Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to the November 18th meeting of the Everett Planning Commission. Ayanna, would you please call the role? Commissioner Chatters here. Commissioner Sullivan here. Commissioner Ritlage here. Commissioner Welch here. Thank you. Oh, Commissioner Shelby also here. Commissioner Shelby

here. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I I'll now read the land acknowledgement. Uh 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 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. Commissioners, we've all had an opportunity to take a look at the minutes uh from November 4th. Are there any corrections to the minutes? Okay, seeing none, is there any objection to the minutes being approved as written? Okay, without objection, the minutes from November 4th are approved. And for anyone in the public who uh reviews our meeting minutes, again, you may notice a shorter format. Um that is just due to a change in us complying actually with parliamentary procedures. And uh there is an AI transcript available uh on our YouTube page where you can get additional information on the minutes. Uh we'll be moving on to reports. Commissioners, do we have any reports this evening?

Okay. Commissioner Shelby, any report online? None here. Okay. Uh we'll then turn it over to you know before we turn it over to staff. Uh do I hear a motion to adjust the agenda? Motioned. Okay. Thank you. adjust the agenda. A motion to adjust the agenda to take uh item 4B ahead of item 4 A um as articulated by Commissioner Sullivan. Do I hear a second? Second.

Okay, commissioners. Uh any objection? Okay, without objection, then we are going to uh take item agenda item four out of order uh doing 4B uh ahead of 4 A. And then with that, we'll turn it over to staff. Great. Just uh good good evening uh planning commission. I'm York Steven, planning director for the city of Everett. Um we've got two items before you today. One of them is the housekeeping amendments and re revisiting a resolution that was adopted by this body on September 16th to add one more uh little correction to that list. And then we also have a public hearing and continued briefing on the critical areas regulations periodic update that we're working through. I just wanted to acknowledge that in previous meetings we had suggested we might get to a resolution and a recommendation from the planning commission. We've received some good thoughtful at times complicated comments and we need some time to work through those. So, we'll we'll continue ahead with the briefing, discussion, questions, answers, and the public hearing today, but we will uh have to keep working on that with the uh with the uh uh consideration of a resolution and a recommendation to the city council later on. The commission has asked for December off. I think that still works fine. And so, we would anticipate coming back in January uh probably just for one meeting uh to wrap up discussions. we would present the revised draft of the uh of the proposed regulations that would um address the comments that we've received and anything else that comes out from the planning commission. There are two meeting date possibilities in January, January 6 and 20 I believe it is. Um uh we're hoping that the 6th would be available to get started on that work right away. We are on a deadline for the critical areas work.

The 20th is the day after Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Um, that one would work for us as well. I don't know that we need to make a decision on that, but just to flag that we would ask for the next meeting to be January 6. I Yeah, I think we want to make a decision on that so commissioners can prepare their schedules. Commissioners, are you opposed to January 6th? Okay, then January 6 works for me as way as well. Great. Thank you. Okay, those are staff comments. I can't think of anything else. The sixth then would replace our normal 20th, right? Or if we could if we could see on the 6th, I think it's we we want to allow that we might need the 20th as well.

Okay. But and just a note, if we if we do end up requiring the meeting on the 20th, um the commission is going to ask that that meeting take place remotely as it is on the back end of the holiday uh to make sure that folks can utilize their full holiday. Um, so that's not something we've requested before, but we're going to just throw that curveball at you for 2026. We'll take a look at that. Um, manufactured housing communities is the other item that will be coming up in January. Uh, we're pretty close to uh completing a draft of the recommended regulations there. Would that be a public hearing for that one at that time or just anotherformational?

I think briefing first before a public hearing. Okay. Okay. I want to understand we did not just say that there's a possibility there would be a public hearing on the 20th. You said briefing before, meaning the public hearing would take place at a subsequent meeting. Is that correct, Alison? Have we worked out how many meetings we expect to need from the planning commission for manufactured housing communities? We've done several briefings. So we could move to a public hearing and a recommendation in one meeting that could be January 6th. Okay. With both on the six. Yeah. Not that complicated.

Yeah. We do like to allow for like with this one if we get some significant comments and complicated ones or you need some more time. Um but let's plan on trying to get through it on the sixth then. Okay. Okay. Thank you. That sounds good. Thank you. That will be a lot of work on the sixth, I will say, with uh we still have quite a bit with critical areas to do on the sixth. So, we'll try to stay on task then. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. Uh okay. We we now have I'm sorry, York, are are your comments concluded? That's it. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Uh we now have an opportunity for public comment. Not not the public hearing for the critical areas ordinance. We will we will move to open that soon. But this is general public comment for if you would like to speak on the critical areas ordinance because you have to leave, you're welcome to do that. Um but this is not the official public hearing portion. Um Ayanna, do we have anyone online who wishes to offer public comment? We do not. Okay. Is there anyone in the gallery who wishes to offer general public comment?

Okay. No. Seeing none, we will move on uh to item 4B uh which is the Everett 2044 housekeeping amendments update. Great. Thank you, chair. Um, as I mentioned, we uh the planning commission approved resolution planning commission resolution 25-02 on September 16th, which recommended a slate of uh housekeeping amendments to the Ever 2044 development regulation periodic update that was adopted in June by the council. Um, we have mentioned in a couple staff comments since then that we've continued to work on the provisions for inclusionary housing for ownership product to try to align that with uh uh parody or at least the not excessively disadvantaged ownership owner occupied housing product in the inclusionary housing area. We had earlier recommended and included in that uh recommendation from September was a revision of the affordability limit for uh 20% of the units in a development within the inclusionary housing area from 80% of area median household income to 100% of area median household income. And what we're adding today is an equivalent change to the alternative compliance fee in LU rate which had been $15 per gross square foot that is applicable to this uh square foot of development that is uh subject to that section the inclusionary housing section. Uh we did some math and I'll go through that really quickly here and arrived at $9 a square foot as appearing to be the right um equivalency between that alternative compliance. What we're shooting for is to give developers a real choice between performance and

paying the fee and loo. We also want to be mindful that the fee and LOW have a reasonable ability to deliver the same or equivalent number of affordable housing units to meet the intent of the provisions. Um, so there's a couple of things that we're trying to align there. Uh, the math was in the memo for this item and I'll walk through it here really quickly. We looked at um uh there's two numbers that are important for uh making a hypothetical development that we can test this on. We took the average size of new attached and detached houses in the west region from census data and then we just to we look compared that to 2024 townhouse sales within the city of Everett collected from the Snowomish County Assessor. I think there were 30 or 40 or some. So, a decent sample size. Um, we used the Everett ones cuz they were closer, but we did check against the uh the larger data set. In 20 in 2024, the uh median finished floor area of a townhouse sold in Everett was 1,637 square ft. And that is important for testing our fee and loo rate. And the median sale price was 628,000. uh looking at affordability at three different benchmark um income categories. uh we'll look at the 80 the 100% AMI in the middle row if you the annual household income limit and this is for rentals sales is slightly different um slightly different calculation but it shouldn't be meaningfully different and our special projects manager for housing is working closely with a couple other housing planners to to confirm those but so far it's within just a couple of a percent difference HUD uh methodology is complicated to say the least but the annual household income income limit for

