Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome, everyone. I call the 11/05/2025 Planning Commission meeting to order. The main purpose of tonight's meeting is to hold two separate public hearings on the 2025 City Initiated Comprehensive Plan annual amendments and the affordable housing zoning code amendments. Before we move on to the agenda items, I'd like to acknowledge our hybrid meeting format. Suneet Bothell is providing the option to attend this meeting either in person or remotely via Zoom.

For those participating via Zoom, the chat and question function is not available to ensure compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act. We have a public comment agenda item at the beginning of the meeting. Please limit all comments to three minutes. Please note that the city of Bothell does not tolerate verbal harassment. Please remember this during your comments. Please note that if you wish to make comments on the two items scheduled for public hearing, please make those comments during the specific hearing so that they would be part of the hearing record. Public comment will be allowed both in person and via Zoom. Those wishing to comment via Zoom were asked to submit an online form by three p. M. Today.

People wishing to submit written comments were also asked to submit those comments by three p. M. Email was encouraged as well and will be acknowledged. Those in attendance may also make comments and have been asked to indicate their desire to comment on sign in sheets. The Imagine Bothell notice, city website, and tonight's agenda all provide an information to the public for making comments.

The video of this meeting will be streamed live as well as recorded and available for later viewing on the city's YouTube channel. A call in number was provided on the meeting agenda for members of the public who wish to call in by phone and listen live to the meeting. For our phone in callers, during staff presentations, staff will make every effort to specify which materials they are referencing so that everyone can follow along. At this point, we'll take a moment to acknowledge the attendance of the commissioners. Commissioner Jones?

Here.

Commissioner Westerbeck? Here. Commissioner Lever?

Here.

Commissioner Robson? Here. Commissioner Sills is absent and excused. And commissioner Gustafson?

Here. Thank you.

In addition, I'd like to take a moment to recognize the staff in attendance, deputy director Gates and Deborah Powers, planning planner. We will have Ray later. Correct? Lastly, before we begin, I'd like to reiterate some meeting guidelines. For all meeting attendees, please speak clearly and pause frequently. Please state your name each time before speaking. Mute your microphone when not speaking. If you are also streaming the live video feed, please turn the sound off as there is a delay. For commissioners at specific breaks in the presentation, I'll be calling on members who wish to speak or ask a question. If you want to speak, please indicate this by raising your hand.

I will call on you as soon as I see you, and this will help avoid the problem of having two people speaking at the same time. Identify yourself before you ask a question, make a motion, second a motion, or participate in debate. And please mute your microphone when not speaking. First item on the agenda is public comment. City has accepted visitor comment in writing as well as accepted sign up sheets for those who wish to speak at tonight's meeting. Those wishing to speak will have three minutes. Written comments submitted to the staff no later than three p. M. Today were forwarded to all commissioners and are part of the record. Have we received any comments other than those to the public hearing?

No. Only the one comment for the public

hearing And was I think we'll acknowledge that during the hearing.

Correct.

If there are any Zoom commenters, we'll call on them once at a time for comments up to three minutes. Any comments from the audience? Seeing none, anyone in the Zoom room wishing to comment? Seeing no indication, we will then close the public comment period and move on to the approval of the October. Is there a motion to approve the minutes?

Commissioner Lever moves to approve.

K. Motion to approve the minutes. Is there a second?

Commissioner Westerbeck, I second the motion.

Alright. It has been moved and seconded that we approve the October 22 minutes. Any discussion around those minutes? Seeing none, all in favor of approving the minutes, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. The minutes of the October 22 meeting are approved unanimously. Brings us to the primary purpose of tonight's meeting, the public hearings. The first item first hearing we will have is around the 2025 city initiated comprehensive plan annual amendments. And I believe we have planner Powers here to present to us.

Thank you. Thank you, chair Kiernan. Apparently, I need to resign into the meeting again so I can share my screen.

Sorry, I get stopped belling here.

Recording in progress.

Better than me. Win the club.

The presentation will probably be faster than me signing in here,

I think. We do seem to have an echo on some of the mics. Repeating, we do have an echo. See if we can address that.

I'm hoping if I join as a panelist, it will.

Recording in progress.

My microphone is off, and my no. I think I just got kicked out of the meeting again. Yep. And I think I don't hear an echo at this point, so I think I'm good to go. So but as this mic's working.

As long as this one is, we're good. We fixed the fixed the audio. Okay, I think we're good to go. So thank you again for the introduction, and good evening, Planning Commission commissioners. We'll go through a few slides, as is customary, up to the public hearing portion, and then we'll pause there.

