City Council - workshop

It is six o'clock Tuesday January 23rd and I will call this Lacey City Council work session to order for the record mayor writer is absent tonight and Council members to you will be joining us online council member Greenstein Believe is supposed to be joining us online or she's excused as well And I'll start by reading our land acknowledgement We the city of Lacey are on the ancestral land of the tribal peace people of the Treaty of Medicine Creek including this quality in this quality Indian tribe and the squawks an island tribe We acknowledge and remember those tribal people not recognized today who were absorbed or relocated into other tribes for survival and with that Can I get a motion for tonight's agenda move to approve the agenda is published Second has been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion about tonight's agenda? Seeing none, all in favor of said motion, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Are there any opposed? Seeing none, that motion passes unanimously. And the first item on our agenda is public comment. We did not receive anybody sign up for public comment, and it looks like we did not receive any written public comment. Is there anybody in this chamber that wishes to address this council? Seeing none, we will move on to our next agenda item, which is our community planning docket briefing. Tonight we have Hans Shepard and Jennifer Adams. Hans is our senior planner, and Jennifer Adams is our housing coordinator. You have the floor.

I'll kick it off if you all don't mind. For the record, Vanessa Dolby, Community Economic Development Director. And tonight we are here to provide a progress report on our 2020 or 2026 docket that was adopted by the council in March. Planning Commission and the staff here have been working really hard to get us to this point about halfway through the year. And we look forward to the council's feedback. With that, I'll hand it over to Ryan.

Thank you, Vanessa. Ryan Andrews, Community Planning Manager. If we can bring up the slide presentation, we'll get that started. All right, great. So as Vanessa mentioned, tonight we're here with a mid-year docket update. We are here, Vanessa and I were here a few weeks ago to give you an update on our climate programs. And tonight we're here with an update from our land use and housing sides of the house. So as Vanessa mentioned, the docket was approved back at your meeting on March 3rd. So in just a few short months, we've made significant progress on a number of these items. On the list, first of all, I wanted to start with those items that we've already completed this year, which is one, that's the co-living housing item. So this was the kind of the... at least municipal code updates around single room occupancies that you all adopted a few months ago. And I will note on these slides that all of the numbers that are in parentheses are the number that's located on the docket. So they correspond to the docket item as approved. So for tonight's review, we have our in-progress items. These are all items that have either been recommended for approval by the Planning Commission or in the case of the Mobile Manufactured Home Protection Outreach Plan, they've been reviewed by the Planning Commission. So all of this work has been vetted through the Planning Commission. That includes child care centers, updates to our parking codes, accessory dwelling units, middle housing, conversion of existing buildings, and that outreach plan. And so the way this will work is that Jennifer will start out talking about our middle housing and accessory dwelling unit code updates, then discuss a little bit of the background behind the mobile manufactured housing outreach plan, and then turn it over to Hans who's going to clean up discussing recommendations around childcare centers, parking, and conversion of existing buildings. We do have some items. Hopefully the slide can go forward. Is there anybody that can manually make it go forward? It's not advancing. Oh, now it's gone too far. Okay, perfect. And so we do have some items that are underway. We just wanted to provide you a short update on some of these things. First of all, starting with some updates to our tree standards, docket number 11. This item, council might remember, is to update some standards around removal of trees on private property, some standards related to designating tree tracks in open spaces in our woodland district, and then also establishing a definition for forest practice applications This work is underway. Our hope is to do a really expedited and targeted review and update of our tree regulations, fairly limited in scope at this time, primarily because we are right now, and you may have seen a recent Jolt article, updating our urban forest management plan. So we are just right now requesting consultant services for helping us update that plan and and assume that at the end of that process, we will also have a significant number of tree regulation updates at that point as well. The next item on the list are the one comprehensive plan map and rezone requests. This is item number 13. So we did receive a request and where you're in the midst of processing that now, this is a request that came in. You might remember through our comprehensive plan update process, we did a request of all of the community requested rezones and people were able to submit those. This was one request that did not make the final list for being analyzed through that and considered through that comprehensive plan update process. So this is one that's in process now and will be briefed here with the Planning Commission in the coming weeks. And then urban growth area joint planning. This is actually not a docket item. You'll see that says WP08 on the screen there. This is actually a work plan item because this is an item that's actually on Thurston County's docket. This is updating our zoning codes, making sure they're consistent between the county and the city's regulations. I think the council's well aware that we've had inconsistencies in our regulations over time for the last 10 to 20 years. As our city regulations have evolved, the county regulations have lagged behind or maybe in some cases not actually been updated. We were working with Thurston County to go through a process to essentially adopt by reference our own Lacey Municipal Code for the urban growth area. Unfortunately, at this point, we've heard from the county that that's been put on hold. Their planning commission has decided to not move it forward this time. So unfortunately, this time it doesn't look like, at least on the county's end, that they'll be updating to do the adopt by reference. We are Standing by to hear more about the county as far as how they want to bring our regulations into alignment. But at this point, it looks like that process is on hold. Right.