that 100% AMI would be 141,000. The maximum affordable monthly rent would be 3,535 and the maximum affordable sale price would be 558,486. So in this scenario um you would restrict 20% of the units in a development to a maximum sale price of 558,000 and there would be provisions to uh ensure its continued affordability for the compliance period. And then uh this is just taking a hypothetical 10 townhouse unit development in Everett using 2024 numbers. And uh you can see with the median uh market uh sale price, a developer could expect to sell those 10 units for a total of 600 or 6.28 million. Um, if doing the performance option, look to the middle row of the the affordable at 100% AMI, we assumed a threeperson household, although the numbers change slightly depending on the household size. That would limit two of the 10 units to 558,000 instead of the 628,000 that we assume the market could bear. That results in a total development uh uh sale of 6.14 million compared to 6.28 million for a sale differential of 140,000. The fee in Lu at $9 uh per square foot on that same mediansiz household would deliver about $147,000 in uh fee and LOF across those 10 units. And those two yellow highlighted numbers being roughly equivalent I think is what we were looking for because it gives a developer a real choice there. Um

that is about it. So here is the specific language that we've added to resolution 252. Exhibit A to your memo includes that uh updated resolution as well as the long table of all of the different uh housekeeping amendments that we've made. Everything except the last row is the exact same. It's grayed out for that reason. We would be adding the last row, which is written on the screen here. And uh that would set the fee in Lud $9 per square foot of gross floor area and include a covenant because it seems like uh you could intend for owner occupancy and then rent it out and then you would be kind of getting a reduced fee in loo even though you were actually not having it to ownership. So the covenant would um require and we've got 12 years that it be owner occupied and then after that it could be uh released to the wild I suppose in terms of uh potentially a subset of them being purchased and and held for rent. [gasps] We would also add a recital that just explains what we did here. And uh all told, if approved by the planning commission, the resolution, we'd strip out that third column called comments because that's more for you than for the resolution. And that would be the updated resolution 25-02 for your consideration. Happy to take any questions.

Couple questions. The 12 years, where did that come from? Uh I think I used the multif family tax exemption uses 12 years. It was uh a number long enough to make sure that this was truly starts off as owner product without tying it down forever. And then one other question, I understand kind of max rent and how you would do that, but when it comes to a maximum sales price on something that you're selling, what are the logistics of that?

Yeah, pit ti payment. No, principal, interest, tax, and insurance. And I think uh all of that goes into a formula. And uh there is an assumption of it's it's an average down payment amount. Maybe it's the the 10% or something. This is where my housing uh data superstars uh helped me out with this one. But it is a uh standardized way of of determining what a household earning that amount could afford. A lot of that does depend on the down payment. So it makes some assumptions about the ability to pay that.

But are you asking how it's calculated or how we know it's going to sell? Yeah, I guess when you're setting a rent price, that's very easy to set. And then when you list something for sale, the market might say something different that might be above that 558 number. So, how does that get factored into this?

Yeah, they would uh the developer would need to partner with a uh community land trust or equivalent. Um we talked with city of Seattle office of housing a couple of weeks ago to see how they do it and they have two different um partners that manage that would manage the units. So the developer would work with one of uh one of these community land trust or another nonprofit. The developer could find the buyers or the partner could find the buyers whatever that sale price needs to be limited to there. then there would be participation by this community land trust over time so that the uh the purchasers if it's below market rate didn't just turn around and make a windfall off of it, but they would have a set amount of appreciation that the owner could enjoy that is less than what the market might appreciate around them. And so then when they went to sell, if it's during the affordability period, they would also have a limit of how much they could sell it for. Um, so there uh you would need to find a match of a buyer that had the right in in the right income band around that median income. Um, presumably they would be happy to to receive a uh a townhouse at a below market rate uh for sale, but they would be giving up future price appreciation for doing so.

Additional questions, commissioners? chair, we've got one online. Yeah. Um I I like it. I like the adjustment. Um I would like to see it uh adjusted for CPIU on an annual basis like starting in 2027 so that it doesn't essentially get cheaper as time goes on. Um that doesn't sound like it would be terribly complicated because this process is complicated to get it here and so I don't feel you want to do this every year, right? I do not.

Is that kind of what you were getting at, Commissioner Relage, with your questions is uh the fluctuations in the market that occur over time and how this could end up being disproportionately beneficial or not beneficial. Yeah,

it the 100% area median income that does will be adjusted every year and so um that should track with the market. Commissioner Shelby is is saying that if if it's $9 for the fee in Loot today and we have that written in code, if that stays unchanged for 10 years, then that $9 buys much less. So, it would naturally reduce over time. Uh we when we wrote this into Everett 2044 a year ago, we were expecting to revisit this um in the near future. I think that's still likely the case whether it's through the sub area planning for some of the South Everett neighborhoods that we're looking at doing in the next year or the state is getting involved in this space through the TOD bill that was passed a couple of years ago that requires an inclusionary uh housing type of a program for areas near high-capacity transit stations. My assumption is that that [clears throat] that requirement from the state, which is going to hit lots of cities, and there is if you have adopted an inclusionary zoning, that's one of the reasons that we wanted to jump into this. If you've adopted one, then you may be exempt from some of the state requirements because you've already done one before it was required. But either way, we expect some technical assistance guidance, maybe even standardized uh methodology to come out of the state in the next couple of years just because this is a growing thing. Um, all that said, those are uh assumptions or uh expectations. Um, but I think it's it is reasonable one way or the other to uh attach this to inflation in some way.

