Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Um, we will now call the April Richfield Planning Commission meeting to order. Uh, if everyone can please stand for the flag salute. I 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. Thank you. And uh can we proceed with a roll call, please? Miss Eert. Commissioner Glavin. Commissioner B, present.

Present. Vice Chair Flynn, present. Commissioner Mland, present. Chair Tyler, present. Commissioner Razak, present. Commissioner Gordon, present. Thank you. Um, Miss Lust, are there any late changes to the agenda? No late changes. Thank you.

Thank you. So, now is then time for our first public comment period. Anyone requesting to speak to the commission may request to do so at this time on any matters that are not subject to a public hearing for today. Um, if you have not provided no if you have not provided notice in advance to speak during this public comment period, please use the raise hand feature and the clerk will send you permission to unmute your microphone so you're able to make your comments. Uh, for controls over the phone, please press star 9 to raise your hand or press star six to mute and unmute. Is there anyone at this time wishing to make a public comment? Anyone in the audience wishing to do so on Zoom? Not seeing anyone at this time, we will close the first public comment period and move on to the consent agenda. Um the only item is for the approval of the minutes from the March meeting. Do I have a motion?

I'll make a motion. Second. Uh we have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Uh we'll now move straight into our public hearing period and I'll turn the time over to Miss Lust.

Thank you, Chair Tyler. Good evening, commissioners, members of the public. Um this evening we are once again going to be talking about critical areas ordinance updates. Um we have a a presentation for you covering um generally generally the same topics we've been to been through um major and minor proposed changes and in your packet as sort of a companion you have um for this meeting a summary document sort of the horizontal matrix um can kind of be a reference as as we talk through these things as well. So with that um and I guess just to note the the goal for this meeting is um our presentation hold a public hearing and then we will be asking for any recommendations to council um as we we do need to move this process on to council um once we're done here. So, with that in mind, um, I'll again introduce in person this time, Eric Eisman, our consulting planner, who's been working on this update, and I'll pass it over to Eric to get us started on the presentation. Thank you, Claire. It's a pleasure to be in front of you in person this evening. Um, I apologize I wasn't here earlier, but things happen. Um, but tonight what I'd like to do is um work through about a 21 slide PowerPoint. I'll tell you honestly, I went and put the first PowerPoint together that looked like this matrix, this table that Claire was just referencing, and after I did my first walkthrough, I said, "Oh my gosh, I fell asleep to my own voice." Um, and so I changed it. I changed it around a little bit. And so this time I want to talk about the way I've organized this is talk about themes. What are the big themes that we're proposing that are different in this and how do they fit together as

opposed to just looking line by line down the code. And then when we finish the five major themes I'll introduce um some other minor changes that are going throughout the entire presentation. I hope I can keep your attention. I'll try to keep mine as well. And please ask questions as you come along uh as there's plenty of time for for a dialogue at this level and then of course during the the public hearing. So when we go through the slides, I'll just say next slide please and then off we go.

Yes, we can pause to figure out audio. Thanks. testing. We're having audio problems today. Testing testing testing. Thank you. You don't need me to repeat that, do you? Okay, good. All right. So, again, uh last note on my first slide is um please ask questions. All right. So, let's go to the next slide if we would. So, just as uh uh this one says GMA central directions. Good. Um very briefly, just to remind you that the growth management act is driving this this code update. um critical areas are part of the growth management act regiment. Every roughly eight to 10 years we have to go through and revise this based on best available science. Our goals are always to protect the critical area resources. Our goals are also to make sure and these are statutory goals that we don't allow a net loss of function and values of these critical resources state law. Um we have to support viable populations of animals and admiss fish and underpinning all of this is best available science and that best available science are documents guidance that's produced by the various state regulatory agencies after years of of of study I suppose you could say. So that's where we start that's what we what we have to base our work on. So if we have the next slide please. So the proposed amendments, the basis for these amendments that we've established so far in this public

process is to have reviewed the checklist. We've done our best available science review. You have seen a memo from Kevin Gross on that earlier. We've done stakeholder interviews with agencies and with people who have expressed an interest in being part of the stakeholders, their help driving the the the program so far. Comprehensive plan policies, the shoreline master program working in front of you. And then also as a result of the last conversation we had, I've contacted engineering, I've contacted parks and gotten their feedback and that's in the memo that uh sort of my uh recap of last meeting and I apologize because I inadvertently gave Claire a draft of that memo. Um I subsequently revised it to make sure that I answered some of your questions more thoroughly and it's now in front of you. So I apologize for that late addition there. Um any questions so far? All right. Thank you. Um yeah, uh in the record so far, we have to build a record uh for this here at the planning commission and also at the city council and also through the work that we do because the growth management board, if this ever goes to their level of review, um they will ask the city to show the work and to show the record. And so that's the important part of what we're doing. Sometimes it might seem a bit redundant, but we are building a record for the city's group regulations here. So again, these are just the list of the things that we've done so far in order to help build the record. One that's not on the list is the stakeholder interviews, and I've given you a summary of of the the conversations that we've had with them. Um, and tonight's hearing will also be part of that record that we're going to be building. Next slide please. So getting into the substance of this uh ordinance amendment. These are the

changes that we are not proposing. There are we've gone through our our literature review um stakeholder interviews and so on and so forth and density transfer unauthorized alterations, frequent flooded areas and appeals. We're not making any changes to those subsections of the code. The frequently flooded areas is a critical area that's required by law for us to evaluate. Um, here in the city and most other jurisdictions in the state of comparable size, you rely upon FEMA guidelines and so there have been no changes in the last several years from their guidelines. So, we're not going to change anything that's going on with this with the frequently flooded. Next slide, please, if you would. So, I warned you that I'm going to do this something in a thematic way um just so that we can kind of wrap our heads around how these changes maybe fit together. Um and those five major topics I'm going to talk about thematically which you you've kind of seen already in some of my work is avoidance. That's something that's coming down from the agencies from particularly ecology and the department of fish and wildlife. They want the jurisdictions to emphasize avoidance of crit impacts of critical areas first. And so we're proposing some changes how to do that. Buffers, how do if we do allow impacts to critical areas and um do we also how do we also allow impacts to buffers and how then do we mitigate that? The proposal that I'm making in this iteration of the code update is to follow one of your plan policies, environmental policy number three, which just says is to restore and to enhance your natural resources in the community. And so I picked up on that plan policy and I'm I'm encouraging in this in this series of iteration our documents here that we do some things to enhance the the the quality function and quality of the natural resources. uh mitigation. Another thing that we're

trying here in this ordinance is in this proposal so far rather I should say is to as part of the enhancement goal is to bring some of the um enhancement and mitigation back into the community where you benefit from it and the wildlife and the fish and the fur and the muck all benefit locally from what's going on as opposed to simply buying bank credits. For example, the wetland bank up at Farger Lake nine and a half miles from here. So, following your plan policies, we're we're trying to find a way to encourage more work here in the community. Third party review. This came up in the stakeholders conferences um where at least one of the developers that we talked to would like for the city planning department, the community development director to have a mechanism to resolve some disputes, if you will. Um, it hasn't been tried very much in the critical areas of the world that I've discovered so far, but I'm always looking for ways that people can be flexible, work together, and find ways to mitigate problems rather than than fighting against each other. And then finally, the critical aquifer recharge area or Kara uh went through a number of iterations with this and finally just I'm recommending that we repeal it and replace it and it's based upon some work that I've research that I've done in other jurisdictions. One of the council members last time commission members suggested looking at Redmond's. I did do that. Um and they have a they have a slightly different approach, but I've definitely studied that as well. um trying to simplify the care uh review process because it's been a bit of a conundrum for staff sometimes. Next slide, please. Any questions, by the way? So, I'm going to stop right there. I promised questions. Those are the themes. So, now that's kind of what's coming. Um and um so avoidance is a scary word in a way, isn't it? Um the agencies particularly Department of Fish and Wildlife and