Yes. Was it, I know it didn't make it quite to, uh, pass their, their commission. Um, was it, was it a staffing issue or did, cause that's, it wasn't like, Hey, we're a little short staff. We can't do that work. Or was it something.

My understanding was that that was essentially a recommendation made by their planning commission to not move it forward. We'd been working with their staff to actually develop the adopt by reference code. So it wasn't a staffing issue. We'd work jointly with them to develop the code. It was more of a recommendation from their planning commission. Okay. And then we do have some future items that are on the horizon that will be completed. Some will be completed by the end of this year, some that will probably shift into later this year and into next. The first additional items is that we do have additional housing code amendments. This is number 06 and 07. And what Jennifer and Hans will talk about a lot tonight is that we are, with these updates, much like the co-living housing update responding to requirements of the state legislature. You know, these are in most cases mandated items that we're having to update our codes to become in alignment with. We do have a couple additional housing related code amendments that we do need to complete by the end of this year to be in compliance with some of those state required mandates. Street merchant regulations, this is something that was on the docket for this year and Right now, without an economic development coordinator on staff, this had been something that's been put on hold. And then the final item on this is to update the zoning code for the Martin Way corridor. And that's something that we will kick off this year, and we had it identified in our docket as a two-year item. So this is something that recommendations will likely be coming to the city council probably next year, rather than this year in terms of the zoning update regulations for the Martin Way Corridor Zone. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions on what you've heard so far. And then I'll turn it over to Jennifer to start. So we're going to talk about each one of these items, kind of take a pause, be able to ask questions, review things. So at this point, if there's any questions on anything I've provided, otherwise I'll turn it over to Jennifer.

So for street merchant regulations, will that have any effect on what we're doing over at the food truck court? Or is it just kind of like if you are in a parking lot of some other business?

So the reason this ended up on the docket is it was identified in our economic development strategic plan as an item to update in addition to the fact that our regulations just haven't been updated in a while to come in. into the modern era in terms of how we deal with food trucks, ghost kitchens, other types of mobile vendors. And so the idea was to update them, to modernize them, and to do some outreach with those types of vendors to bring something forwards. We haven't started that work within the department with the vacancy and economic development coordinator position. We kind of shifted some work around, so we had to put this one on pause for now. When we pick it back up though, we'll have some outreach and then work with Planning Commission to refine what those will look like.

Okay.

Anything else? Turn on your microphone.