Can that be can we u move to amend this resolution to to add Commissioner Shelby's suggestion? Sure. to tie it to an index that will keep it from fluctuating improperly or not as intended. Yeah, that was going to be my question since since we are taking a vote either we're going to need to make this amended. Would you like to make that amendment? Since Commissioner Shelby actually suggested he could probably

Commissioner Shelby, do you want to lead on that uh motion? So, I would like to move that we amend it so that beginning January 1st, 2027 and on January 1st of each year thereafter, the fee is adjusted automatically uh based on the percentage change in the Seattle Tacoma Belleview uh CPIU uh as published by the Bureau of Labor and Statistics for the previous 12-month period. And if the CPIU gets discontinued, then the planning director can make a substitution uh and adjust accordingly. Second. Okay, Ayanna, would you please call the role or I'm sorry, call the vote on that. Chair Chatters, yes. Commissioner Sullivan, yes. Commissioner Rutled, yes. Commissioner Welch,

yes. Commissioner Shelby, yes. Thank you. You know, I I'm I'm sorry. We actually we we missed a step. I apologize, Commissioner Shelby. I prematurely asked for that amendment. We need uh a motion that public need a motion for the resolution prior. So could we just rewind briefly? Do we hear a motion? Do I hear a motion for resolution 252 uh for the uh the addition of this uh to motion or to resolution 252? So moved. Second.

Okay. Um so now that it is open, Commissioner Shelby has proposed the amendment. it uh it was properly seconded and so perhaps we can just redo the vote just to ensure that we're dotting all the eyes and crossing the tees. Ayanna yes great chair Chatters. Yes. Commissioner Sullivan. Yes. Commissioner Ridge. Yes. Commissioner Welch. Yes. Commissioner Shelby. Yes. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh additional uh proposed amendments. Any additional discussion? Okay, seeing none, I think we're ready to move to a vote on resolution 252. Chatters, yes. Commissioner Sullivan, yes. Commissioner, yes. Commissioner Welch, yes. Commissioner Shelby, yes. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, having concluded that item, we will move on to agenda item 4 A, which is the critical area regulations, public hearing and recommendation. Is there a presentation prior to opening the public hearing? There is. I was going to go over some examples uh as as we talked about getting into in the last meeting and then I've got a summary of some of the comments, written comments that we received to date. Um, I was going to say I we can we can offer folks to go ahead of that, but I think it's uh valuable context, too. Okay. Ready?

I think we're ready. Yes.

Great. Uh critical areas ordinance periodic update. I'm not going to rehash the uh I'm not going to recap the recap from last week or the recap the prior uh meeting either. All of those meetings are on YouTube and uh linked in your memo as well as the memos and uh presentations and all the other materials from those prior meetings. So today we'll just go through um I'll mention that there is a review draft. It's the same review draft that's been out for a couple of weeks now. It is dated October 31st. Um we're working internally on some adjustments to it for the next draft, but that's not uh we're we're still deep in that. Um so would encourage folks to continue taking a look at and reviewing that October 31st review draft which is available on the project web page. Uh the link is there on the bottom of your screen and I bet you could get there through your favorite search engine as well. Um we talked at the last meeting about some examples of um specifically around the stream buffers and some of the interactions with the steep slopes and the wetlands. So I just wanted to illustrate a couple of those uh and then illustrate one area where there is not such interaction and there is just a difference in the stream buffer um and then go through the comments that we've received recognizing that we're still um uh studying those and working through them right now. So two groupings of stream types up here on the map behind me. Uh type S shoreline of the state is the highest order stream type and uh includes is is almost always fish bearing or always fish bearing. Uh F is fishbearing streams. Um and I I think that also includes streams that are capable of bearing fish i.e. there are no permanent

blockages there. And then type N is non-fishbearing, S being seasonal, and P being permanent. I will say that my uh expert is out sick today. Uh and so I'm going to do my best, but this is um complicated stuff, so uh please excuse if I make any little mistakes. So, here's a map showing a portion of the city particularly defined by ravines and uh steep slopes adjacent to these streams. Uh pink are the steep slopes that are over 33% which is a little bit different. We regulate uh 25% is where the buffer extends up the slope from a stream for up to 25 ft past the top of the buffer. and then blue are wetlands. And then I think the black are parcels that intersect uh the stream there. So you can see a lot of overlap between the pink steep slopes and the uh the wetlands that are in a light speckled blue uh into the streams. And I'll show a couple examples of how that interacts. So here is a uh stream segment. um can't really see the slope too well from the uh aerial. So we'll throw on the topo lines there. And it is quite steep in excess of 60% slope in the steepest part of the ravine here. This is a type NP stream. And this is why we're looking at these because part of this periodic update is uh reflecting the best available science which is increasing the buffer from the standard buffer from 50 to 100 ft on these on this stream type. Um 100 feet being the minimum for pollution removal and pollution removal and other stream health characteristics are important regardless of whether the stream itself bears fish because all of the streams whether or not they do connect to feed

supply nutrients cool water and all of the other to uh to fish and salmon bearing streams. So this one is a type NP creek that currently has a buffer uh standard buffer of 50 ft and the in the proposal we have an increase to 100 ft and we'll get to it later but there is that site potential tree height methodology that would look as to as much as a 204 foot buffer I believe it is um around that. So on this map you see uh 50 ft is the darkest blue closest to the stream. 100 ft is the uh lighter blue there. But then the steep slope uh by my rough calculation of counting topo lines and measuring the horizontal distance and the rise over the run is at about the red dotted line. And then by the regulation that you see on the left side and that's existing language not proposed to be changed. we add 25 ft to the top of the slope and that puts it uh well beyond 50 100 or even I think it's up to 140 or so feet in this in this area. So, this is a typical characteristic, I think, for a lot of our um northwest uh well, no, west central uh Everett Boulevard bluffs and and uh Edgewater and all of those streams that are in insized uh deep ravines. Um an example of streams and wetlands where the streams are not so uh cut into the landscape. uh they and especially in South Everett we have a lot of flat lands and streams and wetlands and branches and um and all of that. So here we've got a type NS stream and the same 50 foot or 100 foot buffer. 100 foot buffer is what's in the October 31st draft. But then you've got a type

two wetland in there. Type two wetlands have their own buffers and you add you you take the larger of the two buffers if you have a choice between those and the buffers range from 100 to 300 ft depending on the habitat score. Um I know from a prior uh wetland report although it's pretty dated it's 20 20ome years old in this area that this was a type two wetland but I don't think we did the habitat scoring or at least not in the same methodology back then. So, I'm not sure which habitat score, but I suspect it's either low or moderate, which would be a 100 or 150 foot buffer. And so, both of those are shown with the dark blue dotted line. Um, so here's a again a fairly common situation uh in in South Everett, which is uh a a wetland that is touching the stream of any size will get you almost immediately to that 100 ft already. uh and and sometimes more. And then this is a last example which I usually when I go over these with Teddy, she says, "Oh yeah, there's a wetland there. We're working on it right now. It's just not in the city maps." Going back to our first uh briefings, the city mapping takes wetlands that have been already studied and delineated or uh wide surveys on wetlands but do not capture everything. They're not definitive. Uh we would look to a critical area report for a development uh on on one of these properties to confirm the presence and typing of any critical areas including potential wetlands. But let's say that there are not wetlands here and this is just a stream. This is an example where the stream buffer increase would be um would be uh noticeable and would impact

