Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We'll call the September Ridgefield Planning Commission meeting to order. If everyone could please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you. We can do the roll call.

All right. Commissioner Borchardt.

Present.

Commissioner Flynn.

Present.

Commissioner Moylan.

Present.

And Commissioner Tyler.

Present.

Commissioner Raczak.

Present.

Commissioner Gordon. Present. And Commissioner Hornbeck.

Present. Thank you, and we do have a new member of the Planning Commission, and we'll do his oath of office now. You can just come to the front.

You'll just repeat after me. Please stand up and raise your right hand. Repeat after me. I will state your name.

I am Michael Hornbeck.

Do solemnly swear that I am a citizen of the United States.

Do solemnly swear that I am a citizen of the United States.

And of the state of Washington.

And of the state of Washington.

That I will support the Constitution of the United States.

That I will support the Constitution of the United States.

And the Constitution and laws of the state of Washington.

And the Constitution and laws of the state of Washington.

And will, to the best of my judgment, skill, and ability.

And to the best of my judgment, skill, and ability.

Faithfully and impartially perform the duties.

Faithfully and impartially perform the duties.

Of the Planning Commission for the City of Ridgefield, Washington.

Of the Planning Commission for the City of Ridgefield, Washington.

As such duties are prescribed by law.

Thank you, and welcome to the commission, Mr. Hornbeck, and we look forward to working with you as we proceed. Ms. Lust, are there any late changes to the agenda?

No late changes, thank you.

With that, then we can move into the first public comment period for the evening. So now is the time for public comment. Anyone requesting to speak to 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 if you're on Zoom 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 nine for raise hand and press star six to mute and unmute. And then of course, if you're in the audience, you may come forward to the microphone. You'll have three minutes and just please state your name and you can make your comments. Anyone wishing to make a public comment at this time?

Hi, my name is Jean Stemp, and I know tonight that you'll be looking at the Ridgefield Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, and one of those sections is the environment section, and I would respectfully like to offer some suggestions for modifications to that section based on some of the challenges that wildlife and habitats are having in the area right now. Under section 6.2, under wildlife habitats, one of the issues that a lot of the wildlife is having around here is getting from one place to another. With all the development corridors are becoming pretty scarce. So I would ask that under wildlife habitats, you add something along the lines of Ridgefield will maintain wildlife corridors necessary for a healthy and sustainable ecosystem. And along those same lines in that same section under implementation, there's a line that says development that cannot reasonably avoid critical areas will include mitigation of potential impacts to prevent material loss of environmental function. And I would add including wildlife corridors. Another issue that's happening right now is I don't know if you've heard of the emerald ash borer. It's a teeny tiny little beetle that kills ash trees. And I don't know how many ash trees there are within Ridgefield and within the critical areas of Ridgefield, but when that beetle gets to them, it will destroy them. And so in section 6.3 policies, under EN 10, trees and vegetation, I would suggest adding mitigate threats posed by disease and infestation so that maybe we can get ahead of this and save some of those critical areas where need be. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else wishing to make a public comment at this time?

Hi, my name is Deon Hess. I would like to point out a couple things. There was a recent post or recent thing that came out from the Friends of the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge that speaks about the development down on the Ridgefield waterfront. I've quoted a couple things pulled out of it. Development directly bordering a National Wildlife Refuge cannot follow standards standard urban commercial templates. They also pointed out the port's conceptual plan, as currently drafted, possesses significant ecological risks to federal trust species and migratory waterfowl that rely on Cardi Lake and Lake River. The whole development either borders Cardi Lake or Lake River, and the refuge is right across the way. And I'd also like to make a point. I brought this up in June 17th at the Port Commission meeting. I think we've been ahead of that a long time. The Vancouver Audubon Society also supports this statement. Throughout the summer, I've participated in a lot of different meetings. I'm going to a lot of different groups and talking to a lot of folks here in Ridgefield. The following groups have serious concerns or outright oppose this proposed development. That would include the Washington Waterfowl Association, Northwest Steelheaders, Vancouver Wildlife League, Washington Guides Association, moms and grandmas at Davis Park that I've engaged throughout the summer, customers at Old Liberty Theater, go down and talk to one of the folks that worked there, moms and grandmothers at Storytime put on at the Ridgefield Library, 180 out of the 183 surveyed users at the Ridgefield boat ramp. With that being said, there was also an article in the Ridgefield Reflector, a reporter came out, and one of the things that, One of the statements after she had interviewed some folks from both sides of the thing was that at the time of publishing, she could not find anyone that would publicly support or was even neutral to the development. The one thing I guess I would like to also present groups that have supported, that I found that support this proposed development. And I would like to read them. If my time runs out, I've got copies for everyone. Anyway, I think the citizens of this community have made a point and we're getting stronger. More people are showing up at meetings. I know you don't have as many as here, but if you really would have encouraged us, we could have brought a lot more here tonight too. And I would encourage you to go to the port meeting on September 9th. My guess is there will be quite a few people there. So thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else wishing to make a public comment at this time?

Good evening, my name is Suki and I'm here to ask for your help preserving our waterfront. I am hopeful that this commission will be able to take the community's input into account if and when it comes time to advise the City Council on the project. Apologies to those who are present at the August 13th City Council meeting, but I would like to share once again what my experience has looked like engaging with the port over the last several months. It's not my intention to speak negatively about port commissioners or staff, but in all honesty, my experience has been a negative one. It started for many of us in April when the port hosted a commissioned coffee and dozens of residents attended to express their concerns over the proposed waterfront development. Concerns included the high density plan, which includes additional residential and a hotel, the lack of supportive infrastructure, traffic concerns, potential risk to water access, and the impact on the wildlife. Almost immediately, I observed two elected port commissioners yell in the faces of residents. After that, I decided to prioritize as many city meetings and port events as possible. Since then, the port has hosted various meetings and workshops. People have dedicated countless hours Talking with neighbors, collecting data, and preparing heartfelt statements for both the city and the port. People stand up and share how special the waterfront is to them and to their families. People are taking time off from work and sacrificing family time to attend the inconvenient meeting times they offer us. That's how important the waterfront is to us. Being met with eye rolls, looks of boredom, and next! Each time we speak at these port meetings feels dismissive and disrespectful. It's upsetting to show up to multiple meetings where the room is too small so people are left standing in hallways for hours. We were told the port wanted to hear from us while simultaneously being told throughout their summer of engagement that phase one was not negotiable. I have to wonder how genuine their engagement efforts have been, especially when you consider the fact that the paid commissioners were not present for these events. It feels more like the checking of a box. Almost 4,000 people have signed a petition opposing this waterfront development and we've been called the loud minority. This is why I requested that the port share all comments and findings from their survey publicly. Many of us use the comments section to record our concerns with the proposal and with the survey. The port has stated that they will analyze input and survey results and then report what they heard. I'm sorry, but I'm skeptical and concerned that their analysis will look similar to their analysis from the previous survey. That very same survey from a few years ago overwhelmingly showed that the community wanted natural spaces and had very little interest in additional residential, yet here we are with an overdeveloped waterfront concept. I'm here because we have one chance to thoughtfully and responsibly develop this waterfront, and I would hope that we all have the same goal of developing a space we want to share with our loved ones and a waterfront that we can all be proud of. Thank you for listening.

