Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to the September 16th meeting of the Everett Planning Commission. Ayanna, would you please call the role? Chair Chatters here. Commissioner Shelby here. Commissioner Ballard here. Commissioner Finch here. Commissioner Ridge here. Commissioner Welch here. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll read the land acknowledgement. We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the people and their successors, the Tleup tribes. Since time immemorial, they have 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. We now have an opportunity for commissioner reports. Commissioners, anything to report this evening? Okay, seeing none, we'll send it over to staff for comments.

Okay. Uh, not much staff comments this evening. Um, good to see you. Happy Tuesday. Joined by Teddy uh Hullbrook and, uh, we also have Kelsey Hyde, land use planning manager, and Allison Wetzel, long-range planning manager. Teddy Hullbrook is our new environmental planning planner. And, uh, jumping in with both feet to lead this critical area regulation update that you'll hear about in a quick moment. uh manufactured housing communities. Had a great discussion about that at your last meeting. Uh we took a lot away from that and our uh working on our public outreach. We sent letters and uh emails out to uh everybody that we could find that was connected to one of the manufactured housing communities ownership side, resident um resident association side. So, we didn't send postcards to every single resident yet. uh those are over a dollar a piece, so we're looking at over $1,000. So, we want to make sure that if we do that kind of a uh direct communication that we're doing it at the perfect time. Uh we also had a briefing with the city council's parks and built environment committee last Wednesday. Uh gave them a similar update, a little bit more abbreviated than we gave you at that first meeting. and uh heard a little bit of feedback from those uh committee members on the council and uh we are continuing to let those efforts play out. So taking a break from the planning commission this month while we uh wrap up the housekeeping and open the critical areas regulations uh ordinance which is due by the end of this year and a pretty major endeavor. Um, we expect that with the benefit of hearing a little bit more feedback uh from the public and those that are uh either owning or uh living in one of the manufactured housing communities that we can advance some of the concepts into uh formal recommendations and we expect

that item to be back before you at your next meeting. I think that's it for staff comments unless there are any questions. Okay. Thank you. Um, before we move on to public comment, I know we have some folks who we want to get home to their families as soon as possible. So, uh, I'll entertain a motion to take the agenda out of order and move critical areas, uh, ahead of the, uh, housekeeping items for the comp plan 2044. So moved. Second.

Okay. Any objection to taking the agenda out of order? Okay. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and move forward with that. We now have an opportunity for public comment. Ayanna, do we have anyone online who wishes to provide public comment? Would Daniel Dodson like to make a public comment at this time? Uh, act. Uh, thank you for the opportunity. I am just here participating to understand more about how the planning commission works and um what uh is going on with the planning commission at this time. And I thank you very much for the opportunity. and I do not. But thank you.

Thanks for tuning in. We appreciate you uh joining us this evening. Okay, it sounds like we are ready to move on to item number five, which we're taking out of order. Critical areas regulations.

Okay, great. We got the slides up and if you'd like to move them. Yeah, absolutely. Uh and again, Teddy Hullbrook, environmental planner and um take it away. We expect this to be the first of three perhaps one or two more meetings on the subject. So we're going to start with background at this meeting and get you wellversed in the terminology and the and the context around critical areas and then we'll move into in future meetings specific amendments uh proposals and then public hearings and all the rest.

Thanks Jorg. Okay, perfect. 72 miles of streams, 811 acres of mapped wetlands, and 717 mapped individual wetlands. 21 acres of mapped potential landslide hazard areas. 6,710 acres of lands covered by mapped special flood hazard areas. Obviously, these maps are of the city of Everett, and these are some of the city of Everett's critical areas. They're regulated under the city's critical areas ordinance and flood regulations. Those regulations impact the location and scale of development when in proximity to critical areas. My name is Teddy Hullbrook. I'm an environmental planner for the city of Everett. I help people and customers uh navigate the na the environmental permitting process. Formerly as a wetland biologist, currently as a reviewer for the city. A key part of the local environmental permitting process is the city's critical areas ordinance which is due for an update by December 31st of 2025. This presentation, as York mentioned, is an introduction to the topic for the commission. A brief presentation outline. I'll go into the background. What are critical areas? where are they? Why protect them? And some regulatory framework for some context,

the critical area ordinance update itself. I'll present some best available science and potential updates to the city's code. Then we'll go into next steps such as a p public participation plan, the timeline for the adoption of the critical areas ordinance, and some commission considerations potentially after this presentation. But first, the background. What are critical areas? They're defined by state law in the Washington Administrative Code into five different types. They are wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Some of them are kind of long and they have some abbreviations. As you might see throughout this presentation, of note, critical aquifer recharge areas are not within the city of Everett limits as they're defined as areas with critical recharging effect on aquifers used for portable water. And the city of Everett's drinking water does not come from groundwater, but instead comes from the upper riershed. Where are critical areas in Everett? As I introduced this presentation, I showed several maps. Um, we also as a city maintain several PDF maps of where these locations of critical areas are on our planning website. There is a screenshot of where those are and a link in this presentation. We also maintain an online GIS interactive map that you can toggle on and off layers to show where critical areas are. You can also generate PDFs using the map Everett public portal toggling on

several layers. For example, this PDF I generated is of a um area near Forest Park. It shows streams in the blue lines. Wetlands in the hatched polygons. The orange and red layers are potential landslide hazard areas. And the coastal area is flood plane. An added bonus, there's also shoreline um designations shown on here as well. So, why protect critical areas? Protection of these areas usually falls into two one of two boxes, sometimes both. Um either to protect ecological functions of those areas or to protect life and safety of the public. For example, wetlands. We protect wetlands to protect their ecological functions such as water quality filtration and enhancement. Hydraologic functions such as flood plane storage and erosion control and habitat functions such as many se many species use wetlands throughout their life cycles. This also applies to uh fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. There's that acronym again. Whereas when we talk about geologically hazardous areas like erosion hazard areas, landslide hazard areas, those protection of those areas are more focused on avoidance and risk minimization to protect the life and safety of the public. Interestingly, um, frequently flooded areas have both ecological functions and pose threat to life and safety. So I put them in both boxes. However, this is a very generalized graphic. I made to just start us thinking about why we're protecting these areas. Speaking of why we're protecting these

areas, there is some regulatory framework. The growth management act does require local jurisdictions to review and update regulations to designate and protect critical areas. It requires a no net loss of ecological functions and values and the update must be based on best available science abbreviated as BAS throughout this presentation and in the report that was attached to the memo. It this update must also give special consideration to preserve or enhance anadimous fisheries such as salmon. So, now we'll go into some best available science and updates to our code. Staff produced a best available science summary report that's attached to the memo for this meeting. It is meant to serve as a review of current best available science and is the basis for revising development regulations. Staff has also met with representatives from state agencies to discuss their initial comments on existing regulations that we have and to discuss their most recent published best available science. Some of those representatives for were from department of ecology who regulates wetlands and critical aquifer recharge areas. the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, which provides guidance for geologically hazardous areas, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, which provides guidance for streams and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Some general critical areas ordinance updates that staff is considering. We'll get that out of the way first, is

a reorganization of chapter 19.37 in Everett Municipal Code. The intent is to organize the code into articles for each type of critical area and this is meant to provide more clarity of purpose requirements for reports and development standards. Currently the chapter almost requires a full read through to understand what report requirements are required for say a geologically hazardous report. It's meant for clarity and for the people who use this chapter the most to get to the regulations that they need to apply quickly. We'll start by talking about a few different critical areas themselves and some best available science and some potential updates to the code. Generally in 2022, a guidance document was published by the Department of Ecology where they updated some definitions, reformatted some tables, added some new information based on um recommendations from inter agency guidance. And some potential updates to City of Everett's code include reviewing the added minimization measures that are included in this guidance document. Updating our definitions to match the state definitions and to incorporate some of ecology staff's minor comments. Fortunately, the city of Everett has already um incorporated a lot of the existing guidance from department of ecology. So, there's not many major changes to the wetland buffers or um provisions throughout frequently flooded areas. Some potential updates to Everett's code. Um, frequently flooded areas are actually regulated under chapter 1930 rather than 19.37. So staff will review for consistency

