Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the Thirsten County Planning Commission. The Thirsten County Planning Commission is a resident advisory committee to the board of county commissioners on land use planning matters such as the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance amendments. Planning commission actions are in the form of recommendations to the county commissioners, the final decision makers. All planning commission meetings are open to the public. Community members are welcome to observe all planning commission briefings and work sessions. My name is Eric Casino. We're going to continue with introductions here in the boardroom and then we'll go online. We'll start down here with uh Commissioner Bomber. Um District One, Ivon Miller, District One.

Scott Nelson, District 4. Commissioner Fishburn, are you there? I'm here. Can you hear me? Yes. Yeah. Hi, this is Bill Fishburn. I live and serve in district 4. And Commissioner Pestinger. Kevin Pinger, District 5. Great. Thank you very much. With that, uh, if anybody, everybody's had an opportunity to look at our agenda, I'd entertain a motion. It looks like, uh, Commissioner Lola is Oh, we got one more showed up. Flores. Oh, Commissioner Flores. Commissioner Flores, can you hear us? She should be on the top.

Hello. Good. Oh, yay. Okay. Yes. Commissioner Flores, District Three. Thank you very much. All right. With that, has everybody had an opportunity to look at the agenda? If so, I'd entertain a motion. So moved. Second. Is there anything that needs to be reconsidered? Okay. All those in favor of accepting the agenda say I. I. I.

We have an agenda. Has everybody had an opportunity to look over our meeting minutes of April 15, 2026? And other than a a minor typo uh on the date, is there um well, I'll first ask uh to entertain a motion. Motion to uh motion to approve the meeting minutes and accept the audio as the official meeting record with the date correction. And I second moved second. Is there any further discussion on the meeting minutes for our April 15th meeting? Right. All those in favor of accepting these minutes say I. I. I.

I. These minutes are accepted. All right. With that, we're going to move on to the public communication portion of our meeting. Um, we do have some general speaking guidelines. So, please introduce yourself, including the address or area you reside in the county. Please address the planning commission and not the audience or staff. We may not respond to public comments. We'll limit to three minutes. The timer should show up on your screen. We ask you to pay attention to that. Um, cannot donate your time. And please, let's keep uh keep this civil. With that, we'll start out with Christy White.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Christy White and I lead in the Delhi. I first wanted to acknowledge the staff work that has been built that has built a really strong foundation for tonight's discussion about food ordinance. It's a lot of work. It's a lot of volume and really appreciate how much has been done so far. My comments are in reference to the staff member discussion points. My ask is this that the staff incorporate these requests into the CAO update. I also ask that you encourage the staff to review and utilize concepts in Watcom County's CAO as it has a great deal of protections and concepts we have brought forth so far. So with the first list um of the staff memo that came to you from the staff today on the CAO were several questions that you were asked to respond to. Our memo to you today was to uh respond to some of those as well. So the first question are is are there any habitats or species that should be considered as additional habitats or species? The answer is yes and we proposed that there be uh at least six additional habitat additions that are in this memo. We also added an additional uh seven species editions that we thought could be added as well as other sources that are best available science that recognize species and there are links to those locations as well. The next question was are there any new or emerging land uses that should be taken into consideration? Yes. And we had um at least oh another seven of those that we thought should be considered. Um so we've also added links in all of that of where you can find additional information. And then the third question was what

kinds of best management practices or restoration activities should be encouraged? We came up with 12. So there's there's more that we think that could be added and looked into. And then the fourth question was how can FOD help facilitate restorative activities. We listed quite a few things there as well as additional best available science links. And the last question was how can connectivity be considered or prioritized. The Washington Habitat connecti connectivity action plan has a whole lot of information. So we encourage you to look at that as well as the information that we put in this memo. I'm sorry. I know it's a lot of pages, but there's a lot of data. And again, our ask is that staff be able to look into this. Thank you.

Thank you. Up next, we have Betsy Norton.

Hi there, commissioners. I am uh my name is Betsy Norton. I live in Olympia and I am the co-chair of the South Sound Bird Alliance Conservation Committee. Um I'm speaking here. We we sent you guys digitally. a whole bunch of suggestions. So, I'm just going to hit a few highlights here. Um, we have many suggestions to strengthen the critical areas ordinance in order to protect ecosystems for wildlife and living conditions for people. We would like to see many of these suggestions incorporated draft of the CO. Uh first we recommend using the best available science and we have links also to US fish and wildlife and WDFW sites for the important um and endangered species and threatened species. Um we in terms of habitat once again we will refer you to US Fish and Wildlife's designated critical habitat. Um, in addition to the four species that are covered in the HCP, there are other endangered species in the county and we think that all of them should be protected. Um I would uh in terms of habitats we would we also call out the three major river systems the dashudes the nqual in the black u black river um systems because it's really important when we're thinking about habitat that we think about water and food safety and also mobility and that's how we live with uh we suggest you might want to integrate the uh wildlife corridors Um, in terms of uh we recommend that you retain native and mature trees, including some down logs and snags on the landscape. And that that sort of thing should be a best management practice priority over allowing removal and planting because that maintains the ecosystems. And there are a whole lot of animals that depend on cavities.

um not just birds, mammals, you know, um and also lizards. Um we encourage you to use dynamic lists of species and habitats because they change over time and with climate change, we expect these lists to change. You know, species are going to migrate in and out and with drought conditions progressing, it may be that other kinds of vegetation need to be um that the vegetation needs are going to adjust. Um, we recommend the CIO's support at a landscape level seasonal migration of birds, terrestrial mammals, and aquatic species. Um, we also recommend a couple of procedural things. One, to track and report on cumulative habitat loss um, from your permitting because we recognize that every time you put a shovel in the ground, we lose habitat. And so, we think it's really important. Biodiversity is really under threat right now. It's very important that we keep a lid on that. Um, and lastly, we just ask that you track and report on the efficacy of the CIOS as

Thank you. Thank you very much. Next up, we have Michelle Bringham.

Hello everyone. My name is Michelle Hawkins. I live outside y Washington. In the recent docket survey proposing to amend the marijuana ordinance, over 80% responded that they did not support the project. Yet, in the brief commentary during the county's work session on April 22nd, this hardly seemed to matter. In fact, as I observed the session, it almost seemed the county had made up their mind in support of the applicant who submitted the proposal. What was the point of this survey where the majority opinion was rejected and the changes were simply to be inserted into title 20? Commissioners could have with insight from past experience and wisdom gained simply withdrawn the proposal. One left the meeting with the distinct feeling county officials were not on the side of rural property owners or listening to their concerns. My neighbors arrived over 20 years after my husband and I had invested tremendous effort in developing developing our property in harmony with the natural surroundings. We are not against the legalization of marijuana, but would have voted otherwise had we known the nightmare Thirstston County was about to invite to our doorstep. Landing department staff were aware at the time that our neighbors had removed timber and leveled almost 3 acres of hillside above a wetland and installed not just one but two large marijuana operations. Craig Chalum informed me there were applications for a tier 2 and a tier three on the property. He then sent me on a wild goose chase to the LCB to learn more. He surely knew the interum ordinance did not allow for two operations on one 10acre property. He was later our neighbors witnessed and testified he had been to the site which meant he had seen the two separate facilities. It was obvious there was no 25 foot setback to the property line or any vegetative screening as required. Other staff told us they had not reviewed files on the property property before signing off on the project. Another stated they knew our neighbors were lying. Other staff reversed their position and removed their authorization once they understood what had been occurring. Our neighbors tried to take all power from our easement and installed six meters. Yet still today, they run four noisy generators to pump

water and power their two homes. Their site plans repeatedly identified the second home as a storage shed. However, as we have continually reported to the county, it is a two-story approximately 2500 square foot still inhabited home near our property line with no approved septic that is potentially contaminating our pre-existing well and ponds. Multiple dog cages have been constructed all over the property with no bark control. whatsoever. And they have now installed nine green houses, seven seven of them 30 ft long with noisy industrial fans. They have a private dump roughly 10 ft high, covering approximately a half acre close to our well and vegetable garden. We were not the only ones impacted by the early marijuana ordinance. One neighborhood experienced their tap water turning brown and running dry in the summer due to a pot farm sharing their community well. Others came back from vacation to find ugly chain lnick fencing and marijuana and garbage visibly close to their home. County records confirm everything we have reported. Property owners near us have been afraid for their children's safety. Yet, the county has shown little concern while stating they support a clean environment and people's right to enjoy their property. Marijuana is still a dream and is dangerous to the development of young brains. It invites crime. It uses copious amounts of water. It stinks and destroys quality of life and the natural environment. Those who have read my book or the many who have seen what occurred next door to us or had similar experiences are concerned. Please carefully consider your decisions on this important topic. I expect going forward I will be adding yet another chapter in this ongoing saga to this book I give each of the commissioners. So I'm going to give five copies for the commissioners the board of commissioners.