Thank you, sir. Please.

It's going to be hard to follow that one. Good evening. My name is Robin Knight, Richfield resident. First, I just want to say thank you for being willing to listen to our community's concerns regarding the waterfront redevelopment and for your patience as we try to educate ourselves on zoning and policy issues and procedures. Preserve Richfield waterfronts petition today stands at 3,934 signatures with paper signatures included were over 4,000. That's 4,000 plus people who've read or discussed what is proposed and decided it doesn't represent what they want for Ridgefield's waterfront. We've also been canvassing door to door. Fewer than 6% of residents we've spoken with favor the port's plan, 80% oppose it. Once people learn the actual scale of what's proposed, they are shocked and horrified. Despite saying this summer they would pause to reengage the community, the port has doubled down on confirmed phase one elements. Their recently released summer Q&A is full of reasons why they feel they need to do what they want to do regardless. Details have been added and subtracted to their list of phase one elements. They declined to meet further with Preserve Ridgefield waterfront representatives when it no longer served their purposes, called community members, quote, argumentative for attempting to discuss statements they've made about the type of residential development proposed, When asked about potential environmental impacts, I was told there was no concern because birds were here when PWT was polluting the site. So, quote, the birds will figure it out. So I would ask how can this truly be called a pause, listening, or re-engagement? My question for the Planning Commission is how the scale and density of the port's plans fit within Envision Ridgefield 2045. That plan sets out to reduce vehicle miles traveled and address climate change. The development the port is planning, attempting to draw regional traffic to an end of the line site at the opposite end of town from transit and resources doesn't seem consistent with those goals. So I would like to understand how the port can continue telling us that they have to develop at the scale and density they favor because they are mandated to do so to support the city's comprehensive plan. Thank you.

thank you is there anybody else wishing to make a public comment at this time anybody on zoom or on the phone not seeing anybody we will close this public comment period move on to the consent agenda if we have a motion regarding the minutes from the last meeting i'll make a motion i will second We have a motion. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Move on to business, and we'll turn the time over to Ms. Lust for the Envision Ridgefield 2045 presentation.

Thank you, Chair Tyler. This evening, we will be talking about three elements of the comprehensive plan update, Envision Ridgefield 2045. We've been through a couple batches of elements already in our last couple of meetings and again want to thank Planning Commission for your constructive feedback on those elements. These are the last three. They're a bit unique because unlike some of the other elements like housing, transportation, land use, climate, economic development, these are not elements that every jurisdiction is mandated to do under the Growth Management Act. However, They're elements that exist in our current 2016 to 2035 comprehensive plan. So our goal is to look at the existing goals and policies in these elements, working under the assumption that we do want to carry forward these optional elements, even though they are optional. Look at what conditions may have changed in the last 10 years since these were originally written that need to be basically spruced up to carry forward. across the next planning horizon. All three elements, annexation, environment, and public participation are in your pocket. I don't have slides this evening, I would have just been. copy-pasting goal and policy language. So they are of course in front of you on on your iPads as well. So caveat before we jump in each of these chapters has like an sort of narrative to start and then goals and policies because these are pulled directly from the 2016 plan fully aware that there may be some outdated language in the narrative. That's a that's a staff level cleanup. So tonight really looking for feedback on those goals and policies. All right, any questions before we get started? Great, so the first of the three elements is annexation and it's a fairly short element. It's basically descriptive of the annexation methods used in the city of Ridgefield. The state of Washington basically has a menu of different allowed methods of annexation and Ridgefield operates currently and is reflected under this policy language under a direct petition method. The key feature being that it is property owner led. So that is how the current policy language is written. Also has language in there about coordination with different agencies, transition of public services, etc. So with that, amongst the goal and policy language under annexation, if Planning Commission has any feedback, I would be receptive to that at this time. Thank you.

I got a couple questions. There's some discussion in there about coordination with the county on annexation. Things that haven't been annexed in, but trying to properly plan specifically for infrastructure in those islands. Is there some sort of interlocal agreement between the county and the city on some of that planning? That's the first part of the question. And then the second part of the question is, does the city have any ability to exert any sort of extraterritorial jurisdiction over the county parcels for land use planning beyond just the comprehensive plan?

So to try and answer the different parts of your question, I believe what you're referring to is the policy that talks about coordination with Clark County in those lands that are currently in Ridgefield's urban growth area, but not yet in the city limits. And there are different levels of coordination, I would say, for different services. A real quick example off the top of my head is that in the G Creek Plateau area, Ridgefield Police Department, takes care of that area, even though technically it is still in the county. So there are definitely some like streamlining, jurisdictional streamlining there. A lot of other services, water, sewer, et cetera, really depend on what jurisdiction like the right of way is in, whether that's been annexed into the city or not. But yes, there are definitely points of coordination between the city and the county and those kind of areas that are in a city's urban growth area, but jurisdictionally are still in the county. And then your second question, forgive me.

Oh, yeah, with the extraterritorial jurisdiction. So the ability to say, hey, Clark County, we know this is going to get annexed in eventually. Can we be the ones that plan for this area pre-annexation? So...

On the comprehensive planning level, yes. The comprehensive plan is for the Ridgefield city limits and urban growth area. The expectation being that urban growth areas are meant to accommodate urban growth over the 20-year planning horizon. Might not be tomorrow, might not be five years from now, but the grounding assumption is that over the 20-year planning horizon, we expect to see those areas urbanize. And that's all part of the calculus for housing and jobs in the comprehensive plan. So at the policy level, yes, we are planning for those areas. On an implementation level, say I own a property in the urban growth area and want to know what kind of development or what kind of building codes I need to follow, that's still with the county.

