Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

That'll do it. All right. Welcome everyone to the June 3rd, 2025 planning commission meeting. Um, well, let's do a roll call. Commissioner Atkins, present. Commissioner Bellard, here. Commissioner Finch, Commissioner Sullivan here. Commissioner Shelby here. Commissioner Rutled here. And Commissioner Welch here. Thank you. All right. I will now read the land acknowledgement. We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Shahob's people, and their successors, the Tleup tribes. Since time in memorial, they've hunted, fished, gathered on, and taken care of these lands and waters. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. We will strive to be honest about our past mistakes and bring about a future that includes their people, stories, and voices to form a more just and equitable society. All right. And with that, let's move on to approval of minutes. Does anyone have any edits for the minutes? We do not I don't believe we have minutes in your packet today. Yeah, they're outstanding. They're outstanding. We'll have two weeks for you. Uh we are our uh our faithful administrative assistant is out on leave for a little bit which makes some of these things challenging. Um we will catch up with uh two sets of minutes at the commission's next meeting. Everything is online in the

meantime, so you can have literally all of the minutes. All right. And uh let's move on to reports of commissioners. Does anyone have anything they'd like to report? Well, with that, if uh no one else would like to go, I uh I have a short little speech um or comments for my report. Um, as we begin my final meeting with the Ever Planning Commission, this marks the end of over six years of time serving on various city boards and commissions. For myself, from my time as chair of the city citizens advisory committee on housing and community development to chairing the Rethink Housing Committee in 2021 and now being vice chair of this esteemed commission, I've done everything I can to ensure that we face this regionwide housing crisis head on, that we understand the impacts of the decisions we make on the most vulnerable amongst us. I'm honored to have had the opportunity to shape the future of Everett through this service. The final recommended draft of the Ever 2044 comprehensive plan represents a city and a plan that is putting people first that is ensuring that we tackle the depth of this housing crisis head on. About 10 years ago, I was still living at the old cocoon house over near the new Kaiser building. I remember thinking to myself how alone I felt, how scared I felt. But this city picked me up and got me on my feet. Ever since then, I've made it my life's mission to do all I can to prevent others from falling into the same cycle of homelessness I found myself in. I'm proud of the work we have done. I'm proud of the Ever 2044 plan and all that we've managed to accomplish over the past few years. I'm proud to have been a part of this and thank you to all the staff who have worked on this over the years. And thank you to my fellow commissioners for your hours of insight, debate, and discussion. I know we all want the best thing for this magnificent city we call home. Thank you.

And so with that, we're now on to staff comment. Along the same lines, uh, Commissioner, Vice Chair, Commissioner Atkins, just wanted to extend the deep appreciation from staff and on behalf of the commission and the city of Everett for your four years of service. I think you uh joined this commission in February of 2021. a difficult time to join any body, but especially um one that was facing a lot of uh work ahead of it. It's been most of my time here has been with you on the commission. Um you've had a near perfect attendance record um and excellent participation. Um, it's clear that throughout your whole time here that you've paid close attention, that you've read the materials, you've given some really insightful comments, suggestions, and uh, feedback, questions as well. All of which is exactly what we need as staff to help improve the product that we bring to the planning commission every day. Um, you mentioned some of the other boards and commissions. You're a busy person. Um, a lot of it is with a volunteer service and with a real eye towards improving your community. So, on behalf of uh staff and and if I can the city of Everett, I want to extend you a great big thank you and uh wish you well on your next endeavors and um you will never be a stranger in these uh chambers and um welcome any comments and suggestions as we go down this path. Uh it's great that we are able to uh close out this project um with you on it. You were here for the very first scoping meeting and uh to be able to see through what I think is one of the most significant kind of planning projects that uh uh Everett has seen in a long time. Thank you. We have a certificate and a card for you.

Commissioner Finch, you get to sign it afterwards. Can we clap now? Uh, no further staff comments. We do have a few online. So I will check with um David Koenig if you are you wanting to make comment um under item three or four. Four is the public hearing. The public hear. Okay. Thank you. Sabrina, would you like to speak for item three or four Sabrina? Okay, we'll move to the caller with the number ending in 6531. Would you like to speak on item three or four, public hearing? That's Dave. Pardon me. Uh Dave, I'm uh listening to you on the phone, not on the uh internet. Okay. Are you wanting to speak on the public hearing? Yes. Okay. Thank you.

Thanks for that. Um, with that, we'll end uh the public comment period for just the under reports and comments and we'll move on to uh item number four, public hearing for Everett 2044. Um, at this time I will entertain a motion to open the public hearing. And we've got some options with how we run this meeting. basically the public hearing and um staff can run through some of the changes and topics that we've covered uh since the last draft. So, we're working on a May 30 uh final draft which has been transmitted to the city council and they'll be taking that up tomorrow and it's uh been provided to you as well. Um staff can run through the changes from the May 7 and or April 7 and May 10 books of the complete review draft. Um answer any questions you have and then we can go into the public hearing. Um, we can do the public hearing first and then have some deliberations. I'm okay either way. Um, sometimes the commenters get the benefit of hearing some of the discussion uh, back and forth. So, your prerogative. Is anyone here on a strict timeline for commenting? Anyone that wishes to comment? Okay. Yeah, I think let's have staff review the changes. So on I will just go to the Ever 2044 web page and run through some of the materials. Um I'll start with orientation of where we're at in the process. So uh very final stage here. Um we have got as I mentioned a proposed ordinances and exhibits which have been transmitted to the planning commission and the council. They're dated May 30th and they are all available as with all of the rest of the materials everw.gov/2044. You can see here we've got uh the proposed ordinance adopting

Ever 2044 comprehensive plan and the exhibit to that is the proposed comprehensive plan uh dated May 30th. Then we also have a housing appendix and a transportation appendix that I believe are the housing appendix is revised. The transportation appendix was added after the last draft of the plan. Then we have the proposed ordinance adopting the Everert 2044 development regulation amendments. And uh exhibit one to that ordinance is the Everett 2044 development regulations. We also have a change report, which I'll cover here next, which goes over in summary form the major changes, substantive changes from the April 7 and May 10th uh drafts and the zoning map. And we've also added a memo on specific amendment requests, disposition. You'll remember back to June of 2023, we had a specific amendment request um application period. We received a number and processed uh through the planning commission and the council decided which ones of those to forward for consideration in the periodic update and um I think we wound up with nine or maybe it was 11 specific amendments. Some were grouped like like amendments requests were grouped into packages and um those have all either been fully implemented or partially implemented in the periodic update. And this specific amendment requests disposition memo uh details exactly what the original request was and where we wound up in this May 30th draft. Uh previous materials if anybody is interested are farther down below so you can see comparisons but all of the uh currently active documents are here up top. Uh final environmental impact statement is the last piece. Um that was

completed today but having some technical difficulties and could not get that posted and published but I can report to you what is included in it. Um there was some housing needs analysis and land capacity analysis. Essentially the final environmental impact statement amends and adjusts the draft environmental impact statement that was released on April 7th. Um, not much of the analysis has changed. We've responded to a couple of comments. Uh, of the comments that we've received during the DEIS comment period, um, 95% of them were to the substance of the plan and the regulations and we've addressed all of those and gone through. We have responses to the comments which will be an appendix to the uh, final environmental impact statement. There were a few comments on this the uh content of the environmental impact statement itself. Uh most of those were from the Puget Sound Regional Council and from the Department of Commerce. We've addressed those uh mostly through including a housing needs analysis and land capacity analysis in as an appendix to the final environmental impact statement. So there have been a couple of I would call them minor corrections uh to the body of the uh draft supplemental environmental impact statement and then the addition of the housing needs analysis which is on this screen. So it's already available right here this housing appendex um and then the responses to the comments. So you'll see all of those uh if not later tonight will be posted to uh everw.gov/20 /2044. I think that wraps up all of the materials available to you. We have a proposed resolution for your consideration this evening that would uh make a recommendation on the periodic