Thank you very much. I'm sorry I can't read this last name. It might be

do you remember? Yeah. Thank you. Say that to me. I'm sorry I wrote my name. I'm sorry I couldn't read it. My name is Lee Ryer. I live in Olympia, Washington, a 40-year resident. Um, I love Thirsten County with all our hearts. Uh, we've partaken of the beauty of this incredible place that we live and I just wanted to make some comments regarding the critical area ordinance tonight. Um, recently um, like I said, after living here for 40 years, primary home is Olympia. um went out on the Shahala Western Trail down near 93rd and was biking through that and I saw a lot of areas that should have been wetland because of climate change. Everything is drying up. I saw rivers that are little streams that seem to be drying up. Um, I think we're in a very very difficult problem like right now as you know regarding these critical areas and climate change. It's bringing us to the brink of something. We don't know what's going to come. We know that we're already in what the third or fourth year of drought here in Washington state and a bunch of other states are in drought too. This is not just us. And so we are drying up and we are talking about critical areas. We're talking about habitat for these critters. We're talking about endangered species and preserving endangered species. And we know all the rules and regulations uh behind these rules regarding endangered species. Yet the main driver is this climate change drying everything up. And so my concern is um we've got to look at the habitat. We've got to look at how climate change is affecting these critical areas. Um,

how can we restore uh activities on uh to help these critters that are in the wetlands of that area? Uh I know in Black Lake area all around there spent a lot of time canoeing, paddling, and uh everything's drying up. Where are the ducks going? Where are the uh doesn't seem like there much fish habitat uh out um looking at these streams. I just don't see how the critters are surviving. And so it makes it all the more important to support this critical area planning process and I hope that the past comments made by other uh members of the public will be listened to. So we have still have something left for the next generation because the way we're going now, it does not look good. Thank you very much.

Very much. Is there anybody else in the think Bonnie?

Hello. My name is Bonnie Blessing. I live on the eastern part of Capitol Forest. Um there is a time to till, there's a time to keep. Keep me keep meaning like utterly preserve the pristine. We do have some old forest. We do have some native prairie that is like really nice. there isn't really much left especially in urbanizing areas. I like the idea of corridors and there's a lot of language you know in about that. Um so I'd like to share like examples of three that I keep thinking about. One is that address like what we kind of need to maybe look for in a corridor like appropriate zoning and land use and that sort of thing. Um like one is I really like I think about Bloom's Ditch. Uh it's a east west corridor that that that is already like mostly zoned and the land use seems appropriate for a corridor. It goes almost all the way from Capitol forest almost to JBLM and it has an interesting mix. It has a seems to have appropriate zoning. It's really obvious on LAR because it can be seen it was part of the Tanwax ohhop flood. Um there's old forest there by Miller Sylvania. There's state parks. There's meadows that support a whole bunch of the critters on the existing table. Uh like like if you look at the kestrel, the nighthawk, the luzuli, bunting, metalar, harrier, bitern, uh shortired owl, they kind of like live in tall grasses. Um and there's some of that there. And then it's it there's a lot of water foul um areas that have seasonally flooded areas. And um and then a second one I really like is it's interesting. It's a power line corridor north south from Fish Pond Creek south to Beaver Creek. It even goes further south to uh um like Gate to Belmore where there's a to all the way to Gate and there's pristine marsh and bug. There's farms and the corridor itself seems like it needs to be mowed short suggesting it could be um uh it could be

a butterfly or whatever habitat butterfly and and the bee habitat and you know people don't really want to be there and because it's under a power line there's terrestrial species that need some help um near Black Hills High School and there's a lot of neotropical migrants in the neotrop in the deciduous woodlands Um, another corridor that is um is kind of behind us. We we we've noticed that deer really like to be on deer and even cougar like to be kind of close to urban res I mean rural residential areas. We grow apple trees during birthing. They're finding that a lot of times deer will actually use and actually move towards human areas to kind of have birth because they're protected from hunting and they're protected from um impacts from like uh uh predators that sometimes follow them in. But I think there's an ecoone kind of between these rural residential and and like capital forest. I live in a onetoone lamard, right? and you just did a lot of wildlife north south on the east side of Capitol Forest and I made more notes that maybe I could share with y'all. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Uh with that, we're going to move to our online guest. First up would be Vanessa Lavell.

Good evening. Thank you. My name is Vanessa Lavell and I live on Alpine Drive Southwest. Um, you know, um, animals create and and maintain their habitats just as housekeeping and yard work help maintain our homes and so it's so critical to protect and preserve wildlife and their associated habitats. I'm excited to see work on critical areas ordinance and language is supportive of corridors. And I'd like to second the prior public comments made by um Christy White, Betsy Norton, and Bonnie Blessing. I I would echo a lot of the things they'd say and want to respect your time. So, thank you all for your work on this critical issue.

Thank you very much. Is there anybody else online that would like to address the planning commission? If so, just raise your hand and we'll promote you. Lor Loretta Sepin. Yeah.

Um hello, hello commissioners. Um, thank you for the opportunity to uh talk to you tonight. I'm Loretta Stephan and I'm speaking about the CEO issue that's on our table today. I do want to support what uh is in Christy White's email and from the Bird Alliance Conservation Committee and from uh Bonnie's uh comments especially about corridors. Um I have two specific requests. Um uh one is a process request first and and this is about the overall process not tonight's specific topic. At your last meeting staff gave you an updated calendar and it included a gap analysis on each and every critical area. I ask you to ask staff for more about that gap analysis. Typically a gap analysis is what happen at the early part of a project and it'd be long before you write code for sure. And uh I understand however that we're going to get our second round of code at the same day that we're going to get the gap analysis. So uh ask the staff about will this gap analysis uh late that comes late in the process really inform codew writing or does it have a different function and what kind of tools are going to be used and can those tools be shared with the whole community ahead of time. My second uh request relates to my I'm thinking about as everybody's been talking about the whole issue of um protecting species and my mind is going to habitat. I can remember that for years in the state of Washington. We had these big fights about salmon viability and is it because so and so is fishing too much or is it

because these hatchery fishes are bad? And finally we decided well no as a matter of fact it's because the habitat is degraded and that's kind of a common belief now. So we don't want habitat degradation to happen in our critical areas. So I'm urging us to focus in on habitat um not degrading habitat when these construction projects are proposed. And I'm thinking about the way that habitat conservation plan works where if a land owner can put their um efforts on the part of the property that is not where their habitat would be destroyed, then they get a very low fee for doing that project. If they want to go all the way and make them uh go into the area and destroy some habitat, they have to pay more. And in this case, if they had to get a reasonable use exception, I think a mandatory easement that purchases uh land other than on the applicant's property that's of similar size and and quality is the best approach to mitigate uh that habitat loss. So I thank you for um um considering my ideas that we learn the why and the how of this uh late in the process gap analysis and second that we focus a lot on habitat protection. Thank you very much.

Thank you Miss Stephen. Is there anybody else online that would like to address the planning commission? And everybody in the room has had an opportunity. All right. Well, then we'll move on to the next portion of our agenda, which is the uh uh public comment debrief. I guess we'll just turn this over to staff. Before we could I ask um they referenced an email that was sent today and I checked my email and I don't see a copy of my came in about 3:00. I checked my So, did it did it just go to the chair? Did it go to all of us? I miss it somehow. Do we know who sent it? Sent it. Let me look real quick. 252

and to everybody. I see your name on the list. Yeah. So, what's the name of the sender? Planning Commission. Got a deliverable for you, Daniel, and for Sandy Jenny.com. Still getting emails. Was the attachment very large? There were several. Oh, message size. Yeah, it was. So, we just we oversize the attachments and that's why I don't have it. Okay. This is like I I would normally review all the the emails and stuff. Okay. Yeah, I can maybe just break it up and send it.

Has a compression feature, but I'll do some research. See if we can make those smaller files. Well, I hope you guys do get a chance to uh read those because the comments from both uh Miss White and Miss Norton were extensive and good. There's a lot of really good stuff in there. I I don't know if you guys did you get much of a chance to go through their stuff yet. I haven't had time to read in depth, but having looked through and seeing like the work that went into them, yeah, I think this is like an immensely helpful comment and can definitely as long as it's consistent with direction from the planning commission be informative.

I I would like to to see you guys take this stuff and see how well it can be incorporated into what we're already doing. And I think there's a lot of really good stuff in there that certainly deserves our attention. Does anybody have any um issues or I guess I guess I'm going to ask for a uh temperature check on this. I can't speak to it. I haven't seen it. So,

well, with such a thin margin on the on a quorum, I would hope that you would still be able to look at this and then we would give you more official um thumbs up on doing this at our next particular meeting. But I hopefully you can look out a little bit between now and then.

Yeah, I think I definitely I think without more clear direction I would just start nominating new species of local importance and going as so far as doing like that without the full direction. But um I think a lot of what's in here from what I have seen of it is really consistent with the best available science and can just like help us build some more informative code work. And then if we run up on anything that feels more like a true policy decision from the planning commission, we can always bring that back when we come talk about these chapters again, like once we have code drafts and stuff, if there's if the issues in these comments raise more policy oriented questions, we'll bring that back to you guys. Commissioner Pinger.

Thank you, Chair. uh since we last met. Um well, I'm commenting in regard to what it seems like enormous amount of public comment about uh both wildlife corridors and habitat protection. Um and I brought up at the last meeting stuff about, you know, declining bird populations and declining bee populations and bug populations and whatnot. Don't didn't have exact references to quote. We don't have exact um species that are considered uh endangered, but we know we have overall big big problems in these areas. Um just since we last met, there was a news report on one of the broadcast news channels here in the Seattle area that said that they did study for 19 years. I believe the group is called Birds Connect Seattle, and they studied the parks around the Seattle area. and they for the last 19 years they have experienced a 21% decline in diversity of birds. Um they speculated in that news report that the number one reason was the reduction in the decline of the bug populations. Um they mentioned quite a bit about habitat being so critical and important and they've lost tons of habitat. So, I'm still wanting for us to have some elements of protectiveness of habitat for each of these types of animals, types of uh critters as some people have referred to. Um, and do we have anything for Thirstston County that we can study about uh pro protection of habitat for the bugs, bees, and birds?