Until you say, I want to annex, and then you'll have to plan for that. So if you want to add an ADU or a pool or a second unit and subdivide until such time that you indicate that you want annexation... that still remains with the county from their planning team. That's correct. Okay. You mentioned right-of-way. My experience is with annexations, the right-of-way is one of the hardest things. And you mentioned something about the importance for trying to get something on both sides of the street when you're coming in with annexation as one of the policies. is that is that strictly so that you can figure out the right-of-way situation so that you have the correct improvements along the right-of-way that meet city standards rather than county street provisions um is there a way to say annex to the other side of the right-of-way or what do you do i guess what i'm getting at is what do you do when the property owner across the street doesn't want to annex but the you have a property owner that does want to annex and you can't get them to agree, and the right-of-way is really the contentious component.

Sure, so current practice is that annexations come in with the full width of the adjacent right-of-way, so not splitting a road between city and county.

Perfect. Okay, that's... That was one of the hardest things. I was doing the research on where did that right-of-way originally come from. Okay. And then I had one more question. Apologies. Fiscal impact studies. Do you guys require fiscal impact studies for annexations?

Not at this time.

Okay. I know that that's one of the things that helps from a future planning standpoint, specifically on public safety. I think it's a little bit less of an issue in Washington because of the UGB issue. And the planning that we have to do here, I have seen it required in other areas where you can get unfettered kind of growth, and you have to sort of prove that you're not going to cause a fiscal strain on the jurisdiction. Not saying that we should consider that here. It is a little bit of an added detail of work that kind of gets done with concurrency at the project level, but it might be something that is worth exploring. That's it.

Just to follow up on that my questions were very very similar, but there is a section a six talks about coordination with schools and I think that there is certainly a Financial strain that gets put on the district and so I'm wondering just in the description there It says the city will coordinate with bridgefield school district on annexation requests the school district can continue to meet its service standards What does coordinate mean in this context? Does it have to do with? the school district letting the city know where the district thinks the next school should be built or Pushing back on a development that's going to overwhelm the school. How does what does coordination mean?

Yeah, so at the annexation level coordination is really like communication that it's happening and at the annexation level of course we see plenty of properties annexed but just to annex plenty of properties annexed because there is an intent for future development. At the moment something annexes we don't have a development application in where we can tell the school or show them hey this is coming in but in terms of just raw population on the annex parcels that's kind of the information where we have at that time.

Does the school district talk with the city? It's okay if you don't know this, but does the school district talk with the city about approximate locations of where they'd like to build a new school?

Honestly, I'm not sure how that process works or what kind of, like, for example, with the new elementary school, what kind of conversations there were to sort of dial down that location. I'm not sure.

Well, I think that land might have been donated also so that the next one might not be done okay and then sort of back what was said earlier regarding large annexations and maybe a neighbor wouldn't want to annex in does the city have any strategy for how to, at some point, absorb those islands? For example, if there was like a donut hole type area, what is the city's strategy moving forward? Because it's not in here, right? I mean, obviously, there is something that happens, but there's not a written strategy here.

So, hypothetically, if there were a donut hole situation... The strategy that our council has used for both the Gee Creek Plateau, Donut Hole, and the Cardi Road area is the strategy of working with folks in that area to create a subarea plan, which is a guiding planning document that sort of sets the same vision and guidelines for that area. That way, as you have a planning document addressing the large area in a way that still allows individual property owners or groups of property owners to petition for annexation as they choose to do so, but having that sub area planning document gives Council some assurance that as those properties come in and if they decide to develop once they're in the city limits They're playing by the same rule book for that whole area basically is the strategy they've used If I may off of that Do you think there would be value in adding policy language around that I

I actually thought about this too because I was well first of all I had the question the bottom of that page 97 and going to the top it says larger annexations will be generally preferable because of service efficiencies and to keep neighborhoods and communities intact and in my head I went to the scenario that we've just been discussing and thought should we have language that says something like annexations that address adding unannexed areas within annexed areas should be also prioritized. Because I don't know what you mean by large. Larger, does that mean like five acres, 10 acres, 20 acres? So I was thinking, because larger is kind of vague, and I don't know if that area, hypothetically, that we're discussing is large or not. I just think we should be prioritizing annexing areas that are kind of oddly large. kind of within the city but not? If that makes any sense.

Yeah, I think one of my issues with having it be property-driven, which I firmly still believe that that should be the primary source of annexations, but we have a lot of infrastructure planning. We have a lot of... you know, housing needs that are being met by some of the lands that are in these areas and, you know, trail connectivity, things like that, like all this stuff that we've been talking about with all these other elements. Um, At some point, if you have these islands, it makes it almost impossible to achieve some of those things without annexation. And so almost feel like we probably do need some policy language so that there's the ability to do better comprehensive planning in those areas without islands.

Commissioner Moreland, you have something, some comments or questions?

Two questions, please. Good evening, commissioners and Ms. Luss. First question is, under annexation, have we ever used the alternative petition method? It's mentioned, but I get the feeling that it's rarely used, but I was just curious as to whether we've ever used it in Ridgefield.

Thanks, Commissioner Marlin. Since I've been here, I've only seen the direct petition method be used. And my understanding is that is a longstanding practice of the city council. Can't speak completely to history there, but to my knowledge, the city pretty much exclusively uses the direct petition method.

Okay, thank you. Second question relates to what is the primary driver for annexation? Would you say it's tactical where a one property owner approaches the city or is it more strategic? And what I mean by that is in a past conversation I had with the city manager, I was a little bit surprised when he told me that the city's growth will be to the north and not to the south or to the east, which kind of tells me that, well, at least it leads me to believe that that's more a strategic driven process. So could you comment on, I guess, whether annexation within the city limits or the UGA is more tactical or strategic?

Sure. So annexation of properties within the UGA, which is Just to back up a half step, in order to be eligible for annexation, a property has to be both in the urban growth area and adjacent to existing city limits. And it is, in your words, Commissioner Moreland, tactical. It's a property owner or a group of property owners approaching the city. We do have a land use application process that they come in and apply for. And Yeah, that's the property owner's request. Sometimes if we get an individual property in, we ask them, hey, have you talked to any of your neighbors and gauged if there's any interest from them to join your petition for efficiency? But if there's not, there's not. So yeah, it is property owner-led.

Okay, so more tactical than strategic. Thank you, ma'am.

I had one more question. I just want to understand this because this is new for me. So when they do petition, they are going to be compensated at 60% of the property value?