Ecology are are pushing the idea that the jurisdictions need to ask the development uh applicant to demonstrate how you can how you have avoided impacts to critical areas before you automatically go into the mitigation sequence. And that's typically how things work. the project comes forward, staff reviews it for completeness, and then the the the consultants reports basically talk about, well, we're going to impact these. We've tried not to hit them, but we we're hitting them, and so we're going to go right into mitigation. So what we're proposing now is that in order to give a little bit of um regulatory oversight into that concept of avoidance is to start off by encouraging in the plan policies to to to to focus on avoidance first um and then to demonstrate your work. Again it's the whole idea of the growth management board. Show your work. So we're just following that at the local level in the review process and say tell us what you did in terms of avoidance first and these items I could go through them one by one but these are the areas that we're proposing in the ch in the code that relate to avoidance and most of them are the the top three I should say are driven by recommendations from the department of ecology and from the department of fish and wildlife. One in particular that you'll see again later on is the second bullet point which exempts functionally isolated wetlands 4,000 square feet or less which with a lot of other criteria from review process within your ordinance here. Um right now the threshold is 5,000 square feet. Um, ecology is basically now saying, well, best available science says it's 4,000 square feet plus other issues. Whether it's related to riparian areas, whether it's related to uh fish bearing streams, size of it, hydraology, those are their other factors, but the 4,000 square feet is the is the new threshold

they're recommending. Um, and so under the fourth bullet point, we're talking about approval criteria. So we're adding a a requirement that the staff would have to evaluate um the feas feasibility of their avoidance efforts. So the developer would come in say these are the steps I've taken to avoid staff then has to evaluate the feasibility and I'm suggesting that some of the metrics for evaluating feasibility would be based upon project size uh upon the the type of the resource and the quality of the resources that are being that are at risk if you will um as well as the cost and the public interest. And so those are some metrics that we could look to decide whether it's feasible. Can I interrupt right here?

Absolutely. So, um, the staff is going to evaluate feasibility, but what does that actually mean? What are the mechanics of what the staff is going to do? Is there a report that they would write? Uh, do they have to is it two out of three people have to sign off on it? How does that work?

I I'll obviously defer to your community development director on whether it's two out of three or four out of five. I I I don't know the answer to that. Um, but what I what I would say is that the fe what we would put into the ordinance and then into the administrative procedures are those kinds of metrics that I just talked about. And what we do already in the review process and I've done a lot of reviews in this city and elsewhere. Um, we we look at the consultants reports and we evaluate the science if you will behind their report. Um, when they come to their conclusions, what's the evidence to support the conclusion that they've avoided? And then from that you make the evaluation. It's not a it's not a three out of five or four out of five. It's kind of an evaluation.

Yeah, I I get that. I guess what I'm trying to ask is uh you know these uh uh reports are presented and then the staff reads them and evaluates them but but then what is there a stamp that they put you know like what actually happens? Who is responsible for approving something or not?

Sure. So um ultimately depends on the type of project. Let's go with like a site plan as example though a commercial project is usually a type two review process. So ultimately um it is a administrative it's a staff level decision um as to whether the project is approved and what the conditions of approval are. So um in that case it would be a staff level. The staff reviewing the project would be looking at this probably at the technically complete stage. Um making sure that that critical areas report that's been submitted is adequately showing that avoidance first occurred. Um, and that does that that whole review, it's like a first review basically generates a written memo back to the applicant noting any things that need to be um updated or any additional information that's required.

And then at the at the end of that process of sending the memo back during the technically complete review, that's a stage in the development review process where the staff will say we need some more information about this or you forgot to talk about that. When you get to the final decision like the type two that Clare is talking about, the staff issues a notice of decision. Final decision uh notice of decision um which is appealable. When you go through a type three review with the in front of the hearings examiner, the staff writes a report, sends it to the hearings examiner with a recommendation and then hearings examiner issues the final decision. So there's the the procedures don't necessarily change in the code right now. It's a pretty it's been working well for the last 80 30 years. Yeah, I guess the short answer to sum it up would be it would fit in our existing review procedures.

That's perfect. Yeah, I just want to make sure that it's not just uh something gets submitted and then we move to the next step. Someone's writing a memo saying yes or no and there's an appeal process.

Yeah, fair enough. Um in fact, it's probably true that the critical areas reports as well as the landscape reports and the architectural uh drawings are probably reviewed very carefully by the staff and there's always almost always feedback going back and forth. Um the last five bullet points most of those are devol are there because of the department of health recommendations. Um the uh number one 18u 28150 C24 wetland buffer reduction that's coming from ecology as well also from the department of fish and wildlife. uh what we're emphasizing is not whether the avoidance the reduction avoidance is possible but whether it's feasible and that's what I was talking about before is that what are the metrics for determining feasibility and that's something that staff we I know we'll be working on any questions um about this sort of general overview of this theme avoidance you can see it ripples through the code

not necessarily the general uh theme but I guess more about when would be the appropriate time to offer questions on these given the restructure of it. Is now the appropriate time to talk about this theme or should we save our questions towards the end or No, that's great. Okay, sweet. Well, I'm gonna start asking my questions then.

Um, as it relates to the the the overall first point that 18 280. O the purpose section um I think it generally captures u the intent but one of the things that is not specifically mentioned in subsection E um is you know the ability to still work through off-site mitigation um bank purchases basically um obviously the first order of priority is try to make those improvements within the jurisdiction boundaries, but it it fails to mention that it is authorized within the language further down in the code. I'm wondering if it makes sense to merge DNA into a clear uh like order of priority. I mean, that's sort of how you have this whole thing presented, right? It's like first avoidance, second on-site mitigation, third on-site city owned controlled lands, and then fourth bank mitigation.

Exactly. Right. And if you clearly outline that in the per the purpose statement, it sets the context for the rest of the entire ordinance. Um so that there's no ambiguity in in terms of this is what we want. There's no question if there's any slight, you know, issue language further in the document, you can always point back to that purpose statement, say no, this is what we really intended. I think that's an excellent suggestion.

And then um 18 280.015 the definition of critical areas. I don't necessarily see it mentioned on this slide but obviously plays into the overall um concept of avoidance. Uh irrigation ditches are mentioned in here. It specifically says maintained or owned by a port district or irrigation district or company. Um, are all irrigation ditches controlled by an irrigation company or district?

No. Would they still fall within the concept of this essentially exemption from um critical areas? I mean I I would say there's a there's a there's a purpose behind this, right? It's delivering water from point A to point B, not necessarily they're all man-made for the most part. Could it be better said that these are man-made channels specifically for the purpose of delivering water for irrigation?

Um, without citing the the the statutory authority for the definition of a wetland, not a wetland, but of a stream, it gets to that point and it does exempt certain types of conveyances of water, right? Um, so are you suggesting we make that something upfront or just rely on it in the in the definition sections? We uh I would I would try to make sure that that critical areas definition is consistent with the definition in state and federal law which clearly exempts irrigation districts or I mean irrigation canals. Yes.