with development code and critical areas ordinance as that's being developed. Geologically hazardous areas. Uh, we met with the liaison for the department of natural resources. They currently do not have published guidance or best available science. So instead, the liaison advised us on um potential revision of some definitions we have, including tsunami hazard areas in our definitions and adding a reference to DNR maps, which are more frequently and more um recently updated than some of our mapping that we have maintained for the city. Staff's also exploring refining the definition of qualified professional for geologically hazardous assessments. Which brings us to fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, also known as streams and uh priority habitats. WDFW, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, published two volumes in 2020. Volume one is the best available science for riparian areas, watershed processes and their ecological functions. Whereas volume two is WDFW's recommendations of how to include best available science in policy for local governments. A key takeaway from volume one, which is the best available science synthesis review, is that a 100 ft width surrounding streams is estimated to achieve 95% pollution removal for most pollutants and 85% removal for surface nitrogen. On the right is an image from WDFW's

best available science synthesis document volume one of note. We are discussing the protective width from the edge of the stream or in this case labeled as the active channel. Can we ask questions in the middle of it? Sure. You want me to go back? Yeah. Excuse me. for the 100 foot uh with what would that look like in terms of existing development within the city, right? Like how many potential redevelopment impacts are we seeing with the best available science?

So we currently have buffer widths ranging from 50 to 150 ft. And I can show you what the existing buffer widths are on in two slides. It's a complicated question, one that we're wrestling with right now. Many different stream types that have different uh buffers existing and potential in the future. Uh a wide variety of development uh developed conditions to where the buffer is on a parking lot or something like that. Um and development patterns around the city. I think we'll can't remember what's on in this slide, but we are working on city-wide maps to best understand exactly the difference between volume two again is the management recommendations from WDFW. Of note in volume two, WDFW recommends to use a sight potential tree height abbreviated as SPTH throughout this the rest of this uh presentation. Site potential tree at 200 years to establish a riparian management zone width for protection. The next slide goes into more detail how this methodology was derived, but essentially as shown on the graphic to the right, the width of protection that WDFW proposes should equal the height of a 200-year-old tree. WDFW defines the riparian management zone RMZ as the area that has the potential to provide full riparian functions.

They base their methodology on a FEMAT report in 1993 where old growth forest conditions are needed for full riparian functions and old growth forest conditions are achieved at 200 years old. 200 years old. The figure to the right is derived directly from that FEMAT 1993 study and it was originally labeled as riperian forest effect on streams as function of buffer width showing generalized curves indicating percent of riperian ecological functions and processes occurring within varying distances from the edge of a forest stand. So just a quick question. 1993 is the most recent science we have on that particular question. Is that accurate or is that just what's being cited in this in this material?

That is what's being cited in this material. There might be more recent science, but that is the basis for WDFW's recommendation of establishing a protective buffer width of a tree height at 200 years old. Okay. So, that remains the basis of their recommendation, but we're we don't know for sure if there is updated science that would indicate otherwise. I'm not saying there is. I'm just asking the question. That just seems like a long time ago to be anyhow. Thank you.

Science. No, I there's a difference between best available science and management recommendations. And this science, while they both are rooted in science, um I think there's a specific protocol for the best available science um in which maybe there's a comparison to others and there's a rigorous process that goes through. Not to say that there isn't a rigorous process with the management recommendations, but it is a little bit different.

Yeah, it does need to go through peer review. Best available science is a term that's defined by the Washington administrative code um that I think is cited in the best available science summary report attached.

Thank you. I appreciate that clarification. Continuing with the management recommendations by WDFW, they have developed and by they I mean WDFW as it developed an online mapping tool for site potential tree height based on soil polygons maintained by the National Resource Conservation Service. The graphic on the right showcases when you use their tool and you select a polygon that maps a underlying soil condition, it will give you the site potential tree height of a tree growing in that soil polygon at 200 years old. In this case, it's 198 ft. WDFW has also uh prepared some methodology a sight specific site potential tree height procedure uh using tree age and field height measurements to compare growth curves for specific tree species and arrive at a site index value using their site potential tree height calculator tool. So what this means in Everett specifically, we had our GIS analyst take the shape files from WDFW's site potential tree height tool and clip those to only being for the city of Everett and put on a gradient scale on these. The WDFW mapped site potential tree height in Everett ranges from 94 feet to 243 feet with the majority of the city sitting around 200 ft. Adopting this methodology would require WDFW maps and methodology be incorporated into the critical areas ordinance to determine riparian management zone widths.

So talking about existing stream buffers and the difference between them. Current stream buffers are based on the water typing per DNR forest practices. It's defined in the Washington Administrative Code. It's a somewhat common It's a very common way to stream type in Western Washington. And you can see on the left hand column there's four different types that city of ever recognizes. Type S is shorelines. Type F is fishbearing streams. Type NP is non-fish bearing perennial. Type NS is non-fishbearing seasonal. In the middle column you can see the city of Everett's existing buffers that we apply. There are two different numbers in there. And we increase stream buffers if the existing buffer is unveated, sparsely vegetated or vegetated with invasive species because vegetation directly serves a function for filtering out pollutants before it goes into critical areas especially streams. So hence why there is two different numbers in the existing buffers column. This is compared to WDFW's site potential tree height repair and management zone width on the right hand column which ranges for every type of stream between 94 ft and 243 ft based on our GIS analysis. Some big considerations before adopting the site potential tree height methodology. They're outlined here. They're also included in your memo and I can read through those. Everett is a designated metropolitan center and therefore growth should be concentrated in urban areas. Everett is heavily developed and protective width increase here may not

be as effective as in non-urbanized areas. This guidance is for the entirety of Washington state. Site potential tree height could be expensive and timeconuming to implement and review and would likely be less predictable for applicants and reviewers because if you know your stream typing and you know the condition of your buffer, you know your buffer from your stream. Whereas here you do need to reference specific maps or provide method methods using tree age and tree height and hiring a forestry professional. Site potential tree heist is also based on course data the soil data maintained by national resource conservation service and presents challenges at a smaller property level scale. And many local jurisdictions are proposing stream protection alternatives to meet best available science. Some of those are highlighted in the memo that was provided for this meeting and I highlighted several different cities and counties and what they are proposing instead. We'll move on to next steps. staff is developing a public participation plan for this critical areas ordinance update. We have generated a website which is screenshotted on the right here. We've also generated an email address where people can direct feedback or if they have interest in receiving updates as part of this process. We're also generating um a community partners and interested party list. will be going to public notice, excuse me, public hearings with community notice

and uh sending out public noticing via the SEPA mailing list, neighborhood leaders list, and newspaper. We'll be continuing to engage with stakeholders and agencies. We will be contacting the tribe and hopefully setting up a few meetings with them. We'll be hopefully continuing to meet with state agencies for their review and comments and we will continue to meet with city departments such as surface water and public works. The overall time feline for this update September and October we plan to hold more stakeholder meetings uh visit the planning commission meetings and hopefully receive some recommendations and we'll start a sea checklist and determination November and December we hope to bring this to city council for the review and adoption by December 31st of 2025. I do have three considerations for commission that are also outlined in the memo provided. They are does the commission have any questions about the best available science summary summary report? Does the commission wish to direct staff to continue exploring alternative riparian protection standards departing from WDFW's recommendations relying on site potential tree height? And does the commission have comments or suggestions on the proposed public outreach plan? I can keep those questions up. Otherwise, that concludes my presentation. Thank you, commissioners.