Not quite. So the 60%, I believe you're referring to, is sort of a threshold in the petition to annex process whereby property owners basically 60% of the property owners in an area that is applying to annex have to physically sign the paper okay yeah but as far as how much the city has to spend to buy the prop do they have to pay this is not the city is not buying the property yeah yeah they're just coming into the city limits yep all right thank you of course

I'm circling back to some sort of policy language. I think we might talk about this a little bit more when we get to the public outreach section, but I think that I think that some sort of policy language might I'm uncomfortable maybe with the city having a, here's how we want to have someone annex in. I'm not sure how I feel about that quite yet. But I'm also hesitant of the city, the example of someone has a property and it'd be great to have a road through there or trails through there. It would really benefit the greater city. I'm hesitant to have that annexed be sort of city policy or discussed because I don't want that landowner to feel pressure from the city, right? I mean, if their neighbors are like, come on, buddy. But from the city itself, I don't feel comfortable with that. So I'm not quite sure how policy language could be targeted at this type of a thing. I'm just not sure how that could work. It's certainly worth exploring. But I do think there should be a general policy of making sure the public understands how annexation happens. I don't think that we did a great job when it came to the donut hole. There were a lot of folks there who were panicking. And the folks up here, we don't have any power, and yet my powers and powers legal power, governing power, and yet my phone was burning up because people are panicking. Oh, I have to sell my house now, or oh, I have to build on my property, and I just don't think the city did a very good job outreaching or having public-facing information on that. So if we do have a policy, I would say it should be helping people understand that they don't have to build 50 units in their front yard.

Policy focused on education, noted.

Just racking my brain still on the 60%, kind of getting back to what Commissioner Flynn was talking about. So if you have 10 property owners and six are cool with annexing and there's the other four that are caught in the middle, essentially, then... everybody gets annexed if council says okay based on my understanding of that correct and that is a revised code of washington number um that this yeah the city uses so just to play dill's advocate uh commissioner flim we the concern was having people sort of being brought in unwillingly almost, is almost what I heard you were saying. And I feel like with the petition you still have that potential to happen, right? So even more so the education component I think is critical so that people don't have the misconception that their property's getting taken.

Yeah, or pressured from the city itself.

To do something.

To do something, to sell or to allow for some development on their property. I'm not comfortable with the pressure coming from the city itself.

That's what the gavel's for.

The only thing, as we were talking and I was looking through this, A2 seems out of place or not an actual policy of the city. Is that something that we'd probably look at striking? It seems like we do provide services and we're not going to say, oh, if you want services from the city, you need to join or too bad kind of situation. Or is that going to be the policy? Because like we were talking, the donut hole, for instance, where we provide services through like the police. It seems like we would be open to providing services if it makes sense.

Yeah, I can look at at least rewording that to be more reflective of reality.

Yeah, that's kind of gangster style right there. Unincorporated areas should annex or commit to annexation or we'll break your legs.

That's pretty much how cities have used annexations, I think, for a long time, right? You're unincorporated, you don't get any services. But yeah, I think having something that says through some sort of interlocal agreement or some other agreement... That way at least we take what we're actually doing out there.

Any other thoughts or comments on the annexation section? Back to you, Ms. Lust.

Excellent. Thank you very much. The next section in your packet that we're going to look through is the environment element. This is a bit of a funny one. The climate element, which we've already looked at and workshopped and staff have worked on at length, is a mandatory element of the comprehensive plan and it covers a lot. The environment element has a slightly different function, at least as it stands in our plan, in that these are the goals and policies that are tied directly to the city's critical areas ordinance. So if you'll recall the work we recently did on the critical areas ordinance update, Hard hard to say which which gets updated first it's a bit of a chicken egg situation, but in our case we went ahead and dug into the critical areas ordinance update updating that development code language based on. Best available science based on stakeholder interviews, etc, etc, and as we were working on that code update we did have. this chapter in our back pocket and asked ourselves throughout that process, okay, is what we're doing still within these goals and policies from the 2016 plan? Are we seeing things in the code update that would then require us to go back and update or clean up any of these goals and policies? And as staff, we really felt that, um, the critical areas code update was functioning within the existing environment goals and policies, referenced a couple of specific goals and policies around things like mitigation, for example, in the memos y'all saw throughout the code update process. But as with other elements of this code, we're not, not the only ones that need to look at it. So hoping to get Planning Commission's input on whether any of these environment goals and policies should be updated, struck, refined, added to based on the work you saw throughout the critical areas ordinance update, conditions you see in the city today versus 10 years ago, et cetera. So with that, Chair, I will pass it back to y'all.

Thank you. Any questions or comments?

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I generally agree with Ms. Lust about the critical areas ordinance being more or less consistent with the existing policies. But we did hear public comment from Ms. Stemp, and I think there's a couple good things that were in there. We are actively discussing our trail corridors and planning for trail corridors, which most are wide enough that could double up is, as wildlife corridors. We have lots of protections for some of our waterways already in both local ordinances and state law. So I think that that helps for things like salmon. So I think it wouldn't hurt us to have the additional language so that as people come in, they're planning for these things, that we do think about the wildlife corridors. I think that's super important. I also really like the mitigate risk by disease and infestation aspect. We're already kind of taking a look at certain types of tree analysis when we're doing projects. um just to say well when you're thinking about preservation like is there some sort of infestation uh risk i mean usually there's already an arborist assessment that goes on with projects so um is there ways that that can be done um to mitigate that disease uh for more longevity on the ash tree particularly i think both of those were all um were really good suggestions

Any other thoughts or questions from any of the commissioners?

Please. I have a couple. One is on the descriptive part. This is page 44 when it talks about limiting adverse impacts. It says the city has adopted engineering standards that are consistent with the 1992 Puget Sound water quality manual. And I just wondered, that sounds like a long time ago, and I wondered if there's anything more recent that updates that that should be looked at and included, because we keep learning more and more, I guess, is what my big thought is, and I would like us to be up to date.

You are correct, that is a long time ago, and yes, that'll be updated. Okay. Off the top of my head, I don't have the year of the manual that the current engineering standards are based off of, but it is much more recent, and I know there have been some updates recently as our stormwater team has been updating their own standards to the newest requirements, so we'll make sure that gets captured.

