Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Please get an order. Welcome to the March meeting of the Racial Planning Commission. If you are able, please stand and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

You. Everyone, can we have the roll call?

Commissioner Glavin.

Present.

Commissioner Borchardt. Present. Vice President Flynn.

Present.

Commissioner Moylan.

Present.

Vice or Chair Tyler. Commissioner Razak.

Present.

Commissioner Gordon. Present.

Make a motion to excuse mister Tyler.

I'll second the motion.

Great. All those in favor of accusing chair Tyler, please say I. I. I. Thank you. Any late changes to the agenda?

No late changes.

Excellent. Thank you, miss Lust. Okay. Now, it's time for the public comment. Anyone wishing to speak to the commission regarding any items not subject to a public hearing, please step forward at this time. Please limit your comments to three minutes or less. If you're online, please raise your hand. The clerk will public comment period. Has everyone had a chance to review the minutes our last meeting? Yes.

You don't have any changes or edits or any discussion about them in any way? If not, I welcome a motion to approve the minutes as presented.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Thank you. We have a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? There are none. Thank you. I'm

you you sure if update, which our project team has been working on for several months now and a few of you kinda got to see part part one of our work. The presentation this evening will be kind of an update on on the work that we have been doing, including, our stakeholder outreach and then, diving into some some key issues and and seeking comments and feedback if the commission has any on some of those key topics. Your packet does include like a full draft, I'm sure you noticed of underlying strike through text amendments. Don't worry, we weren't going to go through all of those in the presentation. But, hopefully, the the key kinda key topics will will guide our conversation this evening.

With me this evening here in person is Kevin Gross, and Eric Eisman is And I question. In

that's Practically perfect in every way. That's my way of calling I right. There's a little look at the agenda as we propose to talk about it tonight. Going quickly over the GMA requirements, we'll talk to you briefly about the work we've completed, spend a little time talking about our stakeholders, really focus the meat of the conversation on central issues and wrap up with next steps. Q and A is something that I would like to make sure that we have each of you know that you have an opportunity and should take advantage of that opportunity at any time during this presentation to ask questions.

It's the most important way that we could be of help to you. I appreciate the chance to be here tonight and work with you again. I wish I was there in person, but sometimes things just get in the way, but I'll be there on April 1, no fooling. So one of the things that we'd like to say before we get started is that Kevin and I have done this kind of work before in other jurisdictions and here many years ago as well. This is your critical areas ordinance.

We've done of the changes in state law. We've done the analysis of best available science. We've talked to the stakeholders and the agencies. We have an idea of we have some ideas we'd like to share with you. But the important point is this isn't our ordinance, this is your ordinance.

And so it's got to be something that not only fits the community and but also complies with the state law and best available science, but it's your take on how to do this. So I really want to stress that we're really looking forward to your comments as we go forward. So again, for any questions, I'm going to move on to the next slide please. Very briefly, as we've talked about in the past and as our packet indicates, are some key elements to doing a critical areas or update. Our responsibilities or the jurisdictions responsibility, I should say is to designate, the agencies don't designate, at least in Department of Health particular.

And then the jurisdictions responsibility to find ways to protect those critical areas based upon what's on the ground and what's coming down from best available science in the agencies. The key element here is that we have to allow ensure that there is no net loss of ecosystem functions and values. And we're going to talk a little bit more about functions and values and no net loss a little bit later on, about 10 or so. But it's important to think about no net loss as sort of like a scale of if you will. If you're going to have an impact on a critical area, that's a deduction that weighs down on the scale.

And so you have to mitigate on the other side provide the same level of functions and values that you've taken away. So it's a scale, it's a waiting back and forth that we go through every development review that comes forward that impacts critical areas. Anadromous fish are extremely important under state law, culturally as well, particularly to the Cowlitz tribe. And so we're coming up making some recommendations that we hope will improve the fish populations, particularly as they exist in G Creek and Allen Canyon Creek. The other thing that's important is long term viability of the survival of the resources, the habitat and the populations of animals that use those corridors or those loafing grounds or what have you, stream beds.

And so we're trying to come up with ways that you can have corridors of animal migration through time, you can have a viable ecosystem for those species that you're required by law to take advantage to protect. And of course, available science. But the key for us for best available science is not only is it something that comes down from the agencies, from the science, from the labs, but it's also something that happens on the ground. What's the quality of the resource, the quality of the buffer on the ground in Ridgefield? And honestly, lot of it's been farmed over years.

And so there's not a lot of habitat value. So then you have to balance what the best available science rules say the habitat should look like, but what's actually on the ground as well, which is sometimes that fields are going to be converted to something else. Any questions about those things that I just want over briefly?

Have a question.

Please go ahead.

You mentioned supporting viable connected populations over the long term and when I look at the critical area code update draft, I don't see that. Am I missing something here?

I think where you would want to look is when we start talking about enhancement. And I think that's one of the key issues to that we want to go through is how do you support a viable population. Well, you could have a buffer around a wetland or buffer particularly for corridors along the stream like Allen Creek, if you will. But if you don't do anything to enhance the if just put a fence around it and say don't go into this corridor, the buffer is going to be what the buffer is based on best available science. But if you don't do anything to enhance it, how do you have a viable corridor for animals to go through? And so I think that's where we're not hiding it, but that's where we're putting our emphasis in order to create that viability.

Okay.

Okay. Great. Thank you for the question. I appreciate that. I'll leave it there. Let's go to the next slide, please, if we will. So very briefly, these are some of the things that we've done already. Last time we talked with you, you knew about the Department of Commerce checklist, the review of the plan policies, which I want to talk a little bit about best available science. The stakeholders is where we've put a lot of our energy in addition to the code drafting. It's been extremely helpful to talk with people who do development work as well as the agencies who regulate the resources.

We've had very good communication with these folks and we've had very good follow-up with the agencies in particular. We will be entering into a formal comment period and it's been made quite clear to us that if we would like to get some off the record feedback, now is a good time before we go into the formal comment period, and that's something we intend to do. And as Claire mentioned, in the packet, you've already seen our first attempt to go through the legislative amendments and which we'll bring to you for the public hearing as well. Any questions about any of the work that's been done so far?

I'm sorry, could you just repeat the very last thing you said about off the record comment Sure.

Yes. We've had some very conversations with state agency folks as well as in the development community. But the agency folks are required by law to review our draft that you recommend to the city council. After it leaves you, we have to send that out for a mandatory sixty day comment period. And then we are in what's called the formal review process. And their comments will be very formal based upon what their missions are. But if we have an opportunity to talk to them before they get into that formal process, we have an opportunity to have a more organic conversation, let's put it that way.

Okay. Thank you.

Sure. Just to clarify, so off the record what you mean is we're not inside that sixty day review period. Is that correct?