And staff will resume slides for the findings and conclusions and recommendations portion. So the purpose of this meeting is to hold a public hearing and based on the findings and conclusions and record, provide a recommendation to the City Council on the annual comprehensive plan amendments. So here's in orange where we are today. We last met with the Planning Commission on September 17 on the draft comprehensive plan amendments that would allow more housing types and increased density through residential zones that went to the City Council with no changes. So here we are back again, and that these are discrete comprehensive plan amendments that are proposed to remain consistent with the Bothell Municipal Code development regulations.

There are only minor edits that only affect the residential low and residential conservation designations. They don't change the designations in the future land use map. And with that, I will pause here for the Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing.

All right. So we will open the public hearing. We'll start with whether there are any clarifying questions from commissioners on this. Do you have any further presentation for us?

Aft at

by Just for the findings? Okay. Conclusions. So at this point, commissioner, discussion on the matter before us? Commissioner Oliver?

Yeah. I just have a question related to the outreach component. So since there will be a public hearing in December, what are the engagement or outreach activities that the city will take to make sure that when this happens, like, public knows what is happening and why it's happening? Like, can you remind me of what that looks like?

So aside from the noticing with commerce and the noticing for SIPA, I think that there was also on an attachment to the Imagine Bothell noticing occurred, and the public noticing on our website occurred as well. Aside from the public hearings, that's the extent of the public outreach for the proposed comprehensive plan amendments.

I have a follow-up. This is commissioner Lever. This might be a follow-up that I'll do of, like, I guess, like, on email or something in terms of what kind of outreach I can do, like, through my social media because these are the kind of amendments that I think is very simple, and it's quite it's it's great for us to be able to execute our plan, but I can see how this could be something that may be misinterpreted and where we actually get some potential negative public comments when you see from four to six and then this idea of of really just increasing the density without any controls. So if I were to do more outreach, is there anything that I need to be aware of in terms of what I convey, or just can I kind of customize my own outreach, like, simplify sometimes some of the things that we're doing as a resident of Bothell, or I need to stick to the notice?

As as a resident of Bothell, you have the opportunity to to let anyone you'd like to know about upcoming events. These standard, you know, updates, they they follow the the minimum requirements for the state, which include, as as Deb mentioned, commerce notice, SEPA noticing, which go to the paper. We also include any of our study session events within the Imagine Bothell noticing. This is also tied to the middle housing Bothell Municipal Code update process, which kind of dated all the way back to the resolution in March 2024 when the middle housing code was enacted and has been discussed throughout the process, throughout the comp plan and then subsequently after that comp plan works. So there's the the the the middle housing zoning code work, municipal code work, well as this code.

So these these pretty standard updates, we follow the the minimum requirement from from the state, the broader ones, the ones that are going to to impact or or potentially bring out greater interest, we do consider additional outreach beyond what we do, which I guess our baseline even goes beyond what the minimum is, noticing through Imagine Bothell and updating that way. But feel free to get the word out if you if you'd like.

Commissioner Gustafson.

Hi. Sarah Gustafson here. This is pretty exciting. I do think that the public will want to know, and I am grateful to commissioner Lever for offering to, get the word out via really relevant channels. I do wanna confirm that the city has changed its guidance, around social media for planning commissioners because I would love to be able to post things on social media without worrying about the open records open public records act.

And I can follow-up with you through email. Commissioner Augusta sent on that as well as the rest of the commissioners.

Thank you.

I think it would be useful if there is any updated guidance or even just review of guidance we've received that send it to all of us so that we are sure to remain in compliance with appropriate rules and regulations. So thank you for that. Other commissioner questions, comments? I have just one comment. It was really jumped out at me looking at the completed a 20 the first year.

'19. Then And I we'll think that clearly points to the need for further action here. So pleased that the city is taking steps to hopefully address that. So thank you for that. Any other questions or comments from commissioners? Seeing none, any public comments around this item? We did receive one written comment. It was from Jerome Burns of Bridge Housing, and that comment was in support of this these proposed changes. Anything else to add to that, deputy director Gates?

No. And and I think those comments were related to the the second public hearing, the next public hearing.

Okay. I saw the housing issue set Alright. We'll make sure that one's in there. Alright. So any comments? Zoom, public, otherwise. Alright. We will close the public comments. And once again, we we would have questions by the commissioner if there were comments made. But seeing as there were none, I suspect we have no questions. So we will close the public hearing at this point. The next thing we would do would be discuss the findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Now did you want to present that to us?