Okay. Well, good evening, everyone. Jennifer Adams, Housing Coordinator. Brian, thanks for the nice setup. So as Ryan did comment, several of these items, at least my first item this evening with the infill residential development, these do address state mandates. So just keep that in mind as we're walking through this. That said, I do want to invite you to stop me at any time if you have questions along the way. And then we'll pause at the end as well for questions that you might think of afterwards. So either option is just fine. I'm going to go with this green, which means glasses for now. So that's a nice option, though, without the glasses. All right, so welcome to infill residential development. I'm just curious, has anybody in this room heard of middle housing before? It's kind of a joke. Okay, it's the only thing that's been on my mind for a very long time, so I'm ready to put this one to rest a little bit. All right, so what I'd love to do first is jump into the two pieces of sort of guiding legislation for this process, and they are different. They're all in the housing bucket. The first one deals with the middle housing regulations specifically, and then we'll take a look at the ADU regulations. But to kick us off tonight, House Bill 1110, I wanted to sort of summarize. The main goal here of House Bill 1110 is really to provide more housing options in areas that have traditionally been limited to one housing type. So that's kind of something important to remember as well, that we're kind of talking about housing types as part of this conversation. And then also, because this is a mandate, this does apply to all cities planning under the Growth Management Act. So that does include Lacey. Um, so a couple of things, uh, these are, this is kind of, uh, um, some of the overarching tenants of this bill. Um, so the first thing was, is that the state, uh, uh, back in about 2023 adopted, um, this middle housing, um, model for cities to then go forward and adopt. Um, so the first thing was the state sort of identified nine different housing types and. I'm just going to say sort of put them in this bucket. So the housing types have been longstanding housing types, but they made this other bucket now called middle housing. And so the first thing is that the first mandate is that jurisdictions have to formally adopt at least six of those nine types of housing within their local code. And then where are those allowed? So these housing types will be allowed on all lots that are zoned predominantly for residential use. That's also kind of an important term, predominantly. And then the proposed housing types that you see in what was provided in your packet in the proposed code include duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, cottage housing, and stacked flats. And just a little context on how those were arrived at. In 2024 the city did a survey out to the community basically showing all of those nine types of middle housing and then asking the community to rank those right in terms of yes I'd really like to see this in my neighborhood or no I really am not comfortable with this and so we took that and then along with a couple of visits to the Planning Commission who had some very thoughtful feedback as well that is how we collectively went forward with this proposal to adopt the six types that are listed here. You will also notice that duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, cottage homes, those aren't new to Lacey, right? So we've been allowing those types for quite some time now. So really some new terms you might now see are a fourplex and a stacked flat. And then I'm gonna jump down one bullet first. I just like that order a little bit better. Another tenet of this bill is thinking differently about the way that we calculate density. And so traditionally, at least the Lacey Code traditionally uses a unit per acre calculation for density purposes. Middle housing actually has a requirement that we reframe that into units per lot, okay? If you can visualize that, that shifts the conversation a bit for tonight.

Yes? I don't know exactly what a stacked flat is.

What a stacked flat is? That's a really good question. So we would just be going up instead of out. So you could do like a... Just like what it sounds like? It is. So each level in a stacked flat would be a complete unit. So, yes. That could be purchased? Yes, that could be purchased. Well... Let me preface this, and we may talk about this a little bit later, although it wasn't included in the slides. An upcoming component of this will be a unit lot subdivision. That tool and or like a condominium tool will be avenues for future sale of units that would include the stocked flat as well. Okay.

What's the formula that will be used to determine how many units can be allowed per parcel?

Right. So we are getting there. So thank you so much. Yeah, you got us right there. So basically the state tiered their mandates using mainly population. And so for Lacey, that put us in the tier two bucket, one, two, and three. We're right in the middle at the tier two. So for Lacey, that means we must allow two units per lot, okay, of the middle housing types. Again, remember that a unit, for example, a duplex is two units, triplex, three units. So that's what we're talking about when we're talking about units. We also must allow up to four units per lot if and when one of those units does meet affordability requirements established by the state. And then lastly, important to know about this bill is that cities did have some latitude in how we implement this. It has been tricky, a little difficult to get our arms around at times, but we did have the option to apply objective development standards. It's just that those standards cannot be more restrictive than what we would apply or already apply for single family residents. And we can come back to that as well. if we have further questions on that. So the second piece of guiding legislation for this process, as I mentioned, is some new provisions for accessory dwelling units. So I would summarize that the main purpose of this bill is to make it easier for property owners to provide additional housing on residential lots. So a couple of sort of main changes with this new mandate. You probably recall that right now eligible lots in Lacey are allowed one ADU. Well, the state has doubled that, so we must now allow a minimum of two ADUs per qualifying residential lot. Currently, our code for square footage on ADUs has been a maximum, a maximum, correct, of 850 square feet. The state has pushed that up to mandating a minimum of 1,000 square feet.

Do HOAs, are they forced to adopt these rules?