Okay. sustainability which is on page 47 um it talks about city incorporating environmentally friendly green building principles practices into design and the operation of city facilities city funded projects and infrastructure to the fullest extent possible i wondered if we could just make that a full end stop and possibly remove the other part because when you say consistent with wise management of scarce public financial resources it immediately gives us and out, and I think that's one of the things we need to start to be very firm on. We want this to happen, and we don't need to keep saying, oh, it's going to be expensive, because we know it's expensive, and we know it won't happen if we can't get the money together or can't prioritize it, but I just feel like we keep adding in verbiage that allows us to say, oh, yeah, we can't do it because of, yeah. Anyway, that's just my thoughts on that one. So I thought we could strike that. What was my other thing on this page? Oh, well, I thought because we were talking about how the, with our critical areas work, we, at the bottom there where it talks about implementation, same page, it says, Development that cannot reasonably avoid critical areas will include mitigation of potential impacts. I just thought that sounds a little soft compared to the strength of the critical areas emphasis on avoidance. So I'm wondering if that could be reworked somehow to not make it sound like so well if we can, but really emphasize the avoidance part. Absolutely. I have two more things. Is that okay? Should I keep going? Okay. I also, you know, it took me a while to figure out the whole format, but then, you know, the policies at the end. It strikes me the policies are very general, and maybe they have to stay general, but I really appreciate also that Ms. Demp brought us some specifics. And I thought, as with E10, about the trees and other vegetation, I would love it, and I don't know if this is the place for it, maybe it goes somewhere else, but I think I've heard comment about this, If we could develop codes that align with state law that protect homeowners from HOA requirements for lawn, if they desire low-water or pollinator-friendly landscapes. There is state law now that says HOAs can't require this, and yet HOAs are still battling some of their residents who want to have low-water use. And I think if we added some language in that to say that the city is going to develop some codes to help, Residents that want to help our pollinators and help water use we should have it in there And then I had one more I'll wait to you Also have a post-it I can hand you later if you like This is also all being recorded, but I like to take notes. Thank you I thought with e11 on the air quality again. It's very general very nice, but I I also think in there we could have something that says develop codes that reduce local area fuel emissions, such as city requirements for electric-powered landscape equipments over gas-powered machinery. Some cities are adopting, you know, ruling out gas engine blowers and stuff. It's a noise thing, and it's also an air quality thing. So I would love it if the city worked towards developing codes on that. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from the commissioners?

Yeah, I have maybe one or maybe several. So EN 10, short paragraph, big topic, I think. So this is trees and other vegetation. First clarifying question, is this the scope of EN 10 meant to encompass both commercial and city property?

Correct. Yeah, these are all... policies unless stated otherwise, they're intended to be citywide.

Okay, thank you. Could you give maybe a brief overview of what, since this is what the 2016, what we have in policy today that is enacting EN 10?

Yeah, so a major update that we made a number of years ago now, I guess probably five years ago, is to require a tree plan as part of development proposals. So that implements that statement around conserved tree and plant cover, particularly native species. There are requirements, first and foremost, to just identify what trees are on a site, what trees are intended for removal versus preservation, how trees being preserved are being protected throughout the development process. as well as metrics or standards that the project is required to achieve in terms of tree density or tree coverage on the site, and sort of sub-language in their prioritizing native species as well. So as far as implementation since 2016, I'd say that is a major achievement in implementing EN10 in the past 10 years. The second sentence in there requires street tree plantings and minimum landscaping standards for new development. I think those were already requirements when this was originally written. It's just reaffirming them. They are still requirements. And then promote planting using native vegetation. That's something we've talked about in this group a lot. haven't quite got to the code saying you gotta do it 100%, but have language in the code certainly encouraging and in some specific areas, for those of you that were around when we worked on the Cardi Road code update, some specific areas requiring 100% native planting. So short answer, yes, there's definitely been progress in implementing that code language since 2016.

Could I use a recent development to try to understand how these played out in the master planning process? Of course. So I'm looking at the legacy trails. I think it's phase three. We're about to clear a small forest. And from the master plan, I see very little retention of what's on the property today.

Yeah. So currently the tree standards... require your finished product to have a certain tree density. It doesn't say you can't remove trees and replace them in the you know, the area that is to be developed under under the code requirements. I do know for that project, they went through a critical area and SEPA review where the city did review the tree plan to our current code. And then ultimately, they have obtained or are obtaining a logging permit from the Department of Natural Resources as well.

Got it. Okay. So correct me if I'm wrong. It seems like there are a couple RCWs, including in the GMA and urban forestry that gives cities quite a bit of power to require some retention of the vegetation that's in place before any clearing happens.

I would love to hear from the rest of the commissioners.

I would love to see us adopt a policy around corridor retention buffers. So this is a great example for me. I think we're going to get... I'll guess 30 small trees along the butt side of the building facing the road versus sort of maintaining some of the natural vegetation that we have there. More of this development will come in other areas. It seems like we have the legal framework in place provided by the state to be pretty aggressive here. Personally, I'd love to see the city be as aggressive as legally allowed when it comes to maintaining natural character in the area. So I think we are either missing language in EN 10, or we are missing a policy specifically focused on requiring these corridors and preservation, and then not to nitpick on these words again, but, you know, promote. I'd love to see toothy language in these. Developers are fantastic at building things. We have to sort of balance... how they approach that with being very specific and leaving very little room to tap dance around what we're asking for.

Thank you. Commissioner Moylan.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Ms. Luss on the end of 45 and beginning on I guess 46 The paragraphs discuss the Shoreline Master Program. And in lieu of the comments and concerns by the residents, is it correct to say that the Port Authority cannot adopt legally the provisions of the Shoreline Management Act? Is that correct?

The question is, can or cannot the port adopt the provisions of the Shoreline Management Act?

Correct.

So the Shoreline Management Program is adopted and regulated locally by the City of Ridgefield?

Correct. That's my understanding as well. So would it also be correct then that the port's land, and I'm not trying to put you on the stand here, but is it also correct that the port's land along Lake River falls under the city's jurisdiction and any development or future development or construction on its property must comply with the city shoreline regs and review processes. Would that be correct?

That is correct.

Thank you. Also on page 46, under wildlife habitats, it indicates Ridgefield will work with others in the region to develop and implement recovery plans for threatened salmon species. My question is, well, I guess it's twofold. One, who are others? And second, how do we measure progress? In other words, if we're trying to protect priority habitats, how do we know that we're improving the quality of those habitats over time?

That's a great question, and I believe, yeah, the language as stands is intentionally broad, but our partners in that work would be the resource agencies, Department of Fish and Wildlife and Department of Ecology, our particular agencies, the city works with quite a bit on a project level and have the scientific expertise and expertise programs that do track both locally and statewide the success of species preservation. Don't know if that answers your question, but I guess I would lean on the work with partner agencies on that one.

Well, I guess my question is, do we periodically receive progress reports from those agencies? no okay so i would like to suggest somehow that we request that so that the city can measure over time whether we're actually improving these priority habitats or whether they are continually becoming degraded to the point where there are no priority species left in those habitats.