I guess I'll start. Um,

does uh the state do we see any negative impact from the state if we don't do what their requirements are, what they're suggesting, like if you don't follow state rules, state pulls money, all sorts of other things. Are they doing any kind of requirements there or is this up to us period? So the two volumes that W I assume you're talking about this site potential tree height methodology the two volumes that WDFW produced were very clear in volume one is the best available science synthesis that did not mention the site potential tree height methodology. It was very clear in volume two that those were their recommendations. Um, the best available science that I pulled out for emphasis was that a 100 foot buffer effectively filters out 95% of most pollutants. And I think that is what best available science that we're being held to rather than the recommendations of different methodology of how to apply regulatory buffers. Just to put a point on it, best available science is a statutory requirement of the growth management act that there are absolutely penalties for not following. Uh a city or other local government could undertake their own best available science. So it it is not assumed that there is only one science. Um but you would have to do quite a bit of leg work to justify a departure from that. Could you go back to the table that showed the two different existing buffer requirements? And could you maybe give an example of

where like for that type S the 100 foot buffer would apply versus the 150? Sure. So type S is a shoreline of the state. Um, think of the banks of the Snomish River for example, that is a shoreline of the state around the city of Everett. Um, based on the buffer condition, if it was unveated like some of the snowish bank is, then a 100 foot, excuse me, 150 foot buffer would be applied. Staying on this slide, um why uh why is uh why are invasive species called out as the u more significant buffer? I mean vegetation is vegetation. No, that's a really good question. Um, I think buffers also provide habitat for several species and native species promote more habitat and for several different pollinators and mammals. Um, there is a lot of science on buffers specifically more around the buffers of wetlands. Um, however, we're talking about streams in this case. I can bring more information during the next meeting on that because

I'm just curious if there is science that supports um bifurcating uh invasive versus non-invasive species as a a tool to increase the filtration. Um, also on this slide, um, do the existing buffers take into account changes in topography or is it simply just a flat mapbased measurement from the stream edge?

That's also a very good question. I didn't mention in this presentation that buffers for streams and wetlands are increased when they fall on slopes greater than 25%. in the city of Everett. But isn't there more surface area with changes in topography?

The idea for behind increasing buffers when they do land on steeper slopes is that the surface water that falls on those steep slopes is not filtered as effectively since it's running faster down those slopes rather than if it was a flatter surface. So is it then the net slope that's being penalized?

No, it's where that buffer it's a essentially drawn as a line in all directions from the edge of the critical area. Wherever that buffer line falls on a slope that is greater than 25%. using rise over rung methodology. That is when it's increased to the top of that slope plus 25 ft. So here's an example. If you see the red and yellow are the steeper slopes where there is a stream corridor down the bottom of the ravine. The buffer extends and adds to that steep slope. Not average slopes but only slopes over 25%. You think

conceivably though there could be uh instances where um the slope goes in more than one direction and therefore the net slope should probably be what's considered from a extending the the buffer right because if you're slipping away from the stream

right right you get more filtration so if there's a ridge and and part of the buffer is draining away from it uh there's also a squ b c squ so slope I think That's what you were saying. The slope has more uh length than you would see on a map by a little bit. Some of that picked up in critical area reports by uh in proposals or maybe mitigating factors that could be advanced by an applicant. Okay. Can we go to your question slide, please? By the way, I feel like we are in an SNL skit this entire time and it's amazing. Okay, so um we're working through number one collectively. Number two, um the answer is do we want to um pursue a methodology that is expensive, time consuming and unclear to the applicant? and I would say no, we prefer not to do that. So, I would um encourage you to continue to consider alternatives to the SPT methodology.

So, I've got Can I just go back on or clarify did you say that the proposed um buffers in the in the slide that you had up those are already we've already established those in the city of Ever? So they are they consistent with what we currently have the 100 150 and the 50 and 75 or are we are those greater than what we already have in general? Was your question whether the existing buffers column is I'm sorry

maybe I I thought I heard you say that what we're proposing here is very similar um and it wouldn't be a drastic change to what we've kind of already adopted. So are these equal or more than what we currently have?

Yeah, sorry for the confusion. I was uh referencing our wetland buffers. There's a same method or same terminology buffers being the protective width from these critical areas. There are several different wetland buffers that apply depending on the category of wetland and how those are rated. Um our current wetland buffer table is consistent with department of ecology guidance whereas we're talking about our stream buffers with department of fish and wildlife guidance. So do we not currently have then any kind of buffers on our uh streams then?

No, the middle column is our existing stream buffers. Okay, I could have added stream to this slide, but yeah. So maybe the comparison between if it was not SPTH compared to our existing buffers. This slide is meant to highlight the difference between the second column and the third column between our existing buffers and the site potential tree height methodology.

Okay, a little slow catching up. No, I think I'm following that. So, but then okay. So then then best available science then are we're saying is not necessarily the the far column that we have other science that's bestly available that has different uh lengths or different widths right so I think is is the question is where on this table would the best available science if we did not advance the site spite site sph That's why I didn't say it specific.

Does that make sense? Sorry. Now that I've caught up, I think now I'm I'm asking sort of the right question, but is Yeah, I'm trying to figure out where where where we're at now or what we're thinking they will be based on best available science. Have we gotten to that point? The best available science was 100 for pollution reduction.

That's right. The best available science does talk about that 100 foot width filtering out 95% of the pollutants. We and that doesn't differentiate between the different types of streams. Neither does the site potential tree height methodology. Um whereas we designate different widths of buffers depending on whether they have fish presence or accessibility. Is there a chart or table that gives you like percentage of pollution and buffer size like other than you know 195 can we can we is it a linear down or is it a really wonky curve? What's that look like?

I'm trying to remember if that's included in volume one. I'll look for it. It would be helpful. It would be interesting to see where we are now. Like if the if the directive from the state is net zero as much as we can. If we're at like 35% then we got a big step. If we're at like 80% okay we can maybe do a little less. Then my uh one last question on the noticing then if are when you're noticing it looked like you're noticing everybody the whole city right so we're going to mail out SA notices to everybody in the city. Is that kind of what the plan is based on what that said?

Is that right your word? Are we doing a So if this affects the city, are we the sea is being mailed out individually to the entire city? No, this would be a uh text amendment to the development regulations. So we would try to reach as many people as we can through uh other forms of awareness. We can we cannot mail to everybody. Okay. So and you listed certain groupings, right? Um, but what about would you consider one of the groupings if you had a stream and it was being the buffer was increasing or you were adding a buffer that wasn't there, would you uh consider a priority of notifying those property owners that they potentially would have lost value or different value on their property because of this regulation? It's a good idea.

Just a follow-up question as it relates to the buffer width. um is there any consideration given to the density of development or the potential um intensity of the pollutant generation on that site? So for example, if a site is large and um uh fairly underutilized, could someone build closer to the stream given that they are not supposedly um creating as many pollutants as if a a 12story building were at the edge of the of the buffer. Does my question make sense?

It does. And we, excuse me, we do offer some ways to reduce or average buffers. This applies to streams and wetlands. Averaging being you can minimize it here in one spot if your building is located closer to the buffer here and then add the same amount of area buffer on the other side. I'm sorry. I didn't mean uh re I was just going to ask if um if buffer averaging is currently contemplated is uh continuing with your update.

I would think so. It's a very common way to introduce flexibility for these regulations. Yeah. What if somebody were to add their own mitigation like a rain garden or some other extra filtering which is then not as large as the normal buffer but would possibly filter the similar amount of contaminants out of the the existing water stream. I think a lot of that is regulated by the storm water manual which is reviewed by our surface water reviewers and whether there there is I can't speak to the manual because I'm not an engineer myself and I'm not a surface water reviewer but there are some um considerations for surface water reviewers whether waters are entering streams or wetlands downstream. It looks like based on the memo uh that was provided like no major municipalities are choosing the SPT methodology. Are there any that are? Are there any examples of where it has been put into use and what the impacts of that would be? Off the top of my head, I believe I know of two municipalities that have incorporated that methodology. One is the city of Anacortis and one the other one that I'm thinking of is potentially the city of Stanwood, although they're on the t same timeline as us, so I'm not sure if they're adopted yet. So these would be adopted too recently to have any reporting on the impact of that methodology. Right? All of the well except with the

exception of Snowomish County, all of the municipalities and counties that I've outlined in the memo are on the same timeline as us and they are currently presenting these ideas to their planning commissions. Thank you for clarifying that. I mean, if I kind of look at it, the SPT seems to almost be diametrically against everything we just went over with our plan we just passed. It just seems like it would slow it down, make less buildable, just overall throw monkey wrench everything we spent all that time working on. Just using that method period just goes against we just worked so hard on personally.