update of comprehensive plan and development regulations. Otherwise, um with how to to go tonight, we've got a a change report of what has been changed from April 7 and May 10th. There's been some substantive changes. most of them in response to public comment and then we'd be happy to cover any questions or other points of discussion that the commission may have. Then we can hear from the public and do some more discussions. That sound okay overall? Okay, here's the change report. Um, all right. Some of these are um I wouldn't call them very impactful. Most of the definitions one we're just trying to be uh clarify things. I will not cover I don't think any of these as being particularly important but stop me if you see anything. Um, chapter 1905. This is the uses and the use matrices. Just a couple of changes here as part of a zoning uh map change to West Muckleio Boulevard between Sound Avenue and and Upland Avenue. This had been a connector geography and had a UR4 urban residential fourfloor designation to it. Um the community requested and the council agreed to reduce that zoning to neighborhood residential. There was a lot of interest in having kind of a mixeduse commercial opportunities and a little node at that end of West Muckleio Boulevard. Although the comfort level among the community was lower than MU4, the mixed urban four zone and all of the

uses and development intensity that that could allow. So, the council members working on this came up with an idea to designate a short stretch of West Muckleio Boulevard as the neighborhood uh commercial designation. Uh currently, as framed, the neighborhood commercial is corner lots throughout the city. And there are some uh I think the Sound View Deli and then some commercial current commercial uses next to it that are not on corner lots, but the community wanted to see some opportunities for commercial development there. limited scale neighborhood serving. So, we added um West Muckleio Boulevard between Sound and Upland to the list of uh locations that would allow neighborhood commercial uses. We also we've been tinkering uh quite a bit with neighborhood commercial and we are not quite done yet. I would should say the council is not quite done yet. We're supporting small group of council members um that have uh been working on coming to kind of a compromise around locations and uses. Uh for those of you on the commission that were here for the discussions around home occupations a couple of years ago, it reminds me a lot of that this is a new type of uh of opportunity for non-residential development in some potentially quiet residential streets. And that's something that the council wants to um be very careful with. So we continue to meet with them and I think this could go all the way uh up to the last day before a satisfactory compromise is reached. That compromise could be exactly where we are today. Uh or it could be a little bit more restrictive or it could be a little bit more permissive. In the meantime, on the staff side, we um continue to uh work through meet a couple times a week and try to work through different development potentials or we get questions to the planning line of will I

be able to do this or that. And so we get some examples of things like bike shops or art studios or music lessons, I think, were some of the ones that we have looked at. Um there's a list of uses for neighborhood commercial that is fairly specific at least uh on the retail sales and services side. Um and it was missing some things that everybody agreed would be a good fit for neighborhood commercial and so to accommodate the potential of things that we haven't thought of yet but have some administrative discretion to determine whether it would be compatible with the neighborhood and appropriate for the neighborhood commercial. We added or similar to the list of subcategories of retail sales and services and then also and other uses not listed above if compatible with surrounding properties in the immediate vicinity. That language was borrowed from an existing provision, adaptive reuse of non-residential buildings, which is allowed um and is not unlike neighborhood commercial but only for existing uh commercial buildings that may have lost their non-conforming status or wanted to change uses. So in that um adaptive reuse of non-residential buildings, there is this other uses not listed. If compatible, we borrowed that language for neighborhood commercial. we would um use the comprehensive plan policies and um a good planner's common sense uh to make sure that we use that um administrative authority judiciously. Again, this is subject to review by the council. Uh last with accessory dwelling units last for 1905. Um those are now out of the residential use table. It was very confusing that we had accessory dwelling units only for the neighborhood residential constrained zone. Uh we do have a definition for accessory dwelling units in chapter 1904 with the

definitions and that is considered a subtype of dwelling units and that term is used in a couple of places for exemptions or reductions uh including frontage improvements will apply to uh all residential development except the addition of up to two accessory dwelling units uh with an existing principal. full dwelling to remain. Uh impact fees, I think, will also use it. Uh park impact fees, for example, is about $1,000 a bedroom. And there's a state law that requires that impact fees for uh accessory dwelling units under the state's definition of what an accessory dwelling unit is be charged no more than 50% of um the impact fees for the principal unit. Thank you to public comment uh for pointing that one out, Todd. And uh so that was actually an existing shortcoming in our code and one that we were able to catch with this update. So park impact fees will be uh 50% of the principal uh dwelling units fee. You will not find that in the May 30th version. I forgot to put it in there. We will get it in before this thing gets adopted though. So that is kind of where accessory dwelling units wound up. Um, I went line by line to make sure that if you can build it now in a certain place with a certain fee structure, you will be able to build that accessory dwelling unit under the new code in that place and with that fee structure. Couple other places where accessory dwelling units were uh getting tripped up was in the rear setback on nonalley lots. I think had a reduced rear setback for accessory dwelling units down to five feet where it was 20 feet for principal dwelling. Um I think we've got that uh rear set

back on nonalley lots down to 5 ft for all buildings. So that one is solved and it is no longer limited to 24 ft as it currently is for the accessory dwelling units. Um so you could build up to the height of the zone within those setback areas. Parking regulations uh were also advantageous for accessory dwelling units under existing code. And thanks to the state legislature for passing Senate Bill 5184, I think it is the um the May 10th parking chapter that was part of book two as a reduction of uh parking requirements sufficient to get us to that do no harm to accessory dwelling units standard. So, I still have a mostly finished memo that I will put out um just so that folks can follow that and double check our work. Um but I think we've accomplished the mission of not uh hampering accessory dwelling units as a result of this uh update. Any questions so far? [Music] Chapter 1906, which deals with uh residential densities and uh setbacks, building setbacks. We have reduced, we had this conversation in these chambers about a month ago. We reduced the rear building setbacks in the neighborhood residential and UR4 zones from 10 ft to 5t. Um there is a minimum residential development uh requirement of I believe it's three units, three attached units in our bigger zones. I think that's from UR7 and MU7 on up and higher. Um there are some cases where that may not be achievable or that may not be a good idea. Maybe a mixeduse development or something like that. Um so we uh added that to be modifiable. Modifiable means that by application a development could request relief from the standard and would just have to show

that the result would be equal or superior to conformance with the standard and that it meets the intent of the standard being modified. Uh mentioned the accessory dwelling units already. That's what this NRC zone permitted up to two accessory dwelling units is about. 1908 our neighborhood residential development standards. Um had a a a big revision to the site design section. Uh we used to have the requirement talked a lot about that uh with this commission over the last couple of meetings. We had a requirement that all dwellings in neighborhood residential face the street face a shared yard or we were considering uh having it allowed to face an addressed alley as well. um heard a lot of comment and feedback from uh the development community on the constraints that that would place on development and uh site design and everything. So reviewing our uh uh our our goals and policies as the guiding light, especially in the design and development section, uh conferring with staff and others and and listening and going through all of the public comment. uh the priority in that um site planning and the uh what I call the warm embrace to the public street is is the homes that are on the public street and less so with our deep lots those that are farther back. Um I think there still is an argument that um every every home should have a a good and clear pedestrian orientation and eyes on the street or the alley or the driveway as it would be. um but at the same time heard loud and clear the focus on um on housing availability here. So we've removed the requirement that uh uh that internal to a larger lot that dwellings