No. So that's a great question, Councilmember Dunning. So HOAs, I'm trying to think about how to speak to this, because I'm not intimately familiar with HOAs here in Lacey. My baseline understanding is that most HOAs Probably won't allow this within their communities going forward though It will have to be allowed so new developments will have to express on their plat that you know and that falls into a Probably a language bucket that's outside of the city's purview, but that certainly certainly is a great question it's kind of fun that that the state can mandate this and we as Jurisdiction the county as jurisdiction has to follow this but an HOA doesn't

And there's a lot of HOAs in Lacey, so, yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah. I think- Observation. I think, so as Jennifer mentioned, you know, covenants that apply in a neighborhood, they're privately applied. So if somebody came to us at our permit counter and wanted to get a permit, we would issue it. So keep that in mind. Those things are privately enforced. And so, and Jennifer mentioned, moving forward in this legislation, there's requirements for new development to, they can't preclude this type of development in their subdivision. But those that have it in place, they're allowed to do that. There, I think, have been some legislative attempts to go back and say, okay, if those things are in covenants, then they no longer apply. But the state hasn't gotten to that point.

So in reality, there's still... For the city-wise, approved to do it, but the HOA can say, yeah, no, you can't do that. So it still applies to them, it's just the HOA can block it.

Correct. So if the CC&Rs are grandfathered in, if they already exist and they're already recorded, then they don't apply. Correct. Okay.

Great. And then we must allow attached and detached ADUs as well as renovations. That's not the word I was searching for. Thank you. So Lacey already finds a way for developers to get to yes with those. So, you know, the state's just clarifying and making sure that we are doing that.

I did have one more comment.

Yes.

I'll turn this into a conversation. So last time when we looked at this and we approved this and we said I think we were at 850 feet and or if somebody has a sizable garage that they could convert it, And so at this point, if they do have a 1,000-square-foot shop or garage or a 900-square-foot shop or garage, at this point, from this point forward, they cannot convert that to an ADU? Does that sound right?

No. I believe that conversions will still be allowed. I think that it's going to come back to – I'm jumping ahead a bit here, but if a developer – opts to use the infill residential development chapter that's proposed here this evening. Remember, it's that units per lot that really becomes kind of the caveat about how many units can be configured on that lot. I'm not sure if that addressed your question. So I think it would depend on how many units are proposed.

because as i look at the you know thousand square feet habitable space or gross living area um i'm thinking of you know some of the smaller units that would be you know 800 square feet or i think highline has a 750 square foot so what it is is that under the state law the city is no longer able to require accessory dwelling units to be less than a thousand square feet okay um whereas before we could go we had 850.

And the idea was, and where this originally came from, was that the term accessory means that it's subservient to the main dwelling. And so what we were seeing was at the time, and this was probably about 15 years ago, we were seeing developers come in and they were doing basically a, essentially what looked like a duplex. One side would be like 800 square feet, the other would be 700 square feet, and they'd say, okay, 800 square feet is the main unit, 700 square feet is the ADU, and they were able to then skirt around things like impact fees and connection fees and those kinds of things, because they were doing a de facto duplex, but they were calling it an accessory dwelling unit. So what we said was, okay, if you're going to do an accessory dwelling unit, you need to make it no larger than half the size of the main unit. So in this example, an 800 square foot main unit would require a 400, no larger than a 400 square foot ADU. And that, you know, visibly in the community, you know, was very acceptable because people understood, okay, here's the main unit and here's the ADU. The state of Washington has now come along and said, no, that's really what we want is we want the old version. We want these to now You know, you could have a thousand square foot main house and a thousand square foot ADU attached to it, which could look like a duplex. But, you know, they can call it an accessory dwelling unit. So it's interesting how, you know, times have changed. So we, you know, as a community decided to, you know, put in regulations to make sure ADUs were subservient to the main unit. And the state now has come along and said, well, you can't do that anymore. And so I joke with the staff and with others that the word accessory and accessory dwelling unit really doesn't mean anything anymore. I think it's more appropriate that the A and the ADU now stands for additional dwelling unit is really what we need to start thinking about in terms of an ADU rather than it being accessory to really anything. Okay.

I had a quick question real quick. It was on the last slide and I just don't think we're going to come to it.

Do you want me to go back?

It had to do with the units with the AMI for the four per lot. And it seems like obviously a lot of this one applies to new developers, but I'm trying to put my, if I were just like, let's say I bought a plot of land and I wanted to build three or four houses for my kids and move them in there, but they're not under the AMI, so how would that apply to someone who's just the individual, not the developer?

Do you guys have any thoughts on that? I see where you're going with that question.

Random scenario that might come up, you know.