Agreed. And to that point, I think that as we move through these discussions um whether it's um streams or wetlands or other critical areas, um it would be good to have an understanding of the impact of changes to um property. So I'm thinking not only um kind of square footage per uh zoning classification but to the extent it's applicable um what that might translate to into as far as development units are concerned sorry dwelling units you know what I meant thank you

so I think you're hearing kind of a consensus among commissioners that we have worked really hard to uh set the stage for creativity around growth and gentle and respectful density. And we we just don't want to gum up those works. So, we want to be very careful in how we implement something like this that could impact buildable lands, property values.

And I think to that end, something that we've talked a bit about is just the simplification of the permitting process and not muddying the water there. Um, so it feels like if this process becomes less predictable for people, that also goes against some of the progress that we've tried to make.

If we opt not to do the best a version of the best available science in SPTH, does it increase a potential litigance position under like uh 2403 that passed where you know you have the right to nature within the city now? And like what that looks like is does it open the city up to additional liability being oh we're not doing everything we possibly can. We're doing a reasonably good amount. What was that bill? I'm not familiar with that. The Snowomish River one. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Uh we're probably not best to weigh in on legal risk. Um I I believe there's a challenge uh to that particular one ongoing in court. So that's going to be beyond us. Um there are definitely uh folks and interests watching critical areas. I think the floor is a hard one on best available science. uh beyond that I think there is local jurisdiction discretion especially if it's consistent with the comprehensive plan and wanted to note that we have adopted policies around critical areas that kind of they give plenty of flexibility to choose our path between these specifics uh but give us a direction. Um, we do have policy level requirements to support salmon recovery and to uh reduce pollutants into streams and Puget Sound and all the rest. So, it's a it's a very complicated system. Hard floor best available science. Uh, and then beyond that, there is an amount of local discretion. Commissioners, additional comments or questions that we'd like answers to next time this subject uh comes up. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate the presentation.

Yeah. Thank you so much, Teddy. Thank you. We will now move on to item number four uh which is the housekeeping for uh comp plan 2044 and uh we do have an opportunity for a public hearing around this. Uh do we want any discussion before we open for this public hearing? Okay, let's let's go ahead and uh make sure that we provide that for the record. Do I hear a motion to open a public hearing on this subject? Second. Ayanna, would you call the role, please? Chair Chatters,

yes. Commissioner Shelby, yes. Commissioner Ballard, yes. Commissioner Finch, yes. Commissioner Ridge, yes. Commissioner Welch, yes. Thank you. Thank you. Ayanna, do we have anyone online who wishes to provide uh comment at this public hearing? Mr. Dodson, would you like to make public comment? Uh, thank you very much. No, I'm just participating, but I do thank you for the opportunity. Thank you. No comments. Thank you. And we have no speakers signed up in the gallery. Okay. With that, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. So moved. Second.

Diana, would you call the role? Chair Chatters. Yes. Commissioner Shelby, yes. Commissioner Ballard, yes. Commissioner Finch, yes. Commissioner, yes. Commissioner Welch, yes. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We uh we have an opportunity for questions, comments on the materials uh with regarding to these housekeeping amendments. So, commissioners, I'll open it up to you. Yo, if there's anything you want to highlight in particular, um we're ready.

Yeah, we do have a couple of new ones that I'll walk you through. definitely give an opportunity for any follow-up questions on the ones that we covered last week as well as any interactions between the two. Um, Kelsey, do you want to more comfortable chair if nothing else? Uh, Kelsey's the uh the code guru and uh spends all of her days implementing these regulations, answering tough questions. I

think you introduce me like that every time I'm here and I don't like the pressure. So, just bear with me. Um, so okay, if I go through a couple of the the new entries here and uh after which maybe we want to give up another opportunity for public comment if there are any questions about that and then we do have a proposed uh planning commission resolution 252. There are a couple of recitals and then the exhibit is the exact same as what was inside the memo um except for the comments column. So, a reminder, this is the first of what we expect to be maybe two, maybe three housekeeping ordinances ever. 2044 periodic update that was adopted earlier this year was a massive ordinance that touched uh just about every chapter in title 19 and a number of chapters outside of that. Uh as we uh and it was so broad uh that it was a ch and dynamic. there were amendments up until the last day. Uh there are things that we are learning after it was adopted in the way of uh errors or inconsistencies or uh provisions that are difficult to interpret. And so we're trying to take a first set of these uh no reason to wait because there are development applicants and staff um that have questions and we just want to keep our code as clear as we can and as upto-date as possible. I do expect that we'll find some others in the ensuing months and so I would not be surprised to have another one of these early in next year and maybe again uh in the end of next year. Other than these kind of code correction housekeeping type ordinances uh legislation and and work that we'll bring through the planning commission will be targeted on a specific uh chapter or something. So we'll do a deep dive into I can't

remember which chap land divisions is the one that's uh up next for example. We had a briefing on August 19th. We're here for a public hearing and a recommendation and then we'll move to the city council in October and November. Uh, one big package of this involves 1908 and the streetscape. We talked about this last week. We talked about this a lot earlier this year and last year. uh this idea of uh the regulations especially in 1908, 030, 040 and I think 050 and 060 and what these are design standards front porch entrance garage transparency exterior materials finish level depth um that may or may not apply to new dwellings close to the street or not. I handed out and we'll get this on the web as well and this is what is on the slide here a table to try to organize what before is what we read that ever that ever 2044 ordinance included as applicability and after is our proposal with this ordinance of whether one of these provisions is applicable within 30 ft of the rideway or not. There are some question marks next to the yes there. We talked about that last week and that relates to the definition of street facing dwelling unit facade that has a definition in 1904. We are proposing to remove it because of some of the confusion that it's causing where there is a question mark the term was similar to but not exactly that such as streetf facing facade. And so if you use the word street facing dwelling unit facade, that in the definition refers to only facades within 30 ft of a right ofway. If you did not have the words dwelling unit and just had street facing facade, it's unclear whether that was

intended to connect to the 30 ft or not. So that's why some of these are question marks and that's what we wanted to clear up. As you can see by uh especially on the right columns of not within 30 ft of the right of way uh based on the feedback that we heard earlier this year from you and last month from you um uh and the difficulty of implementing some of these outside of 30 ft of a right of way. We are proposing to settle on no. So the first uh set of these and I handed out a a copy of 1908 so that you could follow along on there is 1908030 which is site design. Um we I believe has always intended and communicated that each dwelling should have some sort of a porch or entrance type. There is a choice of four or five of those. If you are within 30 ft of the public rightway that porch or entrance type must face the street. If you're not within 30 feet of a right of way, you need to have the porch or entrance type, but it can face any direction that makes sense for the site. Uh likewise, every dwelling unit should have a yard. We have a policy in the comprehensive plan require on-site open space for all new housing. That one was heavily debated in these chambers too in the last couple of years. Um and so that we propose to maintain wherever you are, but there's no requirement on exactly where that yard be in relation to the dwelling. Uh 040 is building building design standards. This addresses uh for buildings the minimum finish level which is the height of the floor above the grade, minimum ceiling height

on the ground floor, minimum depth of a room on the ground floor. Uh exterior characteristics and minimum transparency for all of these I say except for exterior materials and landscaping and screening. But I think we as a last edit this week switched that to no as well. So actually everything in 040 which you can see implemented by I think in the applicability we clarify that connection to 30 ft of a public rideway 8030. 30. Make sure all the words align here. There we go. 040 applicability. The design standards in this section apply to new dwelling units that include any facade within 30 ft of a public street right ofway. And that would be for the entire section 1908040 and finally 060 are garage standards. I don't know if you want to clarify now that actually the landscaping piece of it alto together was removed to a different section.

It was moved well yes sorry removed from 040 but moved to a more appropriate location to be more consistent with some other regulations you already have.

