In addition to representing District 2, which is on the far west side of Columbus.

Today we will hear presentations about the tremendous amount of work that is being done to update the Big Derby Accord, a vital interjurisdictional agreement aimed at protecting the Big Darby Creek watershed.

This review process has lasted nearly a year and a half and has been one of the most complex and scientific city projects I've seen in my time as a council member.

The purpose of this hearing is to inform the public about why the Accord needs an update, what community engagement efforts went into this process, the science-backed environmental goals of an updated accord, and what is being improved to further protect the watershed.

We're happy to be joined this evening by several individuals who have really been knee deep in this project since 2024.

Chris Herman, MKSK principal, city and regional planner, Ianko Sport, MKSK planner.

Brian Clark, Department of Development, Deputy Director for Regional Growth Strategies, and Christopher Lore, Department of Development Planning Division Assistant Administrator.

I'm also thankful to be joined by my fellow council members, a committee vice chair Councilmember Weich and Councilmember Ross.

Would either of you like to share some opening remarks?

No.

Okay.

Well, thank you all for being here this evening.

I will now hand over the speaking to Chris Herman and the team to share their presentation for my colleagues.

If you could take note of your questions as they move through the presentation, and then we'll go around the dias to answer questions at the end.

Okay.

So turn it over to you.

That's good, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Again, my name is Chris Herman, and thank you for your time tonight.

I have about a 25-slide presentation, which I'll keep short and to the point.

Wanted to start just by providing an overview of the Big Derby watershed.

It's an exemplary watershed, which is why this has become such a big topic for the region over the past decades, actually.

It's a natural scenic river, state scenic river, exceptional warwater habitat, also outstanding state waters, and it's under the uh strongest protections of the Ohio EPA.

And so this is uh the watershed for watershed for Big Derby.

You'll see in the pink is the Accord area.

So one of the things that I think is really important to keep in mind is the watershed is 555 square miles.

The Accord area is about 83 square miles.

And so we're focused on the Franklin County portion of the watershed, and that's what this accord covers.

Uh the 2006 accord was a uh cooperation between 10 Franklin County jurisdictions.

Uh it was voluntary, shared goals to promote conservation and development.

And there's a linkage between those two, and I'll explain that more as we go.

This is the current 2006 mission statement.

Um, but the key point is to preserve, protect, and approve the Big Derby Creek watershed and its unique ecosystems, also to promote responsible growth.

Uh, in some of the meetings we've had in the open house, I do want to point out in the second bullet.

Some people were confused and thought this is something new.

This is the current uh mission statement.

It talks about adequate public facilities, it talks about promoting a full spectrum of housing choice and providing the educational recreation and civic opportunities of the citizens of each jurisdiction.

Um we are preserving this mission statement and carrying forward.

The only thing we are changing is the very last bullet, which reference studies that occurred in the early 2000s when this was uh adopted, and we're gonna make it more generic to just reference studies that are occurring and updating and taking into account.

The accord has done a lot of amazing things, and uh all the jurisdictions should be proud of what has been accomplished.

Um almost 3,500 acres of open space and prime conservation areas have been protected.

Uh we've seen uh over 6,000 housing units built since 2007.

Those developments have used best management practices, and you'll hear us say BMPs a lot.

That is how you uh do development in a way that uh takes addresses stormwater runoff.

So best management practices are the ways to address how stormwater runoff is treated on site to make it uh a better water quality and less of an impact onto the receiving streams.

A big part of this has been a big success has been nine stream and wetland restorations as part of this that's occurred.

We're excited to continue to see restorations as more projects are advanced.

And again, it has been a multi-jurisdictional process with an accord review panel that reviews developments before they're approved and reviewed by the jurisdictions.

Why are we talking about amending it now?

Because it has been 20 years since this accord was originally written and adopted.

There really have not been any updates in that time, and some components didn't achieve the goals that we originally set out or the expectations that we had, and I will touch on that further.

In addition, assumptions have changed.

And some of the things that are really critical now, maybe the priorities have shifted a little bit, like the housing.

We knew housing was an issue then, but it's really become a big deal now.

We haven't acquired as much open space, I think, as we originally had hoped we would, and we are facing pressing, and you all know this.

We're facing pressing issues related to housing supply.

There's development waiting in the wings that wants to build in some of these areas.

We need infrastructure investment, uh, and we want to make sure that we get these revisions in place so that new development follows these new guidelines and requirements.

The 2006 Accord, I think really high level points, it established a maximum threshold of 20,000 new units, residential units in this area.

It also looked at kind of three different concentrations of development.

The goal was to concentrate development rather than kind of spreading it everywhere.

Those areas included a town center, which is that pink area between 70 and broad, as well as connecting some new development along the cities along Hilliard and Columbus.

And then there was a goal for conservation subdivisions in the township that would be served by alternative uh sanitary sewer systems.

Um I think key points to make here extending the town center was hard to achieve.

There proved to be too many hurdles uh and extending sanitary sewer out there, very expensive.

Odot wasn't interested in a new interchange there.

Uh property owners had different ideas on how this was all going to work.

So that really hasn't happened.

That's one of the reasons only 6,000 units have been built out here.

In addition, the conservation subdivisions, the ideas of these township developments, that alternative sanitary sewer systems did not advance uh the way that we all thought they would in 2006, and in fact, requirements have become more restrictive.

So there's really economies of scale, which really pushes things back towards if you want to be environmental, you don't want to be on septic systems.

We need to have any substantial development attached to sanitary sewer, and that really means to the Columbus sewer system.

So I wanted to make that point.

We'll talk more about that later here.

Um this is a lot of text, but I think these are five key points to talk about foundations, what has changed, and what this amendment is doing.

So this set out to identify and protect environmentally sensitive areas.

We were looking at about 25,000 acres out of this accord area.

We had uh several different tiers, those were a little confusing.

And today what's happened is we have much better mapping.

Uh you think about all the technology we have and the remote sensing, that kind of stuff.

We've got much better technology to map the most important critical areas.

So we've done that as part of this amendment.

We have better mapping, better idea of the sensitive areas, uh, and we've redefined what those uh sensitive areas are, classify them as primary, which is automatically protected, and secondary, the conservation areas which we are working to protect to the extent we can.

Uh, the really important features that we want to make sure developments consider as part of that happens.

That gets us to 30,000 acres of protected uh conservation, important conservation areas in the accord area.

So that's an improvement.

We have maintained that 20,000 housing unit.

We're using the term uh uh equivalent residential unit uh from a sanitary point of view, maintain that maximum.

Uh but we're reallocating those things that aren't weren't really gonna work over these last 20 years, that town center allocation on the conservation subdivisions and the townships, and said, All right, we want to attach those to central sanitary sewer, and so that really means moving some of those allocated units to the eastern edge of the accord area, western edge of uh Hilliard and Columbus.

Um we are still requiring 50% dedication.

So if you're developing in this accord area, 50% of your site has to be set aside for conservation purposes.

Um, and we are also updating and requiring best management practices so that we're making sure that development that happens is uh meeting the best practices we have today.

Um of the areas that was a little bit hit or miss uh was the revenue.

A big piece of the idea of the Derby Accord was that development would help fund the purchase and protection of the Derby conservation areas.

The issue is that the mechanisms we used, some of them were heavily reliant on property taxes.

The county never felt good about implementing that because of the impacts to their services.

Um, so they didn't implement to the same level that others did.

Um, and Hilliard had some of their own provisions.

So as a result, it was a little bit uneven.

So, what we are trying to do is provide options so that the jurisdictions can collect revenue that can go to Big Derby Accord purposes.

Another thing that we're doing is trying to get that money earlier.

A lot of the mechanisms we use are kind of backloaded, and we're trying to see more of those revenues earlier in the process.

And additionally, we are dedicating 25% of those revenues directly towards the purchase or protection of that primary conservation area.

Um that was always the intent.

We didn't have a set-aside percentage.

This is making it saying we're going to spend 25% of those revenues on that purpose.

Uh, and then lastly, and probably significantly, um, there was always uh a plan in the accord to monitor water quality so that we could show and demonstrate to ourselves and everyone that these best management practices are working, where they might fall short, we could adjust them and show how we were protecting and preserving the water quality and habitats in the Derby.

That water quality monitoring never happened like it was originally envisioned.

So that's one of the shortfalls.

And it really fell to ODNR and Ohio EPA to do that, and as you all know, their budgets have been cut over these past two decades as well.

So it hasn't even happened to the extent it was happening when this accord first accord was approved.

So this is committing to water quality monitoring.

I'll talk a little bit more about that here in a minute.

So the amendment process.

Five jurisdictions, Columbus, Hilliard, Brown Township, Prairie Township, Franklin County, have been meeting since the fall of 2024.

They came together and said, look, we're having development pressure, this accord needs to be updated, let's talk about how to do it.

Uh and through that process, they hired my firm, MKSK, to help the group through this process.

We began in January of 2025.

Really, a way of thinking about this is four different phases.

So the first phase was really getting an understanding of existing conditions, what was in the accord, what was working, what wasn't, uh, getting the new data, and then we spent February through the summer meeting with stakeholders, also asking them what's working, what's not, kind of a squat analysis, right?

Uh saying what are their important topics, and then we identified four main themes that we thought needed to be addressed and had individual workshop meetings with the public on those, and that is on the next slide.

I'll go through those.

That then led to draft recommendations.

We spent most of the fall working on that.

Um, it was much, it was very internal to BDART and then reaching out to stakeholders on certain issues because we needed to get all the jurisdictions to agree to something that we would be willing to share publicly.

And there's different people with different directions and desires and needs, so we had to do a lot of dent banging to kind of get a draft that was uh I think acceptable to everybody to be shared publicly.

Um that went to stakeholders in December.

We had more meeting with the stakeholder groups in January, individual meetings with those groups, got lots of good feedback and comments, revised that uh draft into a public draft that we released uh here last month in March, is the one that everyone's seen.

We had a public open house workshop on that where we shared all these components on the high level that we're speaking with you tonight.

We are gathered we've been gathering comments up until today.

We'll get comments from all of you.

We got the public comments, and we are going to make some revisions uh that are acceptable depending on what we hear from BDART, uh, and we'll have a final plan for you to adopt, final amendment.

These are the four workshops that we did.

Again, I mentioned water quality monitoring was one of the shortfall areas.

So we had a workshop dedicated just talking about how do we do water quality and what are the things we look for, how can we make it happen, what do we need to be thinking about?

We had a workshop on revenue generation, how do we get more funding more evenly as part of development process and where does it go, how is it used, how soon do we get it?

Uh we talked about conservation and open space.

That included definitions.

There was different definitions being used for what qualifies as open space, what qualifies as conservation area, using the updated mapping, talking about things like managing stuff that is restored, who controls it, who manages it, those kinds of things.

And then the land use was okay.

We need to think about where things are and how they connect and again into that sanitary sewer, what are the uses we should be thinking about.

The summary of all that is we had a lot of great input again from stakeholders, and we're getting lots of feedback again from the public.

And we've been working diligently to take all that information and put it into the draft where it makes sense and make those updates.

So it has been responding to the comments that we have heard while also trying to stay true to the key needs of all the jurisdictions that are members to the Accord.