Thank you.

Thank you. On page 47, before we get to the paragraph on policies, we're talking about source control to keep pollutants in the environment out of the environment. water treatment to remove pollutants from water. And we go on to talk about managing that. And I guess, oh, I'm sorry. I'll ignore that one. And we jump to page, I guess it's page 48. Under EN5 habitat, I don't care for the verbiage where it says link fish and wildlife habitat areas to form contiguous networks. I don't like that word networks. It's nebulous and it implies technology. I have a proposal to replace that with restore ecological connectivity by linking fish and wildlife habitats.

Great. Thank you, Commissioner. Noted.

Thank you. Under EN 10, trees and other vegetation, I do have a concern about the verbiage minimum. I don't know what that means. And I'm sure probably the vast majority of people do not know what that means either. So I don't know if it's possible to quantify or just strike the word minimum and leave and landscaping standards.

Okay, I'll make note of that right now. The policy language directs us to establish minimum landscape standards in the code, which then is the job of the development code to have those numbers and percentages. I think that's where the link is coming in now. But I will make note to take a look at that.

Okay, thank you. Under EN 13, are we... Practicing density transfers now?

Yes.

Could you give us an example, please?

Sure. So first of all, it is... it was language in our existing critical areas ordinance permitting and regulating critical area density transfers that was carried forward in the critical areas ordinance update. What that looks like is, you know, and I can think of a couple, limited, but a couple of residential subdivisions where this has been part of the project, is in exchange for protecting X acreage of critical areas, fully, no buffer reduction, no averaging, no buffer uses, et cetera, full protection, a project can basically translate that into a small amount of increased density for the project. Usually it's at a rate of 50%. So not to like make this a number fest, but say in a project where the density allows for four units per acre, an extra acre of protected critical areas could translate into 50% of four or two additional housing units in the developable portion of the project is how critical areas density transfer works.

Okay, thank you. The last comment that I have relates to EN 15 building practices. develop a system of regulatory approaches and incentives to encourage green building, including reduced fees, streamlined permitting and more. I just wanna make a comment that there are, I'll give you two examples. The city of Chicago has the largest acreage of green roofs in the US. The city of Portland is not far behind. And they have, at least the city of Chicago, has a dedicated review team for sustainable futures such as green roofs. That dedicated review team can cut the permit approval from 90 to 100 days down to 30. And that's in the city code. And so I would like to see the city of Ridgefield, I guess, incentivize developers, especially like flat roof, either commercial buildings for flat roofs or, yeah, I guess for commercial. or even a city building, such as Public Works or City Hall. My understanding is the roof on City Hall needs to be replaced. It'd be nice to see that as a demonstration project. But at any rate, I think you get my point about incentivizing permits for fast tracking if they if they incorporate these green building practices.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll go real quick here. I just think too often the framing around trees and plants is how they relate to animals or development. And I'd like to see just a little more focus on, you know, sometimes a tree is good enough. We don't need to worry about if there's a fish that swims by. Sometimes the tree is a tree and we love it. So just, I think that framing of it, even the section that talks about Trees, just a little bit, it mentions two, I think, types of trees, but the section is called Fish and Wildlife Habitat. And that's what it focuses on. It's 300 words, and there's four of those words are trees, and the rest is about how it relates to fish.

I think trees are good enough. That's all.

Just one quick question. So under the EN9 policy, my understanding of that is that the policy idea there is to implement the Shoreline Master Program into the code. Is that correct? Or at least correctly integrated into the code?

It's actually a separate document from code. It's cross-referenced. So implementing it, I think that verbiage refers to applying it to development review processes where it's applicable.

If there is a conflict between development code and the plan, which one controls?

Typically when we're working with codes and other development review documents, if there are two standards that are in conflict with one another, the more conservative one is followed.

And then I will note that we do have the city's heritage tree program that we could also use. It's a great program. I don't think it is used enough. So if there's a tree, a particular tree that anyone particularly loves, it can be put on the list. So that's one good way to save a particular tree. So any other thoughts or comments from any of the commissioners on this section? Please.

Yeah, so this might just mean me overthinking it, but in the world that I come from, the words will and shall mean two very different things. I'm looking on page 46 here under wildlife habitats and endangered species as well as stream health. It says Ridgeford will avoid, Ridgeford will work, Ridgeford will protect. In my world, will means, believe it or not, in our manuals that I follow, it's something that we can do but we don't have to do. Versus when it says shall, that is something we have to do every single time. Is there any wiggle room there to replace that language to include shells? Speaking to my commissioner down there, what he said earlier, there seems to be a lot of language that allows outs. And when it comes to endangered species, wildlife habitats and our stream health, especially with the growing development and the large expansion that Ridgefield's experiencing, all those things, in my opinion, are important to maintain.

Yeah, so we don't have quite the same like definitional distinction between will and shall, but certainly can can go through this with a fine tooth comb. And if the commission feels that shall is stronger and more appropriate language, it's a pretty straightforward change to make. So yeah, appreciated.

Any other thoughts or comments from the commissioners on this section? Back to you, Miss Lust.

Perfect. Thank you. So the last of the three chapters we are looking at this evening is public involvement. Public involvement element in a comp plan is kind of a funny one because there are, it's not a required element, but we do have a couple of requirements to basically include a statement and like appendix of our public involvement plan that we developed at the start of the process to show that we met the engagement requirements under the Growth Management Act. So that is one function of it and I think a big reason in the existing public involvement chapter you see a lot of language about the public involvement that was done for this version of the plan in 2016. beyond sort of that basic documentation of having a process for the growth management plan update, really there's a lot that can be done with a public involvement chapter. So I'm definitely looking for feedback on this one, on like what, what is the appropriate breadth and direction of the goals and policies in this chapter? And then the feedback I get on this one from planning commission and from council, ultimately I'm gonna feed that to our communications team. I know they have some ideas about this as well to try and refresh and update this chapter and perhaps making it more meaningful and actionable moving forward. So that's my goal here. And once again, I will hand it back to you, Chair. Thank you.

Thank you. Any comments or questions from the commissioners?