would need to face a shared yard but dwellings within 30 ft of a public street would still have that requirement to face the street. Face the street means including one of a set of five or six or seven front entrance and porch types that are later down in the chapter. Uh also removed the requirement for at least one dwelling on a lot to face the street and uh private and shared yards. uh did a little work to that mainly to simplify and increase the flexibility at le a little bit. Um dwellings no longer have to front on or have any particular spatial relationship to a private yard or a shared yard. We do still would still require that there be a either a private yard and that would be eight feet minimum any direction and I think 80 feet uh of total square feet of total area and if you don't have a private yard then you can group units together into a shared yard and the shared yard is uh something like 300 square ft for up to five units and then 10% of the lot for more than five units. Um all of that is modifiable uh if we get into a situation that we had not um accounted for. I'm thinking of mixed developments with half private yards and half shared yards and does 10% make sense and all of that. Um at some point we have to stop thinking of every possible permutation in the city and rely on modifications to get it right and then come back here to tweak things. But at least for now, so that's what we have for the private yards and the shared yards. The shared yard could be in a different part of the development than the dwelling that it's serving. Um, but it would need to be connected by a continuous pedestrian path that does not

involve crossing a public rideway. Private yards can be on the roof. Um, shared yards need to be on the ground. No requirements written in there for what a shared or private yard is. But there are requirements for what it is not, which is driveways, pathways, parking lots, buildings, and critical areas. Are there buffers? It could be in any one of the setbacks or include any one of the setbacks if there is a setback. Um, so that's where we're at on shared and private yards and orientation. Any questions there? Okay. Uh there is a requirement for minimum ground floor habitable space depth and uh again through conversations with uh especially thinking of town houses here we reduced that um from 20 ft to 12 ft to match common townhouse uh floor plans for the ground floor which um often times we'll have a garage a stairwell and then that leaves one quadrant of the unit for a room. Um 20 ft could be pretty restrictive on this on the design there, but 12 ft would work and um provide some habitable space on the ground floor. The garage regulations in 19 I'll skip a couple that are not too exciting. the garage regulations in 1908060. Um they currently say that they front the street and this is existing language and code. Uh streets are defined in uh chapter 1904 as public or

private thoroughares. Um but as I understand it, we do not typically apply those requirements to private streets aka driveways. Uh so we just wanted to make that clear um and line up with how we've been implementing those regulations. Okay, moving on down to 1909. This is the uh development standards for what is not 1908, which is town houses, detached units, and all development in the neighborhood residential zone. That's what 1908 is. 1909 is everything else. So development in uh zones that are not neighborhood residential and then unless they're town houses or detached uh houses in those bigger zones. We have the inclusionary zoning uh requirement in parts of South Everett around Casino Road and Airport Road uh displacement mitigation tool. Um there had been kind of a cliff at uh at 8 between eight and nine units that we were looking to soften a little bit. By cliff I mean we had uh exempt from the inclusionary uh zoning requirement up to eight units and then you'd start calculating all the starting from unit one. And so at your ninth unit two of them would need to be uh affordable whereas eight units would not need to have any. uh staff prefers avoiding those kinds of um hard lines because then you'll you're you're really disincentivizing someone from adding a ninth unit potentially. So, we went to this more of a stairst step here and with some math, I think I got this table right where at six units you'd be exempt uh projects that delivered up to six units and then from seven units to Nope, this isn't right cuz it Oh, is

it right? I'm not sure if the chart is right. you're uh up to 15 units is uh half of the requirement and then you would pick up from 15 units on at the full requirement. I feel like this black line should go a little bit farther before going up. I will double check that and reissue this memo if the chart is not right but the words are correct. full implementation of it beginning at 16 units which also matches where eligibility for the multif family tax exemption starts. So that's the revision to inclusionary zoning. We also added an option to defer payment of the inclusionary zoning alternative compliance which is the fee in LU which is currently set at $15 per square foot of gross floor area for the residential development. That $15 a square foot is also half off for developments between 7 and 14 15 excuse me uh dwelling units. Um so that alternative compliance fee in lie um projects are usually at their toughest financing during construction and right up to certificate of occupancy when the revenue starts to come back to repay those financing costs. And so uh that should be really helpful to uh the de the residential developers to have this deferred payment option. It may include a lean just to make sure that we get the payment at the end. Um, but that gets us past the the toughest part in a development financing. Uh, heard from the architect community and and the bigger building development community. You've heard it before. We've heard it a lot about um limit limiting upper floor plates. Um, we have had already trimmed down those

upper floor plate modulation regulations substantially. had left only half of the building 8 ft deep with the intent of having some sort of an amenity space or a balcony overlooking the street. Um heard some negative feedback on that as well and um and it's something that staff was comfortable with dropping the rest of it. So now uh these multi-story buildings can go straight up. Would you mind explaining the fee and loo mechanics? Yes. fee in LO for inclusionary zoning. So you can either provide the units as part of your project and a covenant would be placed on the uh land running with it for 50 years requiring that the dwelling units be maintained at 80% or 60% area median income affordability level for that 50-year period. Uh there's also the option for development to pay a fee in lie of $15 per square foot of the floor area. Um that would go into an affordable housing fund to create those units as part of a different development. The deferred payment just says when you pay the fee. Otherwise, normally that would be due at it probably building permit issuance. And when does the covenant have to be placed on the property? Probably building permit issuance. So there's a fork in the road when the permits issued. Yeah. Yeah. I'd have to check. I Yeah, there. Yes. I would expect a development to have chosen pretty early on which way that they're going to want to go, but

on the on the cost. Do you have like a or do you have an example or a breakdown of how much this is adding to the cost of the project? Yeah, I assume a thousand square feet for one dwelling would be a reasonable assumption. So $15,000 to to a dwelling unit. um which is in the ballpark of our other impact fees maybe all of the other ones combined. I think parks is around 2500 for a dwelling unit. Um traffic is 6 or 7,000. Schools are 3 or 4,000. So maybe it would be about doubling what the impact fees for those are. in that area. You can als the cost of providing the dwelling unit varies based on your we would try to make and this there's a whole portfolio of ways to get to the affordable housing. Um there's incentive based multif family tax exemption. There's requirements like the inclusionary zoning. Um there are other uh incentives I think fee reductions as well. The easier that all of that is to administer by a a a project owner, a building owner, a property owner, the less of a negative that will be to them. And that's something that's on the city to build a a good uh administrative system. And it's something that we've started to work on on the MFTTE side, but really want to take that to another level as this uh these types of income restricted units multiply. So that's things like

your annual compliance. That's things like uh helping match uh prospective tenants to units and all of that. The foregone rent is probably pretty modest. I think most of the reason that folks might prefer to do the fee in Lu instead is the administrative compliance over a long period. also some financing. um you now have a restriction and whether that is a big financial uh drag or not it is a restriction and I think finance finance financeers um don't love that sometimes and that might reflect be reflected in costs but tough to tell and something that we can help at least on the on the city side reduce the administrative burden Okay. Comment eyes. I Yeah, I mean I I don't want to repeat the last time, but my my concern is I mean this when I look at different projects across the country and and just pretty simple searches, you know, with the the Harvard studies and the MIT studies and NYU. I mean this pro this program is not certainly not successful. I I think the best you could call it would be a mixed bag. It's really dependent on the expertise of the team managing it and then getting the incentives right. But it seems like it more frequently does more damage. Not only does it underproduce what you're hoping to get as uh affordable housing, but it also damages the actual uh market rate housing as well and increases that. So, I'm just wondering how we're very compelling. The the people in the community that came out here certainly deserve something. I feel like this is not what they deserve. I feel like this is going to hurt them. Um, and