To want to touch on the science, this is really important, obviously, because we are trying to protect the water quality, we're trying to protect the habitat, we're trying to protect the uh endangered species.

Um the water quality is under threat, just like everywhere else.

And so we've been looking at the best modeling, the best science that's out there, and particularly at science related to Ohio watersheds, and we have been incorporating that that's been incorporated into this.

And I'll talk about some of those key features here in a minute.

Um, one of the things that's been, I think a big topping talking point since January is the release of the Department of Natural Resources phase one of their IPS.

Um, there's a phase two in the works.

Just want to go over that really quickly with you.

Um it's important work.

It identifies uh key stressors to water quality uh based on 45 years of historic data in central Ohio and Ohio, uh, and it tries to apply that and say what are the things that had the most impact on water quality and habitat.

And so we have taken that information.

Uh, some of it aligns very well with the stuff that we had already had uh put into this uh draft.

And I do want though to take a point and say there are limitations.

Um there's been requests for us to wait for that phase two data.

There's several concerns there.

One is um it's gonna be uh probably another month, if not a year before we have actionable results from that phase two data.

And also the idea here is to apply science to land use uh using this IPS data, and it hasn't been done before.

Um, it's been done in terms of uh improving degraded streams uh in Illinois, and it's been looked at in Cincinnati, but this would be one of these first applications for it.

So we really need to understand it and apply it.

So Columbus is committed, your your city is committed as part of the BDART process to reconvene when we have actionable data from the IPS phase two study and use that as part of an adaptive management.

So we'll look at things that might need to get changed or updated uh when that information is available.

But again, I think the part to stress here is development applications have been waiting since the fall of 2024 because there's been this promise that this will get updated.

We're now a year and plus into that, and so there's some worry at some point they will just they have the right to submit today.

Uh we really would like them to be submitting under these new requirements.

Plan amendment recommendations almost done, just want to go through these.

Um, in big buckets, water quality monitoring.

I think I've mentioned that.

So this creates a every year water quality monitoring uh program in the Accord area.

It rotates between one year of the big derby and little Derby main stems, then the second year goes to the tributaries like the Hell branch, and then the third year goes to aquatic biology habitat, things like the mussels.

We're gonna uh fine-tune it with uh help from a lot of the stakeholders and experts on this, but that is the plan so that there will be a every year ongoing monitoring of water quality, providing level data that we've never had in a much more almost real-time scenario, which allows us to do what we've talked about uh since the original cord, which is adaptive management, which is if things are being degraded, we try to figure out through that data what is causing it and how can we address it.

Uh, and if things are working, then how do we do more of that?

Parks open space conservation.

I mentioned we've created two primary and secondary areas that we're protecting that increases from 25,000 to 30,000 acres that are being protected as part of this accord, 50% open space requirement for new development as well, and we're creating this regional open space fund.

25% of the revenues are dedicated towards securing and protecting those primary conservation areas.

Again, following best practices and the best research information we have on water quality.

One of the key things, which I'll talk about in the next slide, is stream buffers, cord or buffers.

We've expanded those across the board and increase those.

We've also reduced the amount of directly connected impervious area to no more than 10%.

We have managed management plans for invasive species and requirements for native species planting.

And we do have one of the things that was part of the original core was an effort to try to do transfer development rights.

We do allow a 25% transfer, but you have to bring in 1.5% more open space to the development as part of that.

But this is a way of increasing the amount of area we're conserving and building on the areas that are less sensitive.

And then we do have that regional open space acquisition fund.

And sorry, geez.

And we do require the stream and wetland restoration, which the 06 accord did not require.

This is now requirement that when you have ditches and wetland areas, you've got to restore them.

Do you want to touch on this slide because this shows the stream quarter protection again?

One of the things that the science says is having large enough buffers between development and the stream and having it forested and vegetated in native way is one of the best things you can do for water quality.

And so this is increasing those buffers.

We're going up to 150 feet on both sides of all streams for the big and little Derby Creek.

We're going up to a thousand feet and 400 feet on the direct tributary streams.

That's a thing that things that some of the environmental groups have been trying to achieve even through the state level, and so we're trying to do that here as part of this accord.

We're requiring native riparian forest within that 150 feet, so restoring that that forest, that green space.

So just a little bit the uh graphics there.

The green was the 2006 accord protected area based on the data at the time.

The red shows improved Ohio EPA data.

It shows you how they've improved it even across time since then.

And then the light green on the far right graph shows what we're protecting with the primary and secondary conservation areas, even above and beyond what OEPA has been doing.

I do want to emphasize that we are working.

This amendment is based on smart growth.

We are trying again to not do development on septic.

We're putting development on sanitary sewer, that's a foundational point.

We're concentrating the development that was talked about, that 20,000 unit cap, putting it onto the urbanized edges.

Um rather than allowing sprawl, it's kind of focusing that development.

Um we're working on achieving those water quality conservation goals, and I think also very importantly, um, we're identifying and having discussions that will follow this accord adoption with having some future growth areas defined between the jurisdictions.

I think that also helps focus where development happens and meet the goals of the various jurisdictions.

And then, as I mentioned several times, we're maintaining that 20,000 unit ERU ceiling.

So again, this is the new updated map.

You can't read it, but it breaks down the different land uses.

Um it is very heavily weighted towards primary conservation areas.

You can also see agriculture there, rural residential, and it's not till we get down to you know the lower numbers below you know 2% of this that we're getting into things like mixed use and neighborhood development.

So we really are concentrating this development as part of this uh amendment.

As I mentioned on the revenue program, we're providing some flexibility.

The Columbus piece of this, I think, is well thought and well practiced.

Uh, I think it's one of the things that we're hoping that jurisdictions do as they adopt this accord moving forward is uh work on their pieces of it so that we have this flexibility bit in built in, but we are collecting revenue as part of development in that area, and again using that funding for big Derby Accord purposes.

Lastly, do want to emphasize I think one of the big concerns of the community that we heard over and over again is since it's been 20 years since this accord was revisited, that this is the one shot to make it perfect.

And if it's not perfect, there's gonna be another 20 years until we do this again.

The B Dart jurisdictions are making a commitment to meet quarterly and sooner if there's any kind of emergency or desire from three jurisdictions, um, and to continue to do what we called adaptive management in this and 2006 accord, which is based on feedback adjusting things so that we're trying to do achieve those mission purposes.

And so there is a commitment.

We are saying we're gonna continue to meet, we're gonna continue to fine-tune this.

Uh jurisdictional adoption.

One of another questions we had was um, well, if Columbus adopts it now, what about the other jurisdictions?

In 2006, it was about a year and a half for all the jurisdictions to adopt it.

Um something like that could similarly happen here.

Uh Columbus is first up.

We're hoping that Columbus will take this step, and then other jurisdictions will follow.

There probably will be some tweaks as they go through the same process we're going through for adoption.

So you may, we may be back here in a year or something like that with a few tweaks based on what happens and what comes out of that adoption process.

But uh really want to see Columbus adopt this so we can get this process moving moving.

Uh, we're gonna do onboarding and education.

The accord panel remains.

We want to make sure that staff, developers, the community, the jurisdictions are on the same page on what is in here and how we're applying it.

Uh, and we do want to get started on that water quality monitoring because that's really important.

I think it's it will actually help the IPS study as well with uh much richer, more accurate up-to-date data.

And with that, I'm gonna turn it over to Brian.

Appreciate that, Chris.

And um, I'd be remiss if I didn't start by thanking Councilmember Day Oak Hour uh for being in the trenches with us uh for the past 17 months.

Um we wouldn't be here without your support.

Um, and also thanks to your amazing staff, uh Jacob Dilley and uh Sam Dooling from LRO have been really great partners, and Council members Weich and Ross.

Uh Councilmember Rice, I know that you and your staff have been very interested in this from day one.

Um appreciate you making yourself and your staff available, and councilmember Ross is uh the same.

So I I want to begin by saying that um we really listen to what stakeholders had to say about this project.

And I want to give you a couple of updates that are based directly on that stakeholder feedback.

Um we are proud tonight to come in with a draft that has support from leading parks and conservation groups, has support from uh trade unions, uh, from property owners, developers, other jurisdictions.

Um we believe that this is a strong list of stakeholders who are on the same page.

There are stakeholders that um have different takes on some things, and we remain committed to working with them through adaptive management uh to incorporate those concerns, especially with IPS phase two, because I do want to reiterate on behalf of uh the administration, we are committed to coming back to the table when IPS phase two comes out, and that is a firm commitment.

Um it's actually written into the into the draft.

Um we also heard clearly that we've got to get it right on this one.

It's not gonna be our last shot, but we really need to come out with a plan that can be implemented and can be implemented quickly.

Um, and to that end, we've got a couple of updates to share.

Um, the first, I am really excited to share that sustainable Columbus has agreed to provide staff support uh for implementing the Big Garby Accord, uh, making sure that we have the support we need on the technical side as well as on uh the side supporting B DART and all the work that needs to be done there.

Uh so we're really happy about that.

I do want to put out a big shout out to uh Dr.

Kinyana Walker and Assistant Director Aaron Beck with sustainable sustainable Columbus for making this possible, and uh obviously our champion for sustainable Columbus, Councilmember Weish.

Uh, thank you for supporting Sustainable Columbus uh throughout your tenure on council.

Um, second, we've had a lot of stakeholders who have asked us to pause, and you'll hear that this evening as well.

Um I think Chris did a great job uh giving an overview of what's in phase one and phase two of the IPS.

Um we, the staff and the administration side have expressed concerns about how the IPS might be implemented.

Uh, but we did think it was important to show that we were doing our homework.

So we took the same model, the same uh expectations, everything that are in IPS phase one.

And we ask ourselves will this development meet those thresholds?

And in every instance, this development according to this model meets the thresholds under IPS phase one.

The important thing to note is that doesn't include the great work that's going into IPS phase two to understand what happens when you have strong environmental protections.

What happens if you have these stormwater BMPs if you're limiting imperviousness, if you're providing uh forested buffers?

Um so we thought that was really important to share.

And then uh finally, uh we know that this is about more than implementing um environmental standards.

It's also about land conservation.

Uh wanna share that for our capital budget, we're gonna be requesting two million dollars for Derby open space acquisition.

Uh that will go into a regional open space fund and would support uh acquisition of really critical land in the Derby watershed.

Um these investments we feel are the the right thing to do at the right time.

I do want to finish my remarks.

Um I think some believe that this is a choice between development and no development.

It's really a choice between development under a 20-year-old plan or development under new standards.

Um, because uh the 13,000 units are allowed today under the Derby plan.

That is part of why we would like to uh work with council to get these implemented as soon as possible so that any development that might come before us uh falls under those standards.

Uh with that, again, I want to thank all of you.

I want to thank the stakeholders who have been actively engaged in every step of the process, and uh look forward to working with all of you stakeholders, electeds um to implement this amended plan.

I'll hand it back over to Chris or to you for questions to my comments, um questions for either Chris or Brian?

Oh of course, Nancy, I have many.

Happy to start if you'd like.

Thank you, thank you.