Not necessarily owned by an irrigation district, just irrigation canals in general. So just to repeat what I hear you saying to make sure I get it correct. So that we want consistency within throughout the document as to when we define all five of the different critical areas so that they are consistent with state statute.

Yes. Okay. And and this is because I personally ran into this issue before where somebody misinterpreted something where they said, "Oh, this this is doesn't explicitly say that this is exempt." And it's like, "Well, I can point to a million different things in state and federal law, but they me to going through a full wetlands and stream analysis. Um, which was, you know, kind of costly when it was only a small portion of the site that wasn't necessarily impacted. Um, I have some more, but I'll let other people dive into questions. Okay. All right. Well, um, we'll talk about buffers later, right?

Yes. Okay. So, I can talk about measurements and questions on that. Yes. Um let's let's keep moving and then I'll I'll I'll come back to questions if I have any.

Okay. Um I would just close then on this section on this page then with the mitigation sequence. Um again, we're discussing the feasibility of avoidance in there. we've added that but the mitigation sequencing is the department of ecology sequencing which which um is would be consistent with the state statutes as well. So if we can go to the next slide before no more questions about this slide. We'll move on then. Okay. And and please again ask our way. This is how we make it better. Um critical areas um we want need where we're being asked to avoid critical areas but we also have buffers as well. We establish the buffers for the guidance comes from the agencies. We establish the buffers. The core of engineers doesn't necessarily establish the buffers. Um so what we're trying to do here is that um the key areas where we're trying where we're going to find buffer uh issues are going to be in wetlands and in riparian areas of the se of this of this ordinance and then also in in priority habitat species areas fish and wildlife section 28110. That's where it's going to be where we're going to run into the buffer problem. um Department of Natural Resources doesn't really care much about buffers as it relates to landslides and the Department of Health doesn't really care much about buffers as it relates to um critical aqua recharge areas particularly wellhead zones of travel. So that's that's what we'd be focusing on when we're talking about buffers. So um focus on the critical areas first then focus on the buffers. Then we do the evaluation through the critical areas reports that come in as to whether the the impacts that are proposed u will result in a loss of function and value of the buffers as well. And the buffers are have values because of their habitat value because of their hydrarology value for example those are the two big ones. Um

uh moving on uh another major point that's in the buffer theme here is buffer reductions and this came in from the agencies in particular ecology. Um they do not like double dipping if you will where you can do a buffer reduction and a buffer averaging. A buffer a reduction takes 25 feet out of a 100 foot buffer. Buffer averaging says, "Well, we're going to take 25 here, add 25 there, and you know, it's it's kind of a a balloon, if you will." And so, ecology is very strong about this one. Don't do both at the same time. And so, we've built that into this as well. And so what these a what these bullet points are trying to do referencing the different code sections the first one two three four five are all coming from the department of ecology uh with the exception of number the second one 18280208 um that also comes forward from the department of health they and you'll see that throughout the ordinance I didn't think we needed to go over each time but health says you cannot buffer impacts to drinking water you just can't impact drinking water. There's no buffers to it. Um, moving down through this list here, uh, 1828 1110B 1 and two. These are fish and wildlife buffers. And we've talked when Kevin was here last time, we talked about the sight specific tree height at 200 buffer. I know you had questions about that. I'm happy to entertain questions about that as well. Um, what else am I going to say here about these? Um, we are proposing in the code that we don't just we that we adopt the site specific tree height at 200 best available science rule, but that we create an alternative. I'm always looking for alternatives that make sense. Um, and that alternative is to rely upon the existing best available science that's in your code today. It

was best available science 10 years ago. Um so we say we can rely on that but what we're going to be asking for is enhancement so that the reduced buffer gets improved to be equal to the functions and values of the larger sight specific tree height 200 buffer because at the at the sight specific 200 buffer no one's required to do anything you just lock it up blackberries canary reads whatever it is it just stays there no improvements are made and So what we're trying to build into this is back to your comp plan policy again is let's find a way to make it better for the goals and the purposes of the critical areas as well. So we're doing that here uh in this again functionally isolated wetlands come back into that. Um we talked just very briefly about buffer uh double dipping. Even though uh ecology disfavors buffer reduction we're leaving it in the code. It's there already. Um but we are recognizing that they are limiting um impacts or reductions of the buffers to no more than 25% of what the buffer is supposed to be according to the code. Okay. In the past there have been more significant buffer reductions than that. Um, and then we've added something new at the table 1828157, some strategies for how people can enhance um or either reduce impacts to wetland buffers or enhance the buffers as well. So, I I'll stop right there. Again, I'm giving you an overview and showing you trying to show you how it ties together. Um, and I'll stop for questions right now.

Um, you go. I took up way too much time last time. Go ahead.

All right. Well, um, first compliments on the enhancement approach. I think that's a great, uh, way to balance, um, trying to, uh, accommodate growth that's expected within our comp plan while also achieving our goals of enhancement on and protection of the environment. So, um, kudos. It's great. Um, and I think it's going to the example you provided in the in the documents. Um, is a prime example of what can be achieved with enhancement. Um, I do have um some some questions on the double dipping. Um, my understanding is can't double dip on the same segment, but if it's a different segment of the same wetland or same stream, you could still do reduction and averaging. It just can't be just that same sliver of section.

That's that's correct. Okay. And I would add that when we did our stakeholder interviews and followup with the department of ecology, um, as Kevin would tell you, he was not sure that that, um, his approach to defining segments is something that they understood. Okay. Um, but I think the way that you described it does make sense. A wetland is

an amorphous an amoeba. Thank you. That's what I was looking for. Um, and it has an east and a north and a south and and other kinds of directions inside. A stream has reaches linear lengths to it and they have different qualities as you go up and down the stream on either side of the the waterways. And so what we're trying to say is that we we want to recognize what's on the ground and give the applicant the ability to to um make the mment a little bit more funible, if you will, a little bit more malleable, but still not allowing the same reduction in average on that same segment. So I think you hit it right on target.

Yeah. I and I think there's there's a lot of thing that play into that. uh not just the the shape of the wetland itself, but you know there's topography and how does that play into how a project gets laid out? You may have a big giant knob right next to it that by forcing this buffer to be done now you've caused a bunch of excess grading which you don't necessarily want to because then you start having to cut down trees that you don't want it cut down. And so there's these unintended consequences just by saying you can't do any sort of buffering and then the you know, buffer reductions and averaging. So, the averaging in my opinion is is great when combined with reductions to accommodate some sorts of, you know, weird shapes and things like that. And so, as long I I get the double dip on that same segment. I do like the ability that you can do it um in the wetland overall as a whole. Um, and then I do have some questions on the uh buffers themselves. I think that it was the table 18.280.11-1B. Um, when we're talking about the different types of streams, we have the type S, type F, type F, type NP and NS. The when we get down to the NP and NS, we're talking about perennial or seasonal streams, right? So, you got these ephemeral streams that most of the year don't contain water. And we have the high mass wasting potential at 100 feet and the low mass

wasting potential at 50 feet. And I think my question was I think there was a buffer of 25 ft somewhere and now we're at 50 feet here for low mass wasting potential in season streets. I'm not sure where I read the 25 ft. I'm just trying to Yeah. application of pesticides and landscape. Got it. Yeah. I'm just trying to figure out

Yeah. some consistency between buffers in terms of how it it plays out. I was just trying to figure out the logic between the 50 to 100. To me, ephemeral streams are the same in my opinion whether they're high mass wasting or low mass wasting. I'm not sure why we have two different buffers, but just curious about the logic. And then my main comment was to your point um trying to make sure there's consistency between those various different things. I I think I understand um the table 1828110-1B is the existing code. Got it. Sure it is.