And I do think Jennifer's got some slides that speak a little bit more detail to this coming up. But what I'm hearing you say would probably be more like a subdivision where you would have single-family homes. And so if you have a large lot, you'll still be able to subdivide that and then put whatever you want on those lots in terms of one unit. What this is doing is it would allow you to take one small lot and add that many units onto it, which would be potentially different if you wanted separate land ownership. I don't know if that answers your question.

I think what it's saying is if you do a fourplex on a single family lot, then one of those units has to be less than 80% of your money.

Yeah, and I'm saying what if you built it for your kids and moved your kids in there?

Yeah, and if you want to use this infill chapter that we've created, what we've tried to do, and Jennifer I'm sure is going to get to this, I don't want to preempt you here, is that we have two paths in our code. If our existing code would allow you to do that, we've left that. And then there's the option to follow this as well. So then the landowner or the developer can make the choice which path is best for them. If the existing zoning wouldn't allow that today, then they wouldn't be able to use that path, but they could get four units using the infill path. And you're probably going to speak more to that later.

Yeah, absolutely.

No, but I appreciate that because that's getting closer to what I was trying to ask about the formula that you use. So if I have a lot or parcel and... four units have been assigned to that parcel, does that mean I could have an ADU if I wanted, but then I could also have a duplex if I wanted? Just as long as I don't go over the four units that have been assigned to my piece of land.

Yes, yes.

Okay, I think that answers it.

These are really great questions, everyone, so I really appreciate.

And they're very technical in the weeds ones, so it might not ever happen, but, you know.

Really, really great stuff.

Yeah, but I was just trying to figure out how you did that formula of how many I get on my land.

I've got a slide coming up that might answer some of that. I'm listening again. But let's see. We'll see. Yeah, so I'm going to just move ahead here on this one. Okay. In 2025, I just wanted to let everybody know, Vanessa touched upon this, I believe, Senate Bill 5558 that guides timelines for GMA, specifically development regulation updates, did kind of change or accelerate our compliance deadline for these items. where we were supposed to have this adopted June of this year, 2026. That date was pushed up to December 31 of 25, a date which we were not able to meet. So we have been under state preemption, state guidelines for both the middle housing and the ADUs since January 1st. If anybody's interested to this point, there have not been any applications, just a couple of inquiries. So just wanted to share that. But we will remain under preemption until we move forward and adopt our own local code and regain local authority.

Preemption means we operate under the state regulations? That's correct.

That's correct. So regarding middle housing, the state produced an actual middle housing ordinance. So that is specifically what would need to be followed today if an applicant wanted to move forward quickly before our own local ordinance.

You have one question about ADUs and metering, which is probably the elephant in the room question. At least it is in my industry. Are we getting towards or heading towards where an ADU would be separately metered, or is it still running off the main?

Water meter is what I'm assuming you're asking about.

I am.

Yeah. So as of right now, our codes allow you to basically connect them to the primary home And this regulation is not proposed, or these code amendments are not proposing to change that, but what we are doing in practice is making sure we're communicating with applicants when they build an ADU. If they're gonna connect it, and then they want to sell it later, that's gonna result in them having to connect an independent connection. So they can make that choice when they're doing the construction because it's a lot cheaper to put that in place during construction than after the fact. So we're trying to make sure we're communicating that effectively to people and applicants.

So do they have the option right now to separately meter the ADU?

If they want to. Yeah, it does cost more money, but they absolutely can.

Okay, so they can do that. And they can do that with power as well?

And we don't regulate power, but yeah, I don't see why PSC would have any problem with that. Unless somebody else here knows differently.

Okay, so the proposed chapter 1652 in the LMC. So Staff went about this a number of different ways, a few iterations, and then collectively, and this was quite a collaborative process, thankfully, staff landed on taking these two pieces of legislation and sort of putting them together in one chapter, addressing this in one chapter, one location within our LMC. It should be, in theory, a nice way to integrate all of these new provisions into what is already our existing zoning framework. And then it creates new infill residential development options that function not as an overlay, but I would say more that function alongside what we have already. So Vanessa indicated earlier that this new chapter would provide another option for a developer to look at the both pathways and see what works best for them. And just some of the main objectives. Staff really wanted to create this consolidated residential development option and try to limit touches on making changes to what we already have that's working well in our existing zoning code. So while we had the latitude to make some development requirements, What we've done on these next two bullets is we really wanted to utilize the underlying zoning district development standards, and we wanted to retain and utilize the existing design review standards and guidelines. And then just some general improving consistency within our existing zoning standards. There was some opportunity to do that, which we'll talk about in a few slides from now. And then also while doing our best to align with the mandates that are before us.