Uh it's not lost on me that there are two Chris's on the panel today as well.

So trying to soften me up.

We're not not gonna work.

But no, I I do appreciate all the work that has been put into this, the engagement that has been done.

Um I think at one point in time there was a hope that this amendment process would last six months, right?

And I think at that time we're like, hey, let's wait, let's incorporate the data.

And it has shown that you've kind of incorporated some of that in here today.

So I I do appreciate that.

One question off the bat, though, that I I do have to ask, and this is probably for um planning and development.

There have been talks, there have been rumors, residents have reached out about a potential data center being located in the Derby.

To your knowledge, is that true?

And if that is true, does the new accord have requirements for this type of resource-heavy development?

That's a great question.

Um it is true that there is a company that does develop data centers uh that purchase land in the Derby area in 2024.

It was reported in the dispatch at that time.

Um I believe they've since provided a letter to a number of the jurisdictions.

Um I know I saw a copy of it uh last week, I think, um, laying out what they may want to do in the Derby.

I'll be clear, we have not received any requests for rezoning, uh, any requests for annexations.

We have nothing filed with us that would uh speak to the data center.

Um I'll say that any use in the Derby watershed is ultimately going to come before the legislative body of that area, whether it be in you know Columbus, Prairie Township, Brown Township, um, and you as elected leaders will make that decision.

Um the uh plan certainly provides for mixed use.

Our focus is really on residential commercial uses, but there is also some limited um industrial manufacturing and places that make sense.

Um this area memory recalls is not zoned or not planned under the land use map for um industrial or for manufacturing.

Appreciate that, and appreciate you kind of giving us uh a heads up there.

I think obviously that is the topic of conversation in Ohio at the moment, especially in Central Ohio.

Um so ensuring that we have safeguards for just how we utilize our land is is extremely important.

So I guess more to come on that one as plans are finalized and things become before jurisdictions.

Uh you talked a little bit about secondary conservation areas, which great.

I I love that we are expanding there.

However, the amended plan outlines um I'm sorry.

The amended plan outlines secondary conservation areas that must be protected in the Derby unless a jurisdiction finds preservation is not technically or commercially feasible.

Can you define commercially feasible?

Yeah, so this is kind of like we do with variances, right?

Um the goal is to protect the secondary areas.

Um I could go into a very long explanation, but I'll spare you.

There could be someone that buys land that has enough uh primary conservation area they can protect it, but a lot of secondary conservation that we've now added uh that would make it hard for them to develop the site.

And so we are providing a way that if the development uh is something desired and is still sensitive, we would consider how they could develop into some of that secondary area, but it also this amendment also requires them to mitigate uh that and there's still requirements on how close, period you can get to the streams uh and with any kind of impervious area.

So, for example, I think what we imagine is if there had to be some kinds of stormwater management that needed to fit somewhere on the site, it could go into these secondary areas provided it was designed with all of these green or requirements, these best management practices.

Uh we're not talking about just a pond that's circular and has stone around it.

We're talking about vegetated, natural vegetated, natural shape, right depth, uh, right design that would be uh considered.

And it would have to be considered and approved by the jurisdiction which it's in.

Um that would be something that'd be like a variance, I guess, right?

Yeah.

And then at that point we could have the discussion.

All right.

No, appreciate you adding sharing that.

Uh your your news about sustainable Columbus is news and surprising to me as chair of public utilities and sustainability.

Um, but one of the things I did want to ask as it relates to sustainable Columbus, is that they have been working on building performance standards and potentially an ordinance that comes down the line.

Um if those go into place, how will those new requirements kind of interplay with the accord?

I'm gonna start this one and then I'm gonna ask Christopher Lore with planning to correct all the things I get wrong.

Um the the uh idea here uh with sustainable Columbus and the great work they're doing around building standards is that it would apply to this area uh as it gets adopted if it is annexed into the city of Columbus or is currently in the city of Columbus.

Um I think beyond that, I don't know that uh our actions would impact the other jurisdictions, but I'll ask Christopher to speak a little more to it.

Um that's correct.

So anything any new building standards for the City of Columbus would apply to any areas annexed or currently in the City of Columbus.

Largely this plan is focused on um broader land use uh considerations, not at the building scale.

Um the 2006 plan did experiment with uh lead for neighborhood development for certain areas, and we did use a checklist in a previous development to uh attempt to um see if the site plan could essentially meet those requirements.

They didn't exist in 2006.

Um a lot of the considerations there are about placement.

Uh so looking looking for transit-oriented development and that kind of thing is is difficult to meet those requirements for the lead for neighborhood development.

But certainly we would uh it's I think this falls under adaptive management if there's elements that are coming out um that are citywide.

We'd love to see how they we can uh incorporate that into the plan and work with other jurisdictions through BDAR.

Appreciate that.

Now that we're just kind of talking about the different jurisdictions and how the accord kind of plays into it.

Um as we talk about open space, right?

I think you have on there 50% on-site, 25% off-site.

How does that interplay with what other jurisdictions are doing?

Is that below the threshold of other jurisdictions?

Is that on par?

Is that increasing?

Do we have a sense?

So uh you mean outside of the accord?

Is it what other jurisdictions outside of the court?

In the accord, yeah.

So uh this would be basically be the requirements for jurisdictions in the cord.

Hilliard has done uh a higher requirement.

I think they've been doing 70 percent.

That said, this is where I get back into that definition issue we had, they define what qualifies as open space differently than what Columbus is qualifying as open space.

So there was some depending on what you call open space, you could say we're getting to 70 percent or we're not getting to 7%.

And so this was an attempt here to try to do a clear definition of what is and isn't open space and what counts towards that 50%.

But yeah, a jurisdiction could ask for more if they wanted to ask for more.

So the the accord won't then align with the definitions for open space will be for all those in the jurisdiction.

Or I'm sorry, all those in the accord.

Yeah, our our hope is, and this is it's gonna be up to each jurisdiction to adopt it, but our hope is that this is the this is the floor.

And if someone wants if a jurisdiction wants to require more, they can.

Um I think Hilliard in particular has been doing lower density development um so and clustered, so they've been able to, and again they've defined even stuff that probably wouldn't necessarily be qualified as um naturalized BMPs, but they've counted that towards open space, those kinds of things.

So again, it depends on what you count and how you classify it into what with number with this being the floor, then are other the other four, right?

So we know Hilliard's doing more.

The other two townships, are they doing more than 50 percent?

Are they doing less than 50%?

Is that not even a requirement out there?

With yeah, any development anywhere in the court would have to do 50 percent.

What I'm trying to get at is should we, if we are gonna be the first ones to take a crack at this, set a standard that is higher from our perspective, right?

Um, so that everyone is at least doing something that's relatively similar.

It's I didn't have the slide in here, but it is in the draft.

Um it gets challenging to do development and make the numbers work if you do if you do much beyond 50 percent, um, particularly because we've increased the buffers.

Yeah.

So we are taking, and it's not a small amount, and you probably hear that tonight from some of the speakers.

Um, we're taking chunks of land that under this current accord are developable and saying they're not developable.

Uh and so we're actually putting a squeeze on them.

So we felt like between the 50% and the buffer increase, we were trying to thread a needle that would make it still economically feasible to do it, but also protect the key things.

I I think that's the other thing I should probably clarify.

And you got I moved my hands too much.

Sorry.

I'll move that away.

All right, whatever you say better be good that we had to um I'll lock my hands down.

You've all seen site plans.

Um what isn't developed can be counted as open space.

So at times there are the leftovers.

It's not necessarily the most desirable parts or the parts if you're trying to connect between developments.

And what we really want to see with this accord is that developments are setting aside the primary and secondary conservation, and we've increased what that is.

So we're getting the stuff we really want, not the leftover space.

And a developer could work to say I'm giving you 70% open space, but it could be leftover strips in addition to, and I think we're not worried about those leftover strips, we're worried about the key components.

So those buffers on the stream corridors, the tree rows, the forested areas, the wetlands, those are the things we really want protected.

And so we're trying to make it uh economically feasible to develop and protect and provide those features on the sites.

Chair, I have more questions, but I I don't want to monopolize the time if others want to jump in, or I can keep going.

All right, we're gonna we're we're keeping it going.

I love that.

Um so one of the components I was talked about in the agreement is the uh permanent watershed coordinator.

And I think it was stated in the document that now is just not the appropriate time for that position.

Can you share why that is and then what would actually necessitate having that role?

So the watershed coordinator, unlike a number of things, um were uh topics discussed at length by the BDART membership.

And as with all of these things, we're trying to get a consensus between the jurisdictions, and there wasn't consensus on the watershed coordinator.

I think in part uh maybe several reasons.

One is how that would be funded.

Uh the other is how that coordinator would interplay with jurisdictional authorities responsibilities, who reports to what, how is that managed, where are the decisions made.

Um I think there's an understanding among the BDART members why some kind of coordination would be important.

And I think that's why they said at this point we're gonna start with the B Dart group as kind of that overseeing group coordinating group.

And then as we get this amendment underway and operational, that would be another thing to come back and visit once we kind of get our feet under ourselves.

And again, I'm speaking for one of the members, so Brian probably should answer this.

Um I think that accurately reflects the discussions among the B Dart jurisdictions.

Um there is some concern uh on the part of the Department of Development that these are intensely local land use decisions uh that are being implemented.

Um there is uh some question about handing over any authority to review that to a third party like um you know, another entity.

There was also from uh I'm not gonna speak for the other jurisdiction, there was another jurisdiction that raised serious concerns about um the legal ability of that individual to enter private property, for instance, to look at um stormwater BMPs uh to be a part of some of the core pieces that really get implemented at the jurisdictional level because again, um unlike Morpse, which is a regional council of governments, this is a voluntary coalition of governments that um is uh decentralized but is working off of a centralized plan.

Uh so we think that really the vast majority of this work is gonna happen in the city of Columbus.

That's where uh we will get development uh requests, I think initially.

So we wanted to make sure that we had City of Columbus staff that could assist in getting this off the ground, work through uh the implementation steps that we get from MKSK.

So that that's where we're at today.

Um I think as we reassess this plan moving forward, um, there will come a time, and I I wish I could tell you exactly what would trigger that moment, um, but I think it's gonna be adaptive management discussions amongst the jurisdictions, the level of um development pressure that we're seeing, and uh what the water quality monitoring is showing us.

I think if we get worrying signs from the water quality monitoring, uh that's really gonna amp up the focus and the need um in this area.

And and I appreciate that response.

I I think the challenge is always right, when everyone is in charge, no one is in charge.

And so if we were to put those stipulations in there, right?

Water carbon monitoring is bad, we got to do something.

Development pressure is more than we expected, we need this role.

I would encourage us to rethink that.

And if it's related to the cost and what it would take to hire said coordinator.

Um, one of my other questions was in regards to the uh impact fee for our developers.

I think it was 2500 per unit.

Um, but that was in the 2006 accord.

Obviously, given the buying power today, that's you know, should be about $4,000 per unit.

So it seems like maybe we are reducing the cost for developers at a time when we need the revenue to hire a coordinator to plan what we would actually do.

I'll speak to that council member from City of Columbus perspective uh from Department of Development.