development opportunities or uh or things like that on the ground. I think that just makes it the map there. So those are a couple examples illustrating the difference in the stream buffers that are in the proposal. You'll see in some of the comments that we're receiving that um uh fish and wildlife at least and I think maybe some others had attached onto that comment are looking for uh streams to be regulated as riparian management zones instead of a stream a fish and wildlife habitat conservation area with an associated buffer and fish and wildlife recommends uh the the uh 200year sight potential tree height method. The reason for that meth method uh part of what we're doing is rereading for the second or third time all of the best available science to try to understand all of the contours around this. Um every critical area has a set of ecosystem functions and values and those include um uh needs like cool clear no pollutant water sufficient water supply at the right amount of time. nutrients uh oxygen things like that. Uh pollution reduction shown in the literature to be effective at 100 feet. So that particular function is handled by 100 foot buffer. Uh instream wood um I think is the main reason for the site potential tree height to get your maximum natural amount of old growth forest level instream wood. you would need for the tiptop of a tree or at least where it says at least four inches around to fall into a tree in theory in the future from a windstorm from mortality or whatever it is. So, if the tallest trees in this area and they get very tall up to 204 foot, Douglas

fur in almost all of Everett, uh if you want for every tree that could fall into a stream to fall into a stream, you need a 204 ft buffer. And uh that is considered by Department of Fish and Wildlife to be uh what is necessary for a fully functioning and very healthy stream system which is part of a uh overall watershed and ecosystem. Um, so that's why we're focusing on these uh illustrations of these stream buffers because I think that's the one that is most at issue. We've not received comments from the Department of Ecology who regulates wetlands and other uh shorelines and other aspects of the critical area regulations. Um but uh our earlier contacts with them seemed like we were on the right track for wetlands and the science maybe hasn't evolved in the same way with uh wetlands as it has with streams. So I think that's going to be the focus of our work going forward is really uh getting to the bottom of those comments and uh we've talked before about the need to balance uh urban growth and we're a metropolitan city and where if growth doesn't go here often it's going to go to places with even higher uh functioning critical areas. So, um, we have a balance to do. So, I'll pause there before I, uh, go through the, uh, summary of the comments we've received. If there are any questions on this, I know there's more that we can do on what the impacts are. There's another piece of work that we're doing, which is the environmental checklist, environmental summary, and an expected determination of non-significance, which has a lot of analysis on the impact of this. Um, and we expect to have that uh wrapped up before we next meet as well. So, we'll have some better information to come out of that, but happy to take any questions on this before we get into I think some other themes will come out from the comments, too.

Commissioners, are you ready to move on? Okay.

I had a a quick question, Yoro. Um, is there ever a point where like the NP or or that's not the the seasonal NS streams or similar where they're like just not typed any longer because there, you know, hasn't been a stream observed there for X number of years or humans have done significant, you know, permanent damage and then it's not worth the the remediation. Like it's economically unviable to remediate in some fashion. Yeah, there is certainly a definition and uh at below which it's no longer a stream and at that point it would just be a I don't know a small water course or something. I from memory it has to do with a defined bed bank and channel and sorting of uh sediment into fine grained and thick grained things that demonstrate a um enough water moving down a specific place. If it's too flat then it'll meander and it'll be here sometimes in there. Sometimes that wouldn't be a stream. Um, but if it has that bed bank and channel I think is the main uh feature that that would put it into an at least an NS category. We do have piped streams that have some special provisions for how we regulate them and we don't regulate those in the same way. Although there was a fish and wildlife comment about enforcing a setback from piped streams piped streams uh in the expectation that at some point we'll find a way to get them daylighted. So don't preclude that by putting a structure on top it. Although there's not a a requirement for a property owner or a developer to daylight that stream. We do try to have incentives to do that though. So piped streams and no bed bank and channel would be not an S.

Thank you. Additional questions, commissioners?

Okay. Okay. So I'll just do a quick run through on these comments so you get an idea of the flavor of them. Uh all of these are with the exception of the verbal comments are up on our web page so people can take a look at the full details. Um but just in previous meetings on the topic we had a question on stream presence and categorization from uh Mr. Bar Green and the written comments were provided to you today that he uh provided a month or so ago. Uh we had some comments about runoff and downstream sediment related to Woods Creek. I believe it was a couple of months ago. Uh and then Department of Natural Resources who reviews geologic hazard provisions and this is where we're protecting the type of critical area where we're protecting us from it rather than the other way around. Uh those comments were were pretty very doable I think. So define geotection geotechnical engineer and consider specifying that the such an engineer must be licensed in Washington not just licensed somewhere. So, we'll take a look and see if that's an important one or if that really was just up to us to to clarify. [sighs and gasps] And then we've got some terminology that we did try to do some work on uh clarifying and separating what what a geological assessment versus a geological report versus a geotechnical report is. Um I know at least there's the assessment versus the report I'm familiar with where it's a a higher level of analysis that you need with the report versus the assessment. possible that one of those geotechnical reports should just read geological report. I'm not sure. Uh Department of Fish and Wildlife, a couple of comments on definitions. Um I think all of the above are very doable. So these are just in order from their comment letter that was dated on November 13th.

Um, uh, either the definitions that we have are pretty close or it's it's a good definition. Most of these come from the Washington Administrative Code. Uh, define and establish a riparian management zone. That's a very substantive comment and it is something that Fish and Wildlife has been asking for folks to see these not as a stream and its buffer but that the whole uh the whole riparian management zone is a critical area. Um there are different ways to uh delineate that and their recommendation is the site specific tree the tree potential height. Um perhaps there are ways that that we could define and establish the riparian management zones without changing the substantive provisions. I.e. if we're able to get to agreement that 100 ft is the right number and call that a riparian management zone. That would accomplish some of what the department is looking for. Um I don't know all the implications of calling the whole thing a critical area itself versus a an a feature and a buffer. There is a concept of direct and indirect impacts and they have different mitigation ratios that are required. So that might be part that's one of those things that we just need to understand better uh the full implications of that. But I'll say that that could be uh potentially separated from how big it is. Um a lot of comments on uh exemptions and exceptions and uh there were some comments basically there is no such thing uh according to the department as a uh a necessary uh incidental damage incidental damage little environmental impact not okay.

