There is no actual discussion of wildlife habitat in this hearing. The examiner briefly used the term "riparian" merely as a hypothetical example of environmental resources that often prompt the public to request additional environmental conditioning. Meanwhile, stormwater management was only mentioned in passing as a standard engineering review item and a general area of public concern regarding the proposed subdivision.
Wildlife_habitat
Clark County Land Use Hearings · May 28, 2026 · 29:48–30:02 · Watch on CVTV ↗
Keywords: stormwater riparian
What was said
28:44 Because the condition was dealt with differently this time with no apparent explanation. - Yeah, now that you say that, it completely refreshed my memory and reading the paragraph there as well. So yes, we did an MDNS on that. Sorry about that, because of the DAP comment, as you said, and put that as a condition of approval within the final staff report. - Okay, and so the other thing that has come up, I've seen this in a number of proposals where people argue that the impacts of the project are warrant CEPA conditions, but the way the law works in the state of Washington is that CEPA mitigated determination of non-significance and CEPA conditions are only warranted if the local code and code chapters and ordinances are not sufficient
29:43 to address the particular impact. So it comes up a lot when they're a wetland or riparian resources and people are very focused on those sorts of things and they say this is a CEPA issue. It's not because the county has very elaborate, detailed ordinances that address those issues and therefore there's no need to go to CEPA as an additional layer of conditioning because the local ordinances address it. So in this case, are there any issues that you saw raised in public comments that are not adequately addressed under the county's transportation concurrency ordinance or the engineering standards or the development standards, the narrow lot standards? Is there anything, any issue that is not addressed there? - Not to my knowledge, no. Everything has been addressed within the final staff report.
30:41 - Based on the code? - Yes, based on the code. The recommendation from DAP we felt was accurate based on their comment that additional or findings were, that based on the archeological findings on an adjacent site
Evidence (1 match)
direct keyword 29:48–30:02 stormwater, riparian
on is that CEPA mitigated determination of non-significance and CEPA conditions are only warranted if the local code and code chapters and ordinances are not sufficient to address the particular impact. So it comes up a lot when they're a wetland or riparian resources and people are very focused on those sorts of things and they say this is a CEPA issue. It's not because the county has very elaborate, detailed ordinances that address those issues and therefore there's no need to go to CEPA as an