Um of our concerns is balancing uh the environmental protection and the costs that are passed along to the home buyer or to the renter.

It is already more expensive to develop in the Derby simply because it's the only place in the region where you have to buy a hundred acres but only build on 50.

So that in and of itself is adding cost.

There are a number of things that are making development inherently more expensive.

And we think that having a developer restore streams, restore wetlands, provide additional offsite, you know, open space.

All these other things are of greater value and um are sort of baked into the plan.

So I think those are uh I believe you'll probably hear from from some constituents, those are essentially baked-in fees that are part of developing in the Derby.

Appreciate that.

Uh and chair, I I got two more questions.

All right.

Uh so one, it just the in the draft, there's a section titled open space credit framework.

Um, but there was no details written for that.

Can you just discuss the idea behind creating a credit framework?

And uh is this a way in which developers are buying their way out of that open space requirement.

All right.

Um I'm trying to think we've maybe Yankee, you should answer this question.

Sure.

Yeah, the open space credit framework is a placeholder that we had left in.

Um this was an idea that we received from a stakeholder um who does stream of wetland restoration uh within the derby.

And this was uh an idea presented to us to figure out a way where development can uh purchase quote unquote credits to be able to um have a third party go out and acquire land um that may be within primary and secondary areas uh outside of their development site.

Um we're still evaluating that piece of text, and we're we're we're still deliberating with B Dart on how we can incorporate that to make make sure that it's um equitable among all parties.

Well, I think the intent was never, we'll make sure that the language is clear.

The intent was never to go below that 25% requirement on the site.

So you have to do 50, but you're never going below that 25 if you're gonna go outside and find primary ground to protect appreciate that.

Uh my last question is on the IPS uh study that we've talked about.

And again, kudos to your team because that was my ask in this chamber when this was when MKSK was put forward as a consultant for the project, um, holding off and waiting for that phase one to be incorporated.

And you are correct.

You do incorporate aspects of the second phase in the agreement.

Um, but it says if the final IPS analysis warrants jurisdictions may consider using the IPS to help inform the best areas to invest resources to address historic impairments.

Why the May?

Why not show?

Yeah, we could change the May.

I think it's because we don't know what it says yet.

I guess our assumption should be that it's gonna tell us.

But uh, I think again, the jurisdictions are saying we want to see it before we agree to do it.

I think that was where the May came from.

But if that's Hartboro, we can we can talk about that.

Well then then that doesn't really incorporate or at least give the impression that you will incorporate it.

It's kind of like, well, if we decide if this is gonna fit, then we'll incorporate it.

But if it does not, or if the study says, hey, water quality is terrible, we need to really be restrictive in terms of what development looks like.

A jurisdiction may decide, nope, not going to incorporate this.

Yeah, I think that basically is my reading correct.

Yeah, I think we can change that word.

It was to give flexibility to make sure that I think the spirit of all the jurisdiction members is to incorporate it.

They just want to see it and know what it says before they say yes, we are absolutely going to incorporate it.

Appreciate that.

And I apologize, Chair.

There was actually one last question.

Uh and I promise it was the last one.

But uh, as it's currently written, the draft plan restricts advisory panel members from providing public comment on a proposed project that differs from the panel's decision.

One that seems like that is illegally infringing on someone's first amendment right to speak on an issue that's important to them.

Um but I would recommend maybe aligning your restriction to that of elected officials, where panel members are restricted from speaking on the behalf of the panel, but are allowed to speak in their personal capacity.

Would that be a change that we could attempt?

Absolutely, and you won't be surprised that's been brought up at the open house is brought up multiple times.

So that's something we're already working on.

But I agree that what you said is the intent, not the way it comes across in the text.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

I just have a couple follow-up questions.

This is um I love this hearing because Councilmember Weish is here and he will always ask 90% of the questions that I already have, so it makes my job very easy.

Do you mind I I want to follow up on Councilmember Weish's questions with regard to May versus Shell when the phase two results come out?

Have jurisdictions or have you all considered what might cause a jurisdiction not to want to change the verbiage from May to Shell.

Like what would that look like?

In what world would a jurisdiction not want to uplift their standards to meet whatever is environmentally necessary to preserve or to conserve I'll let uh Brian take a shot.

I I think one of the things this is a long way around to answer your question.

I'm sorry.

One of the things that was eye-opening for me personally on the IPS phase one was that it was looking historically at impacts on water quality.

And I think as you read it, you realize that one of I think one of the concerns with phase one as well is it does not distinguish between the year development was built.

So if a development was built in 1960 in the accord area, not following any BMPs directly running into the stream, it is affecting the water quality and is obviously a mark against water quality and development.

But it doesn't differentiate that between then a development that was built under this accord with BMPs after 2006, which might actually you know, again, we don't know because we haven't done the water quality level that we need to, and we can't assign it directly.

But the point is it made it apparent that we also need to be worrying about development that happened pre-accord, which is not in this 2006 accord, and it wasn't in our amendment.

We added a section to say we need to have discussions as jurisdictions about what can we do.

Now, this private property rights, it's already past development, but what can we do if we identify through IPS through water quality monitoring issues with development that has already occurred?

That becomes much more tricky.

Um I think it was some of those concerns, like if the IPS says we got to do something about past development, we got to figure out then how to do past development.

So I I'm getting what you're saying.

I think we could rewrite another way to say, but I think the point is I think the jurisdictions are committed to updating this for actionable steps.

The concern is whether there are things that say, wow, there's problems here.

I've got it just moved out of the way.

Um I do it all the time.

So it makes me open.

Um the problem is uh where's my thought?

If there is something that we jurisdictions can't actually actually do, but is a problem.

Um I think but uh I appreciate the concern about the language.

I don't know if you want to add anything more.

I certainly understand.

I think I ultimately was gonna follow this line of questioning into it's you you probably don't need to change May to Shell, but there could be somewhere in the middle where we are saying that if it is if it is completely infeasible because there is a development that's already there where individuals' property rights are already implicated, then cool.

But if we are talking about future developments that could be uplifted to the standards of whatever phase two comes out with, then the jurisdictions will commit to doing that that piece of it.

So I do think there's probably some somewhere in between.

I'm I'm a lawyer, there's always language to be written, always things to be written to accommodate both.

So I would encourage looking at that, and I don't I don't necessarily think it needs to be a made of shell, but I think there's somewhere in the middle that accommodates for what jurisdictions are have anxiety about with regard to shell, but also you know the concerns of conservation moving forward if there is development to happen in the future that probably should meet the standards of whatever phase two comes up with.

And then just I think one more, but I'm cautious about saying that because I feel like every answer makes me ask another question.

So we'll see how good your answer is and whether or not we can move on.

And chair, you always have uh jurisdiction to stop me whenever time is well spent.

I want to talk a little bit, and I'm I'm new, so if this is something that has already been discussed, feel free to check me on that.

But adaptive management and committing to come back to review this accord on a consistent basis to make sure the terms of the accord meet uh community needs across the board.

What what triggers review?

What would trigger review under this?

So I think B DART's not think B DART is agree to meet quarterly.

The water quality testing is done, it's going to be done annually.

Part of the commitment is that that information will be made public and be shared publicly, along with we hope other announcements such as purchase how much land was purchased in primary areas, um, any kind of new park developments, those kinds of things, number of units built, what the water quality is, where those things have been built, all that kind of information so we can share and really understand what the impacts are.

Um so the adaptive management idea is that if we see things that aren't working, that's the negative side, or things that are working exceptionally well, that we need to focus on things working exceptionally well, let's do more of that.

If things aren't working, then we need to figure out how to adjust those things.

Now, having said that, um if there is something that happens critically, like a dot like a spill, right?

And there's a die-off, there are already mechanisms set up uh for responses at the OEPA level at the ODNR level.

And so obviously those things would be triggered.

So it's it's really more these incremental things, the things that we want to find and track as part of this water quality study, and as part of development, we're also doing pre and post construction monitoring is required.

So we're trying to find all those things, and again, if things are indicators that we have problems and we can directly tie this to that, we want to do something about it, and we want to change it.

And I think what you said kind of um spoke a little bit to my what I hope to be my final question, which is is there concern for irreparable harm um for developments that where shovels are put into the ground and are constructed, and then some sort of change happens whereby those constructions now need to be retrofitted to the so this is one of those things because again, it won't surprise you.

This has come up in a lot of discussions.

I guess the first thing to always start with is the 2006 accord allows development.

Right.

And development can happen, and I'm sure regardless of what you do, whether you update this or don't update this, you're gonna get development submittals in the accord area probably soon.

And so the question is do you want those developments to happen under the 2006 accord?

Which we can't I can't tell you today, or absolutely not gonna cause any damage, or under this record amendment, which I can tell you I believe with the stream quarter protections is better than what we had existing.

Um that's really the the choice, or you can say we're not gonna approve any development, but now we're talking moratoriums, and that comes, you all know this comes with your own kinds of uh issues.

Um and so I'm glad I'm not your position, but those are in some sense those are the choices.

Nobody can guarantee that development isn't gonna have a negative impact.

I think the goal of this, the whole goal of this court is that development that is done helps the derby from a revenue point of view and uses the best understanding that we have uh and is implemented that way.

Sure.

All right, one more.

I promise, I promise, I promise.

Um housing affordability is a big deal, particularly in the housing committee, which is why I'm here and I always want to understand kind of the cost analysis that is done when we talk about making sure that we've got standards that um support environmental conservation and also meet our goals with regard to affordability.

Have there been any cost analysis done so that we understand kind of what metrics we need to meet to ensure that folks are even able to live in these housing units that are being built?

Great question, council member.

So a couple things.

We haven't done that because it takes away about 70% of the Derby revenue.

Instead, we've looked at uh, first of all, defining affordability in a way that's appropriate for this area.

Um, an initial thought was 120% AMI, which is something that we do use in other places, and tying that affordability to the Derby revenue program.

Um we're also looking at some innovative ways to utilize the revenue program.

Uh, first uh housing at every price point and across the spectrum was always expected in the Derby, right?

Um, and and we're recognizing that.

25% of the of every dollar can be used if the jurisdiction wants to to support housing choice.

Um look like a uh couple of examples that we have in there.

Um payment assistance grant to an individual.

Um that mirrors a program that we already have for home buyers today.

Um we could look at uh cost buy downs for things like uh link deposit program to buy down the percentage rate uh on a construction loan.

There are a lot of things that we could do, especially as the city of Columbus to utilize these funds to support housing affordability.

Um, and and I can tell you it is and will remain top of mind.

Um I would argue that uh we are proposing development on four percent of the planning area.

Uh we are making sure that development is as far away as possible from the outstanding state resource waters from the exceptional warm water habitat, making sure that we have the appropriate BMPs so that we can incrementally improve the water quality from the headwaters of the Hell Branch to the main stem and protect the Derby by protecting the lower parts of the Hell Branch.

Really, the way we get there, uh if you drove by some of the headwaters that have been restored, they're absolutely beautiful.

Highly recommend doing it.

If you drive by the ones that haven't, they can tend to look like a ditch in an agriculture in a field because that's what they've been turned into.

Through development, uh, we will have uh restored 60% of the clover groff after the sugar farm project is done.