That's a better way to say it.

Great. Thank you.

All right. Let's go to the next slide please.

Excuse me. I have

a

follow-up question please. And I guess this would be for miss Lust. Has the public works department as well as the parks department reviewed the the draft and provided input?

Not yet, but we'll loop them into our review as well.

Okay. Thank you.

All right. We can go to the next slide please. Please. There we go. As I'm sure Ms.

Lust has talked to you about in the past, your development regulations of which the critical area code is, have to be at least consistent with your comprehensive plan policies and they should implement your comprehensive plan policies. So naturally when you're doing critical areas, you go look at the environmental chapter in your comprehensive plan, and this is a plan from 2016, which I participated in. And these policies in here, in some ways follow the five critical areas that you're required by law to work with, water quality, flooding hazards, hazard areas such as geologically on steep slopes, habitat and so on. But we're going to focus your attention on environmental policy number three, which has been around for a while, which is restoration and enhancement promote and facilitate ecosystem restoration and enhancement. And quite honestly, I can tell you that the focus of the community's review for development review for critical areas has been on protection and mitigation.

And we haven't really focused on restoration and enhancement. And I've already alluded to that in the question that came on the previous slide. We are proposing that the city take a leadership role, if you will, in trying to come up with ways to enhance the resources and the buffers as to simply as to opposed to just protect them. So we'd like we've taken this policy in your comprehensive plan and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe you're changing it in your plan update this year. So it will still be a plan policy that we see impact And we'll enhancement that's kind of driven our approach to the recommendations we want you to consider and feedback and decide on.

Any questions about this slide? Okay. We'll then move on to the next slide, please. Very briefly, these are the this is the meat of the presentation tonight. We've just talked about plan policies.

We want to talk about how do you avoid the impacts to the resources, what the buffers are, what they are supposed to be according to best of the science around those critical areas and are there ways to have some flexibility relating to the buffers? We want to talk about how do we mitigate for impacts? Do we mitigate solely on mitigation banks? Do we mitigate solely on-site? Or is there some kind of a compromise situation?

Enhancement is the word that you've heard me use several times, and we'll talk about that. And third party review, an idea that came forward with one of our interviews with the development community, which is a way to help resolve conflicts and provide some certainty. And then finally, critical aquifer recharge areas, which I'll probably just keep calling Kera because it's less of a mouthful. It's been an interesting journey to try to deal with critical aquifer recharge areas, because the bottom line is that you cannot allow adverse impacts to your public drinking water source. And that's an issue because the entire city sits upon on an aquifer right now.

But we think we have a way around that or at least how to deal with it in an appropriate manner. Any questions about this to slide. So we're impact COVID-nineteen

able

And And that. To able that. The made some changes to the code to make that clear to make sure that we don't end up with contaminated water. And we've also tried to come up with a way that we can help streamline the review process when we're dealing with critical aquifer area recharges. The other part about avoidance is that, and this is particularly from ecology and from fish and wildlife, is that we need to or the city needs to look at the question first and ask the question first to a development that's going to impact critical areas.

How have you worked to avoid the impact? Show us your work. And show us your work is a phrase that the growth management hearing boards use a lot. Show us your work is how you first try to avoid. And then if you can't avoid or it's not feasible to avoid, feasibility based on size of the project, expense connectivity and those kinds of things.

Then we should talk about mitigation, about impacts and mitigation. So it adds a next step process into the applications. Right now, we get a critical area report with a project that's going to impact critical areas and then we get a mitigation plan and then we essentially start from there. So the first question now is going to be not how you're going to mitigate, but how have you avoided if you can't, show us how, why and then we'll start talking about mitigation. But that's the direction that we're getting from the agencies right now.

And so that's probably a big change in at least how this code would be administered in the future. Any questions about this concept here about avoidance? All right. I'm going to move on then. And we're going to the next slide. And this is where Kevin is going to come in, because he's the scientist here. And he's going to talk to you about buffers and mitigation and some other issues as well. So Kevin, please take it away.

Thank you. Good evening. I appreciate the opportunity to help the city with this process. It's kind of long and onerous. But hopefully, we can help you get through it and understand what you to do and still allow the city to get some development done and so.

So, I'm going to talk about the next few slides which are they all kind of intertwine but they're also kind of the have the same run together, I guess, more from a better another word. So, to answer your question about maintaining viable corridors, that he asked earlier. So, to answer your question about viable corridors, there are several viable corridors that are already maintained. So, like G Creek is a corridor, Allen Canyon Creek is a corridor, Lake River is a corridor and those are being maintained to some extent by the existing critical areas ordinance with buffers and and and that and such.

So. Mister Gross, would you say that they are contiguous habitats?

Separated by roads. Yeah.

Does that meet the definition of contiguous habitats? Separation by roads?

No, not necessarily.

Right.

Yeah. So, they're segmented.

No, but I I understand your point. Thank you.

You're welcome. So, I'm going to talk about buffers. So, buffers are meant to protect critical areas such as wetlands, steep slopes, priority habitats, including streams. So, different critical areas have different buffer determination. So, wetland buffers are determined based on wetland category as determined through ecology's rating system for Western Washington.

Land use intensity which moderate high or low. And the habitat score for the wetland itself. Under the current city wetlands wetland buffers ranging with from 200 feet for category two wetlands and high intensity land use with a habitat score with a high habitat score to 90 feet for a category one wetland. Category two wetland with a high intensity land use and a low habitat score. Under Ecology's BAS, what they're recommending is to increase those buffers on category two weapons to 300 feet and 100 feet respectively which would a significant increase in in buffer with.

So, and we're going to talk about ways to hopefully keep that from happening as we go through this.

Could you repeat those numbers? Because I don't think those numbers are on the slide, are they?

I don't believe so.

Could you say those numbers again then, please?

For category two wetlands, the current buffer, the current ordinance says, 200 feet for category two with high intensity land use with a high high habitat 90 feet for category two wetland with a high intensity land use and a low habitat function. And ecology's buffers would increase those buffers to three hundred and one hundred feet for quarter the

And '19. Version as well.

Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Of was

So steep slopes is not my area of expertise. What I've seen from most localities, steep slopes have a 30 foot buffer from the top of slope. I don't know if that's what the city has right now and I don't know if we're not proposing to change that. Habitat buffers area. We nesting areas have a six lot 60 foot buffer that and streams are have buffers that vary by stream type and site specific tree height and I'll talk about that later.

Buffers can be reduced through buffer averaging and enhancement used to square off a development or to obtain more development area. Buffers typically can't be reduced by more than 25%. Fully vegetated buffers which are you'd consider multi canopy tree shrubs, native understory, probably shouldn't be reduced. We don't have very many of those in the city of Richfield. Just to let you know, I live in Richfield.