Was well, the history and the noticing and the SEPA and Commerce review findings are shown in attachment two on packet pages 18 through 19. So I didn't outline them individually on a slide. And then the summary of the findings is summarized in this sentence here, pretty much the proposed comprehensive plan. And these are, again, the citizen or not citizen initiated. They're city initiated annual amendments adjust the maximum allowed residential units from four to six in the residential low designation and recognizes that four middle housing units per lot are allowed within the residential conservation designation consistent with House Bill eleven ten.

Okay. Thank you. Any discussion around the findings? Seeing none. Next. So we have conclusions here. Take a close look at this. As I say often, this is our way of communicating with the council what we have determined through this process. Any questions, comments, additions? Here's a pretty good summary of the discussion we've had.

So the amendments have been drafted in accordance with laws and city and state. Plan amendments are necessary. As I indicated, we're not getting what we want on the housing, so this will hopefully help consistent with goals for the housing element, and they're in the best interest of public health, safety, welfare. So the commission stands behind those conclusions, correct? I see nodding heads.

So our recommendation is based on these findings and conclusions and the entire record, the Planning Commission recognized the City Council adopt the proposed comprehensive annual comprehensive plan amendments as Exhibit A to these findings, conclusions and recommendations. Nodding heads. Is there a motion to adopt these findings, conclusions, and recommendations as presented? Motion. Commissioner Lever?

Sure. Commissioner Lever, here I motion to approve.

All right. It has been moved. Is there a second to approve these finding conclusions and recommendations as presented in the package and this evening.

Commissioner Westerbeck? Commissioner Westerbeck, I second the motion.

All right. It has been moved and seconded that the Commission adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendations around the proposed 2025 annual comprehensive plan amendments. Since this is a public hearing with significance, I'm going to go by commissioner on this. So indicate aye if you're in favor. Commissioner Jones. Aye. Commissioner Westerbet? Aye. Commissioner Lever?

Aye.

Commissioner Robson? Aye. Commissioner Sills is absent as an excused. Commissioner Gustafson?

Aye.

And as chair, I also vote aye. The commission unanimously approves moving these findings, commissions, and recommendations forward to the council. I'd like to thank staff for the work you've done on this. We appreciate everything that's been done and look forward to seeing these implement it. Thank you very much.

Well, the next and then this recommendation will go to City Council for a public hearing on December 2, and then adoption through final ordinance on December 9. So thank you.

Okay. Thank you. So if anyone in the public is watching or watches later, you will have another opportunity to comment December 2, as Planner Power has indicated. So thank you. All right. Our next item Went to sleep. Next item on the agenda is a public hearing on the affordable housing zoning code amendments. And we have a staff presentation. We have senior planner Ray Sosa present to make the presentation this evening. So welcome.

And we'll have a moment while we log on.

One second for it to show up on your screen. Not the first time I've had this technical issue. Sorry for the technical issue. It's not sharing. No, I always have the same issue.

I don't know why it's my PowerPoint or something. Nick, I need IT to look into this. I'm sorry. Bear with me.

Rescue.

All right. So sorry about the delay. Good evening, counsel. Thank you for being here tonight. And I'll be presenting the financing and solutions and recommendations for our affordable housing code amendments. Sorry. Let me start again. Good evening, counsel. Thank you for being here tonight to now be presenting the findings, conclusions, and recommendations for our affordable housing code amendments, also previously known as our inclusionary zoning code amendments. Deny, the pilot planning commission will hold a public hearing and consider to hold the vote on the proposed draft, findings, conclusions, and recommendations for the affordable housing code amendment and either approve approve with revisions or deny.

The final recommendation of plan commission will be provided to city council. And so the purpose of affordable housing code amendments, this project was initiated by staff in June of earlier in June earlier this year. Washington State Legislature passed HB twelve twenty in 2021 requiring jurisdictions to plan for and accommodate affordable housing. Staff have prepared these draft zoning code of members to encourage and incentivize the development of affordable housing in our city. So I'll pause here to hold a public hearing.

So we will open the public hearing on this matter. The first step of this process is clarifying questions from the commission. Commissioners, any clarifying questions or comments around this matter before us? I think we've discussed this quite a bit, and commissioners have no further comments. I'd make the same comment I made earlier, that given the lack of progress on affordable housing, I think it's important that we do proceed.

So thank you for this. So with that, we would move to public comments. Any public comments on this? So this is where I'll acknowledge that we did receive an email from Jerome Burns with Bridgehappen, excuse me, in support of this. And that is the only comment we have received around this matter. Anyone in the Zoom room?

There are no individuals in the Zoom waiting room.