Uh, through this project, again, everything that touches a stream has to restore it if it's ecologically degraded.

Um we think that's how you sort of supercharge that restoration of the Hell Branch and provide the funding to protect even more primary and secondary conservation.

Thank you.

Thank you to my colleagues.

Um next, we have a couple of invited invited speakers that I will be inviting up.

First, I'd like to call Tim Maloney, executive director of Metro Parks Council members weight, Ross, Chair Day Achauer.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for looking into this.

I'm not even looking at my script right now.

This is so important to not only Metro Parks but everybody, and we appreciate your time.

I'm going to try to follow my written comments that you guys should have, but if I go off, I apologize.

But this is why it's so passionate to us.

Since 1948, plain and simple, there's been no organization, no entity who's done more to protect the Derby than Metro Parks.

Give or take, we've acquired conserved, protected over 10,000 acres in the Derby watershed.

That is doing that in harmony with over a million and a half visitors who get to touch, feel, and experience the Derby every year.

Through these conservation efforts, we've protected restored wetlands, prairies, stream corridors, and forests across thousands of acres.

A great example of this is the Watts Wetland.

We have a 600-acre unencumbered wet prairie right in the middle of the Derby.

To put that in perspective, we believe that is the largest single landmass without a road, a bit of asphalt anywhere.

So when you feel my passion tonight, it is not my passion.

So when you feel my passion tonight, it is not my passion, it is the passion of Metro Parks since 1948.

Now to talk about some of the challenges.

Since the Darby Accord was approved in 2006, Metro Parks has invested about 11 million dollars into land acquisition just in the Derby alone.

During that time, we've acquired about 1,400 acres of land.

We build a world-class nature center right on the banks of the Derby.

We've restored numerous wetlands and introduced millions of visitors to the Derby.

That sounds great with the Derby Accord.

But notably, since the Derby Accord, Metro Parks has received zero funding from the funding mechanism in the Derby Accord.

We're very supportive of the current accord.

We're very supportive of the update of the accord, but the funding model is broken when the largest player in the game has received zero dollars.

And that's not because the city has done something or prairie township.

No.

That is because the model is broken.

The money is built to come at the tail end.

Well, if the money comes at the tail end, the developments have happened, the land values have gotten to a point that it's not feasible for a park district to acquire land such as that.

So now here we are in 2026.

We've got a chance to improve on the original accord to ensure the permanent protection of what we all want to protect, and I think everybody agrees with that.

We've been involved in this process from the beginning.

We've been invited to every meeting, we've had a voice, we believe, and our friends at MKSK, our friends in the development department have listened to every single thing we've said, and we believe we've heard every comment from the public and from other interested parties.

We couldn't be happier with the process, I guess is what I'm saying.

So we look at this update as a roadmap for conservation in some of the most critical areas within the watershed.

And it was talked about earlier, but I think it really needs to be hammered home.

This proposal in front of Hilliard, Columbus, the townships, is going to put a buffer of 300 feet on each side of the tributaries feeding into the Derby, as well as a larger buffer around the creek itself.

Overnight, that is a game changer.

Overnight, we, the city, landowners, whoever, are going to be able to make sizable differences into these tributaries that feed that watershed.

And then the update to the funding model to go back to that is going to allow for investment at the beginning of the process, whether it's the funding model, whether it's the 50% land set aside to allow the city, the townships, Hilliard to work in harmony with the development pressure that we're all feeling.

So after 20 years, we are well past the need for an update of this.

Times have changed, uh market pressures have changed, and we believe Metro Parks is uniquely positioned to not be the legislative authority, but to be a leader in the conservation.

You know, we're excited that part of this has a coordinator assigned from the city to work on this.

I was in the back and I go, I elbowed our resource manager.

I go, Kevin, how many people do we have working in the Derby watershed daily?

We have over 30 people dedicated to either Battle Darby or Prairie Oaks Metro Park.

So one coordinator is great, do not get me wrong, but to stand in front of council and let you know there are very few people who can do the heavy lifting needed as this project goes forward.

And I stand way off script now.

I stand way, I stand in front of this council to say Metro Parks is that entity.

Mr.

Clark behind me will agree to this statement.

We have said all along, if you come up with land for Metro Parks, whether by fee simple or lease that is connected to something we own, we will take on the maintenance, upkeep, restoration of that in perpetuity.

We've done that over and over, not only with the watershed at uh Derby, but throughout our system.

We're working hand in hand with the city of Hilliard right now under the 2006 agreement on a very similar concept.

I'll get back to my script to make sure I stay on track, get off the soapbox.

With this, we hope all jurisdictions will pass ordinances prohibiting any variances or changes to zoning that will allow an increase to impervious surface or land use in the watershed.

That seems a little bit complicated, but what that means is if the accord says X, we all need to unite because, and I've been in front of this council, you guys see it almost every Monday night.

I'm sure our friends at Hilliard see it.

Can we get a little variance to do X?

Can we do get a little zoning change to do Y?

And when it gets presented, it makes sense.

But the group behind me talked about the effort and the public input and the stakeholders on this.

That hard surface is really what is a challenge, and we hope as this moves forward we get that.

Okay, now I'll get back on script.

But I'd like to thank this city council, our friends at our other municipalities, and especially the city staff and MKSK for this process.

This has been a great process.

And I'm gonna tell you, there's no way a process like this will make every party happy, but we believe this will add additional protections and guarantee the longevity and to keep the Derby as what we say, and I don't think anybody will argue the most spectacular waterway in all of North America.

Okay, done rambling.

I'd be glad to take questions or get out of your way if you would like me to.

Thank you.

Thank you, Tim, for your advocacy and your and your partnership.

Um next, I would like to call Chelsea Kiefer, a restoration biologist with the Streams and Wetlands Foundation.

Good evening.

Um I'm Chelsea Kiefer, I'm a restoration biologist with the Stream of Wetlands Foundation.

Um we are a 501c3 nonprofit specializing in stream and wetland restoration, primarily through compensatory mitigation.

Um we also do voluntary and grant-footed restoration work.

Um since we started in 1992, we've restored and permanently protected over 5,000 acres in the state and over 50 miles of stream.

Um but we're also a stakeholder in the Derby Accord watershed.

Um actually, a couple of our projects are where the town center was proposed, um, which obviously didn't happen.

But um we did uh a project in the early 2000s, um, which is now managed by Metro Parks, and then um several more in the last five years, totaling about 400 acres of restoration, and um almost two and a half vials of headwaters to the Hell Branch run.

Um, and that was all through compensatory mitigation, not necessarily funded by the accord in any way.

Um, but we are just um appreciative to be included in this whole process.

Um, they've done a really great job being very collaborative, um, listening to everybody's thoughts and opinions, and um, I think our our kind of role is to just um as a stakeholder as a landowner, but then also as a natural resource restoration entity to just um be here to support the accord.

Um so speaking absolutely in favor of it, and um your question about the kind of the framework of crediting, that was one of our comments that we made on the draft, and it's too much to go into right now, and it's it not time and and too detailed, but essentially um just borrowing ideas of this concept that open space and on-site restoration sounds really great, but you have to have someone that knows what they're doing, and um, you know, like Director Muloney was saying, they're happy to take care of care of it if it's kind of continuous pieces.

But if you have five acres here and ten acres here and two acres here, who's taking care of those, what value are they really adding?

And so this concept of maybe um sort of aggregating open space into 200 acres, um, and that might be you know more ecologically beneficial.

Now you have someone that will take care of it and steward it rather than just you know becoming maybe weeds wheat field or or whatever that might be.

So that was kind of the basis of it, and there's a lot of work to be done with that, but we're just um kind of here to support and be a resource.

Um we don't do everything that has to do with the accord, but we know what we're doing with restoration work, and so just kind of offering that.

Um, and uh and I just have been really impressed by this whole process.

Um, Chris has been so uh gracious with with everything going on and all the comments that they're being received, and and it's not perfect because nothing is perfect, and so I just think um they've done a great job of not letting perfect get in the way of good.

I think this has the potential to do a lot of of good.

So that was um what we wanted to just express our support and um you know we'll continue to to collaborate and offer what we can do to help.

So thank you.

Thank you, Chelsea.

Do any of my colleagues have questions?

Not a question but comment.

Obviously, as it relates to the uh open space framework.

If you want to share your thoughts, love to review them.

Okay, yeah, great.

Okay, thank you, Chelsea.

We will now move into our public comment portion of the hearing.

Um before today's noon deadline, we received 13 requests to provide public testimony and 25 written testimony submissions, which were sent to all members of council earlier today.

Um I will be inviting each speaker to come forward, uh, but we'll also announce the name of the speaker who is up next, so you can be prepared to come on deck.

Each speaker has three minutes to speak.

This is the standard um time frame that is used in all council meetings and hearings.

Um speakers, please state your name and if applicable, the name of any organization you are representing.

And so, first up, we have Ashley Hoy, um, Big Derby Accord advisory panel member.

Can I go this way thank you?

Uh good evening.

Uh, my name is Ashley Hoy.

I'm the uh current uh chair of the Big Derby Accord, and uh I just wanted to thank Nancy.

We go back a long way.

We used to represent um the Western Area Commission back in the day, and so I just wanted to say hello again and thank you for inviting me today.

Um the council members, thank you for being here today.

I really appreciate it.

Um I just wanted to thank you for being here today.

And uh my long involvement with the Big Derby Accord is only because I love the Big Derby Creek.

Um I've lived on it for over 25 years and continue to watch out for her and protect her best I can.

My fellow members uh on the panel, Dr.

Stephen Gordon, Anthony Sassen, Brian Gara, Leo Alameda, Melissa Brinkhoff, Paul Denton, and Mike Reeves, um, and all the past members who have given up their professional and personal time to attend all the rezoning meetings in the past 20 years should be commended.

I really it's a non-paying gig.

Uh we do that on our bosses' time uh with you know, or if we work, you know, we we take that time to do that.

We do it just because um we love the Big Derby Creek and its tributaries.

It's a labor of love.

I also wanted to thank all the staff uh for the 10 jurisdictions that put in many hours of the work behind the scenes to make this process work.

Um behind me is uh four guys that work really hard on this, and uh they should be commended.

Uh I wanted to let council know that all these meetings regarding the amendment of this amazing document has been an incredible undertaking, and that all parties, public and private, should take a bow.

A special shout out to Deputy Director Regional Growth Strategies, Brian Clark, and all all his hard work.

Thank you, Brian.

The original document that was made back 20 years ago had a lot of good things in it, and I believe that these amendments that update this document will only help protect the Big Derby Creek and its tributaries that flow through the I encourage everyone here who has not uh who has not or has not for a long time uh to come out to the far west side on a nice warm day and put in a kayak or a canoe, paddle down through the precious resource that we have here in Franken County and experience what we experience every day.

Moving forward, the Big Dhabi Accord Advisory Panel will consume this amendment and follow it to the intent that it was written so to protect the Big Derby and its tributaries.

This panel meets uh the second Tuesday of every month at the commission and meeting room at the courthouse at 1.30.

And if there's any rezoning case to come before the panel, that's what we do.

And uh I just wanted to thank you for your time.