One more question on ADUs and metering. If they have separate meters, do they have to have a separate address? Or I don't know if we've been down this road in terms of billing and like, hey, you have two meters on one bill. And I don't know if we've made it that far.

We already address them separately, mainly for emergency response purposes. We want to ensure that... the fire truck or the police officer knows where to go for the emergency.

Okay. That was easy. Thank you.

Thanks, Vanessa. Okay, so you might be asking, well, where are these going to be allowed? So a reminder that the legislation primarily reads that all residential zones where detached dwelling units or single-family homes are permitted are Um, and so when we look at our zoning districts, that really comes down to these three main districts being the low density residential, the moderate density residential, and then the Lacey historical neighborhood. Um, now you might be asking, well, what about high density residential? And we asked that too. Um, and so as we went through this process, um, staff landed on proposing that we remove detached single family development as a permitted use in the high density residential area. Some rationale to really support that or a way to look at this is that we want to be cognizant of supporting what we have in place for the intentions of the district in terms of their density and capacity objectives. So this is, you know, has become part of this process to propose this. Now, Council Member Turner, let's see if this helps answer, it may, may not. So kind of the meat and potatoes when we look at the density framework, if you will. So again, allowing up to four dwelling units only if one of the four meets an affordability requirement. So if you took that away, what are we talking about? We're talking about three by right units, okay, on the lot. And then we are proposing as part of this that the permitted housing types here in this chapter represented would be single family detached dwellings, all of the middle housing types, and then accessory dwelling units as well. And then this last one, unit combination, this is where we really feel that we've offered some flexibility here for developers. So this becomes somewhat of a mix and match approach where any combination of these housing types would be allowed. So hopefully that addresses some of your question about, yes, you could have a duplex and an ADU. You may even be able to have four ADUs with one of them affordable, four cottage units, et cetera, et cetera. So offering that flexibility if this pathway is utilized. And then another way to just kind of look at this through a comparative lens is if we look at some of the, On the left there on the screen, if we look at some of the existing allowances per lot, what it really comes down to is, again, looking at regulating housing type. So you could have a single family home on a lot or a duplex or a triplex, right? So that really regulates housing type, one type per lot. The infill residential development chapter proposes, again, you'd have those three. Buy right options for units that in the mix and match up to four we've talked about that and then a more permissive step or an additional step that staff wanted staff really wanted to make sure that we captured any Opportunity that could exist in the future for small scale fully affordable projects and so what you also will see is an allowance up to six units on a lot if and when a all of those units meet affordability requirements. So you'll see that as well. Let's just move forward here. And then regarding the design review chapters, because those were included in your packet as well, you probably see a lot of red lines there. And don't be too alarmed because the intent was not to change what was already in place. But I talked earlier about the fact that we did see an opportunity since we were in there to go ahead and modernize and update areas of the code that really probably needed it. One thing, just as an example, is there was a lot of intent language within the design review chapter, and that really probably wasn't the most appropriate area for that type of language that might be more appropriate in a comprehensive plan or some other type of land use or housing document. So that's an example of some of the code cleanup that you may see there. And then also just making sure that we're aligning standards across our housing types and establishing those clear and measurable requirements. And I back up, I apologize, I did forget to tell you at the top here, the RCW. So this RCW guides local design review requirements. And so when we look at that and the main tenant there is applying only those clear and objective standards. And so we were just really trying to pay attention and making sure that we were absolutely reflecting clear standards in our code. So for next step on this, staff would like to return at a future regular city council meeting for consideration of an ordinance adoption for these proposed amendments. So I'll pause there if we have some additional questions on this.

Does the state have any kind of rulemaking?

Was the question, does the state have any rulemaking?

Does Commerce have rulemaking for this new legislation?