I think it's going to actually reduce development in that community to a way that's not going to benefit them at all. Yeah, this was a really tough one. We've talked through I've read many of the same studies and have um some of the same concerns. Um, we will be almost immediately starting to work on sub area planning in that part of the city. Part of the request uh from the community was that this could potentially be a an interim measure. Um the original request from the Casino Road working group was to delay the whole up zone while uh while we sorted out the affordability and displacement concerns. that's not something that uh I thought would have been good for the community either. Uh and was the right way to go for the city. Um so this was kind of a a compromise there to put this into place to provide a little bit of a backs stop. Um and I it is really tough to tell. I there the research is mixed. A lot of it depends on how well the program is set up. I will say that we plan to continue to monitor this very closely and that we will be in a planning process almost immediately in the exact part of town that this is covering and a big part of that planning process is going to be around affordable housing. So this is by no means the end of that conversation. Yeah. Well, first of all, I think that they the group proposing this knew exactly what they were doing and they chose to do this the way they did it so it would stop development. So maybe they could figure it out, but I feel like it was a backdoor very very dishonest thing to do to that community. Um, and I and

one of the greatest components on whether this uh program is successful is in a increasing market. And I certainly I mean it that's pretty consistent too if you read that why does this work in the areas that it worked because it was an increasing market. I'm pretty not pretty sure that you have that regular work close. Yeah, there's a consistency with our neighbors thing, too. That was another thing that changed during this project. Um, was Snowomish County and Model Code partnership both coming out with the same recommendation. So, more work to be done with those partners as well as we all try to figure out a way out of the housing affordability crisis and uh and displacement concerns that we have. I do like that there seems to be broad agreement on the goals at least and that it's more the which is the right method to get there. So that's at least a a good framing. Yeah, I just want to say I do echo Commissioner Ballard's concerns. Um and I I I will just offer the comment but you know temporary solutions have a nasty habit of becoming permanent and that would just be of concern to me. Right. Yeah. Is it possible to put a sunset on it as part of this? Yes. I mean, maybe we do that and and sunset it after 3, five years and see how it goes. I mean, we want to we can keep it, right? Yeah. I mean, I appreciate the thoughts. the I mean I guess right now the uh again it's just a group of people that have not had very kind focus in their community and I feel like we're basically delaying that and playing a little bit of roulette. Um you know so it's not an easy decision. I'm not saying I have the answers, but I just looking at this just to me it was a little bit out of left field and I feel like the way it's being implemented is

just about the harshest way to ensure it won't ensure uh or to be successful. Um the softening is great. It would be a small part of it but you know I think you know there were some recommendations I think trying to increase the number of units before it kicks in which would be a little more fair to you know the the groups that's in there. I mean you know my and mind my mind continues on. I mean, part of that program that I'm concerned is you're taking away um possibility to have equity in the properties that are out there by putting it into this program because it'll make it harder to develop. It'll be more specific to the low-inccome. You know, generally those projects don't end up being town houses that are purchased. They put them in kind of a complete uh in a system where they're just forced to continue to rent uh with no relief. So again, so at the end of this meeting, we'll be um you will be considering and taking action on a resolution that will communicate your recommendation to the excuse me to the council. Um that recommendation can have some nuance to it. It can uh I've always thought this was a good opportunity. We've talked about an enormous amount and variety of topics over the course of this and um we are on a a clock that is ticking and we do need to get this done, but it uh it would be great to hear the types of things that you would like to see us work more on. Maybe that it was satisfactory, but you would like to see more effort in the near future. It could be a recommendation to put a sunset on it or to not do it, or it could be just a recommendation to watch this closely. recommendation is to the council ultimately. Okay. Okay. Um building modulation straight up uh

added uh on recommendation of surface water. Our surface water team um restrictions on exterior materials that are cor that could corrode or leech heavy metals into the storm water system and then into our uh streams and Puget Sound. Um so we added in a couple place this uh restriction on uh leechable and corrosive exterior materials. I learned that one of them is galvanized metal. Whatever galvanizing is releases some heavy metals. So you can still have those things, but they would need to be somehow sealed in a way that wouldn't uh be releasing that. Uh transparency was another one that gets a lot of attention. Um we have requirements depending on street designations at the high end for streets designated to transit oriented development, which there are not very many of. Pacific is one and then around Everett Station is most of the TOD streets. Those have a requirement that 90% of the uh building facade between two and 10 feet be transparent. And then that is 60% for pedestrian designated streets and 45% for a couple other streets that aren't as common. Pedestrian designated streets are the most common. And that's the big ones like Evergreen Way and Broadway and Everett Mallway. Uh as well as a lot of downtown Everett. Um, so between the energy code, the cost, building flexibility and everything, we pretty consistently get requests to reduce the transparency and and did again in this late uh part of the uh update process. We put uh did a little bit of that by reducing and this was a comment that was actually in our system from

2021 from a staff that wasn't even there before noting that the art between 8 and 10 ft is sometimes mechanical equipment or the you know it's above the ceiling basically and wouldn't be appropriate for transparency. So we switched from two to eight two to 10 feet to two to eight feet instead which is a 20 15% I think it was reduction in the overall transparency without changing those other numbers. uh meeting with staff this morning. Um they were thinking that we'd probably be better reducing the horizontal requirement than the height because a lot of developers actually go with higher glass and are asking for a modification to shift some of the required horizontal to um vertical. Plus most of those ground floors are supposed to be 15 feet for commercial options. Um, so little this is a almost uh always gets some sort of a modification. Um, but I'll I'll leave it at that. It was a reduction. I think we're going to look at it a little bit closer and maybe shift tweak that a little bit, but reduction of transparency requirements of roughly 15% is what we have in there. Okay. ground level surface parking between buildings and streets. So these uh were in three or four different places in code and in the last run through um it had always been a little bit clunky and so we've consolidated those requirements into one place and then added a graphic to explain it. Um it had in the April 7 draft there had been one this came from the model code partnership work that um prohibited ground level surface parking in the mixeduse zones. Chapter 9 is not

really the right place for that because chapter 9 deals with buildings and this is a surface and a site planning thing not a building design thing and it's a parking thing so it probably should go in the parking chapter. So we moved it out of uh chapter 9 and into chapter 34 which is parking. Uh there had also been in chapter 34 also already a prohibition on surface parking between multif family buildings and public streets and then also one between non-residential streets and Broadway and Evergreenway. All three of them together uh restricted this citywide except for neighborhood residential zones or otherwise where you have a driveway. Um you can still park in your driveway between the uh building and the street. Um so there's the graphic trying to illustrate that we get a lot of confusion and um what is between the building and the street? I think the current uh the current text says between the building closest to the public parking cannot be closer to the public street than the building closest to the public street. Um that doesn't really always mean between the building and the street. It could mean next to the building, but closer than which isn't as much of a problem. I think we do want to have that direct visibility from the street into the building um and that street presence. Um, so this clarifies that it's kind of the shortest line from a building to the street, uh, is where it's restricted. And I noticed that on the little offkilter building down here, there should probably be some yellow between the street, that building and the street uh, on the downside there. Good. Port compatibility overlay section. I think it was after April 7