Um, I think generally speaking, um, I want to tack back to Lanna's comment, um, and the anecdote about salmon. And that is again, that is generally speaking, that's best practice. When we're thinking about protecting species, we really want to think about their their habitats. That's also something that the critical areas ordinance does pretty well. Um it doesn't do things to use uh Loretta's metaphor. Um you know we wouldn't for example uh it would be difficult for us to manage hatchery practices um as a way through critical areas ordinances. Um you might be able to decide where you could you know which which types of environments they're best suited for. um you'd probably get preempted by the SMP and having it be a water dependent use, but um so there are things that the CIO can and can't do. Um habitat protection is a really good tool that the CIO helps us with. Um but again, if we try and get into the it's much harder for us to decide like you know, for example, you know, what types of pesticides people could use in a critical area. this is really a you know this is a this is a development regulation um less not as much a you know how we manage specific practices on the landscape. So that's a little bit harder. I think the some of the things that we saw today um I'm looking at Miss White's uh proposals on habitat additions. I think these actually line up pretty well with things that would either already be protected or things that we're thinking very carefully about how to incorporate. Um I know we had a we had a long conversation as you know internally as staff about how we uh protect our prairies and oaks and transition areas. Uh we literally drew a

gradient on a whiteboard this week uh talking about what types of different um different habitats we'd be we'd be looking to protect. So I would say that a lot of this great to hear.

Yeah. Is uh is really none of this feels like an earthshattering change of direction um from kind of where I would say the process is naturally moving. Um there are definitely some details we can add in. Um we are thinking about how we um like where our wildlife corridors would probably be. Um I think Miss Blessing suggestions are really um useful thinking about kind of large migration corridors as well. And then the question is like what kinds of what kinds of development restrictions would that give you? Like maybe no 8 foot tall fences, those types of things.

Yeah. Can I ask a follow- on question?

Sure. So, um, wildlife corridors, I've also been following that topic closely in the last few weeks, and a lot of good stories have been coming up about other locations and successes they've had there. The most recent one I saw was about a big one um that cost like a lot of money, maybe a hundred million, at at least 27 million. Um, but they felt like it was incredibly successful and was working very well. Um, I saw some stuff about a gigantic wildlife corridor that they are calling Yukon to Yoseite. I'm sorry, Yukon to Yellowstone. And it's they think they're going to have to build over 200 uh wildlife passages over roads to to get it back to where they want it to be openwise. Um, this is primarily for bears. bear habitat. It used to go all the way down the Rocky Mountains from the Yukon, well, from the North Pole, all the way down to central Mexico. Um, now it barely reaches into northern United States in Montana. Um, so they're trying to really increase the habitat there. And it made me think, you know, here we are along the Cascade Mountain Range and also we've got the Olympic Mountain Range. Thirsten County is in a weird place. We're not exactly a key element in the Cascade Mountain Range passages, but are we, as Bonnie Blessing described, are we do we have critical um a habitat um transfer from in between the Cascade Mountains and the Olympic Mountains?

Yeah, we do. Um I want to say this would have been I think right at the beginning of the comprehensive plan we had folks from was it conservation northwest and fish and wildlife um came and talked about uh corridor plans in the region and one of the identified areas is um essentially in Maytown and for big game crossing from the Cascades to the Olympics. But yeah, we are at a actually very critical u migration hub between the Cascades and some of the uh some of the coastal populations and also the Olympics. So Southwest Washington coastal.

Cool. Well, I would strongly support anything we can do to to help in that area. And then one last question uh related to all this habitat destruction. I saw a news article in the Olympian uh recently about a development in the Tumbwater UG that's looking to build 100 plus units um and it was headlined with the story but will uh cut out a large amount of heritage trees and did anyone read that article? Do we know what that is? Do you all know what that project is? Are you talking about the housing project in the the Tomwater UG? Yeah, that's what I said. Yeah, I know which one you're talking about.

It's what? It's like a 30-ish houses, single family homes. They want to put in over like 10 acres, 268. Yeah. Yeah. 168 bigger. About how they can't pres large tree in the center.

Yeah. When they get to the details about the large trees, even the one that's in there that's like 250 to 300 years old, they say, "No, we can't save that one. We're cutting it all down." They're destroying every single heritage tree in there. I think there were 56 of them and they're destroying about 90% of the other large trees in the area. Uh that is just shocking to me and all I want to know is do we as a planning commission did this come across our path like five years ago or more recently or further back or never? My understanding is

that be a city of twater issue. UG. It's UG. Um, so it's technically right now it would be Thirsten County's code, but our uh UG codes are pretty only at the presubmission conference stage. Could you say that again, please? It's only at the presubmission conference stage. Okay. That's with 363 landmark trees and 24 heritage trees. I saw the the article that one just leaving a what is the name of that development please

or the name of the project as it was submitted I just remember the name of the planner or the consultant

and I I saw a lot of commentary online that was upset that it was destroying the royal character and I do acknowledge that it is UG like it is designed to be where new capacity for the city develops. Um but yeah, I feel like we should be able to do that in a way that doesn't fell a bunch of heritage trees. Exactly. And I think this goes straight to since we've got joint plans coming up, this goes straight to the county's memorandum of understanding. County commissioners wiped their hands on this as far as I'm concerned. Yeah.

Because they've said and we've been told as a planning commission, too bad. Now, this may or may not make sense to us, but I mean, the fact is that we're we've been told on several occasions that we're going to do what the city of Tom wants in the UG. I

I think that has historically been true, but I also believe that that's changing. when when I was watching the work session that CPED did with the board on some of the docket stuff, um the commissioners were expressing an interest in holding back some of those particular decisions. Um Commissioner Mener specifically cited some of our tree regulations as wanting to to keep those back. So I think when you guys went through docket, he was giving direction that we need to we need to articulate some of the things that we're going to hold on to and not just accept whole cloth from the cities. Yeah, that was that was pretty clear in the board's direction. Yeah.

Uh we anticipated probably getting similar direction here. Yeah. So uh it's definitely definitely on our radar. The Yeah. tree protections in the UGS. Yeah. um during joint code updates is something we anticipated needing to talk about.

I think there was about half a dozen things that have been brought up so far and um but I I don't want to discount the fact that in prior planning we almost wholly adopted the city's development codes and I I do believe that going forward it's not going to be done in such a grand fashion. The other thing is you know for example if we do did something like uh you know dot by reference the city's codes for the UGS they are consistently updating like I think all of them right now are in the middle of a tree code update

so we would expect that their new tree protection codes would probably will most likely be more more protective than what we're currently applying in the UG. So, this is a tricky one though. Well, it would have to be because we're currently applying in the UG their old code. So, their new code if it's more protective would definitely be more protective. Oh, I was going to say it's the Tina company. So, my brother and his wife actually uh recently moved into the the development and so I asked him and he said it was AMH development that is doing all the tum water. Who was it? Family. AMH

AMH I think that's the contractor the the people putting the plan ahead according to the Olympian is the Tanino Land Company LLC but it's it's all it's all pre-approval at this point it's presubmission I thought yeah they they they literally the by the fourth the was it the auditor or the assessor had to had to an answer to the hearing it was the um The dem the development is in the process of delay cannot handle delay or revision preliminary plat if approved. Developer still needs to get approval for a civil construction plan before anything can begin. Okay. So we don't even have pre-approval on that.

It's all Yeah, I understand why people are upset, but it's still quite early in the process. It sounds like I guess my question or comment about all this is and I'm I'm thrilled to hear if we are getting better at how we're dealing with this on multiple fronts, but you know, right now we're talking about critical area ordinance and habitat protection. And I'm just asking the question in what we're doing right now, what should we do that will make this better in any way going forward?

It might not fix this exact thing, but it I'm talking about addressing the next ones that want to be developed like this. I think that the current goal and Derek correct me if this has changed is to adopt by reference city CAOs in the joint plans for UG. So that city I think it's zoning housing and critical areas will all be adopted by reference. Is that right?

And subdivision won't be adopting the CAOs for the shoreline just given the S&P and ecologies feedback on that. Um, so that's the current direction for joint planning as far as the CEO goes. So as we talk about this CEO, I think that's that is relevant to the conversation here in that we're really thinking about rural uses when we're thinking about this CIO, which does, I think, give us, you know, a little more flexibility because we are competing a little bit less with that more urgent development need that the UG's have in the county. Um, obviously we do still have development types that are necessary in the county. Um, but that's just something to consider as we talk about CAO for sure.

That's a great point. How can we do it better in the county than they do it in the UG?