I work in Richfield for over for thirty six plus years. So, I know the area fairly well. In fact, I did all the work on the Bashima property before the college bought it. So, I'll talk about the enhancement strategy as we when we get to the enhancement slide. Next slide, please.

Excuse me. Yeah.

Okay.

I'm sorry. Go ahead.

If if you could just explain a little bit more on the riparian buffers about the site specific tree height.

I have another slide for that.

Oh. Wonderful. Sounds

great. Because that's.

That's a very

technical. It is. It is.

So, mister Gross.

Sure.

In the code in the draft, it's mentioned NPN slash NS streams.

Right.

And my question is, I'm trying to understand the rationale. Rationale. If an NS stream is non fish bearing or are dry part of the year, what exactly is the relevancy of maintaining a buffer?

More of the fact that it's probably connected to a perennial stream downstream. And so you don't want that upper portion of the stream to get destroyed or damaged impacted because then it would cause functions to be lost downstream also.

Okay. Basically, you're talking like siltation. Is that what we're. Yeah. Downstream? Mostly. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Alright. I mean, I understand, you know, if there are fish, especially anadromous fish in the stream during a certain period of year. Right. But I I just couldn't wrap my head around especially if the stream is dry part of the year.

Right. So. It's kind of like wetlands that are dry a lot of time of the year. They're still protected.

Okay, thank you. Sure.

Functionally disconnected buffers. So, functionally disconnected buffers are basically what we used to call isolated buffers. So, if you have a wetland and and you have a 150 foot buffer on it and somebody has built a legally built in that buffer prior to the buffer being put on it, there's no way you can, you know, expand that buffer across the the whether it's a house or a commercial development or a road or that type of stuff. So, that's ecology is basically finally recognized this. They haven't really recognized it in the past.

So, they do have it in their update for the CEOs to to to discuss functionally actually. What they say is minor developments such as trails, small accessory structures, paths, driveways to single residents are not considered functionally at disconnect the buffer. Houses, subdivisions, commercial buildings, parking lots, roads, and railways do functionally isolate buffers. So if you take Lake River, there's a railroad going by, the buffer doesn't jump over the railroad tracks and extend onto the other side of it. Any questions?

Best available science. I had to think a second there. Next slide, please. Alright. This one catches everybody and it's not the easiest thing to explain.

So basically, what Department of Fish and Wildlife has up with is their riparian buffers are based on how tall a tree, the dominant trees will grow in a certain soil type within two hundred years and that what the buffer should be. So, if we grow a Douglas fir tree, you know, 200 feet on say G soils, then, you know, that's what your buffer should be and and that's it it seems a lot more onerous than what it is but that's where they're asking us to apply. The problem with it is is that in an urban area, the buffers are asking for are rather ridiculous, I think, but that's my opinion. So they're asking us to put two thirty five to two hundred one hundred and fifty foot buffers on type S and F streams. Type S are shorelines of the state, Lake River, I don't think there's any other shoreline.

G Creek. Yeah. Oh, G Creek. Okay. And 1155 to 100 on perennial streams and 100 foot on seasonal streams.

Currently, the buffers in the city are 150 feet for type S and F streams greater than five feet, 125 feet for a type F, less than five feet, 100 feet for type NP and NS with high massing potential and NP and NS with low massing potential is 50 feet, I believe. I didn't write it down. So, that's where our placing these huge buffers in the urban growth area around G Creek, Allen Canyon Creek, and Lake River with I think eat up a lot of development property. But just putting this information out for you guys to digest. Any questions, please?

I have one quick question. You made reference to something about buffers

on

a slope. And I live in an area that's kind of near G Creek and there's a very steep slope. And I could imagine only 30 feet of buffer on that, I could see why something like this would be so much better because 30 feet is nothing on the slope because everything's gonna wash down into G Creek there.

Yeah.

So is that partly why this sort of

the right of of

left right of Yes, Is that it does. And if I think

about of the site I'm thinking of, that seemed really appropriate because it's a very long sloping area with lots of native trees and shrubs. And if you could develop to the edge of that with only 30 feet of buffer, it would be devastating to that area.

So in most areas with steep slopes, a geologist or geo engineer would have to do a study to determine whether there's going to be impact if you get closer than 30 feet. And may recommend a wider buffer. I think it's a standard right now that if you what's a 25% slope? 5% slope.

25%, yeah.

Yeah. Greater than 25% slope, have a 30 foot buffer.

When we talked with the Department of Natural Resources, we asked them a question about deep slope buffers at the toe and at the head. And they don't have a metric as sort of a one size fits all. And as Kevin pointed out, when we're just dealing with steep slopes and not riparian areas, that's where the geotechnical analysis comes in and tells you what the slope stability might be and how do

And able to And combine it with the riparian side, that's when you get this Yeah. Site potential tree height, buffer, issue. So I guess my question is on that front, is ecology essentially question. Good I

we'll start that's with next next question.

And

jurisdictions that we've researched have adopted this. What we're proposing is sort of an opportunity to recognize what the ecology says is best available excuse me, DNR says is best fish and wildlife says is best available science and have a compromise situation where we can do something that is a little less in terms of the buffer that the development community is familiar with already for the last ten years. Require a little extra burden in terms of enhancements. That's the goal that we're proposing right now. Kevin?

Yes, you got it.

He is a scientist.

All right. Mitigation. So there is the whole statement of no net loss of functions and values, which is tough to maintain if you're allowing development to take place. So mitigation is a tool that's used to compensate for unavoidable critical area impacts in an attempt to meet the no net loss functions requirement. Agencies would like to see all wetland mitigation occur in mitigation banks or use a payment in lieu payment to cover the costs of mitigation.

Other mitigation strategies for responsible mitigation include creation, restoration, rehabilitation enhancement, or a combination of these mitigation types. So, when you look at the city of Richfield, especially East Of I-five, where most of the development is going to take place over the years. There's lots of opportunities for mitigation through enhancement because the quality of the wetlands are fairly low. There are no really well vegetated buffers because it's all agricultural lands and plowed and dist and you know, it's the geese have taken over for a while. Was they were potato fields, all that kind of stuff.

So, I think the biggest that Eric and I have been talking about it are the opportunities that can be presented to try and do a couple things. One, reduce some of the buffers that the cities are are the state agencies are requiring. So, if we can say have a a wetland that's in one of those agricultural fields. And you want to develop not the wetland per se but around the wetland, maybe there's opportunity for the developer to get more ground if he is willing to do an enhancement of the remaining buffer. Mean, it seems like it's an opportunity.

So Eric, you got thoughts on that?

Yes.