that that got settled and sorted out between Rucker Hill and um the Port of Everett. There have been no changes since that. I think we've talked about it here uh since then. Uh chapter 22, heights, we added uh this was another comment about um density bonus for religious organizations. And we've long said we don't limit density. So there's really no bonus for us to give. It's a state law that we have to provide a process to do so. Um, kind of an aha moment that height equals density in a way if you don't regulate density. So, why not do an extra bonus height floor of height for development of affordable housing for low-income households on uh religious property. Then, uh, Port of Everett um had a good catch on our industrial waterfront height uh, framework. So, a reminder on this, we since we're ditching the building height map that has different heights for different places, even in the same zone, that means that the light industrial and heavy industrial zones have to go from the current nine or so different height limits that they have to one. We rounded it up to a pretty high number recognizing that industrial development doesn't often reach for the sky. um that's just fine in a place like uh Southwest Everett Industrial Center um which isn't in between anybody's view and the thing they're viewing. But on the waterfront uh uh heights are a little bit more of a touchy subject. So, we had developed a uh some geometry that said that the height limit in this the area between the railroad tracks and the water around the peninsula of North Everett would go from uh 10 ft below the center line of the street on top of the bluff, usually Grand Avenue, and then

West Marine View Drive, um I think. and uh and then to a plane down to 40 ft above the ordinary high water mark that w winds up being in the 40 to 60 ft height limit range that's in the neighborhood of what the height limit is if you look at the various current zones along that waterfront. Um, Port of Everett uh, correctly saw that that was a reduction of the height limit uh, on on the port property which was a concern to them. We had removed the twofloor bonus height from the industrial waterfront height area earlier. And so as a way to get that um, height limit back to where it was on port property, we added back the two floor bonus height. uh checking with port staff today. Maybe that still doesn't get us all the way there. So, that's another one that we're going to take uh one last look at. This is the last one. This is a repeat of the surface parking thing just because it was in both chapter 9 and chapter 34. And then the zoning map. So, did I already talk through this? I think I did because of the neighborhood commercial thing, but uh Edgewater neighborhood and the UR4 now looks like that. These little dots show the parcels that would be eligible for neighborhood commercial under uh the amended language. And then uh Legion Division 2 and Mount Baker something uh is the one over here and here. So these were reduced from UR4 uh to NR. Those were both council directed changes in the last couple of weeks.

Bless you. That's the change report. I have um the full documents up on PDF and uh happy to take questions. We can go to the public hearing. I turn it over to you. Any further questions? I have one question on the port height that you just talked about. So, is that talking about permanent structures that get built in that area? I'm wondering if there's anything around something more temporary or something that's more equipmentbased versus building based. Yes, as I understand it, equipment would be exempt from the height limit. So, would be able to exceed that. As I understand it, a crane being a mobile mobile thing uh is one of those types of equipment. Any further questions? Would someone like to make a motion to open the public hearing? So moved. Second. All right. And I forgot. Do we have to take a roll call vote on this? Okay. Commissioner Atkins? Yes. Commissioner Ballard? Yes. Commissioner Finch? Yes. Commissioner Sullivan? Yes. Commissioner Shelby? Yes. Commissioner Rutled? Yes. And Commissioner Welch. Yes. All right. I have some instructions for our uh commentators. To those of you uh you joining us remotely, please mute your microphone or if you are calling and mute your phone by pressing star six. At each opportunity for public comments, I will ask if anyone wants to speak. If you are participating remotely and would like to provide public comment, unmute your microphone or press star six on your phone. Please provide your name for the record. When you're done, please mute again. If you are in attendance and would like to comment, please fill out a speaker sign-in sheet located on the table by the front door. Um, and with that, we'll move on to our first in-person

commentators. Uh, starting with I'm so sorry, um, Jean Satty Huitt. Okay, I'm so sorry. I have a hard time reading the cursive of that J. U, they have three minutes, right? Okay. Yes. Hi, my name is Jean Sadi Hwitt. I'm a resident of the Norton Grand Overlay and vice chair of the historical commission. I'm speaking tonight representing my neighbors in the Norton Grand Historic Overlay. We have a petition signed by neighbors I will be forwarding shortly. I'd like to acknowledge and thank the planning department who have been working tirelessly to develop a plan in conjunction with private and p and public input and despite budget and staff cuts they've done a wonderful job and thank you commissioner Atkins for your work as well. Last year there was a joint meeting between the historical and planning commissions regarding the comprehensive plan. One topic discussed was creating buffer zones alongside historic overlays with lowered heights to preserve our limited historic resources and mitigate the impact of some new development. Work has been done by planning and the historical commission to create and preserve some areas which is appreciated. Upon reviewing the final plan released on Friday, there are still a few critical areas along the west side of Rucker Avenue from 32nd to 37th along across the alley from the Norton Grand Historic Overlay and around the Donovan District that both need a buffer zone or transition zone. proposed resoning along the west side of Rucker will increase heights in addition to the way the the heights are measured not by requiring it to be measured on the sidewalk in front but an average from the lot. Um the proposed developments could overwhelm

the adjoining historic one and twotory homes and around the Donovan district the transition is up to 15 stories. So imagine standing in your backyard and having seven stories. It's not just the heights that overshadow the homes, the historic homes. Any access to parking and services must go through the alleys, creating traffic, noise, and activity that diminishes the home's car character and value. It also creates an environment for their eventual demise through conversions and sales. So during the Metro Everett revisions when heights were increased increased along Rucker um overlay neighbors were told by the planning department not these current planning department um when the comprehensive plan was up for revision and the need for a buffer zone was addressed that the lower heights would be addressed as well. So, we asked the planning department and you commissioners to create a buffer transition zone by changing the Q current UR4 zoning to RU4 zoning at its corresponding heights along the west side of Rucker from 32nd to 37th. The Norton Grand Overlay is already accommodating a new 200 plus affordable apartment complex and a proposed up zone along Norton um that are going to dramatically increase traffic in the overlay. And this combined with the additional traffic um in the alleys will radically change the value, character, and livability of the historic homes. Can I get one more second? Okay. The city of has recognized the importance of preserving historic properties. We have standards and historic overlay zones to preserve and protect these valuable assets, but these new changes proposed for our neighborhood do not seem to be taking this into consideration. Everett 2044 decisions will shape the future of our city, and we hope they will prove that Ever is a city with foresight that values its heritage and historic

properties and seeks to promote quality of life, community, and vital growing neighborhoods along with accommodating reasonable growth. So, thank you. and we will have a petition for you all in a couple days. Thank you for your comments. Um, if you uh would like to public uh give you would like to give public comment, please turn in your forms over here. Um, Russell Joe, you're up next. Good evening and thank you Russell Joe Master Builders office located in Belleview. I want to thank the entire commission and staff for the thoughtful consideration and the debate you've been having to uh get past or get over each of the steps uh in this process. It's been a a good uh experience for me to watch and I hope it's been a a good experience for you as you've tried to make recommendations that will reach the housing jobs and population goals of the plan. I'm going to just do a couple of comments on the development code. Um on the ADU subject, uh thank you for placing in um uh language that makes sure that the frontage requirements do not get triggered for ADUs uh if certain conditions are made. The setbacks are also important for uh ADUs in the particularly in the back alley. And um we do appreciate that the impact fees have been recognized as needed to be uh reduced when a ADU is properly defined. On the inclusionary zoning subject, we understand it's a small area south of town that does need to have some um changes perhaps made. Um it's an experiment of some sort because you have one small area that you're changing. The rest of the area is not being changed. So you'll have an opportunity to see if it works or it doesn't work. We would encourage uh the planning staff to make