And uh I didn't see anything come up on the clock, so I think I I'm I'm good to go.

So but thank you, Nancy and Council.

Thank you, Ashley.

Um next up we have Sharon Rastadder for Westside Area Commission, followed by Steve Campbell, North Star Development.

Hello, uh, I'm Sharon Rastetter, and I am here representing the Far West Side Area Commission, uh, which I chair.

Um, good evening.

Thank you, Councilmember De Agar for hosting this public hearing regarding the Big Derby Creek Accord amendments.

It's been almost 20 years since the Accord was created, and with more scientific methods and measures available now, it's time to review and revive revise this plan, which was developed to provide a proactive approach to managing development and ensuring the protection and improvement of water quality and aquatic habitat in the Big Darby Creek watershed.

The plan provides guidance for how and which land should be developed, preserved, and protected.

The plan, similar to a comprehensive plan, provides land use and policy guidance for changes in land use over time.

The Far West Side Area Commission is an area encompassing 11.7 square miles, at which 5.5 square miles are within the Big Derby Accord area.

Our commission has been mindful to the Big Derby since our inception and are deeply concerned for its protection and preservation.

To that end, commissioners have attended Big Derby Accord panel meetings over the past nine plus years and the workshops during this amendment process.

Additionally, our commission has been engaged in the zone-in and Columbus growth strategy processes.

We greatly appreciate that the initial February deadline for finalizing the amendment and for council's vote was moved forward to allow for the first phase of the Ohio Division of Natural Resources integrated prioritization system IPS study, which was released in mid-January to be received, reviewed, and incorporated into the proposed amendments with some input from stakeholders, which includes developers, local governmental jurisdictions, and environmental groups, and the public.

However, there are two phases of this study.

The second phase takes place this summer with results available in late summer, early fall of 2026.

Given that this second phase has not yet occurred, the Far West Side Area Commission respectfully requests that Columbus City Council pause any actions to amend and/or approve legislation for the Big Derby Accord amendments until the second phase of the IPS study is completed, reviewed by stakeholders, and integrated into the Accord accordingly.

The primary purpose of the Big Derby Accord Master Plan should be focused on the protection of the outstanding water array.

To that end, it is essential the plan be guided by science.

Additionally, we would like to request the Far West Side Area Commission's recognition and inclusion as a stakeholder.

At present, while we've been afforded a private meeting with city officials and a 30-minute early admission to the March 24 Big Derby Accord Amendments open house, as the open house date and time conflicted with the Area Commission's regular monthly meeting, we have not been privy to documents and materials in a timely manner.

We've received said items as private residents, which is much later, if we've even received them at all.

Given our role as an advisory body and first step in the process for development and rezoning approvals, and that half of the land within our area commission borders is located within the Big Derby watershed accord area.

It is imperative that we are included in this process.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, Sharon.

Thank you for all the work that you and the other commissioners contribute there to to the community.

And thank you, amazing job staying at three minutes.

You're a rock star on public speaking.

Thank you.

Next we have Steve Campbell, followed by James Jewell.

Good evening, and thank you, Madam Chair and members of council.

I'm Steve Campbell.

I'm the owner and principal of North Star Policy and Project Development.

I appreciate the opportunity to share my views with you.

Years ago, I worked with Mayor Coleman and President Hobbesh of City Council to launch a multi-jurisdictional effort to protect the Big Darby.

This ultimately resulted in the Big Darby Accord.

In recent years, I've worked with developers, builders, engineers, land use planners, local governments, commissions, and panels to fulfill a vision of public-private partnership with the accord and to achieve sustainable development.

Over the past several months, I've participated in B Dart's effort to review and amend this important planning document.

The proposed amendment offers a common sense pathway to strengthen the accord's development and water quality standards.

Cite the Accord's remaining 14,000 homes on a modest footprint of the watershed.

This is a complicated endeavor.

I thank all of those involved.

The City, BDART, and MKSK have stayed on task and produced a stronger accord framework that includes regular reviews to consider new information, the challenges, opportunities, and to make changes as appropriate.

Here are a few highlights I would like to bring to your attention.

The amendment requires stream restoration.

It increases a no-build corridor around streams.

It establishes water testing and monitoring.

It dedicates 25% of the revenue for priorities lands and open space.

It promotes designated growth corridors along the urban edge.

It allows up to 25% of the revenue for home affordability.

It offers new tools to make the revenue program more effective.

It defines the role of the advisory panel and requires regular training.

And finally, and most importantly, it sets the framework for regular accord reviews and updates.

In sum, the proposed amendment strengthens the accord and should be adopted as soon as practical.

Thank you, and I'd be glad to answer any questions.

Thank you, Steve.

Thank you for all your work on this.

Um next up is James Jewell, followed by Kristen Terry.

Good evening.

My name is James Jewell, and I am the Prairie Township Administrator.

On behalf of the Board of Trustees, I would like to thank Columbus for hosting tonight's public hearing.

On Thursday, October 24th, 2024, Columbus hosted a big Derby Accord watershed jurisdiction workshop at Sotogrove Metro Park.

In attendance were local jurisdictions, interested parties, and organizations.

After three hours, it was clear it was time to update the accord.

This was the beginning of an 18-month process to get where we are today.

During this process, there were four well-attended workshops.

The topics discussed were water quality monitoring, revenue, open space, and land use.

Each workshop had a unique format that actively connected with the attendees.

All comments and concerns were compiled and shared with B Dart members.

This type of information was essential to the group as we moved forward with the amendment.

These were just four examples of the outreach that MKSK had conducted.

Ultimately, the task to amend the Big Darby Accord Master Plan must take in consideration the need to balance conservation and develop with the understanding of the expected growth in this region and still preserve one of the most biologically diverse aquatic systems in the Midwest.

Over the 18 months, Trustee Pritcher and I have attended over 50 meetings regarding the Acc.

I know our friends from Columbus, Franklin County, Hilliard, and Brown Township have taken part in just as many, if not more.

This does not consider the hours everyone has put in emails, phone conversations, and reviewing drafts.

We all have put in a lot of time and effort in this document.

The proposed amendment is not perfect, but it is better than the existing master plan.

If approved, Section 1.7 states the B DART will convene no less than quarterly with additional meetings scheduled at the request of at least three jurisdiction members of the BDART.

This forces the B DART to meet and consider water quality monitoring units of results, new development standards, future regional water studies, ODNR assessments, and other scientific data.

I stated that the amendment is not perfect, but it will now be reviewed by an engaged members quarterly, not every and not every 20 years.

With consideration of the information provided, the Prairie Township Board of Trustees is prepared to vote on and move forward with the Derby Accord revisions as presented.

Prairie Township would like to thank Franklin County, the City of Hilliard, Brown Township, and the City of Columbus for all of them demanding work on this amendment.

Thank you to Columbus City Council for funding this endeavor, and thank you to MKSK's team.

They have been remained open to everyone's requests and suggestions without bias to the contract owner.

Guys, barring any questions, I respectfully submit my testimony.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, James.

Next up we have Kristen Terry, followed by David Icke.

Good evening, Chair Day O'Cawar and Council Members Weish and Ross.

My name is Kristen Terry.

I'm a Columbus City resident and graduate student at OSU.

I am here today to urge you to not pass the Derby Accord until the full science has been incorporated.

As is acknowledged by the Accord, the Derby is a keystone ecological system in Ohio and is one of the most biologically diverse freshwater systems of its size in the Midwest region.

The importance of protecting the Derby cannot be overstated.

ODR's IPS phase one has shown adverse impacts that development has already had on the Derby's tributaries.

It is paramount that this council adheres to scientific evidence and waits for ODR's full IPS phase two study, which is expected this summer and will show the amount of development that the Derby watershed can sustain without ecological decline.

Protecting the Derby also makes strong economic sense.

This protection will improve nearby property values, it will encourage ecotourism and drive people to local businesses, and it will encourage recreational spending from Ohio residents.

When we speak of costs, we must also include in that the costs of environmental destruction.

Just as Ohio saved the Cuyahoga Valley from destruction in the 70s.

This council must commit to protecting the Derby today.

Preserving the Derby watershed is an investment for future generations, both to preserve our environment and to encourage sustainable economic growth.

This preservation is only possible with full consideration of the ODR IPS phase two study.

As has been expressed, it has been 20 years since the 2006 Accord.

Waiting a few more months to incorporate the full science should be a non-issue.

The conservation plans must be scientifically based and must trust in the technical expertise of ODNR.

This council must exercise its judgment and patience to wait for the science and commit to not passing any changes to the Derby Accord before the science has been finished.

Protecting the Derby watershed is a turning point for the future of Ohio's ecosystems.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Kristen.

Next up we have David Ike, followed by Melissa Brinkeroff.

Hi.

Hello.

My name is David Icke, and I am just here to represent Franklin County.

I've been a Franklin County resident for 45 years, and I grew up on the Big Derby less than a mile away from the river there.

I actually grew up going to the river as kids with friends, dragging logs off the bank of the river, and then riding on those logs down the river, and then hitchhiking back to our bicycles.

So it's where I fell in love with nature.

And it's an opportunity for everybody to fall in love with nature out there.

So I just wanted to, you know, give voice to the river, speak for it in a way that I think everybody here is trying to do.

Kristen, the person that spoke prior to me, she said it best.

She said everything that I would say, including just that I asked the council not to pass the big Derby Accord amendment until phase two of the IPS is finished and fully reviewed by all jurisdictions in the public.

That's it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Melissa Brinkeroff, followed by this.

I guess this is a two for Mike Reeves and Kimberly and Kimley Horn.

My name's Melissa Brinkerhoff.

I just represent myself.

I live in the watershed.

Thank you, Council, for the opportunity to come and speak at this hearing.

Time.

Time can be a harbinger of things to come, possibly foretelling of the future.

Time.

Time affords us the opportunity to think and to study and to consider.

The lack of time leads to abrupt decisions and negative consequences that can never be undone.

Remember the number 500.

It's been about 500 days, less than a year and a half since City of Columbus started this process.

Solely funded by them.

Also note that not every jurisdiction has been included in the B Dart meetings or other groups.

So I do want to make note of that.

Please remember 14,000.

14,000 years ago was when the last glacier retreated, and uh the Big Derby Creek and the watershed was swarmed.

10,000, 10,000 years ago.

That's how long fish and mussels have lived in the Big Derby.

The creek has over 100 species of fish and over 44 species of mussels.

Consider that all of Europe only has 16 species of freshwater mussels.

Nature Conservancy has deemed it one of the last great places in the Western Hemisphere.

10 to 20 years.

It's how long the freshwater mussels can live.

They're like the canaries of the coal mine.

Five years is how long it took to develop the original accord.

It's been 20 years since the original cord uh developed and became the watershed master plan.

We're talking about 500 days, less than a year and a half.

How can this process be finished in less than a year and a half?

What's driving the speed of these amendments?

What's pushing development out into the watershed?

The IOD and RIPS study will be finishing in a matter of months.

Why can't City of Columbus wait a few short months to get all the science?

That information can help protect this creek that's been here for over 14,000 years.

Reconvening after IPS to make changes, uh, you're not going to pull up houses or move development away.