But we need to check that. We need to check that. And so that's the alternative that I'm proposing to the sight specific tree height um buffers which are larger than this. Um but we'll double check that 50 to make sure. Um so so again what I'm suggesting is that if it was best available science 10 years ago, it still has some legs I think. Um and so we'll give you the opportunity to rely on that if you enhance if you make it better. But I'll double check that 50 to make sure it wasn't 25. the 25 ft that's coming from with the with the um pesticides that's a standard that's coming from the department of health not from the department of ecology. So that's why there's a disconnect between the two. We can make it the same. We can definitely do that if we'd like the consistency in the code. But two different agencies, two different two different approaches.

Right. But

correct. Correct. Absolutely correct. And it's the drinking water. We're looking at the one-year time zone of travel. Um, and so that's a much more finite resource than the ephemeral streams are. Let me see if I can rephrase that to make sure I understand. In the in the chap in section 110, we're talking about fish and wildlife. And so we're talking about streams and so the agency's recommending certain buffers to the streams without regard to what the Department of Health is talking about and what the Department of Health is talking about is as it relates to drinking water and wellheads, not necessarily streams.

Yes. Personally, I'm fine with two different uh buffer buffer or requirements, distance requirements is a better term, not buffers because one's a buffer, one has to do with application of pesticides. I'm fine with two for two different purposes. I guess that's where I stand. But um

I guess my main concern when it came to buffers on on on those is I I recall during the last hearing we we discussed buffers not uh ecology not or frowning necessarily there were ecology frowned upon use of recreational amenities within buffers and trails are such a huge priority for the city of Richfield. And I don't necessarily want to see trails eliminated from eliminated from um our clear corridors, which typically follow kinds of different riparian habitats, which we have lots of if you look at our maps. Um we we miss out on an opportunity to create that connectivity that we so desperately want. I I completely agree with you. I'm just showing my age. When I helped put together the first trail plan for the city in 1994 95, we did it along we put it together to follow riparian areas um and also potentially sewer lines. Um so I I'm totally understand and I'm sympathetic to what you're saying. With that in mind, after the last meeting, there was a question about whether we had we talked to parks and wreck. And so I reached out to Corey directly. Um, and his comment was not so much that the trails would be limited to the outer 25% of the buffer, but his comment was more that we may need to change the engineering standards as to locations and quality of materials, use of materials within the within the trail system.

And I did see that in the comments. and he said potentially unpaved um more social uh non-social trails, single track trails uh were were fine. And I think that still meets the intent, not necessarily what was probably originally envisioned with paved 10 foot wide trails extending along there, but those are still achievable and connectivity is still achievable um within those buffer areas. It sounds like I potentially I believe Corey thinks that they are, but I don't want to put words in his mouth.

Okay. Yeah, that's something that I I think is extremely important. The wider these buffers get or um we we lose out on the opportunity to provide that critical trail connectivity and I want to make sure that that's something that is carefully examined. Yes, sir. Let me let me get your 182803 applicability and exemptions. Uh number A A applicability A5 no person company agencies. Oh, B5. I'm sorry, my mistake.

There we go. Uh B5, landscape maintenance. Um You're no you're correct. The the first part of of B5 uh relates to streams and M should be probably made more clear. The second part came from Department of Health and that relates to the well sources, water sources.

Yeah, I can do that. I do have a quick question on uh the enhancement of function for buffers. When that alternate strategy is elected, what do the execution and governance of that enhancement look like? Could you repeat that again? I was writing.

Sure. Of course. Um so when the alternate strategy to enhance buffer function is elected, what do the execution and the governance of that enhancement look like? Who's involved? Uh how do we look at what was ultimately done, whether what was done initially endures and achieves the enhancement that was sought?

Yeah. So um we'd follow the same procedures we use currently for projects where some sort of enhancement is proposed as part of a mitigation plan. Um so first of all there is a mitigation plan that's part of the application package that um if the project approved is approved that's one of the you know binding documents that is approved with it. Um typically a mitigation plan is required to have a monitoring scheme that's somewhere

it's it's it's seven to 10 years is what it is now. Um, and we require typically annual reports to be submitted to our department showing like what what percent of species have survived. Um, if that was below the expected threshold, here's what we did to replant them, things like that. And regarding the monitoring, as Kevin mentioned, I think last time, um, in fact, one just came through just this week. Um uh nowadays agencies are also the the um overseating agencies are also giving the copies of the monitoring port. So the burden is no longer just on the city to make sure that the monitoring takes place. Great. Thank you both.

Shall I go on please? Okay. All right. Mitigation. I actually did have one quick question about um the table that you referred to on the bottom of that last major theme, the 18.280.150-7. Um which I'm not on that page anymore, but let me get there real quick. All right, that's wetlands. Okay.

Yep. Um I was just trying to understand the language of it. Get there again. It's towards the end. Sorry, almost there. Okay, so change in water regime which is down at the bottom of the page in that table.

Um these are strategies for avoiding or reducing impacts. It says infiltrate or treat quote detain and disperse into buffer new runoff from imperous surfaces and new lawns. And I guess I was just I think I answered my own question, but I wanted to be clear. Why does it say new runoff and new lawns? Is that because it doesn't apply to existing developments? Correct. Okay. So, we have that problem in existing developments. We can't do anything about it. Okay. That's Yes. Thank you. At least not in this ordinance.

Okay. Thank you. I'm assuming there'll be another opportunity to ask questions about this table in the mitigation section. Uh we're getting there right now. Perfect.

Okay. Um All right. So, if you can't avoid and you're going to have impacts, then you have to mitigate. That's part of the mitigation sequencing uh from the agencies. We're encouraging that enhancement is part of the mitigation. And as we talked about um earlier, we're trying to set up and I think the idea of putting the um the uh the protocol and the purpose section I think is a really good suggestion. I like that uh to get information out up front. So what we're trying to do is set up a regiment uh um a flow if you will. Try to mitigate on site first. If you can't do that, we'll mitigate on in city controlled properties. Uh and I did reach out to Corey and to Brian about that as well. and then if that doesn't work out then go to the banks right away as opposed to just going to the banks first. So that's the whole concept behind it. It's fairly simple idea. Um and I can go through these these points one by one but if you've got a question I think maybe we could move on move to that right away.

Yeah just just a question about that table. Um, okay. So, or more of a suggestion, we're talking about table 1828 157. Yep. Okay. -7. Thank you. Um, light light disturbance. Um, it says direct lights away from the wetland. Um, I I think it should clearly state they should also be directed downward. I know that's something that um the city is actively working on trying to for, you know, bird migration, dark skies. Um, I think it's an easy solution for um the way that lights are manufactured nowadays with LED.

And that would be consistent with the city's lighting ordinance, I guess. Um noise mitigation. Just more of a question. How far should noise be from that riparian area? Is there like an acoustic analysis that would be need to be submitted? Um is there a decel level that needs to be achieved at a specific boundary? to me that the clear and objective aspect of acoustics is really tough. Um, so it's a it's something that I've pondered about throughout my career. Yes. When I when I've hired subcontractors who are acoustical engineers and they go out and they put their microphones in the field and Yeah. do their work. Um, is it a DBA? Is it a DBB? Is it a Z? Yeah.

Yeah. We're not dealing with that in this ordinance.