Right now, it's us doing it in the UG. Um, so we would hope to do it better in the UG's under um under the city's codes and I think they would be again this is it's a difficult place where you're really trying to balance um in the UG's that those are those are identified and designed to accommodate people. Um that's that's the goal and the the less development that we have in the UG the more pressure it puts on the county. And we'll may recall that the uh the way that we set up the comp plan, we didn't do a hard 5% target. We did a softer target that we're going to try and do things like reduce the restrictiveness of development in UG so that we can hit a 5% goal um more broadly. So, um, no, I don't think anybody loves to see trees come down. Um, but at some level, houses need to go somewhere. It's not to say that they're always as carefully planned as they could be. Um, and I think the way that generally development happens. There's a, you know, how many how many slices can we cut the subdivision up into? Um, and then secondary considerations for things like how you maintain um any trees on the site and how you do storm water because I think this one specifically um I think the comments were from the developer that they were going to need they were going to specifically I think speaking to the the bigger 72inch breast height Doug fur um they were going to lose it to storm water u

to storm water storm water infrastructure

which um if you go all the way back to the beginning of your development planning, um, which we don't always require people to do. Um, you can probably find a way to manage storm water and build at the kind of density that you're looking for. It's a really common misconception that trees and storm water are actually in conflict. Um, the more trees you keep, the less storm water you have to manage. Like you literally get credits for maintaining trees on your site. Um but it's a really simple kind of predictable development system when you you know clear site you put retention detention ponds in um and you build around those. I think that's a very common like rinse and repeat development pattern.

Yeah. So the the company proposing it uh first formed back in 2006 was administratively dissolved then reformed in 2017 largely focused around this. Um, looks like they are based in Tanino and Todd Hansen is the

the driving force behind the project. It's 104 homes they're looking to build. Sorry, 105 homes. And the other part that's also tricky with developments like these and trying to keep, you know, a heritage, like if imagine you want to keep one of those uh specific trees, they do rely on the the broader ecosystem and long history of Yep. let's save this tree. They work around a tree, build a whole development around it, and it, you know, it falls a couple years later.

Yeah. Commissioner Pier, do you have anything else on this topic? Well, no. I mean, I I appreciate we're making efforts. I wish we trade harder, but I get what we're up against. Okay. Uh, let's continue on with our um public comment debrief.

Just really quickly, just to, you know, to tie it back to the public comment debrief, uh, Miss Stephan did talk about um this HCP style kind of mitigation. Um it's a pretty standard mitigation sequencing and then if you can't do it you you know you have to u either uh protect inkind property or pay for its protection. Um that is something you could apply to trees and um this type of a situation is a perfect example of where you could do that. like if you can't maintain them on site, how are you going to maintain them somewhere else in the in the on the broader landscape? Like maybe we build a tree mitigation bank that says, you know, if you do have to take down these trees, you could possibly uh protect them elsewhere. But certainly the devil is in the details there. But that almost would then assume that there is an infinite amount of legacy trees and that they are all interchangeable. And I think that we'd get great push back from that idea.

Well, I don't think it necessarily says that, but the functions that those trees provide.

Um, if we don't start trying to protect it now, um, you know, we'd look back 200 years from now and be like, why didn't those people do it back then? Um, so there is a there is a like a a long long timeline view of it. Um, yeah. So they're and you know they're providing different functions in human habitat spaces than they are in more pristine spaces. So you can you can provide for some of those those human health and well-being values in a way that's different than you need for like full habitat function. So you can kind of take full habitat function, protect it somewhere else. So, um, as they're chopping down all the trees, do you know if, um, they're doing anything with the wildlife, like because the deer, bears, everything, they they have to go somewhere. And so, if they're just chopping them down, then what is happening to the wildlife?

It's worth noting, I've actually looked at the plot on on Google Earth. It's not like this is just a forest plot. It it has uh two homes and like six out buildings on it right now. And a large part of it is just yard grass. There's a large density of trees on the side and back of the property. And that's where that big guy is at. Um and there's the one big tree in the middle which is I think largely yard around it right now from what I can tell from the Google satellite imagery. Um the developer said that um well it sounds like they have a consultant Brett Burrs with JSA Civil who's the one who did the engineering and believe that the tree need to come down. So it's probably who needs to be talked to about it.

Huh. I wonder if anybody here has a relationship with him. I but yeah I this is very early and it sounds like the developer doesn't want to kick off all of it their neighbors and the comment here says um I just like to say the project has been designed to meet requirements of thirst county we feel that it does we're obviously hopeful that we can contribute as a neighborhood and community um the project will change the charact yeah a lot of folks are concern concerned about the changing character which that's UG like it's going to gain density Um, they did get comment from someone from the planning.

Well, I think we need to worry not just about the specific development, but what what we're going to do are we going to treat the UG significantly different than we treat the rural areas and to a certain degree we have to.

Yeah. Because density, that's where it needs to go. Ideally, that in the city centers, not in rural county. Are you thinking that if we did set up some sort of banking system that those would interchange between UG's and the rural county? Like if you want to take down half a dozen legacy trees in the UG, you better pick up a dozen trees in the county. That's probably the That's a I'd say it would likely be a It probably wouldn't be within UG's because then you're just pushing the development pressure around. Um it would make more sense in my mind to have it be a you know, if you're going to have to cut down these trees in the UG, maybe you you are, you know, helping compensate for uh protection in an upper watershed area. You could actually take,

if you think about it that way too, you might be able to protect trees that are more environmentally important. So, you know, a legacy tree in an upper watershed is going to have a much bigger impact than one further down in the in the system where most of ours are. Anything else we wanted to touch on? No, I'm glad you brought up Loretta's stuff because that was where I wanted to go. But looking forward to reading the comments.

Do you want to um touch on the decisions for the docket for marijuana? Um I can't speak to those specifically other than they did get uh kind of rolled under I think it was the title 20 update. So that decision by the board was to roll marijuana. Off the top of my head, Anna would be much better suited than she and I think she's talking about docket, right? Yeah. So that'll be Oh, okay. presentation. Okay. So we'll hit that later one day.

Is there anything else on debrief that you thought we should touch? maybe um about the timing of the gap analysis and code update or code job proposals. Yeah. So there were questions about what was it the uh the gap analysis going to come out at the same time as the next round of code will it inform the next round of code or

we'll do both essentially so the way that I'm envisioning the workflow for this is there's some code chapters that you have already seen one draft of for that the specific gap analysis work will essentially be like an audit of how we got the the changes that we made and a double check of that. Um the gap analysis is really the effort of showing our work in writing in a way that other people that's transparent that is on the record um so that there's a record uh and it's clear how we arrived to the decisions that we did based on the best available science. So, it's an it's another step that we wanted to take, I think, in response to public feedback and also just on reflection of the process so far um to make sure that the decision-m process for the changes we're implementing is transparent. Um so, for some of them, it'll be a little bit retroactive. So, we'll be looking both at, you know, gaps in the current code and then making sure that the changes that have already been made align with that. If they don't, we can make edits or changes. Um and then you know continuing forward with new drafts based on the work in the graph draft gap analysis sorry uh for new chapters that you haven't seen yet there's essentially a best available science review process that turns into codewriting which is something that we've already done for a couple chapters and haven't done yet for other chapters. So we'll get the chance to sort of do that showing your work portion as the that first draft is being written. So for some of the chapters that have already come, it'll happen basically on for the second draft of that code. Uh and for some of them we'll get a chance to do the gap analysis for the first draft of the code. Um and so whatever the final draft that's presented is there will be a clear essentially matrix indicating what changes are made and why and based on whether it's policy direction um public

input input best available science um and just have that documented.

Okay. Um to back up to Miss Norton's one uh her comments, are we going to be is there going to be a cumulative impact tracking or efficacy analysis that will be incorporated into CAO that will be public facing? um at this point no but what we are working on so we got about uh just under half million dollars from the department of commerce to build a u basically a net ecological gain assessment framework. So this is not something anybody's doing uh way way way out on the the bleeding edge. Um, but what we're doing is we're working with the Thirsten Conservation District to build out a countywide ecosystem scale tracking system where we want to be able to track uh functions and values from the CAO, from the critical areas from habitat conservation plans, uh, salmon recovery, um, whole host of different uh, different different authorities that we manage and are supposed to be hitting these kind of no net loss. cost targets um which are which are pretty hard to hit. But we're building out this this framework. U I wouldn't say that it's something that's going to be included in this. Uh this is something we're going to spend a couple years and you know half a million dollars just building a framework um on

have you identified all the metrics you'll be tracking yet or not yet. We can provide updates. Uh so we don't have a a system to you know to make this publicly available at this point. It's like we're literally negotiating agreements brand new brand new um with the thirst and conservation district and department of commerce. But if this is the kind of thing that I think the planning commission would be a good place to bring kind of some of the the big updates through. I think that'd be great.