Okay. So no Zoom comments, no comments from the room. We will then close this portion and move on to since there were no comments or no questions on those comments, so we can close the public hearing and move on to deliberations around the findings conclusions recommendations on the proposed affordable housing code amendments.

Thank you. These proposed code amendments will apply to all the Downtown Kenyon Park residential activity center and residential medium, r m three, and r m four zoning categories. And as mentioned, these proposed code amendments will implement updates to those existing to the to the will propose will implement updates to the existing bond to affordable housing code expanded to the zones that I just mentioned earlier. Next slide. And the proposed amendments include edits, updates, and deletions to the following sections that you see on the screen.

And so conclusion, these proposed affordable housing code amendments have been drafted, noticed, and reviewed by the public and considered by the planning commission in accordance with applicable laws of the state of Washington and city of Bothell. These affordable housing code amendments are necessary to encourage development of affordable housing, aligning with council's direction to expand housing opportunities in Bothell, and these affordable housing code members are in the best interest of the public.

Any comments from the commission around these conclusions? Seeing none, we have commented oh. Gustafson. Oh, commissioner Gustafson.

Hi. Sarah Gustafson here. I am going through the text of the amendments themselves, and I'm wondering if now is the right time to ask a couple questions about those, or should I wait till after the conclusions?

I I think you can ask those questions now.

Okay. So I am really excited about the fact that we've renamed it affordable housing. I'm still uncertain about the mandatory requirements given that I'm usually against mandatory requirements. It still seems that we are putting mandatory affordable housing requirements in the D Tahoe, which was already there. And we are also putting mandatory affordability requirements in the S R 522, I think it's transition zone.

And those look like they are new. I'd like to know a little bit more of the history of what has changed from the prior code.

Sure. And so from the prior code, we moved from a mandatory to a voluntary require voluntary incentive, I should say. So it is not but what we proposed is no longer mandatory. It is now voluntary. And as you mentioned, yes, the the Tahoe and the five twenty two overlays were already there prior to this code update.

Mhmm. As well as Canyon Park?

Yes. Canyon Park included as well.

Okay. Thank you. I have one more follow-up if now is appropriate.

Mhmm. Commissioner Gustafson, just to just to add to that, the the reason why it looks like it's new code is we pulled it out of the Canyon Park sub area, the the downtown sub area. We just we wanted to consolidate it onto just the how the affordable housing chapter. So there's they're stricken from Canyon Park downtown to be brought into one place, which is why they might look like they're new, but it's it's new only because it's a move for the Okay. For those existing mandatory.

So the language hasn't changed. The location has.

Correct. The location in the code changed. Yeah.

Oh, thank you for doing that. It makes it so much clearer, and then we can see them side by side. I do think that now that I'm looking at them side by side, I'm seeing that the D Tahoe requires any new development with 10 or more units should provide for affordable housing, which I've said before, that makes sense to me. But in the S R 522 Corridor, we're still at developments having to follow these requirements when they get to five dwelling units. And even if that was there before, I'm wondering if we can change it now.

I think having 10 across the board for these requirements as a trigger just makes more sense.

Any changes to the existing affordable housing code will require going through the process of meeting with a planning having a study for the planning commission and city council. And so that is something we can look at and and as we go into phase two approach, which would be in the next slide.

Okay. Thank you so much. Mhmm.

Other comments, questions? Seeing none, let's move Oh, okay.

Just to say I would support us eventually changing that as well because we had established the idea of a tenth unit minimum a couple of years ago, I think it was. I still think that's more important than ever given, you know, just the economics of development with smaller projects. So when we do get the opportunity, I'll support that.

Thank

you. Other commissioners? Alright. Proceed. And

so based on these based upon these findings and conclusions and the entire record, the planning commission recommends city council adopt the proposed affordable housing court amendments as exhibit a to these findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

Alright. Thank you. Any discussions around our recommendation to the council here? Commissioners a moment, but seeing no indication of all right. That being the case, is there a motion to adopt these findings, conclusions, and recommendations as submitted in the package and presented this evening.

Commissioner Robson. Motion

to approve as presented this evening.

Alright. It's been moved that we approve the findings, conclusions, and recommendations as presented. Is there a second?

Mr. Roshfecht, I'll be the second of the motion once again.

All right. It has been moved and seconded that we approve the findings, conclusions and recommendations to the proposed affordable housing zoning code amendments as presented. Any discussion around that motion? Commissioner Gustafson.

Hi. Commissioner Gustafson here. I will likely be voting to deny the code as written. And with that said, with a lot of gratitude to the city staff for trying to balance multiple competing incentives and new guidance coming down constantly from all of different places. Thank you.