Okay. Um the only time that that the city of and correct me if I'm wrong, Claire, and that would be when there's an industrial uh project that's coming forward, we do look at reports relating to um dust, glare, noise. Um and so if there's a concern in an industrial relation facility, then the city looks at it. In all of the residential projects, I can't remember a single one that was looking at noise. Do you? Yeah, during a development review, our requirement is to look at noise um impacts for industrial projects. Um any other noise we're not really looking at during development review. Um we we could, you know, respond to complaints through a code enforcement process. Um but it's mostly for for development review. Title 18 world focused on industrial.

Yeah. In the municipal code, there is a nuisance section. I think it's chapter five if I'm not mistaken. And and there is there are noise regulations in there but reg but residential development usually it's 55 dBA residential development for send sensitive receptor. Yeah. Um and that's daytime 45 at night. Residential usually complies with that. Oh yeah, for sure. Residential definitely complies with that unless somebody's, you know, throwing a rager every single day. I said DBHDBA. Sorry. Yeah. Um I I uh yeah that seems pretty consistent with what most municipalities have for um decel levels. Um okay, cool.

All right. Um anything else about this major themes? Okay, I'm going to move on now. Sorry, I do have uh yeah, one question uh regarding it's just before that table, but uh it has to do with the city establishing a list of certified qualified professionals through appropriate annual advertisement. Uh what does certified mean here? When we in this code, um it probably should more accurately read uh qualified because we define what a qualified professional is based on the on the um discipline. Um, and I think that's probably a good suggestion to make the terms clear and consistent.

Well, it says certified qualified right now. So, certified. All right. I'll All right, I'll be more careful here. Um, that's coming from the Department of Natural Resources. um they are very concerned that people who are looking at landslide hazards and slope stabilities not only are licensed in the state of Washington but they have certain certifications from the state of Washington related to their engineering skills. That's what that's why that word's there.

Yeah. No, that makes sense. Uh just I didn't see a definition of it. So, um, I think, uh, Claire's probably heard me say something to this effect many, many times, but, uh, I'm concerned, not really, but I want to hear you say it in the microphone uh, about the appearance of the city having a preferred list of professionals who can do this kind of thing. Um, so I know there's advertisement, there's a process for people getting on to some such list. Uh, that that continues to this day, I believe, would be question one. And then question two, that will be the process for this as well. Is that correct?

The city doesn't maintain a list for development projects um of who a developer may or may not want to hire. Um this based on is going to be based on the the definition of a qualified professional and if they meet that definition then they're qualified. So there is no list. There's no list. The city will establish a list of certified qualified professionals through appropriate annual. So the city will have a list.

I'm not aware that we have implemented that code with the list.

So uh I guess some editing and investigation maybe needs to be done before this goes to city council. But um the main whether or not there's like an actual list or it's just like the state list of people who are considered qualified or certified or both. Um I just want to make sure that there isn't um sort of a backdoor relationship between the city and whomever is on a list if a list does exist. And um so I hope there will be a some sort of proper procedure to make sure that anyone who is certified or qualified or both can appear on a list if it exists.

Understood and confirmed. Um that if we do if we are to move forward with that procedure of creating some sort of list that it would be a fair and equitable process to be included on the list. Um as it stands we do not be it a certified biologist or or any other you know person who could do work in the city staff does not make recommendations. Um you know folks do ask so do you know of someone who could do this work and we say we cannot recommend. So that's current practice.

That's been my experience as well with the city but um then I saw there was a list I I think based on the definition of qualified professional, it seems fairly easy to clean that up before it goes to council. I I could propose that um we just use this big X I just drew across it. Sounds good to me.

Delete it. Um, one thing that we I have seen in my professional practice is that when particularly when you're dealing with wetlands, ecology and the core will sometimes question the credentials of the um professional. Um, but that's that's a different that's a different world. Um, but so we can get rid of the list. I think that makes sense. Okay. Um, I'm going to move on from mitigation enhancement unless there are some more questions. I appreciate these. So, we're winding down the major themes. Uh critical aquifer recharge areas again. Um we're we're proposing to replace and repeal the whole the whole section here. Um two force two forces that are driving it. One, you have to protect public drinking water. It's just not only common sense, but it's the law. It's nice when they work together. Um and two, we're trying to streamline the process and remove some of the inconsistencies in the way that the code is set up. Right now, people are having a difficult time understanding when a when a hydraology report is required and at what level the report is required. And so we're I was tying myself in nuts trying to figure out how to make it more sense. I just said let's just start over again. and we'll look at other jurisdictions, talked to the department of health and then when they said the whole city is a soul source aquifer the trout door troutdale unconsolidated soul source aquifer everything by law is a carara in the city of is sits on top of a cara now how you regulate them how you designate them and how you regul regulate them that's up to the city and so I thought well let's just try to streamline this create some exemptions if you're in the if you're in the lowle cara um and particularly for residential use unless I'm proposing unless it's a mixeduse project where there is commercial activity that's going on side by side with the residential use, there could be situations, particularly if you're close to a wellhead area, where

you may need to go through some kind of additional review. Um, but that's really the the heart of what we're trying to do with the CARA program. And then at the very end, um, we've cleaned up a lot of the references to, um, out of date wax and what have you. So questions. I I whoever said asked about the Redmond project or Redmond ordinance, I did look that up uh read it. Um and um they have five different levels of carrot designation. I'd like to keep it simple. Um that that was me and I like simple. So Okay. Any questions more about the car? Nope. All right,

sir. Yes.

Engineering I think has said they have 19 of them that they've identified. the yeah for class one through four uh UIC would be prohibited within the one-year zone of travel uh of a wellhead. That's the way I'm trying to set it up. If That's my understanding. What I would say is that this these regulations apply to new development or to development that is a substantial rework working of an existing facility. And so those 19 may not be subject to this ordinance because they've already been permitted by the either the county or the city of Richmond.

Very good. Um sir, there's something that just talks about, you know, the adverse an adverse impact. I I I'm just curious what would be considered an adverse impact within that one year time of travel. Um I'm not sure I saw that like outlined, but I'm just curious more than anything.

Um application of pestic pesticides, hazardous materials, not according to manufacturers labeling I think would probably be one of them. um or the um illegal dumping, if you will, of hazardous materials um within the zone of travel. That sometimes happens on private property. Uh but again, the zone at one year zone of travel is a fairly limited geographical area within the city of Ridgefield. We only have a couple of wellheads, four, five. Is that Does that help you?

Absolutely. Thank you. I have been involved in that and permitted that in the past while consulting with the city because it followed the state statute related to the spread of agricultural waste on top of of of well excuse me waste water. Thank you. on top of existing agricultural fields. Um so agriculture is a use that's um if you use the term grandfathered um here in the city. And so I'm not aware of somebody if people are still doing that. But I do know that from past experience that when that happens there are state requirements that they have to follow.

Right. Sorry, just making sure I make I get my notes Um, I think we're again we're getting into the nonconforming use situation. So that if you have legal right to do it in the past, you'll continue to have the legal right to do it. I think every time you do apply in the future, you're still going to need the state require you have to meet the state requirements. But I could see how that particular sentence the way it's written right now could pro locally prohibit something that the state might allow. We can clarify that language to make it consistent with state requirements.