So we're we're asking time to pause is now.

We want to get this right.

Let's do the right thing, and let's wait.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Melissa.

Next we have Mike Reeves, Kinley Horn, and following that is Anthony Sasson.

Hi, I'm Mike Reeves.

Um, I am one of your City of Columbus appointed members to the Big Darby Accord Advisory Panel.

Um thank you to City Council, thank you to the Department of Involvement and MKSK for all of their work over the past 18 months of pulling together stakeholders and the community to provide feedback and other guidance on how to restore and protect the Big Derby Accord watershed and balance the growing needs of providing housing in the greater Greater Columbus region.

Um as a Big Darby Accord Advisory Panel member, I can attest that working off of an accord uh that is 20 years old is challenging.

The current version of the accord was written prior to the 2008 version of the Ohio EPA's general construction permit, the first permit that introduced water quality standards for new construction projects in the state of Ohio.

Uh it was before prior to the inclusion of the Big Derby Creek watershed appendix to that general construction permit that started requiring groundwater recharge and post-construction testing requirements for the Big Derby Accord watershed.

It was written prior to the Ohio EPA Water Quality Management 208 plan for the Big Derby Creek and prior to countless versions of the City of Columbus's stormwater drainage manual that the developers and engineers follow as guidance when developing in the City of Columbus.

As a Big Darby Accord Advisory Panel member, I greatly appreciate the updated comprehensive plan that uh understands and incorporates current development trends pushing for higher density on the urban fridge and not sprawling out over the entire watershed.

Um, the updated terminal terminology guidance and recommendation that aligns with those previous mentioned 208 plans, general permits, and the stormwater drainage manual, and finally for the tools and resources it provides our panel with such as training and committed resources from the City of Columbus in terms of staff.

Um, I appreciate the feedback that others have and will provide on the current draft through the Big Derby Accord.

Um, and I encourage the uh City Council to keep this process moving forward.

Business is not slowing down in the City of Columbus, uh, and the Big Darby Accord Advisory Panel continues to receive multiple applications to review every month.

Last month we had three applications alone.

So pausing this process will not pause applications coming to our panel.

Um we review these applications as they come in, and the urgency uh to have something that is not 20 years old, I think is at hand and would greatly benefit our panel.

Thank you.

Thank you, and thank you for your service on the panel.

Next up we have Anthony Sasson, followed by Analisa Roca.

Hello, my name is Anthony Sasson.

Uh, thanks to uh the chair, Deyak Hour, members uh Weish and Ross.

Uh I'm speaking as a member of the Derby Creek Association.

I live in the Big Derby Creek watershed in Franklin County.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak and local government's efforts to amend the Big Derby Accord.

I have over 40 years of scientific and policy professional environmental experience and 25 years of experience focused on Big Derby Creek and the Big Derby Accord.

I have participated in hundreds of meetings on the Big Derby Accord.

I ask that council not to pass the Big Derby Accord Amendment until phase two of the integrated prioritization system or IPS is finished, fully reviewed by all the jurisdictions and public and is incorporated into the amendment.

That important phase two effort includes extensive analysis beyond what has been done to date.

It is more detailed with extensive and valuable local data and analysis potential.

Very importantly, IPS phase two focuses on how local governments can guide and support efforts to protect high quality streams like Big Derby Creek and its main tributary Hill Ranch Run.

Also, the IPS focuses on what makes the Big Derby Creek and tributaries special, the high biodiversity and rare species that are fundamental reasons.

There is a Big Derby Accord.

Without these reasons, we would not be here.

The IPS takes these outstanding features into account, something that is beyond other models and analyses.

Otherwise, we risk risk losing much of what distinguishes the watershed and makes Big Derby worth protecting.

Therefore, we need to incorporate the IPS so that this additional science can be used before we miss this opportunity.

The Accord is a grand experiment with no known successful precedent.

The IPS is the most advanced review in Ohio of potential impacts of stream health and high biodiversity.

Please pause the Accord Amendment approval and fully incorporate the ODNR's IPS in its phase two.

The consequences of an inadequate accord leading to degradation are great.

In fact, we need to significantly improve stream quality.

The recent Hellbranch Run Muscle found no living mussels in this major tributary draining the Accord area.

This alone should be reason for a pause.

Other needs included an administrator to help attend to daily implementation of the accord.

Another need is to establish a relationship with the adjacent jurisdictions in Madison and Union Counties to help build better protection related to all the watershed's proposed development.

Please pause the accord amendment and not pass it until phase two of the IPS is incorporated.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, Hampton.

Next we have Annalisa Roca, followed by Cynthia Vermilion.

Chair Day O'Cauer, Vice Chair Weish, and members of Columbus City Council, thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Annalisa Rocca, and I serve as the Central Ohio Regional Director at the Ohio Environmental Council Action Fund, which works towards a clean, healthy Ohio where our democracy empowers our communities to thrive in harmony with the environment.

The Big Darby Creek is a treasure.

It's among the most biologically diverse waterway, not just in Ohio, but in the entire Midwest.

Protecting it is central to the promise and vision of the Big Darby Accord.

As council considers this new accord, I urge you to make an informed decision by pausing and waiting for the ODNR's integrated prioritization study, or IPS, to be completed this summer.

The IPS study is critical because it is designed to answer the most important question before us.

How much development can the Derby watershed absorb without ecological decline?

Unlike previous studies, the IPS is designed to establish thresholds of harm, meaning it will tell us where the tipping points are before irreversible damage occurs.

The forthcoming phase two of the IPS is focused specifically on the Derby watershed, and it is intended to inform community land use planning.

Failing to wait for this critical tool would be counterproductive and short-sighted.

We should not be making long-term policy decisions for one of Ohio's most important ecosystems using incomplete and outdated science when more precise, relevant data is on the way.

Waiting for the IPS study is not a delay.

It is basic due diligence and common sense leadership.

To ensure the health of the Derby, OEC Action Fund strongly supports a dedicated independent watershed coordinator who reports directly to B Dart.

This would ensure consistent monitoring, coordination, and follow-through across the watershed.

Finally, I want to recognize several positive elements in the proposed accord update.

It increases stream buffers, placing more acreage into areas that need protecting.

It creates a monitoring program, which is essential to understanding weather prediction how weather protections are working.

And it includes ephemeral streams, which are critical to overall watershed health, but are often overlooked.

These are really important steps in the right direction.

Council has an opportunity to get this right, to be innovative and to ensure the growth does not come at the expense of one of the most unique and valuable ecosystems in our region.

I urge City Council to wait for the completed ODNR IPS study and use it as a foundation for the final decisions on the accord.

Thank you for your time, and I'm happy to take any questions.

Thank you, Annelise.

Next we have Cynthia Ramillion, followed by Adam Lehman.

Good evening, Chairwoman Dayakauer, Councilmember Weish, Councilwoman Ross.

I thank you for being here.

But I would like to correct a misconception regarding the integrated prioritization system, or IPS study currently being undertaken by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources.

The IPS is a technical framework used to link land use data with stream quality, helping to identify stressors and guide restoration.

Additionally, the IPS is a land use tool to be used as a means to conserve a resource before it is degraded.

It is a predictive tool to be used as a guide.

As you are aware, the Hill branch run has been identified as a degraded stream.

For decades, it has taken the blow, so to speak, for the big Derby.

Eventually, the Hell branch will reach its absorption limit, and the big Derby itself will be impacted.

The current revisions proposed for the Accord document are not predictive of the harm that will be done to the HEL branch with the level of proposed development.

After asphalt and concrete go down, they won't be ripped out.

If we find out later that these impervious surfaces will be detrimental to the health of the Derby watershed.

And at this point, with the information we currently have, there is a strong correlation between impervious surfaces and the degradation of watershed streams.

Absolutely.

Has its impact been as detrimental as brick and mortar development?

Absolutely not.

Current modeling shows a much greater negative correlation between water quality and impervious surface development.

The current accord revisions do not address all types of green infrastructure that should be considered mandatory for minimizing negative impacts to the watershed.

I suggest further study in this area should be done before approval of the revisions.

Any development needs to be done correctly and carefully, minimizing negative impacts to this most biodiverse and scenic river system.

This will probably be a higher price tag to maintain the environmental integrity of the watershed.

We owe it to our local community to do our utmost as elected leaders to make this revision with as much current scientific information as possible.

And the IPS phase two study will inform us as leaders how best to proceed.

I urge this council body to wait for the results and analysis of the phase two study scheduled to be out in early fall.

Thank you for listening.

Wow, two seconds.

Great.

I commend everybody for sticking to the three.

I think I might have a record for hearings where everybody's stuck to three minutes.

Next we have Adam Lehman, followed by our final speaker, Debbie Hampton.

Council members, thank you for your time.

There's been one really important piece of context that I don't think has gotten much uh note today, and that is the fact that the Derby's ecosystem is near a tipping point.

And it's actually predictable.

If you look at the comments I provided, there's a figure on there that kind of demonstrates this.

You know, and it's a result of the known fact in Ohio and everywhere, that the primary driver of stream degradation is the amount of development in the watershed.

So, you know, we've been hearing about this long plan and all of these different components to it.

And so I invite the council to just take a step back and kind of reflect on the question: what would it take for us to be truly confident that Darby protections will be balanced with development?

And I think that if folks truly reflect on that, most people would agree with the comment that a very simple and probably obvious first step is to ask how much development can we put in the watershed without ecological decline, and then you know, we commit not to surpassing that.

Um, the supporters of the current draft um have referenced a lot of science.

And I'm familiar with with all of these studies referenced, and I would put them all in a category that I would call really important and actionable science for how we can most effectively mitigate the impacts of development, partially mitigate, but it doesn't answer that foundational question that the IPS will answer, which is how much.

Those have not been updated.

We're we're just guessing.

We're making a gamble that if we use all the best BMPs right now, we can just use continue forward with those 20,000 units, and the Derby's gonna be all right.

But we don't have to guess.

We're four months away from getting actionable answers.

And you know, in my last few seconds, I just want to kind of address this, you know, may versus shall address this in the future.

You know, the devil's in the details, and this is a big comprehensive plan, and I'm sure there's no shortage of ways that we can incorporate it in completely uneffectful and unmeaningful ways.

What we're asking for is impervious surface thresholds be used to develop a land use map that we can all be confident is not going to degrade the stream.

Thank you.

Thank you, Adam.

And now our final speaker, Debbie Hampton.

Hello, I'm Debbie Hampton, and uh, our family has lived in Columbus for over 30 years.

I'm speaking tonight as a resident.

Thank you, Councilmember Deyakar and Council members.

We appreciate your care and your questions.

I am emphatically asking City Council to wait to vote on the Darby Accord Amendment until the ODNR phase two IPS study is completed and reviewed by stakeholders.

I wish the Anderson Farm Development would have to wait for approval until then, too.

The weight is critical to accurate decisions that will be irreversible.

I spent today with my grandkids.

Our oldest, he wants to be a zookeeper.

Sorry.

He can identify with detail nearly all the dinosaurs and almost any animal.

He loves to walk, natures, and fishing.

I wanted to mention I wanted to mention him because the protection city council will vote into place or decide not to impact his future.