Consider it done. We'll put it on the agenda. I think All right. Does anybody else have anything for our public comment debrief? Okay, we're going to move on to the next item on our agenda. New business work session number 14, dryland fish and wildlife habitat conservation area discussions and best available science. I believe Claire, that's you. Yeah. So today we're coming back for the second part of our fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. This is focusing more on terrestrial habitats. So last time we talked about um more riparian and aquatic. So that's looking at fish habitat, streamside and riverside habitat. Um and this is focused more on the other areas that are on mostly dry land. um that are also fall under this kind of broad category of our fifth critical area which is fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. So we'll look at we'll retouch on the definition of this specific critical area. Um introduce kind of what types of things fall under this designation because it's a lot of different things. This is kind of different than some of the other critical areas where they're one defined unit. This is a lot of different habitat types and species um that come from a big list from the state um and in our code. Uh we'll talk about interfacing with climate change, the types of protection strategies that we use. And for this one, I really want to talk it's a little more straightforward to talk maybe about a protection framework. um because a lot of the specific management detailed practices are like like I'd said there's so many different types of habitats that fall under um this designation and then we'll have time for discussion. So here's the big definition and again

this is the definition for all fish wildlife habitat conservation areas. So that's aquatic, terrestrial. Um, regardless, they are essentially areas that provide necessary habitat and ecosystem functions to endangered or threatened species. Um, including things that come from state and federal lists, though the federal species are covered by the HCP. Um, and things that the county itself has designated as things of local importance. So even if the state doesn't list it, we do have the ability to institute protections. Um, and I know that came up in our public comments as well. So, this is our list from the state. These are the habitat types that the state gives us to protect. That's they say these are present in thirst county and we should have regulations to support and protect them. So, aspen stands, biodiversity areas and corridors, herbaceous balds, which are kind of similar to prairies. They they have a little there's some details that are different about them. um old growth and mature forest, organ white oak woodlands, the westside prairies, caves, cliffs, snags and logs, and talis, which I had to research when I read that one. Um, but it is uh piles of like varied rocky areas usually at the base of cliffs. So, it's like big piles of rock rubble that a lot of different species like to hang out in. uh in our code currently we also discuss uh organ white oak savas. So the states list focus more on woodlands specifically. These are different stages on that continuum between prairie and forest that organ white oaks tend to kind of disperse themselves across. So when they're a lot more prairie leaning like there's just one or two trees in a a large more grassland area that's more of a oak savannah as opposed to a woodland would be a slightly denser concentration of trees. Um, our code also supports the protection of individual trees that that exhibit

particular habitat values. Um, so particularly older trees or trees with um features that we know species like to use like large um cavities and things like that. Uh we also talk about cottonwood flood planes which are unique to the Nquali River area. uh and springs and seeps uh which I believe support a species of pigeon um and are sometimes related to wetlands but these are forested areas where groundwater is is coming springing up out of the ground. So each of these habitats on the various lists they all have their own kind of specific functions and values. In general, those encompass things like providing shelter or refuge to a protected species, uh places where food sources for species exist, breeding, nesting or or even migrating areas for different species, um protecting water quality and providing things like shade as well, especially that when it comes to trees. So, most of our species, which is a long list, so I don't have the entire list in the presentation. Um the the resource to look at for this if you want to dive a little bit deeper into what's on the list from the state it is called priority habitats and species or the PHS list and they have a Excel Excel spreadsheet that lists out how they're distributed by different counties. Um so most of our terrestrial species pretty much rely on either prairie habitat or mature forest habitat. Um, so to speak first to the mature forest part, um, a lot of that habitat is existing in areas that are essentially outside of the CAO, um, and are being managed more at the state level um, through state forest practice rules and their state forest practice habitat conservation plan. So, they have their own HCP um, to help manage forest. There's some forestry related actions that are covered by the

CAO when people come to us for class 4 forestry um and conversion option harvest plans which are essentially uses converting a property away from forestry rather than doing regenerative forestry like for commercial purposes. Um th this is where it comes into county jurisdiction. And so our tree preservation code applies generally or something like our subdivision code which talks about trees and landscaping. Um and the CAO applies. So a lot of our rare and threatened species rely on prairie habitat. Um and also three out of four of our HCP species which the CAO does default totally to the HCP for the specific protection of those species. But there's so much like the ecology of the region doesn't know the difference between our CAO and our HCP. So we have to make sure we we fill in the gaps where gophers and butterflies and birds are prairie species and they get protections but there are other elements of prairie environments that the CAO can kind of step in and help protect as well um that aren't just exclusively focused on three specific species. So, the prairie itself is a state listed habitat. Um, and this region has lost a massive, massive amount of prairies. A lot of Thirstston County, I would say probably a majority of it, especially in the lowland areas, um, was prairie at one point. And it was specifically maintained that way since time immemorial through indigenous essentially land stewardship practices. Um, that primarily involved controlled burning as a as a major point. Um, and with the loss of that, um, dug fur forests and similar types of landscapes have actually encroached in on prairies. And I believe that prairie makes up about 3% of the county now. Um, so it is there's there's been a significant loss of this ecosystem here.

So to kind of keep elaborating on on that human impact side, um so a lot of the species and I think this was highlighted in public comment as well that we have lost or that have become endangered or threatened. This is primarily a function of habitat loss. Um and this is again uh changes in patterns of land stewardship and land development um postc colonization. Um, we also have much younger trees and forests now because our forests were harvested so massively with the arrival of European settlers to the region. Um, and then yeah, where we have those young forests, they have also encroached onto prairie areas. Um, we also lose biodiversity oftentimes with development with things like impervious area or large monoculture. Um, so like big lawns essentially are very much much less biodiverse than prairies. prairies are massively bio biodiverse uh when they're allowed to flourish. Uh and then connectivity. I know that's been a an important topic um to the commission. Um the kind of fracturing of lands by development and by infrastructure. I mean so much habitat connectivity work is actually focused on um allowing animals to cross highways. Um and that's not necessarily something that's going to be our jurisdiction. That's a wash dot level project. Um but there's other disruptions in connectivity that we can address trying to um prioritize the protection of connected open space. Um especially this is one of those things where the CAO can kind of back up the HCP. Some of those HCP species like the Taylor's checker spot butterfly doesn't move very far and so it can't really spread out as well to new habitat if there's not continuous prairie. It doesn't go very far from the prairie environment. Um, and that's true for other species that need open space to travel through as well.

So, the specific strategies that we can use kind of they vary for species and habitat. The recommendations, the best management practices, how it makes sense to sort of identify and protect the habitat is different for each one. But generally what we'd like to do um is set a clear framework like we do with the other critical areas where we designate and have specific screening tools for these areas. So for example for prairies we have a historic prairie range data layer that could be really helpful for both um protecting existing prairies and encouraging prairie restoration in the right places. Um ver and then have a set a process for verifying and delineating. So this is that stage in critical areas where someone is getting a report or a site visit. We somehow know specifically where it is. We confirmed that that critical area is there based on the information from the screening tool so that we know how to protect it. Uh and then prescribing protections and we touched on this a little bit earlier I think in you know they need to follow mitigation sequencing. So having people avoid developing um and then minimize impacts if they can't avoid and then um we could do something like mitigation efforts which could be management practices and could also be mitigation banking. Um we talked a you touched on this with the trees but it's also something that could apply to something like prairies especially because we already know that the county owns land where prairie habitats are being restored for HCP species. Um, so a mitigation bank for prairie protection could help bolster essentially that effort and and get more value out of the effort to restore land that the county already owns. Um, so that's one point to consider. Um, in general, we'd want to consider performance standards, minimization options, and conservation incentives. I

think another issue that we see come up um is that people see it as a disadvantage to have protected species on their property. I mean, we had this issue with the Mazba pocket gopher with the HCP. We had this issue with Oregon White Oaks where people would rather destroy that environmental feature on their property than have it and protect it because they see it as a liability to their property value or their ability to develop. So, I'm hopeful that we can get creative about ways to make this a positive thing for people to have these important parts of our local ecology on their property and to be stewards of them. So, yeah, uh these are the starting discussion questions that I have. Um are there are we interested in designating any additional species or habitats of local importance? Um, one thing that I wanted to throw out that I have thought of, um, for consideration is that the MMA mounds aren't currently, um, listed, doesn't

that's strange. They're pretty distinct, both the heritage and environmental feature of the area. It might be like a heritage feature, but not Yeah, that might be it though. They're not under this. They're under heritage. Well, yeah.

I I was kind of hoping that you could talk to us. What are the boundaries of calling something of local importance that deserves protection? Because I I I can't imagine we could say something like mostly red feral tabies are of local importance. So, we can't do anything. We have to protect their habitat. There has to be something there that I maybe not so much as like their ESA listed, but there has to be some nexus to why we want to protect them and there has to be limits on that, isn't there? I don't I don't think there are necessarily hard limits, but I do think that there would be like something in the record to justify.

You'd need some sort of reasonable justification for it. Like I really like mostly red feral tabies. Well, if the community showed up and said they all love if the planning a majority of the planning commission if a quorum decided I think that's that's part of it too is that it would be some you know it would be a clear policy direction be the type of thing you'd have a motion on and um but yeah I I can do more research into it definitely before anything goes into code. I don't know off the top of my head if there are specific requirements for how things get listed. Um,

I guess the kind of tangential to that or maybe not even so tangential is on the habitat end habitat would imply that there's a species that's using it. But in the ma mounds, we don't know if that's providing habitat to any particular species of importance. So, does a habitat can we have areas that aren't habitat, but we want to protect those for reasons other than its habitat? I I may be misspeaking, but I think that the like the Maya Mountains actually do provide a specific habitat function in the prairies

mostly for butterflies. I looked it up. There's 12 protected species that they use it. It's state protected. Um specific boundaries of it are state protected. Okay. So, it's not doesn't look like it's a thirsten county protection. We could definitely Yeah. Well, add Yeah. Yeah, I know. We have obviously our large like park that protects a big swath of the MS, but they do occur in places outside. So, if we wanted to try to protect like as an example, Gary Oaks, would you do it by species or would you go through and try to pinpoint where they are and then call that habitat on the parcel they're on or how does that work?