Would you like to be specific on the reason so it's part of the record?

Certainly. I think that if we are submitting it to city council, we should first do the work that, senior planner Sosa mentioned of really thinking about revising that code and seeing if it's feasible to do so. And if it is feasible, what it's I might might look like for that. Thank you.

Alright. Thank you for that comment. Any other comments from commissioners? Commissioner Westerbet.

Once again, I'll echo commissioner Gustafson because I'm interested in that as well. I'm a little confused because I would love to dig into this, and I wasn't sure if we're being given the chance to do this or if this is something we can do or if this was something we needed to get just codified and then we're gonna come back and crack it open later. Because I do think we're a little bit behind if we haven't, created that 10 unit minimum like we did in the past for very good reasons. So I tend to support, commissioner Goff's assistance. I'd probably vote for it anyway with with the hope, again, that we would take the opportunity to adjust this to our newer ten ten unit minimum standard or something similar to incentivize and not disincentivize these small projects we've been zoning for so hard the last few years.

Thank you.

All right. Any comments from staff on that?

I can add that we as part of a second phase, as Ray mentioned, we plan to come back in the 2026, exploring adjustments to the to the mandatory, potentially adjusting what this may approve as well, with more data from research that's been done, with a significant amount of work to develop pro formas for what market rate projects can can provide, what the potential incentives, and exploring what what the incentives are that are out there that we can create as the offsets for going further with a a broader mandatory approach. Additionally, we're gonna look at transfer development rights as a tool to increase density as well as updating the MFTE code. So all of this underneath the the housing action plan umbrella, and we're we're we're contemplating how to make sure that that is made made clear in in the record as we move this before city council. We're we're working to build that into the work plan or at least the the drafted work plan as an item to to consider at the beginning of the year to make sure that we can get the direction from from yourselves as well as city council.

Thank you. Commissioner Westerbeck.

So just because I'm very interested in this. So just to clarify, this is sort of like almost just rearranging the code what we're doing tonight. But it sounds like because that was that was one of my kind of burning questions. I was thinking in the back of my head was we're gonna do all this incentivizing that we've been working on for months. So we're gonna start to see where they overlap and maybe where we will be updating existing policy and code, it sounds like. And this is sort of a placeholder because we had it for all along.

Correct.

And so we're gonna kind of crack that open real and I imagine some of it'll tie into our work on the downtown sub area code as well.

Absolutely.

So it sounds like like you said, we get another crack at it because that that's very interesting to, you know I was hoping that would that would happen, that we would be looking at all these incentive programs we're working with working on and how they're gonna dovetail or or mesh with this. So that's pretty much what you said. I'm just repeating it, but I just want to make sure I was clear on that, that we get the opportunity to see how these all work together and what an updated set of incentives or requirements might be in 'twenty six.

Yeah. That's our hope. Yeah. That's our plan.

So I I I would remind the commissioners, our purpose is to either approve, approve with revisions, or deny. So there there is an opportunity to discuss a revision to recommendation, perhaps expressing the interest in having these things happen. If someone wanted to discuss making such a change, we can certainly have that discussion right here, right now. Commissioner Lever.

Thank you. Commissioner Lever here. I actually have a question about process of this change. Like, I am kind of, like, starting to remember the robust conversations we had around this. And I I believe, if I'm if I'm recalling correctly, we've talked about some of the challenges of even when the affordable housing units are produced to actually get them like, get the residents in there.

And there's been a kind of, like, an issue in trying to just get those units filled, like, in the county in general. And I'm kind of at this point remember like, forgetting, like, what goes first. So I'm understanding that we've gotta have the policy changed so that we can start implementing it and then see what that trickle effect would look like. However, given the current market conditions and some of the learnings from other cities and what's happening at the county level, can you please remind me of why mandating it has been sort of, like, the recommendation versus the other routes that we sort of discussed? And, also, when it comes to partnership, you know, what are those partners that we are hoping to really have at the table to help implement?

Or I'm just concerned that this might turn into another thing that just sits at the table and provides and maybe, like, generates a lot of pushback from the community without even us, being able to really fully implement it because we don't have those partners that are needed to produce this type of housing?

Sure. Those are great questions. And I can so starting with the first question, you asked about how do we make sure these units actually get billed or who are the partners for this unit. And so for that, we rely on our partners at Arch to help us get the word out for these units when they are created and when they're on the market or when they are available, I should say, to find the appropriate tenants. And they do all their income qualification, all their background screening to make sure that these tenants are the right fit for you. And vice versa, that these units are the right fit for the tenants and their family size, whatever that may be. I'm sorry. Can you remember what was the second question again?