Way that we're considering this is to say, these are what the agencies are recommending as best available science. Rather than fight the agencies about what is best available science, we accept their decision, which gets us through the review process. However, it does as we've all been talking additional lands. But we have a system in place that was based on best available science. So we've been using it for the last ten years to some success.

I mean, and so what we would be proposing in our enhancement slide, which is basically the next one is to encourage the development if they want to use the larger buffers go right ahead and sail through after you've looked at avoidance. If you'd rather use what the buffers are today, you can use those as long as you enhance to the level that the new buffer standards would be seeking to obtain that level of enhancement or

I I And to that. And

of the mitigation within the urban growth boundary. You. Right. If if all of the, you know, the developer buys credits out of a a bank, none of the mitigations are being done within the urban growth boundary. So, the city is losing that opportunity to have it done here and and so, we think that it's something that should be taken a look at if you, you know, you people, you guys agree or everybody agrees that I know there are other communities that use 25% of the total mitigation be done within the urban growth boundary.

I don't know if that's the right number, but that's one that has been used. And it it wouldn't necessarily have to be done on city land. I see lots of times or have seen over the years lots of times where somebody has a low quality wetland on his property. Can't mow it, can't do anything with it, and if somebody's willing to come in and enhance it, he gets an enhancement on his property and and somebody gets a credit for doing enhancement. So, it can work a few different ways.

Does does the city currently have a mitigation bank?

You want to answer?

Yeah. So, the code as written currently requires if mitigation banking is used, that's a certified wetland mitigation bank. And nearly 100% of the time, that's the East Fork Lewis River mitigation Bank, which is not in the city but is local to Southwest Washington.

Is there an opportunity to establish a mitigation bank within the city limits to allow for some of that investment investment to to be be paid paid into into improvements improvements that the city could do for wetlands improvements?

It's a good question. I'm not fully versed in the process of setting up a mitigation bank. From from what I've seen, there's actually a property owner north of the city limits that's currently working on getting a mitigation bank certified on his property. It's very much been a private property owner

of I we're right

to areas and city then, limits, are expecting development. A That's why you see these mitigation banks typically in more rural areas as a preservation tool.

JASON Kevin, you've created a mitigation bank. Do you want to talk about how

JASON Sure.

The process and the length of time it takes to do that?

JASON Sure. Typically, the agencies want large chunks of land outside of the urban growth boundary. And when I say large,

I important very future

point. Seen them take up to seven years to get I

have a question about the Watershed Alliance was doing some work along Gee Creek. Probably wasn't considered mitigation, but wasn't that kind of aimed at achieving some of the goals we're talking about with these policies?

On a policy level, absolutely. And we've the city has partnered with the water shuttle alliance in the past. A particular case is the, the recent Pioneer Street widening project, obviously had impacts, that needed to be mitigated. And the city did work with a few parties, including the water shuttle alliance to get, enhancements done in a well and complex on a city property. So it's a good example of, yeah, as you alluded to different parties being able to work together to achieve some of those goals, in either a project specific or just sort of a good for the community kind of way. Okay.

Does the city currently have a listing or maps of high quality wetlands so if a developer came in, he would be able to identify a parcel of property where the high quality wetlands were?

So typically, we have access to sort of estimates, estimate level of where different quality wetlands are. Typically what would happen is that would be on a project by project basis in a critical couple quarters. I progress in mitigation plan were to include enhancement in another area that the qualified professional preparing that mitigation plan, that's they would be determining the location and and quality of wellings to be enhanced as well.

Okay, I see. Thank you. And there's also Department of Natural Resources has a map online that shows you high quality wetlands across Southwest Washington.

But would that be inclusive and and what I mean by that is you know, have they gone on every piece of property? No. Within the city limits?

No. They are not. It's just it's a like most critical areas that are mapped. It's based on, you know, somebody reviewing aerial photographs, maybe some ground truthing with very little.

So, the burden of proof would essentially be on the property owner slash developer.

Correct.

I see. Okay.

Yeah. Typically, they have conservative lidar scans, then it

throws up a red flag,

and then you've to hire a technical expert to go out and do the analysis. I guess my question, in terms of the feasibility of trying to keep it within city limits and without a mitigation bank is difficult because then you have to go try to partner with somebody. And oftentimes, just, for example, just finding an easement through somebody's property, getting utility could sometimes take five to forever years. I mean, some of these people are just like, I don't I don't wanna do anything across my property. And you could you could be searching for years in a in a town as small as ours trying to find something that qualifies for those necessary enhancements.

So that's a concern that I think I have in trying to keep it within City limits, although I think that's everybody that's probably trying to well, most people are developing a property and that have, you know, some kind of connection and care about the land want to try to figure out how to benefit the overall community. And so I think that there's probably a no cause there, but it's just really hard to do. I think the ability to try to keep it on-site is already kinda written into the the standards and the red line that I saw. I think that's a that's a good approach and then you just have to demonstrate through the the discretionary approval process that you don't have another way. Like, you must bring your utilities in here.

Your road must come in here and it it somewhat impacts this because if you do, if you don't, your grade is gonna be at 30% kind of thing, right? So, you gotta demonstrate some level of hardship, but just as you would with any variance. Right? Yep. So I I think it's it's generally a good process.

I I I just worry about limiting where you provide that because you do need the out. You don't want to sacrifice. So I like the enhancements as well. I think most people, when they're trying to go through the process of of preserving on their site, they want to add some level of enhancement to it as well. It's an added beautification is on the site as well.

And I think it's sort of a win win solution for both the development community for residents and for our overall ecosystem because some of these are Degre dated like you mentioned with agriculture over the years, and we have a real opportunity for private investment to come in and restore that habitat so that they can get their development project. So it's a win win solution. So those are my comments at least on those.

Are great comments. If I could just follow-up on that, please. We wouldn't be saying that what we put into into the code is not that you cannot use a mitigation bank for habitat or for wetlands, but that your first check would be to see if you can do it on-site. If it's not feasible, is there some other place in the city where another private developer, another private property owner or city piece of property where you could do this? If that doesn't work, then the mitigation bank is a possibility.

And so I think it's a stepped process that we're trying to do to try to find a way to do this kind of win win, get to do the development, enhancement, but we'll go through a series of steps to make sure that we're trying to do the best thing for the environment as well as for the development of the community.

Yes. Fortunately, the East Fork Of The Lewis Bank has lots of credits available. So. Yeah. It's a big bank.

Does the if if the enhancements are not available excuse me, the mitigation is not available, like, on the site, on the development site. One of the ideas that's in the in the briefing and that was just mentioned was that, you know, city owned property could be used rather than a bank. Does the city have list of those properties or favored properties that the city would prefer to have dollars go to? Would the developer have the opportunity to select, or would it go to the you know, for lack of a better way to describe it, but a Citibank to use for a project?