This is actually a great question because I pretty much have this exact question for the planet. Um, currently individual Gary oaks or Oregon white oaks can be designated at they are designated as a protected habitat. So the tree itself is a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area that gets delineated with its drip line and that like any critical the tree is the habitat. The tree is the habitat. Okay, that's how the current code functions

is that stands of Gary Oaks or individual ones can be designated as habitat and some of it I think is up to staff discretion at least in the way I read the code. I don't know exactly how the implementation always goes but um like that the tree has a particular habitat value but the tree can be habitat in our current code and be protected as such. Um and it is I think a fairly unique approach. Um, and you know people there I think people are not accustomed to it because usually tree protections have kind of a way that they function which is you can take down a tree in an area if it's if it can't be avoided and then replant. Um, and some of that is harder to apply when the tree itself is habitat in a critical area. So, that is a question I would kind of pose back to the commission is what direction would you like to see us go as far as protecting Oregon white oaks? Um, should we retain the ability to designate an individual tree as protected habitat or is there a way to manage that that doesn't sacrifice protection but also allows people to have the flexibility they need to do things like build homes?

I don't feel like I'm qualified to answer that. Whichever way the commission wants to go, you might want to dial in some more specificity because right now the trees are a species. They're a habitat of local importance. Individual trees in close proximity to larger oak habitats can be considered um important habitat, but there's probably room to tighten that up. A lot of same thing with the my mouth interpretation. They're listed as habitat for the western meadowark, which is a species of local importance in our CAO. Um, and my mounds shall be preserved to the greatest practical extent as determined by the review authority. Did that did that happen in conjunction? We were trying to protect the metal arc and that's how we protected the my mountains.

Um, I don't remember but that all that stuff is in the current CAO and I know it's something that they struggle with implementation today. So, it's something that how whichever way the county ends up going could stand to and it in a in a way it also has created uh some perverse incentives for people as far as like if a tree is of a not yet reached a certain size it's not protected and that's created now harvested before it becomes an anchor that's happening. Yeah. Yeah. That is the incentive that the current system creates. That's and bad.

One of one of the things that I think and this is it it's a habitat protection that functions like a species like a specific species protection.

Yeah. And um at at some point you you kind of almost lose the there's a point at which you you aren't really focused on what kind of landscape form or function landscape form or function you're trying to create. So we might have areas where those where you you might want something that's like a transitional savannah between prairie and oak woodlands. And right now we don't have a system where you could actively manage to create that because you have protections for the individual oaks. But if we had more of a a vision for what we're trying to what kind of habitat and ecosystem form you're trying to create in certain areas, it would give us a better we'd be much better suited to trying to specify what people are allowed to do as far as developing and also managing their land. So, we might want to like in the list that we had from uh Christie, half of the things were things that you would want to keep people from doing and half of the things were things you want to make sure that people can do without restriction to protect um habitat. right now. You know, we've talked to land managers uh from DFW who are trying to restore wet prairies and they can't because of our critical areas because of the riparian buffers we put on them and they can't restore wet prairie. They can't get the Doug furs out and replant books.

They don't know the right arborists. Maybe

I was just going to So, we we asked you know what counts as a species. I guess my follow-up question, what counts as a habitat? So, apparently a tree, a single tree can count as a habitat, but can the transitional spaces on the edges of prairies that you were describing be considered or defined as a habitat? The tree that's not usually the way that habitat works. Um, a tree can provide a habitat function, but usually you zoom out and you're looking at something that looks more like an ecosystem. Um, of course you can have little ecosystems within trees, but you're usually zooming out and trying to protect protect something at more of a landscape scale.

Yeah. And we could describe essentially that priority to forest continuum and talk about what's appropriate for each um like especially if we're doing something like prescriptive like management or um performance standards for development where um or planting standards. So sure, you can develop this property based on the area that you're in. We'd expect to see about one Gary Oak per acre or that's an example. I don't know exactly, but and and be able to define kind of those areas and yeah, zoom out on more of a flexible and landscape and and kind of management practiceoriented scale. That's what I was thinking because like it sounds like right now we're both not prescriptive enough and too prescriptive depending on the scenario and that's honestly a little perplexing and it sounds like maybe we've been a little too well we haven't done used systems thinking when we we implemented a lot of this probably because we focused on individual issues at a time that's why you end up with a bunch of

usually a challenge with the tree choking out the trees you want but you can't do anything about them or you know yeah and that's something we'd like to address too is to be a little bit more proactive about the ability to do prairie restoration which I think like it can be challenging to consider that removing trees is restoration work but in this region in a lot of places it is and it needs to be done appropriately and in conjunction with sound prairie management practices something we'd like to allow land managers to do

this came up when we talked about the tree study during comp plan because like I think sometimes we overly fixate on trees as carbon sinks, not realizing that like the 4 meter deep like roots of a prairie do as much carbon sequestration as or more than a tree. 30 30 times more 30 feet. Oh, 30 feet down. I said I think fire resistant because it's underground. It's true. If we were able to using the Garyio as an example, keep it as habitat and protect it as habitat, but then that tree dies

somehow from a creative arborist or just natural life cycles. Um, holes showed up. Would we be able to maybe write in something there to get rid of the per burst incentive that if the tree disappears, you still have a 10-year moratorum on any building development? That's not a bad idea. I mean, it won't stop someone who's super thinking along ahead, but most developers aren't thinking that far ahead.

Not 10 years. It's like that plot of land is still habitat because who knows if a seedling's going to come up. Well, I don't know how you would justify it, but somehow make it so we get rid of the perverse incentive to get rid of the small trees or to get rid of the trees in the most awkward development position to keep them from having accidents. I like that. That's good creative thinking. What are what are your thoughts on a I'm wondering if CEO can impose a development moratorum. I know our tree protections can do it. Um but that is you have to connect the to the land specifically.

Um that's more for things that should have got a a conversion related forestry practices permit. They get a three-year moratorium on development. Um and we also have had challenges with implementing that. I I last year did um some monitoring on essentially how that code was functioning and we're finding that in some cases people like a lot of people are applying for early release of the m mor moratoriums to build essentially a single family home because that's an option. Um and a lot of people are buying properties with moratoriums on them and don't know that and so then they're coming in and and trying to figure out how to develop anyway. And so it's not the person who removed the tree who is getting a consequence for doing so. So there's there's challenges to the moratorum technique. Um not to shoot it down, but just there's there's it can be a little tricky to implement.

Can we require a title notice? Well, that's something we're actually thinking about for as far as the tree code goes. Um I was going to say as long as you have mandatory disclosure it further removes negative incentive because they can like oh I can make it look appealing and then pass it off to the next chump that goes away if you have to disclose it. It it sounds like this is uncharted territory, but it sounds like planning commission in general is supportive. Yeah. of the idea. So, it's something potentially staff could look into and report back on. Yeah.

Like feasibility. I'm definitely curious about the idea of a development moratorum as a critical area ordinance tool. It because it's not something I've seen done. It raised the question for me if it's allowable. Um, but I also can't think of anything that would explicitly prohibit it. So, it's definitely a little research question. Um, I know one of our other planners, um, who have you seen here a couple times, um, has been helping me also look through other counties codes and so we can we can see what, um, some of them are doing with this type of habitat question as well. And um, so Watcom County that was mentioned in public comment. Yeah. Yeah. I was c intending follows on that also. I know I already have some notes as far as what Watcom County does. Um

that was in Christy's note. Yeah. So, we can look to that. Um our prairies are kind of unique. I think that we can also look a little to Pierce County, although I think they don't have quite as many as we do, and a lot of theirs are are JBLM. Um a lot of ours are JBLM, too. But how how do you rewrite the code so we can have a hierarchy of areas that we would prefer to have restoration done on like in your example that these repairarian area regulations have

I think you I think you'd identify them as like basically in like the screening layers. So you know we have I think we mentioned before a we have maps of historic prairie range. Um, so we might have, you know, if we have that historic prairie range, we could have specific requirements, development requirements in the areas that we, you know, 100 years from now, we would love to see those take more of a prairie form. And then we might have areas that we delineate that we think are more appropriate for uh you know oak savannah and then other areas where oak woodland is like where we we're trying to build that transition from prairie to like doug forest um and make sure that we have that continuity of eco type.

So you don't think that part will be hard? Um I think it's relatively doable. There are some questions once we get into the like more into in the interface between savannah and oak woodland and doug fur forest. Um you can get at some of it with soil type. Um but the soils will change over time with different management. So um we also have another grant to try and figure out um basically how we can define that continuum. So doing things like tree species analysis,

but possible and I think thinking about what we want to see on the landscape in some of these areas is probably the place to start. And then we could build we could identify um we could identify different uh regulations or other BMPs that would be would help us achieve that. I think this kind of comes like back into the framework of like how do we take this kind of prairie to forest continuum knowing that we're trying to protect and restore in particular as a pretty major portion of these species prairies and organ white oaks. Um how do we classify and designate based on specific criteria and maps that we can make publicly available? Then how do we take those classifications and make make a parcel level determination about what's going on on that parcel and then apply prescriptive standards to that parcel. Um, and so yeah, I think there are different directions that we can go, but if we can fit it into that framework where we are able to tell someone who comes to the counter based on a map, you look to be in an oak savannah area, that means we're going to apply this requirement regarding oak trees, whether it's preserving a certain number, replanting a certain number, um, using certain management practices, and have that be all spelled out in the code and prescriptive. Um, and that that's that's the goal for all the critical areas is to have someone be able to look at the map and open one chapter of code and then understand what they need to do. That's my dream. Is there any potential I know the next question is incentivizing but volunte uh voluntary stewardship programs like is there any incentive we could give them through that for maintaining something like

an oak prairie or the savannah they're VSSP is spec you could maybe use a system like that that's just thinking something is that already exists and we've modeled it in some areas. Could we do something like it with, you know, our local habitats of local importance?