Yeah. Okay, PI3, communication, talks about how... involving the public, the city's gonna use publications, mailings, broadcast, I'm not even sure what that word means, print media, social media, et cetera. And then it says keep pace with involving technologies, non-traditional means, all that. This was all written before like Ridgefield Roundtable and that kind of a thing. But I kind of think we've run into problems in the past of trying to do it online. and not getting enough feedback. And so I think that boots on the ground are really important, not just sending folks a postcard saying we're interested, but actually going out to them and knocking on their door and having a survey of some kind. I think that'd be extremely useful. We get better feedback. So new technology but old technology also. And then the second part is PI for their facilitate participation from the public. I think overall I think the city is, that is a good goal when you do better. I think everyone probably agrees with that. But occasionally there's a governing body that there's some distrust about what they might be doing. And I'm wondering if the city has any type of record, even if it was anecdotal, as far as the public provided this feedback and we changed our original concept to match what the public told us. Because I think that would produce a lot of goodwill among folks who attend meetings and have a voice that they want to have it heard. So there you go.

Thank you. So looking at policy language, emphasizing more of an iterative process, what we heard, what we did with it, basically. Thank you.

Any other thoughts or comments from any of the commissioners?

I do. Thank you. I'd like to see us look at language we might be able to adopt around the city monitoring the efficacy of all the things that we do adopt here. So we could, for example, pick 30 channels and sort of broadcast out into them, but without the follow-up to know our efficacy to actually reach the people we're trying to reach and how easy it is for them to engage with that channel or to understand that channel doesn't necessarily mean we're getting the job done. Somewhat related... Not sure if this belongs here or downstream, but looking into how we can incorporate more quantitative methods. So you mentioned surveying, but being able to actually speak. So I've heard over the past couple meetings the notion of the noisy minority, which is something that people like to bat around in discussions around feedback. Quantitative methods in the mix can help us sort of take that out of the mix, and we could say confidently what we looked at X number of people representing these different swaths of the Ridgefield community. And therefore, this is actually a representative community versus, you know, hey, the petition represents, you know, it's not a representative. Where am I trying to communicate this? These signatures are a representative mix of the community versus these signatures are everybody that agreed found their way to the survey. Does that distinction make sense?

That does make sense. So that's speaking to the methodology of outreach and its validity?

Yeah, exactly.

Okay, perfect.

So how do we... And in that, when we do things like surveys and studies, making sure... And I'm always a big, big fan of publishing methodology if we're going to publish anything that we researched and learned so that we can show... You know, hey, we didn't ask leading questions. We didn't ask, hey, did you hear about this amazing thing the city is doing or this terrible thing that's happening, right? We know how to ask neutral, position-neutral questions so that we can say, hey, we trust the read that we got on this from the community. And then just a plus one on the follow-ups, I think. My sense in conversations I have with friends, neighbors around the community is there's still a lot of unexpressed but strong opinion. about what the city is up to. So I think when people do manage to get involved and find their ways to get involved, being able to see that they had a hand and their fingerprints on things as they change is really, really powerful. I think for a lot of people, it just takes that one to be part of some change and seeing that through and knowing like, oh, it actually matters to go sit through a dry two-hour meeting about the comprehensive plan updates because things actually change down the road. And you know, that spreads around. This isn't dry, of course, but thank you.

Thank you. Any other thoughts or comments from any of the questioners? Okay, we'll go back to you, Ms. Lust.

Thank you. And again, to follow up, I'll be sharing this with our communications team. They are a team that did not yet exist when this plan was published in 2016. And just as a shout out to them, they do really good work. They are pretty intentional about like finding metrics to track and different methods they use. But I'll make sure they hear what the planning commission has emphasized as they help us sort of refine. refine this chapter. So as always, appreciate your input. It is really very, very helpful in this process, and I'm glad we're working through it together. So if there aren't any more questions or comments for the good of the order this evening, that is all I have for business.

Perfect. Thank you very much. So now then we'll go to our second public comment period for the evening. Anyone requesting to speak to 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 if you're on the Zoom. 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 nine for raise hand and press star six to mute and unmute. Comments will be limited to three minutes. If you're in the audience, obviously you can come forward to the stand. Just state your name and then as I can, you have three minutes. Thank you.

Dion Hess. Thank you. Apologize for the phone. I swear I thought I turned it off. I just a couple things I want to do. One is recognize her comments and I heard these at city council also about the when we're giving comments at the Port Commission meetings. She's 100% spot on. And it doesn't really bother me because sometimes I roll my eyes when they say things that I think are outrageous or they told me something different. But I have seen the disrespect shown to a lot of our citizens there. The other thing I'd like to point out, I don't know if you've had a chance to go. I would encourage you to go down this weekend, starting tomorrow, well, for the next two weeks, basically, and just look at the boat ramp and look at the parking and look what's going on down there. Tomorrow, today was the last day you could fish below Oya Rock for salmon, and so that forces everybody to come upriver, and it's going to be extremely busy. And when the first plan came out, I was told by commissioners, I verified it with Ridgefield staff as far as the parking plan. And if you are familiar with it, you have the restrooms. And then behind the rest, you have the normal parking, 28 spots. And behind the restroom, there's a triangle that goes up towards division. And it grows as it gets there. The original conceptual plan showed the overflow parking to be there. But along division, there was a multi-use building that was residential and business. And then if you put parking in there, which I guess you would need parking if you had an apartment and business, there's about room from what I've been seeing for about 30 cars, 30-boat trailer parking. And so that would be currently with 28, that would be about 50 to 60 spots to park trailers. The only plan that's been given to me for an overflow once it goes over 60, just go down and count cars. You don't have to take my word for it. would be to share the parking lot with the hotel, the 58-room hotel proposed that has 35 parking spots. And that's the only thing that's been told to me. When I've went out and presented that to different organizations, they think I'm doing a comedy show. They laugh at me, seriously. It's just we're not really putting any logic or thinking or really understanding what's going on. I am down there pretty much every day for the next couple weeks. There is an email for the preserved waterfront. I would be more than glad to meet folks down there and just sort of show, as an experienced person that uses it, and just talk numbers and that. I've offered that to the port, but here we are. I guess they know more about it than I do. Anyway, I would like to offer that. If you would be interested in that, I would be more than glad to sort of show you what we're talking about and physically see what's there. So thank you. and your meetings also are more interesting. Nothing personal about City Council, but they are pretty dry. Actually, I find yours, I mean, not interesting, so thank you.

Thank you. Any other, please.