For the most part, we were describing exemptions and exceptions and um we got this language from somewhere. Uh I think maybe it was interpreted from Department of Commerce guidance or something. Either way, fair enough. The the overall uh orders here from state law are ensure no net loss of ecosystem functions and values, critical area functions and values uh over time and recognizing that even a immediate no net loss in one particular area when added cumulatively typically does result in a net loss. We've been in a no net loss framework for 30 years and we've seen functions degrading over time. Um so is there a such thing as an insignificant net loss? Uh that's what their comment is saying. No, there it is no net loss and anything must be mitigated even if it's dimminimous and I fair enough. It would be a very small mitigation for a very small impact in that case. Clarifying uh we have a number of places that reference uh uh fish usage or specifically sam salmonid uh usage and the department wants to clarify that uh it is any fish not just salmonids. That's another one that we need to uh need to review because there are some very small fish that get into um some small streams. Uh but if that is the state law and the requirement um we'll evaluate that. We have an exemption for accessory structures that are uh one subsection for up to 100 square feet and another one for between one and 200 square feet. Uh those are allowed in the outer 50% of a buffer that has already been legally altered. Usually a yard or something like that. Uh Fish and Wildlife has found that most uh or or other jurisdictions use the outer 25% of a buffer, not 50% of a buffer. They also

have this uh request to keep those 100 feet away from whatever the critical area, which as we were just talking about 50 and 100. 100 is likely to be uh even farther than 25% unless it's a very high order critical area with a larger buffer. Um, so that would limit where we could put an accessory structures are sheds, uh, and maybe a garage or something like that, but they're in exceptions and exemptions because they're very small and presumably the they would have that's where we get into little or no impact on the critical area because it's in the middle of a lawn and so how much is it really going to do? Um, we'll take a look at that one as well. uh we have provisions on expansions of uh existing uh structures. So often that would be an addition onto a house and where that can be and what percentage that the expansion can be. Uh I believe how we have it written in now and how we've had it is that the expansion should not be shall not be closer to the critical area than the structure and it shall be expanded on the side opposite of it. So, if the critical area was light and it cast a shadow from the house, put your expansion in the shadow because it would have the least amount of impact to the critical area. Um, the department has some comments on uh um I I think I read those as meaning that even in that shadow area that it should not be taking over lawn for example because that does provide some functions and values. Uh we have a section on allowed uses. They want to clarify that mitigation sequencing um should be used to meet no net loss. So again, there's no such thing as a very small impact. Uh non-hazardous tree removal. Uh we did have a phone call with fish and wildlife

staff. Uh they were pretty takenback by this. This is an existing provision. You can remove up to a certain number of tree non-hazardous trees. So call it voluntary removal of trees in a critical area that is a protected area but you do need to replant. We talked through what are the why would someone want to voluntarily remove and replant and is it about views or is it about it's not about hazards because there is a separate path for removing hazard trees that might fall on your house or something. Uh could it be that that might be a net benefit because you're getting more trees out of it with the replanting although you lose the mature tree for a certain amount of time. Uh either way, uh they were not uh having it and um they considered us to be fairly unique in having that and and again we're we're somewhat taken aback with it. [sighs and gasps] So we'll do a little bit more research with that. But also in conversations with staff, I can't say that we can think of very often that this has been used. So we wonder ourself what uh this could be a 30-year-old provision. Uh the mitigation sequence starts with avoidance and uh fish and wildlife requested that we um specify specific steps that an applicant must take to demonstrate how they have avoided any impact before moving down the sequence. Uh concern about we have a provision on previously and sometimes illegally altered critical areas and there's concern that we have a pathway to recreate the critical area offsite. Um, I think that would only be if that was beneficial for some reason, like maybe the site was irretrievably damaged and you would get better functions next door or something like that. But they were concerned about a loophole or folks uh mowing down a critical area and then saying great, I can just rebuild it over here for cheaper and the development on the first parcel is what I was looking

for. Uh, same type of comment just clarifying article five. same type of comment as the no net loss and the incidental damage and all that that I talked about earlier. Uh replace stream buffer terminology with riparian management zone. That's a big one. Identify wildlife habitat open space corridors. Um I think that's something that we can look at and incorporate their priority habitat species mapping into our own mapping system. Sounds like a good idea. Last page for this one comment letter. Um, I mentioned salmon and fish to fish already. We have a statement in here that says that four creeks, uh, Marilyn Ring, maybe Powdermill, Gulch, a couple, there's four of them. And it just says these are not fish bearing streams. I don't know where that came from. We don't know where that came from. Uh, some of them are. There is documented presence of fish or at least they're fish passable. Um, so we don't know what type of a deal this was about. Uh, or if it was just maybe we knew 30 years ago and there weren't then and we wanted to save people the effort of uh, going out and sampling or something. I don't know. So, we got to study that one. But they were also pretty takenback by that one. and uh state of preference for on-site inkind mitigation for any stream impacts. That was that was not the last one for fish and wildlife. Uh this one is I wanted to just write the whole comment on this one. The rest of them had been summarized. Um, but this really shows what how Fish and Wildlife is um encouraging the site potential tree height and

a 100 foot width for type F streams is not consistent with WDFW's BAS um are big words and um I would say that sentence right there uh needs to be evaluated before we move forth move forward. So I already talked about this. This is the uh riparian management zone and site potential tree height. [sighs and gasps] Um and then same with buffer width averaging for streams that that's not supported by the science and they were concerned about how close an average could get to the streams. I I'm not I I think it's not as bad as they may have read it the first time. Um but another thing we need to look at. And then I mentioned the setback distance from piped streams in anticipation of potential future surfacing. Okay, that was fish and wildlife. Um, just a couple more here. Master builders, uh, had several comments, appreciation for some of the work we've done and support for the buffers as presented. And then in general, just a reminder to consider carefully how these regulations affect uh urban growth, ability to accommodate growth, housing, property rights, and efficient uh administration of permitting. Snowqualami tribe concerned that the proposal provides for too many exceptions and exemptions from compliance with the chapter. um want to demonstrate a net lift of ecological function. Um suggests using ecologyy's credit debit method for credit debit method to calculate impacts and develop appropriate mitigation plans. uh incorporate detailed baseline

guidance for monitoring plans. Monitoring is uh always an aspect of critical areas uh that I think we need to do some more work on. And then include language in best available science about the use of traditional ecological knowledge and indigenous knowledge through meaningful consultation with the Snowquami tribe. So definitely need some uh time to further connect with the tribes. Those are the comments we've received so far. Here is the remaining schedule as revised today. And I think that's the end of the slides.

Commissioners, before we ask our questions and have discussion, um could we open the public hearing to allow the folks who are here an opportunity to speak? So, if we're prepared to do that, I'll entertain a motion to open public hearing on the critical areas uh update. So, moved. Sounds like Commissioner Shelby has seconded Commissioner Welch's uh motion. Um would you please call the vote? Chair Chatters? Yes. Commissioner Sullivan? Yes. Commissioner Rutled? Yes. Commissioner Welch? Yes. Commissioner Shelby. Yes.