Yeah. So in in two parts, I I guess the first part of my answer would be that if if council were to adopt an update to this code that puts a priority on, in in city mitigation sites, I think an important implementation step would be to identify and index where some of those are to facilitate that process. And the second part of your question sorry.

Yeah. If if we could have a a bank, so to speak, for the city. So for example, if a a developer, you know, wanted needed the the credits for their site, but it's not feasible where they are. You know, if there's not another project that the city is ready for right now, could they bank it with the city and the city could then combine it maybe with other development projects? I can see a situation where a project might be very, very large and a developer wouldn't be able whatever their requirement is wouldn't be enough to handle that job.

But if a couple of developers or, you know, who cares, a thousand developers, if they pool their money in the Citibank, then those projects might be able to be done.

Yeah. Interesting concept. I think that's something we can

It was Jess' idea.

Thanks, Jeff.

They do have something similar. And not that there's many wetlands in Las Vegas, but they have a a an overall impact fee paid to deal with endangered species down there with the desert tortoise and stuff. And they all joined together to to work through that. I think it's an interesting concept. Yes. It's not my idea, by

the way. That is kind kind of where I was going with an initial response that I don't have an answer to the question but the, you know, the city does work with with impact fees for as the commission knows for transportation, parks, and schools. So, there's potentially kind of analogous structure there. That'd be a pretty big policy decision, of course, but definitely a thread we could pull on more if if the commission wants.

That's why the city council gets paid the big bucks, though, to make those decisions.

So, there is another tool that can be used. It's called advanced mitigation. Where you do your mitigation advance of your impacts which gives you reduced mitigation ratios, like a bank does. I mean, that's the thing of a bank is instead of doing 12 to one enhancement, you're doing one to one bank credit. So I mean, it's there's a big difference there. Advanced mitigation works basically the same way except that you don't have to go through a bank instrument and deal with all the agencies.

Have some comments to that. Wouldn't it be in the city's best interest to keep their habitat areas unmitigated so that when the time comes, when the city has a project where they are, you know, encroaching on habitat area that they have those city owned properties unmitigated, then they can do the enhancement mitigation on those properties instead of the city themselves needing to find areas to do enhancement or buy credits which would cost the city more money.

Yeah. I think that's an an excellent point.

Because I

I've, yeah, seen this with Clark County recently where they're doing

road widening projects and they're on the hunt for properties to mitigate and they're trying to, you know, go after, not go after but acquire private properties to put mitigation on them because they don't have enough of county owned properties to mitigate.

So, that is one thing about advanced mitigation. It can only be used for, so if the city was on city property, they can only use it for city projects.

Early on, we had a comment about has the city parks and engineering had a chance to look at this. This conversation right here, I think is prime for us to have a conversation with Corey and talk to him about before we get together next time, where Parks thinks that there might be some opportunities that could enhance the Parks to be rid of all mitigation in city strategy. So I'll make a call with Corey coming up to see the player.

So one of the things parks may be interested in is that the agencies, especially ecology, are saying they don't want trails anywhere inside 75% of the buffer. So that may make a big difference for how the parks looks at it.

That's one of my biggest pet peeves on that. Those are such valuable assets for recreation as well. And I think I know I know it's their their their mission is on on the ecology side of it. There there's a balance there, I think, with natural trails that I think could probably be met. But that's my personal opinion, and I don't know that I can change ecology's mind on that.

Question on enhancements real quick. Not just ir question. Good

of it because of the number of blackberries and other invasive species that that we have that grow really well here.

We've seen it. Oh. Oh, I was just going to add. We've seen a number of mitigation plans through projects that do include a component of, for example, black removal, as as part of their mitigation. So pretty common.

I was just gonna ask. This might not fit quite here, but I just wanna understand what the time frame is when you say, you know, you invest in mitigation or enhancement. It takes a long time for some of these things to establish and regrow. So does the funding and the effort and the kind of supervision of that, those efforts to do that, is there some time frame that gets set for that so that it actually really happens? Yes.

There is. So short answer, yes. Longer answer, typically as a condition of a project approval, ir, for example, wetland biologists to submit, typically annual reports on the success of mitigation plantings, for a five to seven year period. And, that's because it's a a condition of approval. It is it runs with the land that's required of the project. And in certain cases, there is, basically a a maintenance bond, a financial component tied to it as well.

And if they don't meet the requirement in five to seven years, they can be asked to continue until it's met?

Correct. Or to compensate the city for completing the work.

Okay. Thank you.

It's been a big change from when I started working We used to do mitigation plans. We couldn't find anybody do the planting. So, my partner at that time and I went and did the plantings and all that stuff. We'd write the monitoring reports and send them off to cities and agencies and nobody would respond and the developer after like three years of like, I'm not paying you guys and we're like, well, we're not doing the work. So, those properties just got left behind.

Now, it's a matter of the mitigation sites have to be in the conservation covenant. The reports are sent to ecology, the core. They actually follow-up. If they don't get the reports on time, they ask where they're at, all that kind of stuff. It it it is it does has they do follow through.

Okay. Thank you.

Next slide please. I think we've talked about this quite a bit but we can if if you have questions on on enhancements, it's easier for me to answer questions than is to read something off of the new paper. The one thing I'll say that. That. We're to We're quality buffers in ten years, having a fully functioning buffer based better than having just Halan sitting out there. So I think there's lots of opportunity.

And then talking about opportunities, we're discussing today about other strategies that we could that could be used for enhancement, including lighting, fencing and things like that, ways to also try to promote that viability of wildlife corridors too. You want to mention that?

Sure. There, Ecology gives us a whole slew of things that you can use to their thing is mostly wetland buffers but I think it can be used also on habitat buffers. So, if you do some of these things, you can reduce the wetland buffer from high intensity land use to moderate intensity land use which in some cases quite a bit of difference. So, they recommend lights being shining away from the critical area which is you know, anything using lights that don't that covers so they don't shine up, all that kind. Another one is for noise.

Locate the most noise noisy area away from wetlands, construct a fence, do a dense strip plant a dense strip of vegetation, parking toxic runoff from parking lots, make sure all waters is treated before it's released. Doing integrated pest management plan. Stormwater runoff, retrofit, stormwater detention and treatment of roads and existing adjacent development, prevent channelized or sheet flow from lawns that directly enter buffers, infiltrate, infiltrate or tree detain and disperse new runoff from impervious surfaces. So, pets and human disturbance you know, keep pets out of critical areas, that kind of stuff. So, Thank you.

Those are some ways. And you do get somewhat of a reduction from a high intensity to a moderate intensity buffer.

We go on?

Yes, Eric, let's continue on.