Robin Knight, Ridgefield resident. I was also gonna say, dry or not, I think these might be our favorite public meetings we've been to. I just wanted to speak in support of what the commissioners were, suggesting as far as native tree retention in development areas. From what I've seen and heard, Legacy Trails plans to duplicate the current development next door on that property, which would mean removing every single one of the trees that currently exists and replacing them with what I call apartment trees, which are just puny little trees that the dogs pee on and then eventually have to get removed. because they die. So yeah, I think having native tree retention would be amazing. And I also have personally seen coyote and deer crossing across Royal from that property to the field across the street. I've actually gone out and stood in the middle of the road to stop cars from potentially hitting deer that were crossing there. So I think what Ms. Demp was saying earlier about protecting wildlife corridors is super important, especially with all the development going on. So I'm in favor of that as well. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Is there anybody else wishing to make a public comment at this time? It looks like we do have one on Zoom. Go ahead.

All right. Can you hear me okay?

Yes.

Okay, good. Yay! Okay, cool. So, my name is Shawna Fitcher, Red Shield resident. So, first of all, I want to say thank you so much for always listening and being so receptive and for posing all the amazing questions that you do. It's really... fun and interesting to go to your meetings just to hear all of that so thank you for that and then I wanted to just bring up to that importance you know by Legacy Trails the current property and then where the new property is going to go, there are some beautiful trees. I mean, if there's a way to kind of preserve that instead of, you know, chopping all those down, I don't know, you know, what the, those buffer requirements and all of that are, and then a way to kind of preserve and look at the traffic there because on Royal there, there is a lot of, sorry, there is a lot of deer and wildlife that cross there too. And a lot of people that go walking down the road to that big wetland pond down there. I don't know what it's called, sorry, but you know what I'm talking about with that roundabout at Wells, I think it is. So just anything that you guys could, look at with the city to kind of not and then also to with I don't know how the planning commission plays into this, but in and out of the driveways to just ensure that there is good visibility. Because if you're turning into legacy trails, say like, hey, I'm going to go to pure bar, then I'm going to turn out. Sometimes that visibility isn't great. And people go really, really fast down that down that road so i don't know other ways to prevent that so i would just mention that and um and then also just keep looking at the waterfront too to see about um you know ways that you can help to protect those buffers and any insights and all of that that you can give into that would be fantastic and would be amazing. So thank you for that. And then I don't think I have any other other comments. But just thank you so much for for listening and for all you guys do. So thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody else wishing to make a public comment at this time, either in the audience or on zoom? Not seeing anybody, we will close the second public comment period. And we'll go to staff reports.

Thank you, Chair Tyler. Not much this evening. I just want to extend my welcome to Commissioner Hornbach. We're very happy to have you here. You did it. You did your first meeting. Appreciate your participation this evening. Other than that, happy back to school for those who celebrate. And that is all I have.

Thank you. We'll go to reports from the commission. Maybe we can start at this end. Commissioner Rakusek.

Nothing really to report. I'm going to cheat, though. I was reminded of something I forgot to mention during the environment section. Roadside animal detection systems strongly encourage us to consider where we know there are frequent crossings to adopting a policy to deploy. I'm sorry for the cheating. That's my report.

Thank you, Vice Chair Flynn. This is your free time. You can say anything you want right now. Commissioner Hornbeck, welcome. Good to have you here. And city staff, thank you for this evening, for prepping us, and school is back, which means if the city wants to do a fundraiser, there's a lot of people speeding on Hillhurst right now, and so we could put four or five officers out there and raise a million dollars a day, maybe. Could be more. I don't know. I don't know. It's nuts. But with school comes the Lady Spuds soccer team, and so there's two home games next week, Tuesday and Thursday, 7 o'clock. I would encourage you to go and support them.

Thank you, Commissioner Borchardt.

Yeah, so first things first, great job to staff. The last three chapters of this, a big deal. We've functionally reached the finish line. I'm sure there's a little bit more left to go. This is a huge lift, and you guys put a lot of work into it, so good job. A lot of people in the audience may not see the amount of sleepless nights that Ms. Les probably put into this project. We're just here to... to comment on it and criticize more than anything. So really appreciate the hard work for you and your staff. Great job. Also, welcome, Commissioner Hornbeck. I'm glad to have you on board. And then I don't know if you guys make a proclamation on this, but the time is coming up. October is National Planning Month. It is a big deal for us in the planning world. And we have our conference locally. Our statewide conference is actually in Vancouver. It's at the Hilton. The public is always encouraged to go, as planners love when the members of the public can register and go learn a little bit something about what we do every single day, not just the planning commission level, but the staff level, at the consultant level, at the developer level. We all learn from each other and figure out a way to make all of our communities a better place. So that is on October 7th through the 9th, and it's cool when something statewide can come local. So those are my announcements.

Thank you, Commissioner Gordon.

I just want to also welcome our new commissioner tonight. And again, appreciate state appreciation for the members of the public that continue to come and let us know what you're thinking and what you want from our community and really appreciate hearing what you have to say. And I also am very grateful for the city staff for all the work you do to make our jobs easy. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Hornbeck. I didn't know I had to do open time today. Yeah, open mic night, okay. Thank you for the kind words on welcoming me. This is very far outside of my expertise zone, but I'm happy to learn and contribute hopefully some ideas outside of the box. And to you, I come from a labor background. I'm an airline pilot and the vice president of my Teamster Local. You know, if you want something to change, show up and be a part of that change. That's the most important thing to drive change. So thank you to you for coming here and speaking to us candidly and sharing us your thoughts with this plan moving forward. And thank you, Ms. Lust, for your help, especially with me trying to set up my email. Still not quite there yet. I'm close. I'll get there soon. yeah i uh if you see me around me and my my significant other are pretty active down here uh we'll talk to anybody come up say hi if you see us at a restaurant it happens my pilots that i represent come up when we're a restaurant so she's used to it um come say hi we're happy to talk to you perfect thank you commissioner moylan uh congratulations and welcome

Michael, we're happy to have you on board. And a thousand thanks as always to Claire or Ms. Lust and her staff. It's not easy developing a massive document and then you have individuals that it may come across trying to criticize the language of the document, but hopefully it's to make the document a better document for all the citizens of the city. So thank you again to you, Ms. Loss and your staff.

Thank you. And I'll echo that. Thanks as well to you, Ms. Lust and Ms. Moore, for being here, spending your evenings with us and walking us through this process, not only tonight, but over the last several years. And a huge thank you to everyone here who is in the audience and on Zoom who's participating. many more meetings where it's been an empty chairs. And so it's always great to see people here and people that are willing to come and make public comments and participate. Always welcome and always glad to hear what you have to say. And that I don't have much else to say. Again, welcome to you, Commissioner Hornbeck. Looking forward to get to know you better, and hopefully there will be some benefits to having a pilot on the commission. But it's great to have you and that you're willing to step up and participate. So I think with that, we will adjourn.