Great. Okay. Thank you for that. This has all been helpful so far. So good. I'm going to move on uh to the last major theme before we get into minor changes and that's third party review. This was for recommend or suggested by one of the stakeholder interviews with by a private developer developer. Um and again as we've said in the past sometimes there there's some disagreement as to amongst professionals as to um the quality the functions and values of and classifications of particularly wetlands. Um and so this uh stakeholder was saying we need to have some certainty. We need to have some decision- making process because if we just go back and forth with the agencies, it can take a long time. They don't operate on the same timelines that the city has to under law under state under the growth management act. So we came up with this suggestion uh where we could set up this mechanism to have third party review. Now, there's a problem with it which you've probably identified and that is that goes through third-party review. It's qualified consultant that the city selects, the applicant pays for um that the third party professional qualified professional writes the report. Then it's up to the community development department um to make a determination. What that leaves out of the equation is the agency, the regulatory agency, and that's a risk. And the risk is that they may appeal the decision. They may agree with the decision the community development director or they may appeal that decision to the growth board. But that's the risk. I don't believe in my world that the state agencies would allow the city to have jurisdiction over their rule making or their decision- making. But when I suggested it to the department of fish and wildlife and also to ecology, they were interested in the

idea in an informal way. That's all I can tell you here.

I mean, they have to be a qualified professional though, right? I've certified qualified. Sounds sounds like a um like a beasty boy song. Um the I I've had this with geotechnical engineers before in the past where they just argue science at each other and I felt like the dumbest person in the room. Um and um I found it highly effective um and I would hope that it would be seen that way by the state agencies where you have two scientists arguing science um and that's what's being brought up and it allows for robust science-based fact-based conversations rather than, you know, somebody like me, a lay person that's going in trying to argue my point. So hopefully that's what I'd like to see out of the third party review. It just brings a neutral person in is solely concerned with the science aspect of it and reviewing within the context of the law

and and it would add to that a time frame for the review as well. So the dispute gets resolved a mediator. It's a professional mediator from a scientific background in in a sense in the correct me if I'm wrong Claire, but if you've got an agency interpreting a wetland this way and you've got a consultant interpreting it this way and the third party comes in and says, "Well, this is what I think." The decision maker is really the community development director. um has the ability to that this the third party is like a mediator but doesn't make the final they'll make a call but the decision is really up to the community development director.

It's just additional information to help support the final decision. And in theory it's not just the community development director but it could be the hearing examiner too, right? I mean either way whoever that ultimate decision-making authority is even heck even council if it gets appealed, right? Um or

does it go to council? doesn't go to council. Okay. Well, any appellent, right, you you have that add additional um facts that help support and bolster an argument, which I don't think hurts any development application in the future, right? It just makes it that much stronger. Is there going to be a list of these third party? No. Okay. Um I I do have uh maybe a nitpick or maybe a little bit more than that uh regarding this uh idea of like best available science and having scientists uh you know talking past the lay people uh in that uh certainly there can be disagreements uh based on you know vocabulary words that I don't have uh when it comes to science. Um earlier we were talking about uh ecology has their standards and and recommendations. Uh fish and wildlife has their own but there was a point where I think what you said was uh fish and wildlife have their new best available science but we kind of like the 10 years ago version of that. And so if I'm if I'm misstating what you said, then I apologize, but that's what I think that you said. And I don't think that that's wrong necessarily. But when we characterize the situation as a bunch of scientists sitting in a room trying to figure out what is the the best uh recommendation they can make to the development director. I don't think that's entirely accurate. We're sitting here talking about how we like this part of the best available science, but not that part. We like the 10 years version, not the the one-year version.

What I what I what I'm trying to do with the alternative is to give the developer, the applicant, if you will, the property owner, an option, and that option is to not just simply fall back on what it was, although we think that what was has been working for 10 years, but there's an addition to it, and that is you must enhance to the value of the new regulation. And so, it's not necessarily that the old rules are better. We're merging the two, if you will, or at least creating an alternative that allows that to happen.

I don't disagree with that. I mean, I think the work that you've put in uh to this, the presentation along with the actual work before the presentation to us has been tremendous and I think a lot of the the ideas that we talked about earlier are are tremendous. Um, I just think that the the phrasing best available science does not seem to line up with the reality. And I think the reality is what we actually want where it's more than just the scientists, right? It's the developers, it's the city, it's the voters, it's everybody trying to put forward a plan that is feasible feasible, not just based on what a a committee of scientists said. that's not the only uh path for this. So, I just think that that phrasing maybe is is I don't know. Rub me the wrong way. It's a nitpick.

C can I take a to a stab at trying to defend your guys's approach to this?

Maybe not. I I think it's what what you guys have done is you've taken the best available science from DOE basically paints a broadbrush stroke of hey this is what we we suggest that you guys do. They don't it it doesn't explicitly prohibit us from trying to achieve the same objectives of you know environmental preservation um and ecological enhancement. Basically what we're saying is hey look we can do these reductions and things like that as long as we're offering the enhancement to the same ultimate end condition that the buffer would have provided under the best available science. It has to be equal in order for that to be done to be used otherwise that reduction can't be done. You have to prove that you're enhancing to the same benefit of the best available science

based on your scientific knowledge. Yes. And that's where you get competing. Based on the best available science, we're going to choose which parts of it we agree with, right? I mean, that's it. That's I mean, you just said exactly what I said, but you said it with a smile instead of instead of a smirk and some criticism. It's I again, I'm not complaining about the the work that has been put in here. I just think that phrasing is It is part of it, right? It's just part of it. So, here's the best available science. We like 70% of it, but we're going to do these other things. And that's the way it has to be. We have to follow best available science by statute. What is the definition of that then? And we don't want to have this conversation in

it's in the city. It's in the city code right now.

Okay. I mean, if we're merging the best available science with previous best available science in another department's best available science and our own opinions about things and then at the end of all that there's a list of third party people and then it goes to Claire. Sorry, Miss Lust. Then it's not it's not black and white. I I understand what you're saying and it just made a little glimmer in the back of my brain here that said perhaps since I I mentioned that we do use the statutory definition of best available science in the code and have for quite a while um that perhaps we have a little addition to that that allows us in the definition of best available science to do what I'm proposing that you do would that help it still comes to the same result

yeah I don't again I think the end product here that we're we're I guess not finished yet, but we're This is terrific. It really is. Uh I don't know what the city code says as far as what is best available science and how that gets defined, but it's there's no definition of what that actually is, right? It might be in the city code, but because it's a merging of multiple opinions, multiple best availables uh plus the intent of the city, it just cannot be that in reality. It cannot be best available in reality because it is a merging of different opinions. There is a in the definition at the end of the code of the draft there is a definition for best available sites. Do you want to see it?

No, we were just talking about that. Yeah, but it still is up to interpretation what that actually means. No, you're you're right. So, and again, this is great. We're doing great, right? We're merging so many different entities and stakeholders. It's just that phrasing. So, let me just see if I can tie this up here. We're talking about third party review. That's that's the context in which we're having this conversation. Correct. When I look at what we're proposing as language that goes in the code, best available science is not mentioned. Does that help?

None of it's going to help. It doesn't. It doesn't make a difference in how I'm gonna vote at the end of this. Okay. I just think we've come back to that phrase a bunch of times and it appears that that phrase is it just it feels meaningless. That's all. Thank you for the comments. I told you it was nitpicking.

All right. Uh I'm going to be move on if that's all right. Question. Um, well, I just also want to kind of question whether this is a true merging or, you know, adapting to kind of picking pieces because I thought part of what the new code has that was not emphasized in the other code in the previous code is the emphasis on avoidance. And that seems to me fundamentally different and important. And it is something we're agreeing on. We're not saying we're going to not take that from the state and from I think that's what best available silence is telling us that avoidance is far better than trying to mitigate or enhance. And so I just I I don't see it as being I do see it as being new. Yes, we're trying to be flexible a little because we know our community and our environment, our development needs and so maybe we're adding in these pieces of like the buffer um changes and stuff. But to me, am I missing something? I mean, that's part of what I think is brand new here.