Let's go on. Okay. Next slide then please. Only two more main topics. And so critical aquifer recharge area, Kara.

Again, as I've said at the beginning, jurisdictions are not allowed to contaminate their public drinking water sources. You can't mitigate for it. And so we have to come up with ways to keep the toxics, hazardous materials, radioactive materials and other contaminants away from the public drinking water sources. As you can see in the slide, there's a big blue blob around the city of Ridgefield, and it is what's called the Troutdale unconsolidated sole source aquifer. It's been identified by the Department of the Environmental Protection Agency and FEMA.

This is a not a huge in terms of some aquifers like the Ogallala Aquifer in the Midwest and the Great Plains. But it is an aquifer that is distinguished in particular to this area caused by the Missoula or Bretz floods many, many eons ago, centuries ago. And so the entire city limits as well as your proposed future growth boundary sits inside of this blue area, inside of a sole source aquifer. And so by regulation from the Department of Health's perspective or at least by definition, the entire city is a critical area, aquifer recharge area, because it is within this blue area, the sole source aquifer. So consequently, when we had a wonderful conversation with

the Department of Health, Deborah Johnson suggested, well, since the entire city is inside of the

sole sole source source aquifer, you could, as some jurisdictions have, there's one in the Spokane area in particular, just designated the entire city as a critical aquifer recharge area. So let's go to the next slide and then we'll come up with some questions here. So what we're supposed to do under the best available science and under the Growth Management Act is to identify critical carers, which include sole source aquifers, wellheads and then different levels of Cara review, Cara one being the most rigorous and Cara two being less rigorous. The Department of Health doesn't designate Cara's, the city does. So if you decide that makes sense to just say the entire city is a sole source is a Kerala two because it is a sole source aquifer that could perhaps help streamline the review process for Kerala.

In the code as we proposed it so far, we are trying to focus in on those activities that could have a detrimental effect on public drinking water, hazardous materials, toxic materials, pesticides, radioactive materials, although we've carved out a Section four, if you've ever been to the dentist and had an x-ray or the doctor and you've had an x-ray, you're using radioactive materials. It's regulated through other mechanisms at the state and federal level. We would not prohibit the use of that within the city, because it's otherwise protected. But the question then is, if everything in the city is a CARA, does every project have to go through a rigorous Kera review? And we're suggesting not.

We're suggesting that by carving out exceptions, if you are within the Kera two area and not in the Kera one, and the KARA-one would be defined by your adjacency to a wellhead. If you're in the general part of the city and you're not using hazardous or toxic materials, you don't have to go through a KARA review, because you're not going to have an impact on drinking water quality. However, in the care of one areas, the more rigorous review would take place and that would be related to wellheads. And what the Department of Health does is they classify migration of underground water to wellheads based upon what's called the time year of travel zones. And they can be ten years, five years, six years and other increments in between.

And so what we're suggesting for you to consider is those developments that take place within a one year time zone of travel of your wellheads, which are in Abrams Park and then out in the plateau area, the junction. That those developments, which are mining related or relate to hazardous materials, petrochemicals, they would have to go through a KARA-one hydrological review. And it's the more rigorous review. And you would have to have geohydraulic geohydrologist do that kind of work because you cannot allow impacts to water quality. On the other part of the city, the most of the city that's not within the one year time travel to a wellhead.

You wouldn't have to do that review unless you were working with hazardous materials, but then the level of evaluation and investigation is reduced. And most of the hazardous materials are regulated already by state statute, and we've produced a list of them at the end of the code language that we put together. So there are other review procedures that someone who's using hazardous materials has to go through already. So that's the way that we're trying to deal with the reality that the city sits on an aquifer entirely, that you can't pollute that aquifer, but we need to find a way to make the review of activities manageable for the city staff as well as for the development community. And as an aside, we would exempt all single family residential development, but not mixed use because it could produce or generate commercial uses that could conceivably have hazardous materials involved in them.

That's the idea behind the Cara changes. It's a rewrite of the code completely. I'd be happy to take questions and comments about this.

Questions?

Of course.

First of all, are there any injection wells within the city limits?

That's a great question because we had a lot of conversation with the Department of Health about that and engineering. There are no injection wells that the city operates at all. We're not aware of any permitted injection wells right now. The question then is, when you store runoff in the ground, say through a French drain, you can also use an injection well. And so we would not want to hamper engineering's ability to basically pump runoff into the ground

And of next comes from with

then then next policy that they've been implementing for at least thirty years now. And that is if you have a septic system, you need to maintain it and get certified by the Colette County Department of Health. If you develop your property, you need to decommission the septic system and connect to city services. That's the general rule.

How does the city know if a private septic system is operating within limits?

It gets a permit from the County Department of Health.

So they conduct periodic inspections?

Yes, they have a life expectancy as to and they need to be pumped out periodically. And when they're pumped out, then the inspection is done in terms of what the capacity is and whether it's still a healthy system. We also carved out an exception within the code, our proposed code anyways that allows you to maintain your ongoing septic system if you're not developing your property.

Okay. I guess the basis where I'm coming from is there are different types of septic systems.

Yes.

You know, there's like a mound system as an example. There's, you know, a traditional septic system. So, okay, the last question that I have is, if I may.

First.

Obviously, there are gas stations within the city limits. Some of them are new obviously and I'm sure they follow stringent requirements or specifications. Does the city have with public works? Do we have any underground storage tanks? Ms. Lust?

Not that I'm aware.

Okay. Not that I'm aware of either. Okay. We do regulate underground storage tanks and actually the state law does for USTs and all of the news filling stations that have come in, in the last thirty years have had to comply with the state regulations related to USTs. And there's also regulations that the state has about above ground tanks that contain hazardous materials. They have to have earthquake proofing, they have to have containment areas around them and so on.

Okay. All right. Very good. Thank you.

Other questions?

Yes. I got a couple for you. One of the last things you said before you took some questions, I was if a property is classified as a care of one, subject to stricter review. But not if they're a personal residence. Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay. So I don't mean this in a snarky way. But are you saying that people are not allowed to dump into wetlands or natural areas unless they live in a personal home, then it's okay?

I'm smiling. No, I'm not trying to say that. First of all, we'll start with the area if you like the idea of Carrol I as being related to the one year time zone of travel around wetlands, I mean around wellheads. The geographic areas that we're talking about within the city are really around Abrams Park and the G Creek Basin. And then out at in the junction area, there are some wells as well.

And so we have had a situation not too long ago, where there was a development up on the ridge above Abrams Park, smaller one that did have homes within the one year time travel. We did ask them to go through a preliminary care review with the hydrogeologist or an engineer, excuse me, to analyze what was going to happen with the water quality as a result of building residential homes there. There are only half a dozen there. And that went through without any problem. What we have tried to do is we recognize that people are going to put fertilizers on their lawns, then those have nitrates and they have phosphates in them and that gets into the groundwater, but or difference more problematic when it gets into the surface waters like stream health and wetlands.