Thank you. Thank you. Do we have uh signin sheets today uh for folks who are here to Mrs. Barc? Okay. My husband hearing me data. So, I'm going to I'm going to set a timer for 3 minutes. When it goes off, that just means conclude your comments, but you don't have to cut yourself off uh if you're mid-sentence. Um but that is what the timer will mean. Commissioners, I I'm sure this won't take two minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Mr. Bar Green. Would you introduce yourself just for the record please before you comments

2821 Rucker Everett Washington um first let me thank you all for your public service I think my family's been coming to these planning meetings since at least for 50 years when the some people in the city wanted to close Kobe Avenue and we were kind of a bit against it since we had some property downtown didn't happened. They did actually close it down to one lane. I don't know if you guys remember that or not. Didn't work out very well. So, I guess we're right. As far as the situation, I have a a lot of respect for all the tribes and all the science from the ecology departments, but if they have the money they have, especially the tribes, it would seem to me they should take some of their science and try to teach the resident orcas how to eat seals. I think that would solve a lot of our salmon success problems. And I think it could be done. I'm I'm being serious about this. As far as our property is concerned, um we have some science in my family. Back in the late 60s and early 70s, believe it or not, my title was computer scientist. It was probably erroneous in some ways. and my wife was uh uh received the honor of being fourth in the national science fair which I think only representative forever ever to even go to the science fair. Um but as far as the science for our property is concerned uh I just I just think uh that it's

important that uh we we we comment and I think uh it's important for the city to think about where they can build what I would consider highincome housing. We we can't live on lowincome housing. And we need the high-income housing too. And uh we have developed 20 acres that my par family bought back in the 30s and there's room for at least another eight houses which uh I put in my comments today. Are will those comments be attached and my comments from before to to this process? Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you Mr. Barine. and all commissioners have been provided with a copy of your comment. So, thank you. Do we have additional folks here uh to testify on this matter? We do not. Thank you. Do we have anyone online who wishes to provide comment? We do not. Okay. Okay. With that, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing on the critical areas update. So moved. Second. Thank you. Chair Chatters, yes. Commissioner Sullivan, yes. Commissioner,

yes. Commissioner Welch, yes. Commissioner Shelby, yes. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioners, we have an opportunity for discussion here. Was that the end of your presentation? Okay. Um, we have an opportunity for discussion. Uh, does anyone have questions uh ready to go or shall I launch into mine? Oh, you can go ahead.

Okay, I'll I'll I'll kick us off here. Uh so when I was reviewing this and and I am not uh a scientist so I'm trying to view this from the perspective of a person who is trying to determine the value of a piece of property and what its capacity will be for for building for expanding. Um so that's kind of the lens that I'm using when I'm reading through this uh and also trying to understand the best available science and our requirements to adhere to that and whatnot. Um, but one thing stood out to me is there were a few sections where it was stated that a critical areas report may be required or something may be required and I don't see it defined when what triggers that who determines that um because I would imagine that that could have a big impact on how the owner of the property could utilize it. and and I I would I think that one of the concerns that I hear from the public is ambiguity around these regulations and not being clear on what their constraints are and what the processes are. So, for example, if we look at if I'm we're looking at the October 31st review draft, if we go to page 17, um, under B1, it's noted the addition of a critical areas report may be required. And then if you go down to B2 uh I it says again a critical areas report may be required but there's not really a clear um it it does not say what it what is triggered when is it triggered who determines that it's required and what's the threshold for when it's required. Um I would ask that you go then to page 25 where it says under item let's see what we got here. Well, actually, I'll just give you the

the line. We're at line 23 on page 25. It says, "A survey may be required if trees are to be removed near any lot line." Um, a survey may be required if they're to be removed near any lot line. Well, within what proximity? Um, who determines that? How what's the threshold? So, folks know what to expect. Uh and so if we go to page 26, um we're looking at line 35. So this is under storm water facilities. Uh it goes through a list of the following may be required, but not really a clear indication to the public of what triggers each of those things that might be required. Um and again on page 37 uh we're looking at line 25. Uh it goes it says how however if any surface and sub and subsurface conditions associated with the site change during that 5-year period or if there is new information about a geolog geological hazard, the applicant may be required to submit an amendment to the geological assessment. what's what's the determining factor of whether they do or do not need to do that. So those were some of the things that I noticed and if we're part of our purpose is to clarify this for the public so they know what the guidelines are um for utilization of their property. Those are issues I would like us to do a bit better in outlining uh so folks know what they're dealing with and and you can't really value your property uh if you do not know what your constraints are. So there we go. Commissioners, who's up next?

Nathan, I'm sorry. Commissioner Shelby. No, I I had much a similar comment, right? It's it's very obtuse it seems if you walk through it. And so, uh really outlining when all of these things are triggered u I think leads to a far more predictable outcome for developers and uh property owners.

This isn't really a question, but more of an obser or a comment. I'm pretty surprised to hear the difference in our 100 foot buffer and then the Department of Fish and Wildlife. I think you said somewhere around 240. That's a big difference. Um I'm not asking for the answer right now, but I guess I'm wondering why are our numbers between them and why are we so far apart on how we came to that? Obviously, you're saying they're using a tree height, and we weren't necessarily doing that. And maybe it's a good idea, maybe it's not. I'm not really sure. But regardless, this a to be a very big difference considering right now we're at 50 feet and so we're already looking to double it and they're saying not even close. So, it sounds like you were already going to look into that, but looking forward to maybe hearing a little bit more on that.

Yeah, we've we've spotted that very early on. And um I we we did evaluate the site potential tree height and we talked about it in some earlier meetings and there I I I say 204 because that's the Doug for uh typical maximum height. There are some soil types where it is not. And so there were some applicability issues if you know there's a soil type of one on part of your parcel and part on the other and it jumps from red alder I think it was was 100 ft up to 200 feet and which one counts and is that soil data really reliable? Um but then also the the the relationship of the science to the legal requirements and the relationship of those to property rights law is very complicated, nuanced and sightsp specific. And we are in an very urban and very altered environment. And we are dealing with uh the buffers standard buffers are 50 feet now but not too for many of our when our developments happened they were 25 ft or they were zero feet. Put it in a pipe and get rid of it. Um so we're we're dealing with all of those different regulatory frameworks and um this guidance does apply statewide including to pristine areas. Um it is the same processes that that uh act upon a stream system in an ecosystem. Um so it is valid in Everett as well but we cannot not recognize the parcelization that leads to 200 ft is going to be in some cases three parcels away from where the stream is. Um and with intervening development that typically actually creates that external boundary for what the buffer is. If there's already a house there, the

buffer stops at the house or the other permitted legal development. Not so for lawns and things, but at least development and hardcape. Um, so does do you get really the returns out of that or maybe it does matter for the few places where it is uh impactful. Um, but yeah, we recognize the the big difference and it's uh and and that's our challenge to figure out in the next month or two. I think we when we got this presentation at the beginning we kind of kind of koshed the site potential tree height because of the ownerousness of it. It's very so that's why we moved away from it right away. I mean I think immediately we said come back without that. So

I I don't I don't personally wish to go back to it. I find it to I know that's what maybe fish and wildlife want to do or but I just don't find it a very effective in our area or um way of doing things. Right.