a note to try to look at this perhaps in 5 years to see if it has worked and uh whether or not it needs to be tweaked and changed so that it can be effective. We do appreciate that the one unit requirement does not go into effect until you get after till you get past the six unit. As you may recall from some of my comments, the herd study for Seattle indicated that you only get an effective a price uh a unit that is feasible if you get to 14 or 15 units. So, if you allow a project at 15, you're perhaps hitting the target where one of those could be built. The question I do have is will that unit be a 60% AMI unit, an 80% AMI unit only if there's owner occupancy, or will it just be an 80% AMI unit um without uh any restrictions as long as it is built? We do appreciate the 50% um inloo opportunity of $7.50 for every square foot. Um, and we do also appreciate the fact that there will be um uh a waiting for the those fees to go into effect until six months after the certificate of occupancy is is done. Overall, we think that this is a great opportunity for Everett to find a way to accommodate the growth jobs and people that will be coming here. Uh the housing section uh is not everything that Master Village would like to see, but it is a solution that fits uh every unique situation. I want to thank you for your hard work on this project. Thank you. And up next we have uh Laura Gurley. Good evening, commissioners. Uh Laura Gurley, Port of Everett staff. I just really wanted to thank um especially Euro and Alisanne for doing the incredible outreach that they did with us. Um we had a lot of a lot of things to go through. Um as Euro mentioned, we

still have some height things to flesh out, but um especially just kudos to you guys with the helping us work with the neighborhood through the port compatibility area and um appreciate all of you guys with the feedback and the patience as we worked through that because we we actually got there. So that's a very and I think some of the folks are here. So I appreciate that all around. Um and also kudos to um Tom Hood and Ryan Sass with the uh public works and transportation group who you know we had comments for them as well. And um overall it was a a great experience and um very different from past staff. So this was very refreshing and we're grateful to have been part of it. So that's it. Thank you. Thank you. And it sounds like your comments were perfectly timed. Um, can we get uh Todd Doutsman Duceman? Sorry. You hold on just one second. Oh yeah. Interestingly enough, in my 30s or 40s, you would never have caught me dead watching one of these meetings, coming to one of these meetings, listening to one of these meetings, and then the last three or four years. Uh, you know, I've gotten to spend some time with uh Russell and uh and York and spending it with builders and developers and people trying to create housing. I don't know how many of you guys own a home. Yet, we are all about home ownership. Obviously, I create a living of making home ownership. Yet, I believe it's extremely important to be able to paint your own walls and enjoy the uh your own setting, not living necessarily an apartment. Not that I'm putting that down yet. I just feel there's something about being here and owning your own home and having a

home. And so these ADUs that were and the datadus that we're able to start uh doing more and more I think I'm involved with nine different projects here in the city of Everett uh with people that are trying to build wealth uh builders trying to create a living for their families and also everybody gets to provide a home for under $600,000. I think that's a pretty amazing situation here in the city of Everett. The question I do have is I try to read through this stuff and try to understand it. And quite honestly, guys, I'm pretty intelligent individual and a lot of it just flies right over my head. So, um uh uh the biggest thing that um I was concerned about is the uh the to be able to park tandemly in a lot of the uh on the alleys to be able to and and if you guys drive down the alleys, there's a bunch of probably alleys in the city of Everett. And so I think by putting these datadus back in the on some of these alleys, it really makes things much better. And uh so my question is um did you are is are we still going to be able to do the tandem parking back there? Dave u I work with a guy named Dave Gardner who I know you know well because we don't have the parking on the front per the state law. We still have to apply provide two parking spots in the back. Are we still going to be able to do tandem parking there? Um, and then have one spot for the uh the DATU. Thank you. I I remembered I was going to look back to that after hearing from someone else on the same question. In chapter, it's 1934 120 parking area design and construction. There's a tandem parking section. There were some changes to state law, although that's not what drove this. We have tandem parking is allowed in any amount for non-required residential parking. But for required individ parking, each space

must have independent access. The parking requirement is one space per dwelling. So the kind of the old style of tandem parking is you needed two and so you can have your two for your own households in tandem. Um, you can still do that, but if you had an ADU and a house, you couldn't strand the ADU's parking spot behind the one house's parking spot. So, a little bit a little bit of yes, a little bit of no. Okay. So the front unit, the principal unit would be able to tandem park behind it. Yet the ADU ADU could not tandem park. If you were in a if you were outside of the reduction area for parking and you required one full spot for each of the main unit and the accessory unit, um they couldn't they would need to be side by side. Okay. Uh, probably need to get some clar I don't want to spend the time here and wait and waste your guys' time. I just probably need to get some clarification. Couple drawings because I'm pretty rudimentary there with hilarious. Yes, I'll pull that together. Thank you for all the work that you guys do. I really appreciate it and it's absolutely entertaining to watch this and become involved in it more and more. So, appreciate all your time and Charles, you're retiring from this apparently. There we go. So, anyhow, yeah, good stuff. Thank you very much, guys. I really appreciate it. All right. Uh, do we have any comment online? We do. We have two individuals. So, David, if you could please unmute and state your full name and you have three minutes to speak when you're ready. If you are there. Yes. Uh, David Koenig, uh, Everett resident. I provided, uh, a document with details and I'm going to provide you with the highlights. The first request is to zone the Madona Avenue

area neighborhood residential constraint. The proposed comprehensive plan states that the purpose of the neighborhood residential constraint is to provide for housing and complimentary uses at a lower urban residential scale in areas that have limited access and adjacent to wooden areas. The proposed regulations state the purpose of the neighborhood residential constraint zone is to reduce risk from hazards in areas with limited access by providing for continue continuation of established development patterns and limiting growth potential. The request um was outlined in maps provided to you between the wooded area of Howorth Park to the wooded area of Glenwood Creek stream corridor and requesting neighborhood residential constraints because it meets the standards that are proposed in the comprehensive plan and the regulations. The state of Washington gave uh direction uh for cities to um develop standards. They said to use design standards to ensure housing fits the character of the neighborhood. The proposed regulations fall short of this direction in some instances and the direction in vision 2050 and the adopted city comprehensive plan. Some specifics are vehicle access and parking off the street where alleys exist should not allow even for required parking uh access from the street. and reduction of setbacks where there is excess rightway should be outlined with criteria and map before this goes forward. There is no knowledge at this point where these areas are adopt the recommended floor error ratios provided in the state ordinance that have been provided to cities to implement uh middle housing. I provided those F ratios. Standards keep the scale of buildings reasonable in neighborhoods and maintain the character

of the neighborhoods as required by the state law. Planning asked for studies to justify standards. A research group headed by Christopher Alexander authored the book pattern language. Their findings found out that towns uh buildings and people function best. They found out that 6 feet is the minimum dimension for balconies and porches for them to get used. They also found that it's necessary to have doors, entrances, and windows oriented to the street. This is for safety reasons, community engagement and connection to the world. This effort is very significant and design standards are needed so the implementation is successful and affordable housing is acceptable to the community. Thank you. Thank you. And that actually concludes our public commenters online. All right. Can we get a motion to close public comment? Motion to close. Second. Commissioner Atkins. Yes. Commissioner Ballard? Yes. Commissioner Finch? Yes. Commissioner Sullivan? Yes. Commissioner Shelby? Yes. Commissioner Rutled? Yes. Commissioner Welch? Yes. So, how do we want to move forward? Do we want to have a discussion first and then move the resolution and amend or what should we move the resolution and then amend and discuss during amendments or all all of those work? Um, so I've got a resolution to put on the screen. It's uh a series of recital. They're almost identical to what is in the proposed ordinances for the comprehensive plan. So, if you've taken a look at those, you've seen it, but I can put it up on the screen. Um, uh, I suppose we could, someone could move the ordinance and then it's on the floor and then the rest of the meeting is discussion before a vote,