Right. So we do maintain a reference to the landscaping and street tree requirements. That one has been moved to a different section. Um I have a slide on the screening of waste containers from view. That one we did have a question for you. Uh 060 are garage wall standards or garage standards. And similarly for each of these we are proposing to make them not applicable to dwellings that are not within 30 ft of a ride ofway. We are also proposing to specify attached garages. Um we have separate provisions for residential accessory buildings which include detached garages which are under their own framework and should not be caught up in this on 060.

Yes. Under the standards column we're using street public street and then we're also using public street right ofway. Yes. Is is that a distinction that was intentional or we intended public street right ofway. It was not clear in some places we just use public street if there is still some place that says public street in relation to the 30 ft. We should always clarify that as right of way. I'm just saying in the standards column you may want to clean up the language to make it consistent with the um public street right ofway phrasing.

Gotcha. I think it's okay if it is facing a public street because it would be facing whether it's the right of way or the curb or any other measure of where a public street begins. What was potentially confusing was the within 30 ft and does that start at a curb which sometimes moves or is it the right of way? Um but yeah, we'll review anywhere that that is mentioned. Uh any questions? We'll we'll turn back to a few of these as we go through some of the new and revised ones, but any questions about 1908 and applicability. Um I think we heard loud and clear last time that your recommendation was to uh make it less applicable to those units that are not on the street. Good. So other added revised corrections uh since August um in title 14 we which regulates water and sewer connections um we had included a requirement for separate utility connections for residential dwellings in the periodic update. Um there have been a few cases I think mainly dealing with conversions or additions where that has been more problem than good. So public works has requested some flexibility to allow shared uh if there are two units under common ownership. So a slight amount of flexibility there. uh neighborhood commercial uses. You remember that uh there are the corners, there are the streets where you can have neighborhood commercial and then there are any building that was historically used for commercial use or we use the term residential commercial/residential mixeduse and that was difficult for us to understand exactly what that meant. So uh commercial or mixed use seemed clearer.

Uh this is where the landscaping and street tree requirements that exited 1908 040 maybe wound up. Um yards. This one has generated some good discussion within the team. Um so private and shared yards and turn to my full chapter here. So, uh, let's focus on private yards for a moment. Private yards are required for dwellings. They must have direct access from the associated dwelling unit. There's a minimum size dimension of 8 ft in any direction and 80 square ft total. They may be in a required setback. They may be on a rooftop deck. They may not include driveways, pathways, parking areas, buildings, or critical areas or their buffers. That's all existing language. Landscaping areas it is silent on. Um many zones have perimeter landscaping requirements. Um street frontage landscaping requirements usually in the 5 to 10 foot range. Depends on the zone, depends on the neighboring zone. Many of the uh landscaping requirements are something like 10 feet of type three landscaping or to building. So, and that's I'm thinking of the UR7 as one example. In a UR7, uh you can build your building out to the as far as you can in the property line. If you're not building a building out that far, you need to keep the last 10 feet, I think it is, landscaped, between you and the neighboring property. Um, in the UR7 zone, you may build town

houses or houses under 1908. And in that case, you would require a yard for a one of the town houses, for example. Should that yard be able to overlap or displace that required perimeter landscaping is the question. as we have it on the screen here. Private yards shall be exclusive of required landscaping. So you would need to have your five or 10 foot landscaping strip with shrubs and ground cover and trees and then you could begin your yard of 80 square feet or your series of yards of 80 square feet. Same thing for shared yards basically. I will pause there because um this one is less automatic than some of them. I think that the um exclusion of required landscape areas is probably unnecessary. If we're talking about 80 square feet, I'm not sure that that that adds a significant area to recreate or promotes public health. Um I think it's really more about separation. And so, um I don't know that we need both the landscaped areas and the yard. Additional thoughts on that point, commissioners, are you just for the the private yards which are 80 square feet because the shared yards they scale

right?

Yeah. I think it's just difficult to apply this kind of standard to every circumstance. Um and building requirements to do material make sure we're not giving out that important building in the area just to create additional space that isn't used inclined to keep the landscaping but allow it to apply to any other thoughts on this and maybe as the resolution is structured currently with this language in it if the commission so should so choose at the end we could amend that resolution okay I'll move along uh building design standards this is what I read earlier so 19040 applicability is only within 30 ft of a right ofway Uh we already talked about this one as well. Landscape screen or the landscaping and street tree cross reference is maintained. Screening of waste containers from view of neighboring properties is required. So that is language that is in right now. If you build townous, houses, whatnot, or anything in the neighborhood residential zone, you must screen your uh most likely garbage bins and recycling bins from neighboring properties. Um, that's a more obvious requirement for dumpsters and commercial buildings and apartment buildings and everything. The need to screen it. Um, I think it's common practice in alleys for an example to have waste bins visible. Sometimes

they're on the sides of houses and town houses and everything. Uh, we have currently moved this to 1939. I believe

we already had regulations in 1939 about screening of trash and uh just recycling receptacles and things like that. So, if we want to retain this for individual units, whether it's a townhouse or a detached dwelling, whatever that uh configuration might be, it seemed like a better fit to move it where we already have those provisions in the code. Um, as opposed to being as a standalone requirement in chapter 8,

right? This is where it moved to. It move moved here by deleting the all areas except single family zones and deleting the applicability to only multif family, commercial, industrial, institutional. Um I don't think staff felt a great need to screen small bins in townhouse and house settings. Um but that's how it was in code. So we more just moved it. But if this is something that seems excessive, I don't think this is something we're going to jump all over in plan review either way um or code enforcement. Um but it would be a regulation that you would need some sort of screening.

I don't think that's in practice.

Yeah, there are 30,000 existing houses that probably don't have I don't know how often they go in a garage versus sitting outside on the side. And some of these types of things I I don't think they should be in our municipal code at all. Some of them I think of more as a price point for a neighborhood or like if you want to buy in a neighborhood where they screen their bins and and so this is more in my mind something that would be dictated by uh the person the the what type of housing unit they're looking for what the market looks like what level of luxury or basic amenities they might want. I don't think we should be putting these types of things in the code. And again, I do not believe this is in practice. We should strike it. In my opinion,

it's a brand new requirement, so it had never been required for what the artist formerly known as single family zones. So, it wouldn't have had a chance to really have been put into play. But I I think staff is with you on that.

I would second that to remove that. Unless objections, I'll uh do that. Okay, there we go. Okay, this is crossed out. Oh, this one is just duplicates. Um, I was wondering because this is not a standard that we're proposing to drop. This is duplicated in the front porch and entrance section what is otherwise established in 190840 I believe it is. So 190840 does require the ground floor minimum depth. the other section that deals with the front porch and entrance requirement repeated that doesn't seem necessary or uh to repeat something. So I would call this a non-substantive change. Uh we talked about this as well. Attached garage uh garage requirements would apply only when attached an integral part of the structure. Uh otherwise we only swapped lengths for widths for clarity. Cross reference to uh required front porch and entrance in the residential accessory building discussion of porches.

We had a maximum size that referred to floor area ratios. If a principal use has maximum floor ratios, we deleted all of those in the periodic update. So this is ineffective. We deleted the minimum required separation between two dwellings of 10 ft that had been in code as part of the periodic update, but it was still there for residential accessory buildings. Uh so this would remove the requirement to separate let's say an attached gar a detached garage or a shed from the main building. The building code has its own requirements for adjacency and proximity for fire safety. This was more to have more usable space between the structures. So we went away from that with the main buildings. So we figured that the same principle would apply to accessory buildings. uh bicycle facilities had a um a minimum of two long-term and two short-term for all uses. I think when it was originally drafted, uh James, who worked on this, had intended that residential uses not be part of that because a minimum for one dwelling unit is two and two, which is too many for one dwelling unit. So without the by specifying that only non-residential uses have a minimum of two and two that would revert to uh a minimum of one and one for a single dwelling unit. In practice how does this work in a multi-tenant building as you demise spaces smaller you're required to add more bicycle parking?