The second question is in terms of the developer component. Like, do we have those part?

Yeah. Why is this why this is route that we decided to take? And so that's because, as I mentioned, the state legislature HB twelve twenty, which was passed in 2021, requires that the the cities no longer just hope for affordable housing. Now they actually have to plan for affordable housing, which means that there's a number that Bothell has to actually meet as part of their growth targets for the next twenty years. And so the best method that's been found in this region has been to implement inclusionary zoning, which is a partnership, as we mentioned, with partner developers to make sure that we get those units created when there are new development happening. We historically, this region has been growing and growing and has been seeing a lot of development. And so getting a slice of that development to be set aside for affordable units is how we're hoping to meet those numbers.

And this is one step in that direction. So there's mandatory requirements within the draft code. Mhmm. They're all voluntary. All the edits are part of a voluntary step in that direction to to plan for based on city council's recommendation to to consider this as a as a voluntary program with in this expansion.

So we have zones that already require it. We're expanding that to zones as a as a voluntary opportunity. And then when we come back next year, our plan is to provide detailed information starting from the ground up because we are gonna have new council members to to educate on this starting in January, where we can bring in Arch. We can ex explain and expand upon the the overall process for establishing affordable units. And then with the information that we can we can bring before you with before you and before council for potential updates to the broader affordable housing code.

Is is this enough to plan for and accommodate under h b twelve twenty? Do we need to go further? And the chart in the in the staff report was intended to provide just the the clarity of we're gonna have a lot of units being built under the older codes. Creating a voluntary program is a step in the direction. Is it enough? And those are the questions that we'll be grappling with over the next year through this work, through the housing action plan work that that Ray is working on to develop other strategies

around affordable housing.

I also do wanna add that moving forward, every city is now required to have a housing element that plans for these I should not just say long term units, but these units that are below the 100% AMI. And Department of Commerce is still working on exactly how to evaluate each housing element and how and part of that evaluation also includes deciding what the consequences would be for a city if they choose not to or fail to not meet that quota or that standard. And so there are we do have in the back of our mind that, you know, this is not just a state, you know, policy. It's actually a state directive, and it's in our best interest as a city to do our best to meet that number. Mhmm.

Commissioners? So I do hear a really strong interest in the part of the commission in seeing that further work be done. And given that we do have some new council members coming in in January, there may be value to giving the message that we want that to be done. And we could certainly entertain a motion to amend the recommendation, something to the effect that the commission makes this recommendation based on the understanding that further work will be done to modify the requirements, including perhaps considering modifying the minimum number of units from five to 10.

And there's percentages in there as well that we would need to evaluate, but I don't know that we're prepared yet tonight, a temp a minimum 10% of units and etcetera, etcetera. But these are all holdovers from the past, you know, from the last five or six or seven years, I believe. So it's where I get a little confused is, you know, is this the kind of thing we can affect now or we just put it in the findings conclusions and recommendations knowing we're going to dig into it soon? Or is it, you it's too much work to try and do before December? So I want be cognizant of that, but knowing that we probably need to be digging into this as Deputy Director Geith said.

Commissioners have their hands on this.

Commissioner Jones?

Chair Kernan, I support what you're saying, that in terms of amending the recommendation to indicate that we to indicate our interest in engaging in Part B as soon as possible. I'm not supportive of us putting in any numbers

or

indicating any particular direction because we haven't had the benefits some of us I mean, some of us know way more about this issue than others. But some of us don't have the benefit of seeing the information, the detailed information that staff's collecting. And I wouldn't want to presuppose what the finding is going to be after Part B. I would just want to indicate that we're excited about moving to the next step.

Okay. Commissioner Robson.

Thank you. I would just like to second what Commissioner Jones is saying that we agree with you, that we need to get something done past today, I think. But I do think it's important to dig into it. I think holding off until some can, December won't be enough time to get any kind of satisfactory information that we could add to these findings and recommendations. I think, at this time, we say, Yes, we like the direction, and we're excited about reviewing the data so that we can really so we can make updated changes to meet the current market and legislation changes and things like that.

Well, we could entertain a motion. And typically, the chair doesn't make a motion under Roberts. So but we could make a motion to the effect that the commission makes this recommendation based on the understanding that future work will be done to modify these requirements. And just end it there, making it clear we do want to see what's coming. Is there an interest in something like that language? Or we can just vote on as is. Commissioner Lever?

Commissioner Lever really would like to go in that direction where we actually have it in writing and that we can make sure that it's part of the record that we do want to see more, but we are we want to move forward or I want to move forward.