No, you're correct. And I I don't think these statements are contradictory to one another. Okay. Yeah. Thank you.

All right. I'm going to short circuit this presentation um so that we can get in the hearing phase here. Um the next slide, other changes. The next half dozen or so slides are other changes. They're not part of the major theme, although they do relate in some some ways to the major theme. Um and they're fairly straightforward, I hope. Um so I'm adding definitions based upon agency guidance. Um as uh uh like for example the wellhead protection area department of health has a definition of that. Um avoidance is more of a Miriam Webster definition than it is an ecology definition just to be honest with you. Um I'm going to go to the next slide unless you've got um but also last session someone wanted asked if why we wouldn't want to keep the definition section in 18280 and I'm we would I propose that we keep that there as well as in 18100. I'll go to the next slide unless there's questions um purpose and procedures other changes. This is for my opinion mainly housekeeping. Um and we're clarifying that the land under our jurisdiction is only the city limits. Uh we're defining the five critical areas according to the state statute. We're establishing no net loss again in the policy but clarifying that it doesn't apply to wellheads. Department of Health is particularly anxious about that. Very simple, straightforward kind of clarifications. Unless there's questions, I'll go on to the next section. This one might produce some comment. I shouldn't have jinxed that. Um, in the existing code right now, 182802 U B, um, there's a little bit of some confusion that that WDFW had as to when what code section um, applies or or

governs in the shorelines. It's clear in the shorelines master program that the shorelines code governs. And it was also they asked us that to clarify that when we're dealing with critical areas and there's a conflict with another section of the code not in the critical areas code that we make it clear that critical areas code governs impacts to critical areas not landscaping codes. Um regulatory flexibility um this is something that two agencies suggested that we get rid of because I hate to use the phrase but um because it would be inconsistent with BAS. Okay. um because it gives the property owner to opt out without a scientific basis from the regulatory um scheme here. So they've asked us to take that out and we've also run AC across this in our own development review here in town where um it's been a problem in reviewing projects. It's been contentious sometimes. I'm going to move on unless there's questions. Next slide please. Exemptions. Um first exemption uh again this is the buffer question. Excuse me. This is a chemical question. Um prohibited from 25 we changing it to 50 feet based upon health. That was that 25 foot we talked about before. Something that came out through the stakeholders um also from the recreation um community center recreation application. Um right now you have to use handheld equipment to remove invasive species. industry standard is to use handheld mechanical means in order to bush hogs and things like that to get rid of invasives. So, we're making that clear that you can do that without a permit or at least in keeping with your critical areas permit. Um, and then back to the wellheads again, the 50 foot uh fungicides and herbicides within wellhead protections area um has to be licensed to do that.

14 uh it does not apply to wellhead protection because adverse to impacts of the water are not

Yes. I think in the code I use the word prohibited.

Yeah. Yep. Very good. Um, I'm going to move on to approval process. Other changes. Um, again, quite a few of these come from agencies. As you can see, the Department of Health is in there. Wellheads, anything that deals with wet health wellheads is coming from the Department of Health. Um, including the five- foot um structure setback. two things that are new that came out of consist stakeholder uh comments F3 under 182804 F3 this provides the community development director with some more flexibility as to decide um where where the markers should be placed along critical area buffers um as opposed to a hard and fast rule. Hard and fast rule is X number of feet. Well, it doesn't take into consideration the landscape that's there. Um and then JIB um this came from two different agencies. Uh best practices seem to be in jurisdictions increasing the financial security up to 125%. U Mr. Cass didn't have an objection to that. Uh other minor changes in the next slide again these are um fairly housekeeping. Uh anything again you see from drinking water is coming to from department of health. um of C182809 on reasonable use and public utilities exemptions. Health does not believe that public utilities should be exempt from the prohibition of contaminating drinking water. And makes sense. Um so these are um and what we did for the first one under 1828a minor exemption is governed by 18350. That's your standard adjustments and and variance procedure. So we're just clarifying what the procedure is. geologic hazards. On the next slide, DNR didn't have a lot to say. Um they said that our ordinance was um better than

some um and not as bad as others, which I took as a compliment. Um but but the main the substant issues there were um we needed to add the word landslide and define landslides because there are landslide hazards in the area. Um, also they were very concerned that we make sure that the geologist is licensed in the state of Washington. Um, not just an engineer licensed in the in Washington. They also were very concerned that we that the analysis that the geotech report has also has to consider public safety because it currently doesn't. parts of it do. Yes. Um in fact um well I was I'm familiar with a situation where as you're coming down the hill towards G Creek um there were some slumps that happened several years back and there were some emergency repairs. So that there's landslide hazards in that area in particular. Also in the Bert Singer, is it Raymond Road area, it's landslide hazard potentials in that area as well. Um that's it for the slides. Um except for next steps and uh the next steps is um after the hearing tonight, we'll take whatever recommendations you make. We will incorporate them into the document. I'll write a report for the council based upon this hearing as well. And then we will send the package off to the Department of Commerce for the mandatory 60-day review. And that's and then we'll move on to the council. You don't have to listen to this.

I get I get flippant sometimes. I should apologize. That's just who I am. That's the end of my presentation unless there are other questions I can help you with.

Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Eman. Maybe at this time we can go to public hearing and then we can come back and any of the uh commissioners have any questions, follow questions, we can go to that. So uh so now is the time for public hearing on this item. If you have signed up with the clerk prior to the meeting to prior to the meeting to address the planning commission, your name will be called and the clerk will send you permission to unmute your microphone or come forward to the podium to make your comments. If you have not provided notice in advance to speak during the public hearing, please use the raise hand feature if you're on the Zoom. Uh if you wish to make your comment and the clerk will send you permission to unmute your microphone so you're able to do so. For controls over the phone, press star 9 for raise hand and press star six to mute and unmute. Please state your name and limit comments to three minutes. And as a reminder, there will be no back and forth interaction between the speaker and the planning commission. Uh did anyone sign up prior to the meeting to speak during this hearing? public hearing does not appear. So, um, anyone wishing to make a comment during this, uh, public hearing at this time, you may come forward to the podium and state your name and you have three minutes.

Hi, my name is Jean Stemp. I'm vice president with Friends of the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge, and I just wanted to thank everybody for all the work they have put into this. Um, I'm actually pleased to see some of the uh a lot of the things that have come up in here and um and thank you for mentioning the birds. I do appreciate that. Um, and I just want to say that, you know, so many people don't understand that the refuge is not a zoo. It's uh, you know, the wildlife comes and goes and everything we do here in Ridgefield impacts what happens with that wildlife. And so I really appreciate the work that everybody here is doing to make sure that the habitats and everybody all the animals who use them are safe. Um and as far as what was talked about here today, the only thing I have to say is um I do have concerns about the um feasibility metrics. Um, I would I hope that those are very carefully thought out because, you know, it could be, you know, oh, I want to put a 200 house development here, but because of this, I can't, so it's not feasible. It's like, well, it is. You're just not going to make as much money because you have to put in 150 houses instead of 200. So, you know, just things along that line. Um, uh, but that's all I have to say. So, thank you for listening. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to make a comment during the public hearing? Anyone on Zoom? Not seeing any other uh comments. We'll close the public hearing for this item and proceed back. Any commissioners uh have any questions, further questions for Mr. Eisman or Miss Lust?