To Commissioner Welch's point, I would ask what metropolitan areas, what urban core spaces have successfully been able to apply a guideline like that because it does not it doesn't it seems out of alignment with this space. I I would also ask what are the uh regulations at the county level because they have farmlands and and wetlands and many more critical areas. Uh and and they do not to my knowledge use that um that uh SPT well I think we I think we if I remember right back in September I think we asked Teddy about that. I think we said and she goes I don't think she could even provide us with someone like ours that even used it. Yeah.

I think that was one of the issues like no one's even using it. They're moving away from it if I remember right. I mean, I'm sorry she's not here, but I I believe that was the idea was it really didn't fit what we have here.

That's what I remember too. Um there's a number of other cities and jurisdictions going through the update right now in uh Snowomish, King, Pierce, and Kitap counties. And then next up are the rest of Western Washington. So, everybody's wrestling with this. It is new guidance from DFW that is very different than others. and wetlands for instance did not change. I I I don't think the recommended buffer width did not change at all. So for this to double and that's why we picked it up right at the beginning. That was an obvious major issue. Um and so I guess we're we're taking a second look to make sure we got that right. There was also some question about um best available science is required to be used and um we were interpreting maybe a difference between the management recommendations and the best available science. This letter from DFW uses the term best available science and I think that is different than how we had understood it. So that's causing a second look at it as well.

I think it was also kind of diametric I didn't mean to interrupt you. Sorry. this seem to be almost diametrically opposed to everything we done in the comp plan too. It seemed to really change our buildable land quite heavily or what we'd already had kind of got into. That's one of the things I think was also critical on our ideas at that moment.

Right. For stream adjacent uh properties, it would uh it would be a significant impact. There's still lots of land that's not near streams. So I think we could still accommodate uh the the growth target even if we did a larger buffer. Um, I think maybe it's more a question of uh effectiveness, potentially fairness and and that sort of thing.

And I think it's also a question of feasibility particularly for infill projects which might be smaller. um adding like when I was going through you may require uh this report, you may require this study. Um those the additions of those types of costs could could make it so infill development small or small projects are just not feasible. They cannot be done because of those types of um overly burdensome regulatory issues. So, I think we want to balance protection of the environment with the with our the needs that we've spent two years identifying and really trying to craft a housing policy to to meet the moment of

Have we seen a large change in our wetlands or streams as we've added more impervious surface up uphill in development? And have we seen a large change over the last several years or not too much expansion? I think most of the development at the scale that's been impacted was in prior decades to that. Um I'm sure that there has been impact to our streams from development over the decades, but I don't

Right. Yeah, I I'm I'm sure there are, but I I would have to take a look at exactly what it is. But it's been pretty I mean as a percentage of the city that has developed in the last 10 years has been very small but over the last 60 years it's been a lot.

Is is there a difference between how um new development on a a fresh parcel of land versus infill development? Is is there a difference between how this would be applied to those two scenarios? Yes, because you get um we we consider the buffer to be functionally disconnected once it hits significant hardscape. Um not necessarily a pathway or a little driveway, but at least a road, a building, a house, a parking lot. Um that as I understand it sets the outer limit of the regulatory buffer. Um so just by having that but then there's also yards which are not that hardscape so those can become again part of the regulatory buffer. Um the net loss framework um does not generally require net ecological gain. So you have to have proportionality between the impacts to the stream and the need to restore that lawn. Um but that's one that where you may have some interplay and it may be to the benefit of the development where they can uh enjoy a smaller buffer than they otherwise would by restoring uh part of the buffer that used to be lawn or otherwise cleared. So there are some differences. Yeah.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Shelby, uh do you have uh additional comments or discussion on this? I want to make sure we we get all of your thoughts in. Uh, none at this time. Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, additional discussion.

Yeah. I mean, I'm trying to think about how to phrase this, but I guess I'm curious on like the I am in favor of protecting the our our region, the water, the salmon. Big fan of that. Um, but I'm also trying to balance how much is this potential area that we're looking at? Obviously, there's the current and homes that are already built and there I get that, but like where is the wide open spaces that like this is the area that we think somebody's going to develop? So, we need to make sure that these regulations are in place. Do we have a lot of that that that we're that can come, you know, that comes to mind even? I mean, we're so already developed. We don't I'll I'll put back this one just maybe for one illustration of one potential. So this the darker blue is 50 ft. The next shade is 100 ft. So double that um is what 200 feet would be or any other number in between. So you can see that there um you could take the parcels on the left side that are pretty deep um where there's a substantial chunk a third of it. Does my cursor show? Like this one for example.

Um you could build in the white area and you're not in a buffer and you're you're not uh interacting with critical areas at all in that area. This is assuming that this is correct delineation and there's not wetlands and slopes and things like that. Um that if it doubled and if it was 200 feet then you would have to squeeze closer to the road. You might be in a reasonable use framework which is that there is uh no land that is not part of the the buffer or the riparian management zone. you are still you cannot be denied all reasonable economic use of your property. So you would still get to have one small amount of development but that's different than uh three six town houses or something. So there is a potential impact to some of these parcels. It was hard for me to find one like this but that was looking more at the difference between 50 and 100. If you get to 200 now there are more. If it's the parcel like on the top corner,

right, that's what I was that's probably functionally disconnected and no matter what the buffer is, that's not going to be in this framework. But this one here is another one that could be impacted. Uh once you're in here, it's it's like either way, you're in a reasonable use type of a scenario or you can rebuild on the footprint of uh I think sometimes the footprint of what was and this this is the exception. This you tried to find this example which implies that most of it is not like this correct

cuz this also looks like it's from you know it looks more plants so it's more like looks like it's like north ever I don't know where the majority I mean I know you put the slide up like where the majority of the streams are but it obviously it's sloping towards the Puget Sound but [clears throat] we also have all the lakes in the south you know we have like Silver Lake more in the south. Yeah. And Yeah. And the where it goes off into the flats. I mean, yeah. North effort is barely even in here. So, it's interesting that we keep using uh maybe examples from there because like, well, they're barely even.