But we've carved out an exception where if you want to work on your car in your garage, you don't need a care up permit. You're in a residential area, you're going to take care of your car, just but we're not encouraging people to dump their oil in the backyard either. So I don't know if I'm answering your question or not, but we know that people will do what people will do, and we can't prevent some things from happening.

Is it safe to assume that there are state or city laws where you're not allowed to just dump in your backyard?

Yes. We have all sorts of regulations around illicit discharge and the code enforcement staff to to back it up when it's reported.

Great. I don't know how to change my oil anyway. Not sure if it matters. Okay. Is this a situation where there'd be a grandfather clause or if we move to the CARA standard, would all businesses developments that are I

think think good question. To that, Eric. Yes. This is nested within the development code, so it applies to new development.

Okay. And then one of the notes in our briefing material in we

the with California. Of California, And

city could do that,

And whether we're you acknowledge that you are sitting on top of a sole source aquifer, you don't have to designate it, although the state law would encourage you to do that.

So the city can actually make the designation and it takes effect?

Yes. Okay.

That's it for now.

All right. Any other questions before we move off of these substantive things? We have one more topic, and then we'll wrap wrap it up.

I just have a comment. I I experienced this, I think, on a project that I did in Redmond, Washington, and it was actually fairly easy to navigate. I wasn't in a care one, so I will tell you that. I haven't I didn't have to go through and and hire somebody specialized to look at the the flow of the underground water, but, but it it was easy to understand. And I think this is pretty similar to what I saw in that.

Great. Thank you. I'll take a look at the Redmond code. I have not looked at that for curious. Thank you. Okay. Next slide then.

Eric, we have one

more I'm sorry, I didn't see that.

In the draft, there was a stakeholder who asked the question, why does chapter 18.28 have a discrete definition section? And I'm interpreting that comment as they don't think that it should be in there. If that is true, I would strongly suggest that you have a definition section in in the in the code. To me, transparency is very important. Not everybody understands terms of art.

I have a scientific engineering background. My wife has an HR background. And sometimes I would come home and we'd be talking about work, use a particular term of art and she would like, you could just see the gears going in reverse. Right? Yeah.

It's the same it's the same with a technical ordinance such as this. You know, developers or builders or just ordinary citizens. They they don't understand acronyms. And so I just think that there should be a definition section and it should be as clear and plain as day for everybody to understand.

Thank you. This a great point. We have in the city code under Title 18, there is section called 18,100, which is definitions. And then in the critical areas code, there is also a section at the very end of the code, I think it's 18,170, but I'm not sure about the nomenclature there. It's also called definitions.

And so that was the question is, why do you have two definition sections in the code? The point being that if we were to change the definitions, if care is defined in the critical areas code and it's defined in the 18,100, the definition code, and someday you amend your definition 18,100 without per carat, but without amending the same text in 18,100 or two eighty, then you've got a conflict. So that was it. Why do we have to avoid the problem of codes changing over time and definitions becoming different, why not just have one? I agree with you, I think in terms of these technical codes, when we're dealing with things like buffers and aquifers, we should probably keep the definitions I think in the code that somebody is going to read first, which is the critical areas code.

Claire and I've had a little conversation about this. It's yeah, I take your point. Blair, do you have anything you want to add to it?

No, I don't. I think that answered the question. Thank you.

Okay. All right. With that, I'll just move on to third party review. We've talked a little bit about this. This came out of our stakeholder interview with Pacific Lifestyle Homes.

They had an issue not in Ridgefield, but elsewhere, where there was a dispute between what their qualified scientist professional was saying was a wetland and buffer, and what an agency, in this case, the Department of Oncology was saying was actually the quality of the wetland and the buffer. And they had a long go around that took a long time to try to resolve. So the comment was, could the city institute a third party review system where when those disagreements occur, and they don't happen too make that opportunity that to we're make independent review. The Pacific Lifestyle Homes and World Development Community would be happy to pay for that. Happy is probably the wrong word, but willing to pay for that.

And then that person or firm would then analyze the technical reports and then provide the development director with an interpretation and a recommendation, which then the city could act on one way or the other. And it seemed to be from this interview a way to provide some flexibility in the code to resolve disputes, but also some certainty that a dispute could be resolved based on some clear and objective standards. So that's a this is not something we're being asked to do by any of the agencies. It's not part of best available science, but it is something we're trying to be somewhat responsive to what the stakeholders have told us. Any comments or questions?

I think the only comment I have on this is that there should be some level of, like, a fine financial limitation that probably is not doesn't necessarily need to be explicitly written in code, but some kind of, you know, internal administrative cap on fees. I sometimes, I personal experience had this happen with a geology person arguing over walls, essentially, and global stability analysis, and they just wanted to rack the bill up. So I I would hate for somebody to be brought in and then all they wanna do is just make money on the consulting fees for their third party review. So some sort of administrative cap and reasonability side of the the fees. But that's it.

And but but not put that cap in the code, but just have that internally.

Yeah. I mean, once you write it in code, then you got to change it every time things kind of get more expensive in the world. I feel like it's just easier to manage administratively.

Good point. Thank you. All right.

Third party reviews? Yeah. They happen a lot. There's a lot of arguing between scientists. It's part of science. Yes.

Let's practice. Let's see. Okay, next steps, next code or next slide, and then I think we'll wrap it up. So just I don't need to go through all of the steps there on screen in front of you, you can see what's coming forward. But the next big step is April 1, there will be a public hearing that you will conduct and from that you will make a recommendation.

We will take your comments and suggestions, which I really appreciate and try to massage the code along those lines to try to make it better. You'll get a copy of that ahead of time. I'm sure Claire will post this according to the city's protocols. And then we'll have a public hearing on the entire code. After that, when you make your recommendation of the council, that's when we get into the formal sixty day review period.

We have to send it all of our work up to the Department of Commerce. They circulate it to all the agencies. The agencies participate in a formal review, some will respond, some won't. But the ones we've talked to, I'm sure will respond. And we have to complete that sixty day review before the council can take final action on this. And we hope to finish this up by the June. Comments or questions?

Yes. I apologize in advance, but I asked this question and you answered this question exactly the last time you visited us. I have a question about the sixty day review process.

Oh, okay.

Specifically there's a line in the briefing that says Department of Ecology does not this has to do with buffers. Ecology does not recommend allowing the use of both buffer reduction and buffer averaging on the same wetland. And I don't know if that's a good idea or a bad idea, but if we just adopt Department of Ecology's rules, then they're gonna approve it, right? Because we're just cutting and pasting. But if we don't, then there's some back and forth, right?