I mean, it's pretty sim similar to actually what we're kind of really discussing right now. Um, like VSSP gives you coverage for the critical areas. uh you know, if you're implementing a farm management plan, um we're kind of looking at like we're taking the CEO, we're talking about right now is taking the CIO and making it so that that becomes the management plan almost to get you to a certain type of ecosystem. Um so it's it kind of flips it a little bit in a way. Um

so less like not starting point but like end point a little bit. It's a very different system and the um the incentive programs that come through VSSP um that is the type of model you could maybe implement but dollars are always short, technical assistance is really hard to come by. Um, so it could be it could be difficult um just from a resources standpoint to do something like can you ever incentives is always money and we never have enough money.

Can you ever use TDRs for mitigation? um mitigation not necessarily but kind of you use PDRs that's easier for mitigation but those types of like trading systems and protections those fit also really well into like a that HCP style model

um but usually like I think honestly for us to be successful in Thirstston County I think you'll need some sort of like you'll need to make it easy for people to do the right thing. You'll need to put u some sort of restrictions that keep people from doing the thing that we don't want to see on the landscape. And then I think there will have to be a role for um for mitigating the kind of unavoidable impacts. Um and then things like TDR and PDR do can come into play. Um, so for example, like those all work when there's something that somebody wants to do that the code doesn't allow you to do that gives you the the space in the demand to actually uh, you know, buy something or transfer something. So, I I think um if if this conversation is interesting to the planning commission and feels like something we kind of want to dig into, it's kind of where we think this could could go in a way that'd be really exciting and um maybe alleviate some of the some of the negative pressure and accomplish some of the things that we're trying to accomplish in a pretty streamlined way. I think we could start building out a system that accomplishes some of the things that we're talking about here. I

mean, have we shared enough ideas at the point where you kind of get an idea of where we're at? None of us are are experts on this particular field. We're a citizens advisory council. So, we have more of a feeling on this than necessarily a prescriptive policy. Does have we I just I don't I think I think those feelings translated into some sort of like chase that thing over there to us. Yeah. um is is kind of I think the that perfect kind of balance is we have full-time staff people who

and for this specific one I was anticipating more of a general conversation just because there's like you know we've kind of been talking about organide oaks and prairie and that's a lot of it but then there's all these other pieces that go in seeps and springs and talis and like and a lot of these areas fall under other critical areas too and kind of get their protection that way. Um, but yeah, I think as a Yeah, I think I understand the feelings that are Yeah.

So, right now I I believe that we do not have like an inventory of critical areas. We know where a lot of them are, but often we don't know where a critical areas until somebody comes in, tries to pull a permit, and then you screen and see that there might be another critical area there. Is that is that the way it is? Well, the the tools that we use for that screening, that's how we know where the critical areas generally are, and that's the most that we really can know as an entity without doing a critical areas report for the whole like having someone on the ground on every parcel in the county. Um so yeah, the the screening tools that exist essentially what's in our GIS database um is how we know where critical areas are and and especially I think when it comes to some of these things not necessarily every single one of those is mapped as clearly. It depends.

Um the the state PHS program does have maps too and we use that information. Um, but yeah, I guess where I'm getting at is I think that it's also going to be very important for us to know like if we look at a whole county map and we see an overlay of critical areas under our current code and then we see uh the same map under our proposed code and if there's a massive difference like the size of the CAO's double, tripled, quadrupled, that's probably something we're going to need to know and want to talk about before we do anything.

Yeah, I don't anticipate that will be the case. Some of that is the work that's going to be done um as part of the grant regarding like tree species terminations and RMZs. So, uh essentially trying to determine in the county what the difference between the buffers we have now and a site potential tree height determined RMZ would look like. Um so that is one that we definitely will have. Um, yeah, I think it'll be a little different as far as this this type of fish and wildlife habitat, especially when we're looking at places where people might build houses.

And I could also imagine us having a map that was bigger, but not necessarily like that doesn't mean that like we would take today's critical areas ordinance and apply it to everybody in that map. Like if we're literally talking about gradients. So like a riparian management zone might be larger than a current buffer um but it wouldn't necessarily be no touch.

So we might have something where we have a very very big zone where we're trying to manage for certain functions and values but it doesn't mean that you know you you can't be in that zone. It might just mean that you need to you need to like practice different best management practices. You might need uh different prescriptions in that space. Um but it's not going to necessarily say, you know, you are hereby forbidden from touching this. I'm sure you guys can develop a map that inform us on that stuff. So yeah. Yeah, I think we'd eventually have to. black points.

If we're gonna say it's a critical area, I want to have it in a publicly available map. So, layer we'll need to work these destinations with layers and information that we know we can get. Um, yeah. So, and I would say I think you're just as likely to come in and have the county look at the map and say, "Well, you've got a critical area here." And then go back have to go back and show them that you don't. So I think I mean the maps are not good. Yeah.

And I can tell you that geod data is not responsive to changes cuz there's down you probably know this area but down old 99 in between off the lake and Wald Road. Uhhuh. According to GIS there are three different water bodies that cross Old 99. Uh, I remember seeing one of those right just north of the uh, trestle bridge. There's nothing that crosses old. I Well, I remember seeing it on the map. There's one right there and thinking I've never driven through that puddle before.

Yeah. So, I mean that that's what I'm I mean that's where I see stuff is they're going to say, "Oh, you have this go." You know, just like with other stuff, you know, we had it with the gophers. I think I've talked about it. We did a study and brought it back and the county said, "Well, you have to hire somebody else to do a study because you have gophers." I aren't we kind of trying to correct for that in the BDC by independent reports saying your screening tools were worth us taking a look but we're not seeing what your screening tools indicate could be there.

I'm not 100% tracking. So if if a guy comes in with a project and you guys hit the screen tools and say there's a CEO there, there's something there's a critical area there, he can come back with his his um expert and say there's not a critical area there. Yeah. And something that we're trying to do in the update too is that level of just like yes or no verification letter. Like if somebody just needs to say like

quickly this this and this aren't present therefore it's not a critical area like we had this in the um geohhazards code pretty well spelled out and try and do it for as many as possible. Do it for wetlands especially to um get let people get that two-page letter that's quicker and cheaper. Um and as long as it's by a qualified expert and there's nothing major glaring problem uh just moving on from there. Um, yeah.

Yeah, that's the risk with maps. They're all wrong at some point. Just asking like the question about incentives. Obviously, money is hard and we give them help like is is help is also money. I know. Well, I'm just trying to think like another way to this question, I think we actually have touched on it already, is how do we stop incentivizing destruction? Yeah, I can think a lot of a lot of sticks, but

it's very hard to actually incentivize in a CEO because it is kind of inherently a restrictive thing. But if we provide management practices and flexibility, if we are able to tell somebody, you need to keep that oak, but you're totally fine to remove these Douglas furs because you're in historic prairie range, that might that's kind of at least a little give and take and flexibility. Um, and so that's what this kind of more management framework oriented thing we're talking about is could allow us to do. that could at least remove the incentive to cut down your trees before they can get

Yeah. And we also should remember that the critical areas can also be a barrier to doing the right thing. So, we talked about the Yeah. DFW example or trying to manage prairies. Um, we've had questions come in about like, you know, can I remove English ivy from my property and the critical areas ordinance isn't clear that they're allowed to do it. So, like, can we put something very explicit like yes, you can remove invasives? I feel like I is anyone opposed to putting explicit language about permitting the removal of invasives? I state required to be able to do it.

It depends on which list they're on. Apparently, yeah, we had to do a administrative policy used to remove that like don't use an activator on so far the nonatives is enough for me to at least consider. Yeah, I just it's wild to me that really English ivy would be like a question about removal. Madronas, those are native. Yeah, Madron. I didn't think Madronas were native. Yeah, they are. Yeah, they are. Let's see what Dr. Google says. We're in a very narrow band. Shorelines.

So, I feel like I have a good picture. Again, we're talking more broadly here, but I think I understand the feeling and direction. Um, I think Yeah, I think it this is going to be an interesting one. I think we can get kind of creative with it. I'm really excited to work on this. What's that? I'm really excited. Okay. Well, good. I'm glad that you back with some big ideas uh next time we talk about this. Okay, great. Thank you. The native range of the Pacific Madrron goes from Vancouver Island down to San Diego. So, it is native. All right, that is according to uh the urban urban forestry department.

All right. Well, we're going to move on to the next item on our agenda, the summary of the 2026 27 official docket with uh Hannah. We did it, folks. We have a work plan. No one's been doing any work this whole time. There's not been anything to do until a docket was adopted. Um, you have a list of tasks. How would we know? Exactly. There's not all of this like incredibly innovative grant- driven work that Derrick's team is working on. That's not that's not how that sounds made up. Um, obviously fascinating for for the record later.