but question and answer before we take that step is fine with me, too. For them, it's resolution. Yes, I I will uh propose a motion that we um kind of back to the sunlighting or the daylight sun setting, one of the suns. I do I I think based on the difficulty of this and the potential for it to be punitive and but it could be successful. I mean, you know, to hold them to the fire, I would love to have some kind of a bracket around there. So maybe, you know, three years it it they they're forced to either redo it or some kind of, you know, prove some kind of standard that it was successful or not. So So my intention is to make that proposal and then if you could help me out figuring out where it would be most appropriate to make it. Yeah, I it sounds like we may want to move the resolution and then you motion to amend the resolution. Does that sound about right? Sure. Let me um show you what it is. Okay. So, again, this is almost all identical language to the uh proposed ordinances that the council has in their agenda packet for tomorrow. Um explanatory language. This is done under requirements of the state growth management act. Uh we have started this with a project scoping process in February of 2022 and requested comments on a scope of environmental impact statement. June of 2023, we advanced a set of specific amendment requests and uh established three growth alternatives to study in the project and in the environmental impact statement process. Um the uh the disposition of those amendments is detailed in a staff memo dated May 30th which is up on everw.gov/2044. Uh the planning commission led the review and development of the comprehensive plan and development regulations including holding 42 briefings and workshops on various aspects of the plan and

regulations before holding public hearing and deliberating on June 3rd, 2025. That one is worth reading all the way through. Uh presumably we'll adopt a resolution that says uh something uh then uh this was uh a determination of significance and a supplemental environmental impact statement were prepared um part of a phased route phased review. Um, I don't know that we've talked about this much, but the Puget Sound Regional Council adopted vision 2050 in 2020, which is a regional plan that made Everett a metropolitan city. Um, they did a lot of environmental review regionwide for the implications of that regional growth strategy and for an overall regional growth pattern that includes substantial growth in Everett. We incorporated that environmental analysis by reference as well as Snomish County's uh environmental impact statement. We are essentially nested within that regional framework. So this Jay talks a little bit about that. Uh issued a final environmental impact statement on June 3rd. We will by the end of tonight. Anyways, uh Department of Commerce, we provided notice of uh notice of uh pending uh adoption of this periodic update on April 7th and completed the 60-day state agency review period. 5:00 p.m. today was the end of that. Uh this periodic update is consistent with the growth management act planning goals and the growth management act consistent with and supportive of the Ever comprehensive plan. The regulations are we followed our own procedural requirements in Everett mun municipal code and a planning director interpretation from 2023. Procedural requirements in state

law and agency rules public participation. uh procedural requirements for development regulations and then we have required factors that we must find to adopt an updated comprehensive plan. Circumstances have changed since the last periodic update. Uh and then for development regulations consistent with the comprehensive plan bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety or welfare. The reason we're doing this promotes the best long-term interests of the Everett community. These are all requirements in uh city code for us to find and then that there's substantial new information since the last one. Deep breath now. Therefore, uh and this would be potentially the enacting clause of the resolution. Planning commission recommends that the city council approve the comprehensive plan and development regulation attached here too. And then those exhibits one and two are the May 30 uh drafts that uh you've have been provided. So uh amending this can be done in any way. Um we could add and this is in word so I can type some things in here. Um we can add subject to subject two with the following comments with the following recommendations. anything like thank you for bearing with me on that. I believe there was a motion about to be made before I started talking. Yes. If someone would like to make a motion to move this resolution 251 subject two or you you someone needs to make the motion then you can amend it. So, I'll move uh to make the recommendation on resolution 251.

Second. All right. Uh, I make a motion to amend the motion as proposed to include that the inclusionary zoning sunset or the inclusionary zoning rules as proposed would sunset 3 years from the date of the adoption of this amendment or this proposal. Second. All right. Any discussion? I guess I'll I'll start with saying like I I I do think this is potentially needed though honestly I'm uncomfortable the proposed inclusionary zoning regulations existing regardless. I I really deeply fear that in our efforts to try to help out this community that we are really going to harm them. Every every day that we are not building as much units of housing as we can is just another day that people in that neighborhood are going to be priced out. Um, and the idea of five years of potentially little development, I I that just seems to me like another way to further price out and exclude people in that neighborhood, especially knowing how many of those uh folks down there along the Casino Road are renters. um that it doesn't it doesn't matter how how the the price of their home value. You know, that we're in a wider regional housing crisis and the landlords are going to raise the rent regardless of whether there's inclusionary zoning um for their units or whatever. Any any further discussion? I can't be the only one. I um so I think as an amendment you're

deliberating and then deciding on this amendment before moving on to potentially another one. Yes. Yeah. We should take a vote on the amendment if we're done with the discussion. Yeah. Any final discussion before we move on to a vote? Okay. Uh Commissioner Atkins. Yes. Commissioner Ballard. Yes. Commissioner Finch. Yes. Commissioner Sullivan. Yes. Commissioner Shelby. Yes. Commissioner Rutled. Yes. Commissioner Welch. Yes. Any further amendments? I was cons. I don't know if it's amendment. I guess I probably should have mentioned it earlier, but the height restrictions for the ADUs on the nonallies um that there's a difference on the height 28 to I think there is not anymore. There's not anymore. Am I looking at the wrong There's so many documents. Yeah. Where uh that would be in chapter 22. I think it was I know I had table 22-2. Okay. We're there 18 foot or am I looking at the wrong document [Music] 22 here? No. Yes. Okay. Should have known that right away. Uh, detached accessory residential buildings are garages and sheds. Okay. So, not accessory dwelling. Okay. I just want to make sure. Yep. That is We've got to find a different term for that because that's always gets people. Uh, accessory dwelling units will be able to meet the height of the zone. Okay. I just want to double check cuz I read through that and then it I was kind of stuck on what that was. Yes, we do have um this is highlighted so

maybe it was changed since the April 7 version but the struck language on number three I'll zoom in a little bit. Uh this is what it used to be but at least as of today no um limitation on the height of an ADU then I'm fine. Any further amendments? All right, we'll move on to discussion of the amended resolution. Any discussion on the amended resolution? All right. What does it look like if we pull all of the inclusionary zoning and that's our recommendation? I mean, let's talk about it, right? Like if that's the position of this body, I would support it. I would have recommended that if I thought I had the support. I would support that. Well, it sounds like we might want to try to do another amendment. I propose we make a recommendation or make a proposal that we remove the section uh defining inclusionary zoning be removed from the proposal as as presented. say with the following exception the inclusionary zoning regulations of 1909 whatever it is. Yes. Do we have a second? So moved discussion. So on this on the inclusionary zoning, are we just talking about the affordable housing part? Like that's that's the that's what we're talking about. I can't remember was there other things included in that about like I'm thinking of the um casino