Other comments? Again, this is our message to the council, and it's important to the commission, as I do believe it is, that further work be done. I think it's appropriate for us to say that.

Commissioner Westerbeck. And I would Oh, I'm sorry.

My apologies. Commissioner Gustafson.

Oh, Sarah Gustafson here. I appreciate the thoughtful comments of my fellow commissioners, and I am leaning towards supporting and amended findings. I do want to understand what specifically is the cost of not passing it today? I do definitely feel the urgency that we need to pass something today. However, I think the only, like, housing forward change I can find in my own interpretation is that the voluntary quote for the DTAHO.

So if we pass this now, then DTAHO will be able to basically build affordable housing and get the higher allowances, the higher roof allowances, in other words, to five stories. So am I correct in understanding that if we don't pass it today, the one thing that we will lose out on is the change to the D Tahoe requirements, which I definitely wanna see.

Steph?

I think, you know, if if there is no in order to to to move forward with expanding this into a phase two, into a a considering a mandatory expansion. There's a lot of work that has to go into it. Washington state code requires that, you know, essentially the offsets. So if there's a requirement to provide affordable housing, you have to provide equal to or better than incentives such as height, such as density. When you're doing a voluntary program, you can provide those voluntary incentives, and you don't have to show your work.

If you're gonna create it as a as a mandatory beyond, what we already have in the code or even if we were to adopt and expand the current mandatory into another zone, we'd have to show the math again that it it would it would work out. So this keeps us consistent with our current mandatory and adds to it this other tool of voluntary for other areas of the city to to consider. We've had conversations with with developers around this the city, and there are a few projects that could benefit from this voluntary height where they realize, oh, if I could if I could get another story or two, then my project would work out. Well, then that would be great because then it would create some affordable units, some deed restricted affordable units with the project. So part of the urgency is there are opportunities in this economic climate.

It's a little bit, you know, kind of on pins and needles of of seeing things progress in the direction we wanna see. So the work that we'll do that we plan on doing in 2026 will explore the the the benefits to offset a potential mandatory code and and make our code better. So we're doing we're we're getting further and further away from let's create a code and hope that we see it built and create a code that you'd be silly not to consider developing because the incentives will be beneficial to a project.

Okay.

And and it'll align with the the plan for and accommodate mandate.

Great. Thank you so much. I think that clarifies for me why there need to be two phases and why it's inadvisable to touch the mandatory portion right now. Thank you so much.

Okay. So for a process check here, it has been moved and seconded that we adopt the motion as proposed. There's been discussion and some interest in amending it by motion. Is there a motion to amend the recommendation to include language? And I proposed something, certainly couldn't be changed, but the proposal I made was commission makes this recommendation based on the understanding that further work will be done to modify these recommendations. Is there a motion to make that amendment?

I move so move to make the amendment as spoken by the chair just now.

Okay. There a second?

Commissioner Lever seconds.

Okay. Any discussion around the amendment to the motion? Did you capture language? Do you need anything?

We've got the language, and we'll we'll we'll listen back to the tape Okay. This this thirty seconds ago.

Okay. Yeah. It's just one sentence, and I've got it written here as I read it too if you have any questions. Excellent. Okay. So based on that, there is a amended motion before us to adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendations as presented with the amendment that the Commission makes this recommendation based on the understanding that further work will be done to refine these requirements. Any further discussion? Commissioner Gustafson.

Hi. Commissioner Gustafson here. I think I really like that language. I would move to amend the amendment to say, quote, on the understanding that further work will be done to amend these recommendations, including potential reconsideration of mandatory zones or some kind of clause that puts an alert to the council and anyone who would read this that that's what we're focusing on. Otherwise, it I don't think it has the specificity to make the impact that we're hoping for even though the language is definitely good.

Alright. So what I heard I'm gonna correct me if I missed it. Much of it's the same. Commissioner the commission makes this recommendation based on the understanding that further work will be done to refine these requirements, including consideration of the mandatory elements of this portion of the code. Yes.

I capture what you said? Okay. Is there a discussion around that modification? Alright. Since I've got a couple of cross outs and changes, I'll read it one more time, and then we'll vote on the amendment to the motion.

So the commission makes this recommendation based on the understanding that further work will be done to refine these recommendations, including consideration of the mandatory elements of this portion of the code. Does that capture your thoughts, Mr. Gustafson? All right. So is there a motion to approve the amended motion?

Commissioner Lever motions to approve the amendment motion.

K. Is there a second?

Commissioner Westerbuck, I move to second the motion to amend the amendment.