Not as you make them smaller, but you would be required to have are you are you referring to the commercial side or residential side? I'm I'm referring to non-residential uses. So commercial. Okay. Yeah. And so let's just say that I have creating different units uh suites for different commercial tenants. Let's say I I um I have a series of uh ground floor tenants. um professional office users, uh retail sales, restaurants, things like that. Different uses. I'm assuming that's how you're defining uses.

I'm not sure. We could look at the building as a whole. And if it is one building, I think we would review this because they're they're by square feet. Um, I think we would look at all of the the gross square footage of all the different uses combined have one number that could be shared among the entire building. I don't think we're going to go in later and if you subdivide a space enforce on roundings. That that makes sense. Um however um if this is the entirety of the language, can you imagine the confusion trying to design a building and provide for bicycle parking?

Yes, there is much more language uh unfortunately probably around in this chapter. Um I will check on that though. I'm not you know see what uh if you were to create uh let's say micro housing commercial micro housing and you had a hundred small businesses in there. Would we enforce the minimum of two long-term and two short-term for each of the hundred versus adding up uh let's say they're all retail and you have a 10,000 square feet of retail. no matter how it's parcled out. Uh would we have the bicycle parking relate to that combined number?

This is where I'm not an expert on the new regulations. Um but I do know that there's discussion within the new regulations about changes of use and nonconformities and and items of that nature both for automobile parking but also for bicycle parking. So there is a table that goes into different types of non-residential uses, even different types of residential uses um that clarifies how much bike parking or automobile parking is required for each of those uses. And then somewhere in this these regulations there is conversation as well about those changes of use and whether or not it requires more or not or if you have to make up the difference somewhere. Um there's also a lot of um provisions in there about modifications or kind of allowing for some flexibility where they meet certain criteria. So in the case of that example, if it generally didn't make sense, if there wasn't room, if it just was not working for that particular development and the regulations themselves already didn't account for that type of change of use and flexibility there, we have other mechanisms as well to address that if needed. also forgiveness for a change of use that try not to be add difficulty to that. So I think you get forgiveness for a change of use that might require more bicycle parking that you had for example. But yeah, we'll take we'll put a little bit more thought into this one. Already talked about that. Okay, last topic inclusionary zoning. Um, what could poss?

Okay, this is about inclusionary zoning specifically for ownership product. Um, we do have an applicant who is interested in developing some ownership uh town houses in the inclusionary zoning area and has noted the uh structural disincentive to ownership housing that is uh created by the inclusionary zoning. Um I think of most of the recent experiences with multif family tax exemption and the 12-year which has a requirement for the same 10% 80% area median income. 10% of the units be affordable to 80% of area median income and 10% be affordable to 60% of area median income. the amount of let's say lost value from selling a unit at uh that affordability versus renting that unit at that affordability appears to be significantly greater. Um so we are proposing a modest uh adjustment to the ownership side of that in two ways. One of them would be to reduce what had already been less of an affordability requirement for ownership than rental, but to reduce it further from 80% to 100% uh for the 20% of units that would be required to be affordable if it was intended for owner occupancy. And then the other one is to add an alternative compliance option that would be a transfer of land to the city presumably as a way point on the way to a affordable housing developer uh to fulfill that required production of affordable housing.

Um there were a lot of ways. There were a lot of options to reduce that burden whether to all development or just to the ownership housing while maintaining the fundamental requirement that affordability be included in uh different projects. Um and these two bubble to the top. Uh I had some examples of cost differential so we know what we're talking about there. The bottom line is these are a couple steps to make it uh to reduce the differential between rental and ownership in the inclusionary.

Help me with the logic or the background on this particular component. Um there is so right now with inclusionary zoning you can either provide the units which if you are building a townhouse development would mean reserving 20% of those units probably transferring them or selling them to a nonprofit to manage because you have to there's a certain price point that you have to do the first sale but then you can't just provide a windfall for whoever wins that first sale and they turn around and sell it at the market rate. So then there are covenants and management so that they get a reasonable return or appreciation. But in general this is not a uh an investment. It is a housing vehicle for those folks. And so when they turn around and sell sell it that they would be capped at the amount of uh appreciation that they could get. Maybe the balance goes back into the uh into the program. So that's one way to do it. The other way to do it is a fee in lie of which is at $15 per gross square foot currently. Um the and this would provide a third uh which would be uh that you could dedicate an amount of land that is appraised to be appropriate for and under normal development conditions achievable to develop the amount of affordable units that are required. And then the assumption would be that that land value would be enough to incentivize the actual production of those units and that that would be a better or easier uh deal than either paying the $15 or

the performance option for the developer. If you're developing three acres and you need to provide for three units that you would deed to the city, three units worth of land, and then the city could then give that land to a nonprofit, a housing authority, or whoever it was that would then deliver the covenanted and incomequalified uh affordable units. So those three units, let's say they had, you would need to perform some sort of appraisal, I assume, on the value of those three units on a raw door basis perhaps. So you would do the the the code as presented would require uh an appraisal of the land. So you'd need to know the land value and an appraisal of the development capacity.

The the the land value would be driven by the development capacity, right? And so you could work backwards. You do a residual land value analysis to determine what a square foot of land would be worth. That's typically done on a per door basis. So let's just say it's 75 grand a door and you need to produce two of those units. So someone needs to go find you a piece of property worth $150,000 to satisfy this requirement. Where do you find those properties? I would ex I I would expect that it would be part of the development. I guess you could go and buy a separate part piece of property. It's so relative to um applying this concept to ownership, I'm not sure that I'm not sure that inclusionary zoning um should apply to um ownership developments given that um the concept is or one of the concepts we talked about during the comprehensive plan was to promote home ownership and that it should in fact be an investment vehicle. Um I don't know that uh our interest in that has changed at all. And so um I don't see any downside to removing inclusionary zoning from the concept of product that is built for sale.

It would not deliver any affordable units. I'm not sure that inclusionary zoning will deliver any affordable units. I think what delivers affordable units is more units,

right? Right. I we're uh we're operating under two policies. One is uh require developments within the inclusionary zoning area of high displacement risk to include inclusion include affordable units and to not disadvantage uh ownership product and affordability requirements on ownership products are wickedly complex. Uh we've not had any experience with that on the multif family tax exemption side. Um, but I don't think I don't know that it would be consistent with our policy direction to just drop it for ownership. Plus, I'm not sure how you would avoid that that unit could then be turned around and rented. So, it's kind of a a quick endound unless there was some restriction placed on it. This must be owner occupied uh for 50 years or something. So that's why we're going like at least reduce the disparity or

I understand um the cross purposes. I just I think it's difficult to resolve with what you're proposing here. Who ends up developing the housing from this land that's being swapped for the units that would otherwise be affordable?

Uh I would at this early stage think an RF RFP or a an agency. I mean, I could see a housing authority being positioned to do that. This is not any conversations that I've had with any agency or organization about that. Um, this seems like it's never going to happen or it would take a lot of infrastructure to make it happen with the housing authority that we have already in place. um a project that I was against but others were for still to my knowledge has stalled out not started yet not started yet um and not funded yet as I understand it

that I don't know but so when you think about propping up an office of housing or something like that for a city of our size with the um thin resources that I continually hear about something like this seems like it's just going to take a lot of staff time end up with pieces of property scattered throughout the city potentially and no cohesive plan to put them back into action bases at vac. And we can we can point to examples across the city like that right now. Yeah. I I think if Sorry. No, you go ahead. Go ahead, Commissioner.

Um I think if this is the path that staff and and the council want to go down, I would suggest that the swapped property must be in the inclusionary zone. Like there would be to Commissioner Finch's point, like let's not have that be all over the place. If you want to do it in this zone for these reasons, do it in that zone. A

I I do agree there. Yeah. Either on the same site. Snomish County has inclusionary zoning uh right across the border. They do not have an inloo. They do not have an alternative compliance. It is included period. Um so we were trying to provide more flexibility and more options. Um any such arrangement with the land transfer would uh it does not compel the city to accept it. So it would have to be on terms that appeared likely to produce the results otherwise we weren't doing the job. Uh and the applicant would need to accept it as well because they would be going into it voluntarily instead of the performance or the fee and ll option. the group that um that um felt very strongly about inclusionary zoning, have they had a chance to review this proposed modification? There's a a pretty pretty uh voiciferous stakeholder group that came in and and made their case. Um I think that given that this is their idea, they should probably weigh in on what the solution looks like.