I forget that terminology used earlier, but it was, you know, they're gonna tell us what they think we're doing wrong. They're specifically saying that they don't want us to use both buffers and averaging at the same time. Is that going to be a problem if the city decides that that's the direction they want to go? And then the the sixty day question is, what happens if it doesn't get reviewed in sixty days? What if it can't be completed? What if they're mad at us and we're mad at them and it takes too long?

So my thoughts are is that ecology doesn't understand that you can do buffer averaging on one segment of a buffer and you can do reduction enhancement reduction on another part of if you have a huge buffer, there's no reason why you can't do that. And so that's a discussion that we're going to be having with them before we get to the sixty day comment period.

Eric, do you have comments about the overall process and that sixty day endpoint?

Yes. I view from my past experiences and my understanding of the wax and It's sixty days. They have up to sixty days to give us their review. We then take their review and the council at that point will have an opportunity to make some decisions to what to do with the agency comments. Not all jurisdictions adopt agency comments fully, some do.

And at that point, it becomes sort of what's the right way, a give and take that becomes somewhat legalistic. The city council conceivably could say, you know what, we're going to adopt the multiple buffer reduction. That's what we're going to do and here are our rules to do it. And ecology could take us to the growth management hearings board over that, if That's what your choice is. Or they could say, look at the code and say, well, overall, it's okay. We had one agency representative say, you know what, the code is not the worst we've seen and it's okay. We've seen some that are worse that are still in effect.

Mr. Gross said a minute ago that he thinks ecology maybe doesn't recognize that different methods can be used in different areas. So just hypothetically let's say that ecology says Ridgefield you guys are clowns you don't know what you're talking about and the city council says it doesn't matter we're gonna do it anyway the city could then be liable in some Ecology could take us to some sort of review board or hearing of some kind.

They take us to the Western Washington Growth Management hearing support. And there's process that

comes of And why the next city council gets paid the big bucks.

There you go.

Any other questions from anyone right now?

I have one last one. If we go back to I apologize for regressing here. But in the code update, there's a a bullet point that says stream versus ditch versus underground stream. Fish and wildlife is revising the current language that defines stream, ditch, and underground stream, which the city may follow. And I guess this raises like two questions.

One is, will they have their language or their definition finished in time for us to make a reasonable decision. And secondly, in a way, it it just seems to me that they're putting the horse before the cart. And the reason I or the cart before the horse. And the reason I say that is if you go to the 200 foot buffer, right, and then you've got the 100 foot and the 50 foot. Well, you know, it it just seems incongruous that unless you have a a defined definition, how can you establish a buffer?

Or, you know, a riparian buffer. Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

Sure. So you have to take an account what constitutes a ditch. So, if a ditch is a relocated stream, then it's regulated by the city under the fish and wildlife habitat conservation portion of the ordinance. Underground, well, take the Boshma property. I don't know if you guys are familiar with it at all. So, if you take the Boshma property, Ellen Canyon Creek goes through the Boshma property. So, a part of it has been ditched. So, it goes around the fields and then it goes into several pipes and then it goes under what's the road? The street. The street there.

And then it daylights. So, The portion of it that's been rerouted would be regulated. As a stream. The portion that's piped is not currently regulated as a stream. Once it day lights, then it's regulated again. So that's something that we're hoping to get some definition from them of how they view these things.

Right. I don't think we're going to get that before this we won't get it before the hearing in front of the Planning Commission and I doubt we'll get it before June 30, Kevin.

No, I don't think we will either.

Yes. So we basically going to do the best job that we can and hopefully get the code adopted and the agency can't really say, well, we you have followed our new guidance because we haven't put it together yet. So we're going to follow the best available science rules as they

do to that. And

be

able regulated again. So I know it doesn't make any sense, but there's no habitat function for that stream in a pipe.

Yeah. I'm I'm working on that West Lynn right now. Same problem.

Okay. Right. Thank you.

All right. Thank you all very much. These have been very, very helpful. I do appreciate your candor as well as the quality of your comments. And Clara, with that, I'll turn it back to you.

Thank you, Eric, for taking us through that presentation. Yes, as you can see, we're on a fairly tight timeline. We do have a June 30 deadline, so we'll be bringing this back to you for for hearing, next meeting. I think that that meeting will be more focused on on the actual content of the legislative changes. So you'll you'll see likely more like we've done with previous code updates where we kind of have a summary table of here's the code section, here's the proposed update and why, analysis is this. Are we proposing to fit exactly with prescribed best available science? Are we proposing

good I a that. Good I Thank you everyone on that one. That was a big one. Anything think else in this section, Ms. Lust or shall

we move on?

I believe that's it.

Great. All right. Well, we're gonna have the second public comment period. Anyone wishing to address the commission on any topic not subject to public hearing, please step forward at this time. Please limit your comments three minutes or less. Anyone online? Nope. Last chance. And we'll close the public comment period. Staff reports.

Great. So I have two kinda reminders to talk through. The first of which is that the state of the city address is coming up very Tuesday, March 17. Mhmm. Reception starts at 05:30PM at the Ridgefield High Performing Arts Center. Main event starts at six. I believe I have commissioners Tyler, Borchardt, and Glavin, on the hook. Thank you for for tabling beforehand. I've been working with our events staff to to get us some materials to have there. It'll it'll include last year, we made a great little handout on, you know, what is the role of planning commissions.

We'll have copies of that, work plan, some information about the ongoing comp plan update. Yeah. It's only a half hour, so hopefully just of of do.

To

a mention several times, what April 1 public hearing. I'm aware that our first meeting in April is always during spring break. It's not this year? No. Oh, great. Awesome. I was going to do my whole speech, but I don't think I need to. With that said, we, you know, typically don't have an issue getting quorum, but just it being a public hearing and something that will wanna create a recommendation to to counsel and say it's a a particularly important one for attendance. And as usual, if you have any conflicts, please let Trina and I know at the time. So those were my announcements. Happy to take any questions.

Any questions for miss Lust at this time? If not, we'll move on to hear from the planning commissioners. If there's anything you'd like to share at this time, let's start down at the end.

No. I have nothing.

I would just quickly say that I visited Storybook Hollow Park recently and it's fabulous. And coming from the environmental side, is just completely planted with native plants, which is just such a revelation to see that happening in the city. So I'm really excited that our city has a park like that, a brand new park like that. I hope there's more that get planted in the same way.

Terrific. Nothing on my end tonight.

I don't have anything either.

Excellent. Nothing to report. Alright. Nothing for me either. First time, long time. Thanks to the city staff and mister Gross, thank you for being here. It's good to see you and Eric took off, I know but it was nice to see him again as well and with that, we're adjourned.