square business park. That really wasn't that wasn't part of it, right? This was just the residential aspect. Okay. I just want to make sure that um are we giving a voice to the people that still came in here that said they want I'm not saying is this the right thing but are we are we are we giving them something that's my only question in my opinion we're giving something that them something that is may harm them more and will delay them from u something good for you know to to actually take advantage of the property out there. Um again it's it's it's mixed at best. Um and it often causes reduction in the proposed affordable aspect of it and it um it's shown to increase market rate. Um, and so it's just kind of failed on both sides. And again, it's very specific to it, the success is how it's applied and the and the quality of the the and uh incentives to do this and everything and getting that right mix. So, it's intense in that and somebody's got to manage that. And so, there's that problem and we have to trust that that happens, right? Um, and there's no reason to trust or think that that wouldn't. But, it's also very dependent on the market. Um I think the examples of it where it was successful were in situations where there was an increasing market. Um is there is this going to be an increasing market? Well, even if I said yes or no, I mean you can't guarantee that, right, for the life of this. Um but the question is what what are what voice are we giving them? I mean, it feels like we're taking something away, but I'm not sure really this was the right thing for them. Um I certainly thought the sub area the planning I mean working with them certainly uh trying to figure out uh

maintaining their commercial presence there. I like that quite a bit. You know I just I you know it's going to take some really creative thought and it's going to take the the city I think to to step in there and do that. Hopefully there's nonprofit groups that do that. I just don't feel like using the inclusionary zoning is the right tool. Um, but you're but I don't think we're taking anything away because I think what we're giving them was not fair and good to them. Um, sounds good. So then I would just continue to urge the department that that we don't let this go that we continue to like we've talked about monitor suns setting. You said that you could add it essentially to your docket. So I'm urging that you do. So, is this essentially removing 190970, right? Yeah. And just to echo Commissioner Ballard's points, I I really think that like the I if we're trying to do our best to help this community, and I I really really feel that like, you know, the causes of this housing crisis aren't and the causes of the high rents that people along Casino Road are facing aren't necessarily because people are coming into Casino Road and gentrifying it. It's because we are facing a regionwide housing crisis. And unfortunately, you know, I I think 10, 15 years ago, we could have talked about ways that we could do zoning to mitigate the gentrification and displacement of people, but I think we're just so far deep into this that like I I I just don't see how we do this beyond just building more units. I would agree the the only way to reduce cost is is supply. I mean, it's just reality. The other things that's, you know, you're kind of like it's it this really I agree with Commissioner Balor. I don't think is

going to fix the problem. I think it'll it'll exacerbate when it's all said and done. And so often I see these types of proposals for communities of color where it it honestly feels in some ways that it's taking investment away from them. You know, when I I hear about talks about the like concerns around light rail in this community, I I think about like why is it that whenever a community of color gets the opportunity to have this kind of infrastructure that could bring wealth and success into their neighborhood that we suddenly hear this deluge of well gentrification, displacement, and this idea that like in order for the the poor parts of our city to succeed, they have to stay poor and they have to stay in in this place where they're not receiving investment. because we're too afraid of displacing people. I just It just doesn't seem Sorry, I'm rambling by this point, but I have a lot of thoughts. I think sometimes it's hard for people to hear that it really is supply that is the driving force in the housing issues. Because even when I talk to people in the community, it's like, "Oh, we need affordable housing." like yeah we do but we also just literally need housing. You need affordable but then you need above affordable and higher than that and you know if you don't have a diverse set of h of housing you just don't have housing which then just drives every price up which was what we've talked about here. So I hear you. And a number that um I think it was either rethink housing or um at some point earlier in this project uh I believe it was Chris Collier came in and presented us some figures and like one of the numbers that really sticks with me is just the fact that like 20 the top 20% of income earners in Seattle are earning an average of $440,000 a year. And if we are in a place where we don't have enough housing, why would a landlord sit there and not raise their

rents as high as possible to try to get that market? Any further discussion? We did some tinkering to the language. Um, and can go any way that you want. Um, at at first we had accept the following, but that may not jump out as as much as this, including the following recommendations. The inclusionary zoning regulations contained in 190970 should be removed. And then if you wanted to add a statement of some sort uh to that or not, I I would suggest that there's um several anti-displacement strategies that were outlined in the rethink housing uh plan. uh things like right of first refusal um or uh community land trusts, you know, there there are other ways that we can tackle t tackle this issue um or rather the city can tackle this issue. I don't think there's necessarily ways that we here can, but so maybe something along those lines suggesting that they look back at some of those other strategies, implement anti-isplis, anti-displacement measures, um, such as the ones identified in Rethink Housing. I think it's really more of a comprehensive sub area plan than specifically anti-displacement on a uh on a sub area planning effort. Does that language look fine with everyone?

Can we get a roll call vote? Mr. Atkins? Yes. Mr. Ballard? Yes. Commissioner Finch? Yes. Commissioner Sullivan. Yes. Commissioner Shelby. Yes. Commissioner Rutled. Yes. Commissioner Welch. Yes. So, this then basically nullifies the original amendment one, right? So, yes. All right. Just want to make sure we have a clean Commissioner Ballard could pull his amendment, his first amendment. Yeah. I've got it to what we've got here. What we have is As long as we have a clean proposal. There was a time we didn't I we'll never do this without having word up on the screen again because we're trying to now amending the amendment. All right. Any further discussion or amendments before we move on to the final vote? Going once, going twice, going thrice. All right. Let's move on to Coup. Does that have to go through this process for the city? Any remaining issues? Some of the little little ones that are hanging out there, the city council still has the final authority on this. And um if the if the commission wants to weigh in on any of those, you can. Um I think there are some things that we're planning to work with the council on. um pretty short list that I think I think due to the timing requirements by the state we just need to move on and between now and the final vote with the city council all these should be fixed by that point I would think. Thank you. All right. Any further discussion or comment?

the the final comment that I'll have before we move on to a vote or I guess a question. Um, besides me, who else is a renter? All right, just wanted to I used to fix that. Um, well, with that, let's move on to uh a roll call vote. Commissioner Atkins, yes. Commissioner Ballard, yes. Commissioner Finch, yes. Commissioner Sullivan, yes. Commissioner Shelby, yes. Commissioner Rutled, yes. Commissioner Welch, yes. All right. Well, that was a lot of work. Years and years of work. And just thank you again, everyone. and just uh you know as it's my final time up here I just thank you all. Um this has been such a wonderful work environment and really glad to just see the amazing progress that we've done. Um any final comments before I I use the gabble to adjourn us real quick. Um what are we doing next meeting? And when is it? I know we've talked about it but uh June 17th is out. Um so July uh I don't know what we're doing. July. Great. There will be a party in July. You will be invited. I love a good party. There will be more work to do uh for certain, but for now, we can relax for the rest of this month. And uh if July is the day after the holiday or something, maybe it's not till second half of July. There's not pressing business that I know of. Well, I hope you get some time off. Thank you all for uh great advice, great questions, great attention to detail throughout this entire process. Um, this I I I really feel like this has been led by the planning commission and uh we've benefited a lot from it. Thank you for all the hard work and all the late nights. It is really uh impressive to watch. I do have a question um relative to the

comments about the transition zone between the historic districts and um higher zoned areas. Will there be an opportunity to address that in a finely tuned way in the future? Of course. Um I the this the city council still has a public hearing on June 11th and still has the opportunity to shape the plan. So it's not total it's not finished yet in this process. But thereafter um a lot of these things are wide open for continued um adjustment because I think we we obviously need to move on in this process. It's taken quite some time. But I also think that recognizing the importance of character of our neighborhoods um is something that shouldn't be missed in this process. Yeah, I would love to uh in one of those meetings later on this year uh work with this commission on a work program now that we can have a little bit more freedom staff commission and others to choose what we focus our energy on rather than this mandated project. Um, I think that'll be a really interesting conversation. If you had something to dive into and spend four, six months on, what would that be? Well, with that, we are ajourned.