They already went through that, and they've codified that within the RCW, and so that's what we're working on implementing at our level through Lacey Municipal Code. So when they passed the ledge bill, what, 2023? In 2023. They went through that effort to get it into the RCW, and now we're implementing it at the local level. I'll just add one thing as a reminder, and I'm not sure that Councilwoman Turner, you may remember, but we did get a grant out of the state for this effort a couple of years ago, about $75,000, and we spent almost two years working on outreach and engagement with the community and then obviously a number of meetings with the Planning Commission. I can't even remember how many we've had, but it's two hands worth. Planning Commission and then internal staff efforts to refine this code and language. So this has been a two and a half year adventure that Jennifer's been on to get to this place. And so there's been a lot of work to get here. It might feel fresh and new here, but it's been in our washing machine for years. Two and a half years. So Jennifer's put a lot of effort into that. So just as a reminder, there was a lot of engagement and education and work throughout the comprehensive plan process too on this. I appreciate that. Thank you.

How do you guys think this is going to affect developers and their decision to develop with us? It seems like it might make things a little bit easier for them. I want to get your opinion.

Yeah, no, I actually, we've had a couple of pre-subs where people are interested in utilizing these provisions. So I do think that the developers are aware this is coming. Every jurisdiction is required to, well, every, but a lot of jurisdictions across the state of Washington are required to adopt similar provisions. So they're starting to become models to develop infill residential. So I do think there will be some traction on those lots that make financial sense, right? And that's gonna have to do with the size of it, what kind of homes they can fit on it, what's the cost of utilities, is their utilities close, do they have to extend them far, those types of things. But we have had some interested developers and we'll see if it comes to fruition.

I thought I saw something in there about zero lot line. and us needing to allow for the zero lot line?

Yeah, so that's the unit lot subdivision provisions that are not included in this, but we have that docketed for 2027. Is that right, Ryan? Yeah, 2027. So that is a mandate that we adopt that as well. It's just got a later deadline, so that's coming up next.

I have two quick questions, and I would assume this is applying to the UGA territory and the county will be updating similar things, or it doesn't apply?

No, if you saw one of the first slides, it talked about the cities that this applied to. So we are, it applied to three different tiers of cities that had to apply, you know, different standards to each one. It only, at this point, applies to cities.

Okay. I'm glad I asked that. And then the second question was what were the three types of middle housing that we decided not to move forward with?

Oh, that's a good question. Five plex, six plex, and... a courtyard apartments. Okay. Any more questions on this one or are you guys excited to jump into manufactured home park?

Before you jump in, Jennifer, can I ask the council if they are comfortable with us bringing this back as an ordinance at a regular council meeting? Thank you.

I have one question before we get there. So it looked like, you know, when you go through it, it kind of looks like, hey, you know, as long as your outcome meets or exceeds what we have in our code, you know, you're going to be able to produce your product, right? As opposed to, hey, it has to look a certain way. And I know, you know, I hesitate to use the phrase form-based code because I don't know if form-based code applies to residential. And so it looked like we were kind of getting away from that a little bit in that, hey, you know, like if you're going to produce a product here, it doesn't all have to, you know, meet some form. But as long as your result comes out to be, you know, four or six units and the aesthetic is, Am I making sense? I think so.

So this is not a form-based code. This is a standard kind of Euclidean code that has setbacks and lock coverage requirements and height requirements and those kinds of things that are all standard. But what I will say is that, and Jennifer mentioned in the cleanup of our design guidelines is that we do have very objective standards in the design guidelines. So things like required roof pitches and siding types and window placements and porches and those kinds of things that are required. So it's not as if you can just come into any neighborhood and be like, well, we don't need to be compatible with the existing fabric of the neighborhood. There are requirements for that. And those are spelled out very clearly in the design guidelines now. It's not necessarily farm-based, but it is prescriptive in terms of what those requirements are for the way that the neighborhood would see that house from the outside.

Okay. That's what I was kind of... I didn't want it to be a situation where people are coming in and saying, hey, I can get away with this, and I can get away with that, and they'll still accept it.

So if anything, I think our design guidelines are getting more, not necessarily more restrictive, but clear and more precise in terms of their level of application. I think before we had a lot of, as Jennifer mentioned, intent language and narrative and like discussion in the code that even said, well, neighbors may not like these projects. So let's be careful when we permit them that kind of language that isn't appropriate for this level of code. we've scrubbed that, gotten rid of it, and now are very clear in terms of what you can and can't do in terms of the siding types, roof pitches, those kinds of things that I mentioned.