The air, the water, the aquatic life are dependent on this city of Columbus to be good stewards.

Unfortunately, we residents have seen the lack of compliance with even the existing plan.

The new draft falls short, and studies we do have definitively show concern for water quality and dying muscles, emphasizing the need for caution and constraint.

Far Westside stakeholders, scientists, and residents have been sounding the alarm for decades.

Here is the definition to Big Derby Accord Master Plan.

Noted in the recent open house at the recent open house, a multi-jurisdictional guiding policy document originally adopted in 2006 to protect portions of the Big Darby Creek watershed within Franklin County while guiding future development and conservation.

I think this should have read while guiding future conservation and then development.

But this is how it is in the city of Columbus.

Sorry, led by the mayor's housing at all cost initiatives.

The damage cannot be reversed.

Let us allow the data to drive us for the sake of preserving our valuable natural resources.

Build, yes, build, but with wisdom and reliance on the science making appropriate critical decisions within this special protected area.

Intentional conservation is the start.

Then critical decisions within this special protected area.

Intentional uh sorry, uh appropriate development will fall in place, but the plan needs followed.

Why we have heard lots about the new plan, stakeholders and residents in the far west side feel we have not been heard for years regarding protections already written in ink with the 2006 plan.

It felt like Sugar Farm made up their own rules regarding density open space water and aquatic life protections.

Columbus allowed Columbus allowed the developers to skew the text to push the housing initiatives forward.

Sadly, Anderson Farm is about to do the same thing.

No matter what, when the IPS phase two is complete, we ask this city council to wait to vote.

If it's not in the text, it does not exist.

What a blessing it will be if the big Derby watershed is healthier when my grandson is in his 50s than it is today.

That will take intentional planning and implementation with no exceptions to the developers who choose to develop within the protected Derby Creek Accord.

If they build there, they must follow the rules or build elsewhere.

Listen to the scientific research and adhere to the intentional steps required for a sustainable, unique, and healthy big derby watershed for generations to come.

Thank you.

Thank you, David.

Um this concludes the public testimony portion of this meeting.

Um thank you all for coming.

We no surprise this hearing ran is running longer than anticipated because we have a lot of um discussion here, but thank you for sticking it out.

Um before we wrap things up, I would like to um go back to Chris Herman and Brian Clark if you want to um provide any um clarifications, any closing remarks.

Um I I'd like to begin by apparently getting some feedback.

Um I'd like to begin by thanking uh the council members again for uh spending your evening with us uh talking about a very complex issue uh with really a pretty straightforward goal, and that is the protection of the Big Darby.

Um that's why we are all here.

Um I'd like to thank the stakeholders uh that have been a part of the process, everyone who spoke tonight.

Um, I think is very clear that there's passion on all sides of this issue.

Um I do want to address the idea of pausing in the IPS from the vantage point of someone who's been uh in this process.

Uh the IPS uh has been used uh once before, implemented, uh, that's in Illinois.

Uh that was a severely degraded watershed that needed help figuring out how to meet basic Clean Water Act attainment.

And it's been a great tool there.

It's been used primarily uh to prioritize dam removal in that watershed in Cincinnati in response to uh a lawsuit and a consent decree for combined sewer overflows at the same time that Columbus had the same litigation and and uh consent decree.

Uh MBI did the same analysis.

Um, it was not yet implemented in Cincinnati.

The first thing that happened in both of those watersheds was new water quality monitoring.

That was the basis for the IPS there.

Um, unfortunately, that didn't happen uh with the IPS here.

Uh we're still using the same uh you know aged data that unfortunately is really all we have to go on.

Um I think that it is best to think of what the IPS phase two will give us as a list of stressors, responses, and priorities for restoration and protection.

That means how we spend capital dollars.

That means where we prioritize protection.

Um I'm not aware, and I've spent a lot of time on this of any specific policy proposals, BMPs, or other actionable items that come out of it.

I'm also not aware of any jurisdiction in Ohio, any jurisdiction anywhere that has used a tool like the IPS to limit development.

So this would be a novel use of a novel scientific model that may very well turn out to be extraordinarily useful, but it's going to take us a long time to understand it.

So while the idea of a short pause sounds good, I think that it will actually be a very long pause until we can understand what the IPS really says and how we would best incorporate it in the City of Columbus.

So again, uh absolutely appreciate the work that's been done there.

MBI, I think is they're the group that's doing the IPS.

They're beyond reproach in this space, absolutely.

But I think in this instance, it is important for us to be very cautious about hanging our hat on an unproven model when it comes to land use decision making.

I have a follow-up question to that, Brian.

So if we are where if we take every all of the comments together, we are clearly at a point where uh conservation and preservation of the big derby is important and at a at a tipping point.

These have been the 2006 terms that have been in place that maybe have gotten us here.

I am concerned because I'm I'm very familiar with what the City of Columbus has to do with regard to allowing development or not allowing development.

I'm concerned with what developers can do by right, which is very different from the I'm concerned about what developers can do by right.

That would essentially cause further degradation of the big derby.

Because you know, council can first of all, only certain developments are even going to come to council.

So there are certain things that happen that we have no say in whether or not they're going to move forward.

And then even when they do come to council, if the developer can do this by right, then we are then exposing ourselves as a city to liability for not allowing that developer to do that.

I'm concerned about the continuation of buildings being built according to the 2006 terms that are going to further put our big derby in jeopardy.

Can you talk a little bit about that?

And I think that helps me put in perspective urgency versus the phase two study that may or may not be ready to be used or even looked at in a few months.

Right.

Um I appreciate that question, council member.

Uh I think it's it's very important to raise that issue of buyright zoning.

Um I'm definitely not the expert that Christopher is or Chris or Bianco in that regard, but um I play one on TV, so here we go.

Um I I would say that for the buyright zoning, if they have the current zoning, they can build it.

It's not going to come to you or to a uh Board of Trustees.

Very, very limited sites that are currently in the City of Columbus that would fall into that category.

Um so the good news is that I think we've done a very good job of setting us up for success in the City of Columbus for places that are already here.

The real question becomes development that uh chooses to annex into the City of Columbus for development.

These tend to be very large lot developments like Anderson Farm, large number of units, very complex uh zoning, site design compliance, all that kind of fun stuff.

Um if a development came in today, we would have to ask our planning staff to review it against the 2006 plan.

They would only be required to meet the requirements of the 2006 plan unless they voluntarily did more than that plan requires.

And there really wouldn't be anything we could do about it other than just saying no to that development.

Um, which I will say that this is about making sure development is done right.

That that is really what we need to focus on for the City of Columbus.

We do have a small window to figure this out, but we also have a really small footprint that we're talking about.

Um none of this substantial development is by the Big Darby Creek, the Little Derby Creek, the Hell Branch mainstem, uh, the places that we all think of when we think of the Derby.

Uh that was intentional.

We want to keep development as far away from that as possible.

We want to maximize protection there.

And then we also want to maximize protection for our developments.

You know, put it in perspective, two football fields with the stream running down the middle.

That's the buffer that we're talking about here.

That is massive.

That is three times the state requirement.

If you go to Darby Creek, that is ten times the state requirement.

I mean, we're going above and beyond anything that anyone I'm aware of in Ohio has done to protect these assets.

I would much rather get a development proposal under that plan, even if it's imperfect, um, and then come back, work with MBI, work with ODNR, work with stakeholders to understand the IPS.

And if we've got something wrong, we'll be right back here with council asking for an amendment to that plan.

So will our partners.

Um, but I think it is incumbent upon us to act with urgency, I think, in this moment, um, to make sure that we're uh addressing development under a better plan.

And this plan is, I might be a little biased, uh, but this plan is stronger than the 06 plan in every single regard.

Every single area for environmental protection, and it's a heck of a lot smarter when it comes to development.

4% of the planning area.

If you built on septic, one acre lot needs another acre for the septic system.

That's two acres.

That is over what 26,000 acres that could be built out by right under the current plan on septic without any review by any legislative body.

And we don't think that that's the right approach for the Derby.

I apologize for my long answer.

Appreciate the uh I appreciate the answer.

The phase two report that is coming from ODNR I'm sorry, could you say that?

These two is coming from ODNR.

Uh yes, phase two will be completed by ODNR.

Um we've heard end of summer, fall.

Um, I'm really hopeful they hit that mark.

Um the first phase was six months late.

Second phase is arguably the harder one, because that's where you're getting into really weedy issues about how green green BMPs, for instance, play together with land use to protect water quality.

So what is your collaboration or engagement or conversation been with ODNR and have they opine at all on what this new accord looks like?

Oh, yeah, absolutely.

I mean, I think um you want to take the collaboration, or you want me to?

Go ahead.

I'm already on it, so there we go.

Um so uh ODNR has been a stakeholder from day one in this process.

They've reviewed every draft.

Um in fact, the first document that was written was a water quality monitoring.

Uh ODNR, OEPA, and MBI were the first people to see it.

Uh so we have gone to the subject matter experts when it comes to these things.

They provided extensive comments on uh the stakeholder draft prior to the public draft.

I think that we incorporated, I believe, all of their comments in this public draft.

Um they obviously believe strongly in the IPS.

Uh and we have spent um, I would say of any stakeholder groups, we have probably spent more time with ODNR and MBI on the subject matter expert side than any other stakeholder group, both uh your time uh my time and BDR's time spent with them.

Okay.

Thank you.

My colleagues have any closing remarks or or questions for okay, wow.

We're getting there, folks.

Um thank you all for attending this evening.

Thank you to our team that has been doing the presentation.

Um appreciate the all the time and collaboration that you guys have been um doing on this.

Um we appreciate all of our online viewers as well and everyone's willingness to engage with this complicated topic.

Um I do want to reiterate reiterate some important points that I hope um attendees and viewers walk away with tonight.

Um, first um I want to reiterate this amendment in no way clears out red tape to allow uncontrolled development in the derby, which I have seen stated online.

Um the total number of units allowed is not being increased from the original 20,000 allotted in 2006.

Rather, this amendment prioritizes restricted responsible development that replaces the sprawl currently allowed with density placed upon urban edges of jurisdictions to minimize impact on the watershed and eliminates the need for septic tanks and leech lines for sewer as currently allowed in the watershed.

The additional requirements placed upon developers make development more costly and burdensome.

Second, this amendment is backed by science and includes provisions for ongoing adaptive management and reassessments as new research and scientific improvements evolve.

Delaying passage of this amendment simply delays the implementation of important new water quality monitoring program, increased preparing barriers, restoration and open space requirements, and development restrictions.

Thirdly, this amendment is quite simply more protective of the Derby than the 2006 accord.

Passing this amendment would further protect the watershed, it funds water quality monitoring, it dedicates more open space, it increases setbacks and implements best practices in development.

Not amending the cord would mean the development that we need as a region to combat our housing crisis would have lower environmental requirements.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this amendment is not going to be the last opportunity we and jurisdictional partners and key stakeholders have to further protect the Derby.

Language has already been added that explicitly requires BDART to have quarterly meetings and to so they can review program progress, discuss revisions, and take action when necessary.

This concludes our public hearing.

Have a good night, everyone.