Yeah, absolutely. I think this is an interesting um although perhaps unlikely option, but I I guess I just see it as an additional option. So, no harm in including an additional potential option. Um I do support the reduction uh from 80% to 100%. Um I think that Commissioner Finch makes some really excellent points. Um, but I think that history has shown us that the private market cannot meet the needs of the public. It can't. It hasn't. And so I am not in favor of rolling back an attempt to meet those needs through inclusionary zoning and seeing how that progresses and if there is if there is potentially something good that comes out of it. particularly because you cannot unring the bell of displacement once it occurs and the community that is destroyed through displacement. Um you can't get that back and and it's catastrophic to many communities that experience that type of displacement. So um there you have it. I will I uh we have an action I believe in the housing element to develop a land banking program that was a major feature of the model code partnership work with sound transit and station area planning. Um and we have conversations with developers national all over the place. Um, and that's always the first question they have. And a lot of them are affordable housing developers. Uh, do you have any land to give us or

something pre-development costs, something that indicates that, uh, as much as I, um, tout Everett's charm and attributes and a good permitting process and development regulations that have just been aligned to this. um even with LITAC funding and other affordable funding sources um that's still a repeated one. So I I I feel like there is some I I get the risk. I feel like there are some opportunities in there where this could incentivize um what would wind up being a relatively small number of units. We're not going to be talking hundreds or thousands of units. These are going to be a relatively small building. But I'm also conscious of the we're watching funding rounds right now for county affordable housing funding and state affordable housing funding and there are many more projects that would like to get started than there is the funding to get them started. So with something like land, well, it helps incrementally just displace a project that was going to happen anyway somewhere else and just move it, which you didn't actually create any new units, but it is a uh infusion of some amount of resources into the affordable housing market in a specific area that at least um would provide some benefit. if there are any other options. I I staff doesn't feel like we can or should drop it for ownership, although the complexity of it alone makes me wonder sometimes. Um but I think it is it's not okay that the signals the financial signals are so strong in favor of rental that we may uh we're worried about displacing housing development and particularly worried about doubly

displacing ownership. So we really want to tackle that gap whatever it is. Um so I would love to hear if there are any other thoughts. There are some requirements and these came from Snowomish County language around if you do the performance option if you're that it has to be uh rental same tenure same location same type and scattered throughout. There are other opportunities where the city doesn't have to get involved and maybe one company who builds town houses could partner with another company who builds affordable apartments and they together work it out and the end result is that you have some town houses and some affordable apartments but our current code does not allow for that. Um, I think it's well-meaning in terms of integration and not having this separation, but it may result in fewer affordable units. Um, which is a not a good outcome either. So, that was the other area that we were looking at. This seemed a little bit simpler almost despite its complexity because it gets the city involved and then you're not having one developer having to be tied at the hip to another and different timelines and all sorts of things that could be really difficult. The developer could say here's my contribution instead of dollars it's dirt. Um and then the city would be responsible and we have a housing team and we have uh other programs where we are familiar with um incentivizing affordable housing. So I I'm open to other options. Um we have uh we've been putting our heads together for a couple of weeks. We want to get this um at least in the right direction as soon as possible. We still expect and the council has asked for a report on inclusionary zoning at the end of next year. So we will continue to workshop this but this was kind of an urgent step in that

direction. Happy to consider different steps or different directions. I don't have an answer but the when the people that brought it I mean future wise and the other groups that were here I mean they felt very confident that they could do this and this would be very successful. Um, in our research, my research, I certainly found failures across the country, right? Many cities after trying to do this for multiple years, bigger cities, multiple cities continued to fail and and failed in the rental aspect, but almost non-existent in the ownership aspect. So, I just is there do they I mean, is there somewhere where this works? Can we, you know, instead of trying to make up new rules, can can we find an example somewhere? Was there one, you know, or a few projects that maybe actually succeeded in that and sort of kick, you know, trying to trying to create something that we don't understand and don't really know and don't have the expertise for that we could copy or emulate? I you caught me. I I will admit I did borrow this from Belleview. This particular one uh modified it to fit our code structure and everything. Um, I don't know if it's been around long enough to have actually produced anything. Um, but at least this this uh language is borrowed from I think Shoreline when I looked had one of the longer running uh inclusionary zonings. Um, to date, I think it was 10 10 or 11 years or something like that. They'd yet been successful in a ownership aspect, but maybe they've tried or had some lessons learned from them.

Right. And I will drop future wise a line too. Um I think most of the individuals that came and testified were passionate about an outcome uh and and this isn't going to be their their baywick but uh but for future wise it definitely is and and looking at some of those other options too.

Commissioner to be back so soon talking about this topic again. really th this is a tough one because Commissioner Ballard is completely right like we're we're kind of flying blind in some of this but we're just at a point of crisis for the public and it's one of those what can we try we got to do something additional comments uh input on this topic commissioners

is there a particular reason in uh the buyout option in lie of that that number is fixed and not like a percentage of AMI or the fee in loop. Yes. Yeah, that is another uh that is another lever that we could pull. um have a diff if it's a different affordability rate, would it be a different fee and loo rate for ownership versus rental or just a different fee and loo rate period?

That was one thing that I I think I I chatted with someone about because I wanted to know where they got the $15 figure and how they came to that number. Um and they they said basically that it was to simplify it. It was an attempt to make it a more simplistic process rather than

it was the lowest number in the city of Seattle's system. So they range from uh $15 at the at the edge of the city uh not near urban centers downtown or anything like that up to I don't know 50 even more than that in downtown and urban centers. Um so that was our benchmark. Uh relying a little bit uh you know our you know our capacity for analysis or consulting. So relying a little bit on their economic analysis and then just pegging our uh our our place in the market to outlying neighborhoods in Seattle as being roughly equivalent. You know, I I also asked um some of the folks that were working on that project for Casino Road neighborhood and various different agencies were involved. But I asked them, "What other tools are there um outside of the report that they gave us with the recommendations, most of which we did incorporate, what other tools exist?" And the answers that I got were we don't have other ones. These are the tools we have to work with at this time. So, I feel like we're kind of in a moment where we need we need more creativity. We need someone who can help create more tools for us. Um, and not just in our city, but in this space in general. Um, because there just did not seem to be additional ideas on how to move the needle on this stuff right now.

Was that your findings in planning or or are you aware of additional tools that we have not considered? We are working on every single tool uh that is possible. Center for the mess. Um public. Hello Alison. [Laughter]

Okay. I've been doing a little bit of a dive over there. You know me. Um Montgomery County, Maryland established it in 1974. They've teamed it with density bonuses. that they have created over 20,000 housing units under ISA. Fairfax County is 71. Same sort of thing. Seattle has about 900 in its program. Burlington, Vermont does it in con in in collaboration with a housing trust. And um so those are just a few that I've found in the last five minutes of this conversation. So they are using a variety of incentives in addition to or partnerships with. So yes, we don't have all of those tools. Those are things that we keep talking about internally that we do need some of those tools. we've pretty much density. We could potentially add a story or whatever into our programs, but I don't know that that's it at this point in time, but that is there. I mean, most of the others, most jurisdictions are operating under FS. We have eliminated FS in order to make it easier to build. So, those are some of what we're seeing across the country. you know, we are looking at every tool in the toolbox. This is one of many uh multif family tax exemption. There are federal, state tax credits, public funding programs. Um we we don't have the public resources to be able to create the housing, whether that's the city, the housing authority, the nonprofit community. Um, we are behind on the construction of market rate housing and the hole is uh hard to dig out of. Um, and so hopefully some of these are a temporary

solution while maybe the private market catches up. But looking left, right, don't see too many cranes at the moment. Magic bullets commissioners. No, so that's all we had. Um there were relevant goals and policies. I won't go through all of those. The criteria is consistency with the comprehensive plan, substantial relation to public health, safety or welfare, and the best long-term interests of the Everick community. That would be the criteria for any amendment to the development regulations, including this package of housekeeping amendments. Um, if you're ready, we have a resolution we'd like you to consider. Again, it's the exact same exhibit as was in the memo transmitted to you last week. And um I think there was at least one amendment under consideration, maybe more.

