which is in our materials um to do on-site mitigation first at least for a certain percentage of the work. followed by in city followed by mitigation banks and then on the other hand we have we have agencies um you know pushing for continued prioritization of mitigation banks. So it would be interesting to hear a bit more of what council thinks about that. And um my last comment will be that the the large packet Eric just held up for you uh is not in the packet for this meeting because it was way too much information. But that is the full like underlying strikethro code amendment. So, if you'd like, I can send that in an email to council so you have that document.

Okay, please do. Okay, sounds good. Thank you, council. Uh, thank you, Claire. Thank you, Eric. Thank you, Steve, uh, for all of this information today. Lots to go through to between now and first reading, but um, we do appreciate it and it is important. So, uh, thank you very much. And with that, we will conclude our study session. So, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much.