Um, yeah. Yeah, I just want to circle back because as part of this docket cycle, I came to you all at the start which was not standard practice in past docket cycles and I think it's definitely going to remain as standard practice moving forward. Um, not to toot my own horn but this docket cycle went swimmingly in comparison to the last one just in the way that we've tried to work on things in advance. Having a planning commission recommendation on each project did go very far with the board and it um stand we standardized things and more people know how it works so that next time it will be even more smooth um we only got 361 comments only

only we got over a thousand last time and so I think that's also a testament of coming early sharing the information with you all I mean the runway time that we had with doc projects was Well, it would have been one month more, but the power outage in December, of course, canceled that meeting. So, January through April of runway time, whereas in the past, people didn't know that the docket was being considered until the board was looking at it. Um, so we have five projects on the comprehensive plan docket and 10 on the development code docket. Um, joint plans, as you all know, it's like the one last step in uh ensuring our comp plan is up to date. um CIP it's a mandatory project but we won't be working on it this year we've shifted to uh a two-year cycle so the CIP will move forward next year wershed plan as you all know the um squali sub area plan was a previously docketed project Derek and his team has reinvisioned the way that they think about that project and approach it to a larger water scale watershed scale planning effort um we've also got the climate program policies and code updates which is uh directly tied to the climate implementation items from the comp plan as well as other programmatic things that our uh climate program manager is working on. Um this is docketed as part of it's docketed on the comprehensive plan amendment um because it's tied to our climate implementation items as I said but also it needed to be documented so that if any code updates were necessary those could happen concurrently. Yes.

But you don't have any uh code proposals at this time for it? No. Okay.

No, I do believe much of this will be programmatic for for a good while. The implementation plan has plenty of things to work on that might not be like tangible things that come forward in the way that our standard um items do. And then the last uh comp plan docket item is that applicant initiated reszone. It's down on 193rd in Grand Mound. Um it's uh Conco, the company that's they're a concrete supplier. They are trying to resort a parcel from arterial commercial to planned industrial so that they could have um more of a they they're doing work on several parcels in the area. So the intention is to make more of a how do they describe it? Not warehouse but like economic driver and job driver.

Sort of an industrial park type. Yes. Thank you. But the way that they described it is more like leasing out spaces so that um folks can who are starting businesses will be able to start in one space. An incubator incubator. Sure. Okay. Not not a word that the applicant used or a word that I've heard outside of the tech sphere, but I feel this was the 4.99 acre officially does say five is the it says five for the entire like all P. there needs to be at least five acres and there's more of that. This one parcel is just slightly under five acres so it's in alignment with our uh code in that sense. Um

so we've got only five that's still plenty of uh staff work to be done on the comp plan but really as we've like set the runway for the past several years with the comp plan update. The majority of the work does involve amending the development code. So we've got CLA and the CAO update. We've got the joint codes that are running concurrently with the joint plans. Um, we've got Andy and the S&P. Ecology will at some point give a formal recommendation so that we can finally wrap that up and Andy can can move on and do other amazing things. Um, we'll also be working on title 20, which is just our rural zoning uh, provisions and then title 18, our rural subdivision provisions as well. Um, we've got TDRPDR on there. Um when you all saw it, it was titled working lands conservation strategy and uh at that time given public feedback we were told it was too restrictive of a title so we tweaked it. Um TDRPDR was a docket project on the 2024 2025 so we reverted back to that name. This is one of those that's very programmatic. Um there's already plenty of work being done. The working lands conservation strategy is doing a ton of work as well. So regardless of title, the efforts of the intention of this project have been taking place are continuing to move move forward. And then um we have the three like CPED bucket items that uh Andrew developed last docket cycle so that we can be responsive to the current planning needs and that's just permit review process, new uses and related standards and code clarifications. Um it's worth noting in the board discussions there were a few specific items that uh commissioners wanted added to the new uses and related standards uh specifically calling out battery energy storage systems data centers and federal detention centers. Um that was a directive from the board. So the project sheets on the docket website weather project sheet singular on the docket web page reflects those additions as well. Um, and then the last thing that is a a board priority and it

was a board item that was added following the March 4th work session, so you all did not see it, is a code enforcement update docket item. Um, there's a unanimous board uh push for CPED to look at our code enforcement procedures and potentially amend Title 26 in any ways that that research may deem necessary. So, there's no real direction other than to study there. Is there something driving that? We Yeah, you should go watch and go to the board. I would recommend listening to the work session. The commissioners encapsulate pretty well much better than I could.

I watched that video and I'm not sure why anybody didn't say it, but on the code enforcement thing, it always came back to we don't have any resources and it's because CPED is 100% cost recovery. And that sounds great until CPED is doing a law enforcement function. We don't make law enforcement be 100% cost recovery. So there's a law enforcement function being done by CPED. We shouldn't make it 100% cost recovery. But I'm probably preaching to the choir here.

That is a significant barrier to code enforcement is dedicated budget for us. I think uh Ashley brought it up in the boardroom like we don't have the budget to buy the $800 ticket books. I saw that. I saw that. I'm just thinking, you know, there's a prosecutor's office, there's a sheriff's office, there's, you know, there's these other mechanisms for enforcing our lo our codes and our laws, but for some reason, we don't do it through CPED because it's 100% cost recovery. That's not good planning. That's all I had. I just wanted to share.

Can you tell us the board's direction on title 20 or what they want to do with marijuana?

They had So, you all had recommended that the applicant initiated proposal be lumped in with title 20. Um the the applicant had at first pushed to remain independent and then was on board with the planning commission recommendation. the board did include lumping it in. That was kind of the phrase we were using. However, things like title 20 and things like title 18 are going to be fully scoped with the planning commission in advance. So, while the board said yes, you can consider the things on the applicant initiated proposal for cannabis related amendments as part of title 20 because a majority of those will live in title 20, that doesn't mean that in our opening discussions that that will be a priority from this body and that that means that those would not move forward. Um I think there's a sliding scale. Um one of the things was replacing the word marijuana with cannabis. That's a control F search through the code. Well, no it's not. We have to copy and paste from uni code and put it in Word and then there's there's many steps before getting to the control F. But um those amendments were definitely like a a sliding scale of things that of difficulty in implementation. So it would be part of the discussion um with you all and the planner assigned to that project um as to how indepth that um those amendments are in priority.

That was a topic on my very first planning commission meeting back in January of 24, the applicant came and spoke about how uh because all of our cannabis regulations live in a separate chapter, things like uh agurism don't apply to them. They can't do it. like very ridiculously large lot sizes which don't make sense for grow operations that are much smaller. And I I remember thinking, "Yeah, that doesn't sound good." And then I remember us talking with staff and they're like, "Yeah, but like reconciling those two things is a giant task and it's a small number of people who who uh who would potentially benefit from those changes. So, I I'm sympathetic both to staff and the folks who are in the unfortunate situation of being regulated by a separate chapter that doesn't treat uh cannabis agriculture like other agriculture. Did they give any direction on holding back any of the cannabis related stuff when it comes to UG's and joint code?

But they did on trees. They urged us to research urban tree provisions as a priority um item in the UG code updates and LRA LR. We are retaining LRA and wireless and emergency housing ordinance um because the cities do not have an LRA um standard or uses and um I believe the same for or the robustness of the wireless versus um county versus city. We're retaining those things um at least in the discussions we're having as we're working on the draft with legal right now.

Does anybody else have any questions for Hannah? We're going to be busy. I'm glad that they liked that the planning commission got involved in the docking process.

I think it went very far there. There were um it was just another emphasis item supporting you know CPAD shifted to identifying priorities high, medium and low based on whether it's required or if it's applicant initiated and then the planning commission concurring with CPADs on the majority of them but then also emphasizing you know commissioner called out that the planning commission um agrees with CPAD's priority on the climate but really emphasizes that this is something that needs to be at the forefront of like all the discussions that we're having. And so I think it just underscores the um importance of the work we're doing, the importance of the work you all are doing and I think that it was a piece of the puzzle in easing the um discussion with the board and compared to the last cycle.

Great. All right. Thank you very much. We're going to move on to our next agenda item which is a staff update.

Uh we have a big one. So uh the one the only the incredible myle is resigning her position. and uh so she will leave a big big hole for us to fill. Um she's been uh just speaking uh from my own experience, she's been an incredible colleague to work with. So it's one thing to see her um as a planning commissioner, the planning commission, she is an absolute powerhouse. Um has been really really tremendous tremendous contributor to the work we do here at the county. Um, so, uh, we will be trying to, I think her last day, June 15th, is that correct? Um, we'll be trying to hire that position as soon as possible. Um, maybe have a couple days of overlap, but not a lot. Um, so, uh, we will miss her deeply. Um, and then I think the other thing I want to mention is uh it is prairie appreciation day on Saturday at Glacial Heritage Preserve from I think it's 10 to 1. So speaking of prairies, it is prairie appreciation day.

So any other updates? All right. Uh, with that we'll move on to our agenda items. And I don't remember when our next meeting is. June 3rd. No, May 20th and then June 3rd. May 20th and then June 3rd. How does everybody's calendars look for May 20th? Okay, we should have a quorum for May 20th. How about anybody expecting not to be here for June 3rd? I'm good on the 20th and 3rd. Okay, Robert, I'm off mute. that this is Bill.

Okay. Thank you. Does anybody have anything for the good of the order? Oh, um, happy public service employees recognition week to our lovely CP staff. Thank you for you. All right. Well, having no further business, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you. a gabble. They've left me a gabble before when I've covered this time. I'm I'm a little peed that I didn't get a copy of those things. Um email.

So, here's the thing. Um Gmail and commercial Outlooks file attachment limit is 25 megabytes. Outlook, Apple, um, like all most all the other ones is 20. So they're they're on a corporate Microsoft account. So they can send out 25 and they'll email, but anyone else is basically not going to get any of them and they'll never run into that problem. Stay under 20.