Yeah. No, those those examples were I I did take all the numbers and street names off so nobody's worrying about their exact property, but those were in South uh and Central Everett. But, okay. That's Yeah, the the city has a great GIS map which literally has everything. There's nothing in North Everett, by the way. Literally nothing.

But yeah, do check out map ever. You can see if you're curious about your own property or anywhere you can see the uh you need the topo line, topographic lines for the slopes, but you have we have wetlands and streams. Would the city consider providing maybe like a mitigation plan template for individual property owners like small not folks who aren't professional developers? uh and maybe they have this situation on their parcel and it's it's kind of a a steep ask of a community member to go get a couple thousand dollar uh study done um because they don't know how to maybe create a mitigation plan. Would the city consider a template of sorts for uh and I know that the state doesn't like the idea of a small impact but there there is functionally small impact versus a large impact. So small impact projects for individuals rather than a corporate development firm of some sort, some kind of template that would guide them towards being able to complete this at the lowest possible cost for the their project.

Um I think so. I think that's something we we always want to support applicants of all kinds. Um there is we had slides on that in previous meetings. The concept of flexibility is an important one for this. Um that is some of the reason for those maze is that we don't want to if there's a way we can avoid a geotech report or something or a critical areas report because maybe we already had one last year and it's not going to give anything new. Um we like to give that flexibility and and not add any more burden that is necessary. I think that would apply for the mitigation as well. in in general the easiest and looking back to that mitigation sequence is just don't build your thing there. Um but there are some relatively accessible pathways to uh getting a small development while meeting the requirements of the chapter.

Technical assistance within our abilities is something that we always try to help with. Yeah. Yeah. Yes, please. on the fish streams. Do you know how many of those are piped? [sighs] Um especially the ones on the south part, the ones that are up north that probably in those ravines and obviously the ones on the west are going down to the river, but those south ones like where are those? I think only the type ends would be piped because I think being piped makes it not a type F, but I might be wrong on that. Okay. Okay. I mean, that would make sense, but I just wasn't sure. But yeah, there's quite a there's quite a few of them. They go over more streams than you know when you're heading around town.

Uh to build off uh uh Commissioner Sullivan's question there. So, do we have any designated uh vi fish passage? My words were fish passage violations as in the court decision. Like do we is does the city of ever have any passages that have to be unblocked or changed to meet the requirements right now? Like do we have any projects or any that we have to watch for? Because that would be those streams also then, right? Like upstream from those if they're blocked right now. Are they designated? Are those designated upstream still? Right. Even they might be dry.

I think the court case was only for state facilities. I think I'm not sure on that. Um, I have not heard that we have a list of fish passages that we are required to complete, but we do try to support the state actions and and when we rebuild, of course, we have to rebuild with if we're rebuilding a bridge or an overpass, it has to be built to fish passage standards, but in terms of rectifying prior ones, um, I'm not sure. That is a determination in the stream typing um is the presence of those barriers and okay sometimes whether it is relatively easy to

well if they're designated or they're a potential problem they're they would fall under this buffer whether they're fish relevant right now or not would they fall under the fish if they're blocked do they fall under fish being able to be present or would they fall be under not

I think not if it is blocked uh and that that can be natural from uh it's too steep or a waterfall type of thing or it can be an an an artificial blockage. I think that limits where uh type F I'm getting outside of I I might be wrong on that one. Um because there is something about potential removal and and would be passable if not for so that's good. Yeah, I'll check on that. Both of those

additional discussions or questions or maybe asks for more information uh next time we we discuss this topic. Commissioners, I think I'm still trying to wrap my head around maybe the impacts to Everett 2044. So it's my understanding that in that process there were some calculations done to make sure that we're meeting our targets, right? So were some of these existing buffers included in that and could those calculations be redone with these proposed buffers to see if there is a significant impact?

Uh the calculations in Ever 2044 did account for critical areas in their buffers as we knew them at the time. So, it would have been what is on the books now in general because we don't know until you get uh the hip waiters on exactly what that stream or that wetland is. Um but we did take those out of buildable area. uh it would be pretty tough because again it's hard to know exactly um what the habitat score on a wetland is to know what the buffer is or what the changes are and so much of this is very sightsp specific and dependent on the analysis and um but I I do expect it to be very a very small impact to our overall developable capacity. it is um the impact is going to be highly concentrated on a small number of properties. Um but the vast majority of properties are going to be outside this framework I believe and then even for ones that are not you can cluster pretty significant development on the portion that uh just go up instead of out for example. And then just one other question. There anything that we're adding that's going to add to the timeline of projects? I know in my work there's been a lot of delay with infrastructure projects with certain pollutants and trying to figure all of that out and so it's really delaying a lot of these infrastructure projects from being delivered which is a huge challenge. So I'm just curious on a smaller scale if that's happening here too. I think the reorganization and the clarifications that we've done should actually help a little bit in the administration of this even if the result is potentially more restrictions on a parcel in some cases although I don't think that's broadly the case um I can't think of anything that is going to take significantly more time to figure

out so I'd say limited and maybe even positive Commissioner Shelby, any final uh questions, thoughts? No. Okay. Um, Commissioners, I I think we'll turn it over to York for next steps. Next steps are um one thing I didn't put on the uh we're having an open house an online open house where uh folks can come ask questions and hear some abbreviated versions of these comments on December 4th 5. Oh yes, the uh uh appreciation for boards and commissions which I you all received invites to and I hope uh to see you there. So yeah, December 4th we've got a um visuals here. Got the online open house. We are going to provide a briefing to the council on December 3rd is scheduled at least. So I forgot to put the open house on there, but that's December 4th. Otherwise, December 3rd, a briefing to the council and a status update. And then uh anticipate coming back to this body on January 6th to continue. And we'll see if we can get to a recommendation. and if not, we'll continue and then the city council will come right after that. And uh still welcoming comments on the October 31st draft. That'll be up for at least another uh couple of weeks, I think. So, uh that's a good one to read and respond to in detail. All of the other comments that we talked through today are available on that project website. Those are the next steps.

All right. And anybody that I'm sorry, no, no, please. Anybody that wants to make comments, written comments, they just become part of the record still between now and January. Yes. Yes. And if we need to schedule another public hearing for verbal comments, we'd be happy to support that, too. But we'll we'll take in and and share comments that we receive through the entirety of this project and make sure those are all available to the commission, the council, and everyone else. Okay, folks. With that we have uh completed our agenda and we are adjourned for the evening. Thank you.