Okay. Hey. This is process. All right. Any further discussion? Commissioner Lever?

It is more like a comment around the communication piece or how we convey this to the public. Like, again, even when I think about the word affordability and then the negative connotation that it has and knowing that zoning is something that really prevents equity in many ways, I really can't stress enough, how important it is to understand, like, what we can do as commissioners and, getting the word out in terms of what we're attempting to do and some of the barriers that we will face even when we have mandates, given given the different barriers that we have to attain this affordability goals. So I you know, every every time we meet and then knowing that we do have the ability to somewhat understand what we're saying and we still get like, what was that again? And I just keep on thinking of my neighbors and anyone else who may have no idea what is it that we're trying to achieve here. So as we continue to plan for the implementation of this, really thinking of the ways in which we can use funding to really enhance the outreach component and really go above and beyond the minimum requirements to communicate in a way that can really capture our attention.

And then with that said, know in the last couple of months I've been really hyper focused on the engagement piece because I just felt that there wasn't enough. What I did realize going back to Facebook because I was off I took some break from social media, and that's why I felt so disconnected. But now that I'm back on Facebook, I'm like, oh, no. Pretty much like the communication is out there. However, there's so many modes of communication, so I think it's the need to amplify it in other areas so that if you are not in one social media platform, you can get it from another.

And I know it can be expensive and time consuming. However, in order for us to really gather the support that we need to get the developers at the table and then the community support when these projects come forward, we need to just really focus our funding or allocate the funding to be able to do that. So thank you.

All right. Thank you for that comment. Any further discussion? Seeing none, it's been moved and seconded that we adopt the finding conclusions and recommendations to proposed affordable housing code amendments as amended through the discussion here this evening. All in favor of approving that? And again, will do a roll call given this is a significant issue. Commissioner Jones?

Aye. Commissioner

Westerbeck? Aye. Commissioner Lever?

Aye.

Commissioner Robson? Aye. Commissioner Sills is absent and excused. Commissioner Gustafson?

Aye.

And chair, I vote aye as well. With that, findings, commission conclusions and recommendations are adopted as amended. I'd like to thank staff for all your work on this. This is a very important issue. We discuss it a lot, and we discuss it a lot because of its significance. We look forward to continuing to discuss it per the amendment to the motion. So thank you again. And that concludes this item. That concludes our public hearings for this evening. Thank you. So with that, we move on to reports from members. Members, anything for the group? Commissioner Gustafson.

Hi. Sarah Gustafson here. One thing on social media that I'm super excited about is that the city of Bothell now has its own Reddit account, and it is posting to the Bothell Reddit. It is posting to the Snohomish County Reddit. They're posting memes. They're posting get out the votes. And I think this is a great platform to do what a piece of what commissioner Lever suggested, getting the word out. And I know sometimes people on Reddit are already going to agree with these ideas, but it gives them more language to talk about it. So perhaps there's an opportunity there. But thank you so much to the city staff for being super creative and fun.

Alright. Thank you, commissioner Gustafson. Other commissioner reports. I would just report that I spent a chunk of Halloween on Main Street with grandchildren. I really wanna congratulate the city of Bothell for an event. You couldn't do anything about the weather. We recognize that. But boy, my four year old loved it. Four year old granddaughter loved it. So it was a good time. Look forward to many more events on Main Street. I think that space is being really used to enhance the community, to bring people together. And I want to congratulate the city for taking those steps to make that happen. Okay. Commissioner Lever.

You, commissioner Lever. So on that note, again, I just wanna say that I am now that I'm back on social media and and Facebook, there's so many surveys. There's so many ways to really get engaged with the city through that platform. And I am very, very thankful for all that work, and and I try to just kinda, like, share that out as much as I can. So thank you for that. And I might just have to get a Reddit account, which I don't have. I'm like, oh. But, anyway, so thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Other commissioner comments, reports for the group. Seeing none, reports from staff.

Only report from staff next scheduled meeting is November 19. There'll be a study session on the urban forestry management plan as well as a transportation impact fee study session to follow-up the work from public works on that.

Thank you. We'll look forward to that. So there being no further business, is there a motion to adjourn?

Commissioner Levin, motions motion to adjourn.

Is there a second?

Commissioner Robson, second.

It's been moved and seconded that we adjourn the meeting this evening. All in favor, aye. Aye. All right. Thank you all. This meeting is adjourned at 07:04. Our next meeting will be November 19. Really appreciate the work done on these two very important issues. So thank you, the staff, for the time on this, and thank the city for giving you the resources to do this work. Thank you, and good night.

Thanks, everyone.

Good night.