There there was at least one. There was at least one garbage and garbage in. Yeah, there was there was a second one. There was one earlier. Who had that other amendment or something? Landscape. Okay, before we do that, um let's just ask if there because we we had the actual public hearing earlier, but we did do quite a bit of discussion. So, let's just ask if there is anyone who wishes to provide uh public comment before we move on to the resolution. Mr.

Yes, I would I I'd like to offer a suggestion to affordability for inclusion and uh it's through financing. Um Washington State Housing Finance Commission does have a program where uh there is down payment assistance. Um but interest rates uh bond uh programs that might uh subsidize uh financing so that we can lower the interest rate on these properties. So that one of the things that I would think that and I just wanted to speak off the cuff if I can, but inclusionary housing, how is a developer going to build inclusionary housing and build it the same standard with the same amenities and the same improvements and the same look and the same desiraability so that it doesn't impact the uh standard housing they're building in that zone in that same complex or such. And so to keep it all conforming, it would be ideal then also not to uh to point out or dis uh create a uh a a class system within the housing project or such. We want everybody to be inclusive, right? So how about if we look at at at bond financing, get the uh the people that uh have the capacity to support these kinds of programs through other methods. we could reduce the uh the closing costs. We could uh um reduce some of the some of those barriers to ownership by creating the down payment assistance uh and the and the financing. And then another thing, if the property is uh is designated as a certain um type of property based upon the acquisition, then that would be titled as such. So that it would always be that way. so that it would always be available and other incentives could also be made then that if somebody was selling property and they wanted to receive a tax benefit by making that property an inclusive property that could happen as well so

that people that might face a large tax burden could avoid it or transfer that property and that could be another way to create additional housing opportunities within uh the city. Thank you. Would you provide your full name and city of residence for the record? You bet. My name is Daniel Dodson and I am a resident of Everett. Thank you for your comments. Ayanna, do we have any additional callers? We do not.

Okay. And we have no one additionally in the gallery. So, I think we're ready to move on to the resolution. Uh, do we have formulated language around the amendments? Was this your amendment, Commissioner Finch? Give Give us a go with the language for for the first one. I can help if you'd like to tell me what Do we make a We make a motion on the overall and then add the amendment. Oh, yeah. Right. Yes. Good, good, good. Thank you. Um, well, I approving first.

Do I hear a motion for resolution number 252? So moved, second. Okay. Um, now we're I think open for discussion and amendments. Uh if if I believe what uh Commissioner Finch was going to amend was on page A4 of the resolution under 190830 neighborhood residential site design moving the words required landscaping areas which occur twice from D

to to C. Mhm. So from may shall not include to may be located in. That's correct. That is correct. So we'll entertain an a motion to amend uh as York stated. So moved. Second. Okay. Let's let's dispose of this amendment before we move on to the second one. Um, Ayanna, we're we're gonna vote on the first amendment here. Chair Chatters, yes. Commissioner Shelby, yes. Commissioner Ballard, yes. Commissioner Finch, yes. Commissioner Rage, yes. Commissioner Welch, yes.

Thank you. Thank you. And the second amendment was to strike the requirements to screen uh garbage receptacles. And I think I was the maker of that. So, I'll offer that as an amendment. Second. Are we ready to vote on that? Commissioners 30. Yes. We were now striking.

How How do you think we could word that? Uh, exempt the neighborhood residential zone and and just the zone or 1908 development? Maybe 1908 development. I think if if you were to exempt 1908 development, that would cover, you know, townhouse units and things like that that might be in a UR7 versus just the NR zone. So, it's a question of I don't want to say do you care about screening and for townhouse developments, but if the goal is to exempt those provisions for a townhouse style, then we would need to exempt 1908. Okay. I I I'm in agree.

I have a question. If they do bin, if they do a dumpster for the townhouse complex, would that then need to be screened? I mean, it's not an individual. I I think the goal was to relieve individuals of this burden. So, I I commissioners, that was my intention in in what I and that's what I was hearing. And so that's why I'm asking the question because a townhouse complex could opt for a dumpster. I guess how big of a are when we say individuals like how big are we up to like a

well if you had bins at your own house like a a duplex or Okay, we got one more option. Okay. Uh dumpsters. Yes. just say in B all garbage dumpsters must be screened from view. Uh so yes, no matter what it is, as if it's not a dumpster, if it's an individual receptacle or bin, you would not need to screen it. So anything that would be commonly known as a bin, a can, a toter, small stuff.

Yeah. Okay. I I'm in agreement with that language. Commissioners, how do you feel about using the word dumpster? Do do we believe that accomplishes the goal? Okay, so throw back up on the screen. By far the most have ever talked about screening dumpsters. Uh, so perhaps lucky you. That's Yeah, Kelsey gets a little more. Uh, in B, perhaps we could strike the words receptacles and recycle bins and it would just read all garbage dumpsters or let's say all dumpsters must be screened from view.

Yes, because that would be both recycle or garbage dumpsters. Is there any other term that is used commonly other than dumpsters that should be included there for clarification? No, we could interpret as well. Okay. Okay. There's new technology a foot. I don't know.

Okay. That I think that I think that's that was the spirit of the amendment that I was offering. Um so that accomplishes it to strike the words garbage recepticles and recycle bins. So I will offer that as the second amendment to this resolution. I will second. Second Amendment. See, it's it's we're starting to get slap happy up here. It's time to to wrap this up. Ayanna, would you mind? Chair Chatters. Yes. Commissioner Shelby, yes. Commissioner Ballard, yes. Commissioner Finch, yes. Commissioner, yes. Commissioner Welch, yes. Thank you.

Okay. We now have resolution 252 as amended uh on the floor. Any additional uh comments or discussion before we move to a vote? I would move to I'm assuming that uh 19.54.065 the inclusion that is a part of this resolution. Is that correct? That's correct. It would be to add that additional route. I would move to strike that from the resolution. Second. Additional discussion or we're ready to move to a vote. Looks like we're ready to move to a vote. Ayanna,

Chair Chatters, no. Commissioner Shelby, yes. Commissioner Ballard, yes. Commissioner Finch, yes. Commissioner, yes. Commissioner Welch, yes. Thank you. Okay, so we have resolution number 252 with three amendments. Additional discussion, additional amendments before we move on to the vote. No. Okay, I think we're ready. Chair Chatters, yes. Commissioner Shelby, yes. Commissioner Ballard, yes. Commissioner Finch, yes. Commissioner Rage, yes. Commissioner Welch, yes. Thank you.

Could I ask um how uh what the issue was with this one? So that it would lead to just cuz I need to communicate that to the next steps here. uh it was optional but that by providing this route it would not be effective at producing the affordable housing or something like that.

In a word, yes. But I would also say that this goes beyond housekeeping. Um and I think to introduce something like this with a resolution with other housekeeping nits and clarifications um probably wasn't the most appropriate route. Um, I think something like this could possibly work, but I think as a planning commission, we'd love to see a more fleshed out example of how it might work mechanically.

Just one note, I was just doing some research. Shoreline does have some language and it sounds like it has language around construction schedule needing to be a part of the land um, transfer. Um, so I think that's sort of my concern with it is that there's no assurance that any of that is ever going to happen.

Well, and as it as I read it also, it appears that um the property that was contributed um could be used for things other than construction of new units. It could be used for the operation, maintenance, acquisition. Acquisition would be great, but um as the way I read it, it was fairly broad as how it might be used. Thank you, commissioners. Um, with that, we are we have completed our agenda and we're adjourned.