I had a question. Um, it may be a dumb question, but I'm new to the planning commission, so I get to ask these things. Um, when you uh you made a comment towards the end there, Eric, I think about how these critical area ordinances only apply within city limits and not within the urban growth boundaries. But the city is developing within the urban growth boundary and the city takes and makes decisions about develops with de developments within the urban growth boundaries and this ordinance would not affect those development in the UG is still under Clark County jurisdiction. Okay. Um

okay properties if they're in the UG and then annex into the city then subsequently they're under our jurisdiction. this would apply. Okay. Thank you. Yes.

Any other thoughts or comments or questions, please? This is a long one. Sorry, everyone. Um, no, I want to echo just how impressive this packet is. I don't think we've ever had anything like this before with uh this uh combination of thoughtful and um and um the depth of the answers on some of these also bringing in so many different people who are involved uh getting their answers and then putting it all together for us. really just this is a big topic and um preparing for tonight. Uh I don't think it would have been possible without that document. So uh thank you. Um I do have one question um that's maybe better for Miss Lust and then a comment that I don't think anybody's going to like. So get ready. Uh so on page seven um there is uh a response Uh well the question is

the response commissioner Flynn what document or yeah page seven of the um the memo consultants memo yes okay thank you uh so page seven uh quarter of the way down uh it says um let's see third party review could the city establish an internal cap on how large the third party fees can be the response is yes the city could establish a fee cap as an admin administrative policy rather than establish a fee cap within the RDC. I'm just curious, is that because it's just easier to change? You're correct. We avoid putting fees in code. Um we keep them in the fee schedule.

Yep. Okay, sounds good. And then later on that page, this is uh maybe this is just nitpicky a little bit too much, but uh it says uh comment and adoption explain the 60-day formal comment period and final city council adoption. Um, so then the response is after planning commission's April 1st public hearing, that's tonight, the commission will make a formal recommendation to the city council regarding the amendments, staff will adjust the proposed amendments accordingly and will send a copy to the Department of Commerce for the mandatory 60-day comment period. The the nitpicky thing here is that I'm a little I just think the phrasing is a little bit shaky as far as staff will adjust the proposed amendments accordingly. I think that um it's not clear what it is according to and I think that we probably all recognize that it has to do with tonight and what the planning commission recommends. But I'm very uncomfortable with the city staff just making um edits or changes. Not that they wouldn't do a better job than I would. Of course they would, right? But the role of this commission is to make recommendations and then the staff makes the adjustments based on those recommendations. I just think that that that sentence is not entirely clear and in a situation like this where we are going to make a bunch of recommendations tonight and you've made handwritten edits and then you're going to put in the real edits, we want to be precise in some of these uh phrases. And I think that um that's my nitpick.

We can rephrase that so it's clear in the record. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments or questions or otherwise? Not seeing anything. Do we have a I'd ask for a motion on this item. I'm trying to come up with one.

I think we're pretty time critical here. Is that correct, Miss Lust? That's correct. So, I I think what we're going to end up having to do is someone's going to make a motion to recommend approval as presented with the adjustments that have been written down. And I think that's what the motion's going to have to be. And the the adjustments have also been captured in the the record of this meeting. Correct. Yes. Correct.

Yes. Do we have a formal motion? Um, I'll make a motion and I will motion that we adopt the ordinance with the suggest we don't.

Well, sorry. Make a recommendation. You're right. Thank you for the clarification. make a recommendation that council adopt with suggested edits in that were reflected on the record, including but not limited to adjusting the purpose statement um to be more reflective of the order of priority. Um clarifying irrigation districts to be consistent with state law and federal law. uh mitigation um clarification for light to be downward facing. And I think that captured most of my comments if anyone wants to append that and add more. Um, I'm willing to hear that before I

make that formal motion or they can do it with their second. I'm just trying to add clarity for record purposes, right? You can you can make a motion and then somebody can second it and then we can discuss it and if somebody wants to move to amend that motion, I guess is the proper procedural rules. That is correct. And then that is my motion. Do we have a second? seconded. So we have a motion and a second. Do we is there anybody discussion on the motion that anyone would like to make or have or question?

Does anyone have a concerned in Because we do have

I do not have concerns. I think that um our concerns have been weighed over the last 90 minutes or so and uh I think accurate notes have been taken, but also it is part of the record and so I have no concerns that uh that any of my positions are not going to be at least included or considered. Any other thoughts or comments on the discussing the motion that's been made?

At this time, I will call for a vote. Uh, all in favor of approving the motion say I. I. I.

Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. uh really appreciate your time and preparation. It's been very very helpful. Um we will kind of move forward to close up this meeting. Uh so now is the time for our second public comment period. The anyone requesting to speak, the commission may do so at this time. If you have not provided notice in advance to speak during the public comment period, please use the raise hand feature and the clerk will send you permission to unmute your microphone so you're able to make your comments. For controls over the phone, press star 9 for raise hand and press star six to mute and unmute. Is there anybody uh in the audience or on Zoom wishing to make a comment at this time? Not seeing anyone, we will close the second public comment period. We will proceed now to staff reports. I'll turn the time back over to Miss Lest.

Thank you, chair. Um thank you commission for your time this evening. really appreciate your your input and engagement with the material. It's very helpful. Um I was going to make a joke about that all being like an April Fool's prank, but I'm too tired, so I don't know. Um I do not have any more announcements this evening, but I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you. Um, and we can go to uh any reports from the commissioners and uh start at this end this time if mind.

Uh, I don't think anything for me. I similarly considered saying something ridiculous and absurd to grind us to a halt for a second, but being so new to the commission, I decided against it perhaps next year. Commissioner Glenn, nothing for me. Thanks for putting everything together. Vice Chair Flynn. Yep. Thanks for doing such a great job. Uh this was uh a wonderful discussion and wouldn't have been possible without all the preparation work that was put into it. Uh so thank you Borsharp.

Yeah. Uh echo um that statement. The stakeholder outreach was incredible and appreciate that. Um, also just wanted to say uh we uh tabled at the state of the um city and that was just a great event. Um it's great to spend time with um some of our neighbors talking about what the planning commission does and everything that's coming down the pipe. My wife also attended the volunteer fair that was here and it was like popping. There was tons of people that were looking to get involved. So that's great. and hope more people in the community continue to get involved and show up and do great things for our community. So that's it.

Thank you, Commissioner Gordon. I also just want to say thank you so much for all the work that was done and how thorough this was and I felt like there was a lot of effort to make us help us to lead us through a complicated set of statutes. So thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Mland,

my wife and I attended the state of the city and I I cannot recall being more impressed with a city than this one. I mean, we came from outside of Chicago, so you know, large suburb. and the leadership that's demonstrated by the departments, by the mayor, by the city manager, by the council. Um, it's just it was just uh fascinating and you know, just it just blew my wife and I it blew us away, right? um where this city is going and I'm very very proud to not only be a commissioner but to be a more importantly a resident of this very fine community.

Thank you. And I'll just echo my thanks to Mr. Eisman for all the preparation and assistance and in getting us uh a very very I mean not only quantity of information but high quality as well. So I just want to thank you for that. Um and as always thank you to Miss Lust and everyone and Miss Sbert and and thank you for the audience members of the public always had happy to see people actually in the chairs. So it's always great and so thank you for being here. Um I don't have anything else to add and so um unless there's anything else I believe at this time we will adjourn.