The one thing I'll add, while it's a requirement to amend our standards to be objective and clear so that somebody can read the code and say, this is how I get through the permit path, and there's a clear path for them to understand. The other thing that we did work really hard at is ensuring that there is still built-in flexibility. If you have a design that meets that intent and you can make that case, we still have some flexibility at our level to say, that doesn't meet that exact provision, but if you ask maybe through the director decision, we can get there with this small adjustment because you're meeting the the intent of that design standard. So Jennifer worked really hard on keeping that flexibility also built within there so that we can work with unique sites where necessary.

That was another thing I noticed. It looked like the staff is going to have a little more discretion with what's happening here and the way it's all spelled out.

I think it's about the same as previously. At least our objective was to keep it about the same.

Okay. That just made me pop another question in my head. And to answer your question, I'm comfortable moving forward with it. But I'm just wondering if from what you guys have seen, if you're seeing this more so interest on the larger scale development side or what kind of interest on just like maybe the mom and pop investor, you know, building a, because an image popped in my head when Malcolm was saying that where it's like house, house, 480Us, house, house, house, you know, like how that could look a little awkward in a neighborhood. So I was wondering what type of interest there is from you know, just someone wanting to build something for them, you know, as an investment property.

Well, I mean, we've only had the two pre-apps that have come in or pre-subs that have come in, and they've been from the same builder, but it's not been a large conglomerate, you know, national builder. It's been a smaller local builder.

And I meant more like, you know, is it going to be more... Do you foresee it being more larger scale? Not, you know, where it's like they're building... lots of duplexes or lots of fourplexes or whatever it is versus just a one-off type of... Yeah, and the intent of this is to be infill, but go ahead, Jennifer.

I was going to say the same thing. I was just going to say, you know, the intent of the legislation would be not that, you know, would be to keep these small and really true to what infill development should be. I don't see any state language right now that definitely prohibits that, so it may be interesting over time to see what happens there.

I do have one other. So we're just going to have a discussion tonight. So like over by Rainier Vista, I see this row of duplexes. And then in the middle of this row of duplexes is an empty lot, right? And it's kind of small. Right. And it's you look at it, you're like, I don't know what could fit on there, especially if we get to the zero lot line setbacks, then maybe something could go there. But are we preparing for stuff like that where, like, you know, the small lot that's half the size of this room, we can get something in there or that's what I'm trying to figure out.

I mean, it would be permitted through currently today and through this legislation if somebody could figure out how to build it or they wanted to build it on that lot.

A lot like that might make sense for something like a stacked flat, you know, so that sort of pulls in that flexibility for different housing types maybe to see what could work.

But at this point you would have to still have the five feet on either side. Okay. And the 20 in the back.

Yeah. So I'll just remind the council that none of the, overarching development standards in terms of the lot coverage has changed. So those things still apply. So things like setbacks, side, front, rear, development coverage in terms of how much you can cover the lot in impervious surface, building coverage, how much you can cover in building. So those things have not changed. So people will still have to abide by those. So that still means that we will see generally space on all sides and not develop to the to the nth degree you know basically at the kind of the same level things are developing at now so you know that for especially for smaller lots will be a barrier to potential additional units will be the maximum amount of coverage that they can have on that lot and if we get to a zero lot line situation would that change no not necessarily because with like with a zero lot line if you're talking about a building that's right on the property line then there's still a setback, but it applies to the next lot over. So you have this kind of reciprocal easement kind of idea so that it's not just, you know. It's not like right on the line. Right. We do have other options. We have townhomes and those kinds of things that you could do and attached, you know, with property lines. Those actually have property lines going down the middle of them. We do have that as an option, both under our standard zoning and as a part of this middle housing option as well.

Because as you know, I know that this is designed and our conversation is about infill and I see some of these smaller vacant lots and I'm just like thinking something should be there. But if you look at the lot, I mean, it's what, 30 feet across, you know, so nothing's going to go there. Right. And for the foreseeable future, unless we make a way for something to go there.

Okay. Are we ready to? Yeah, yeah. Again, I really do appreciate the. Okay, so are we moving on?

So it looks like we're.

Did you get your answer about whether or not we want you to come back and make this an ordinance? Is that your answer? I think so.

I'm looking. Is everybody okay? With this coming back as an ordinance.

Consensus would be to get this scheduled.

We got our questions answered.

I just wanted to make sure you got your answer.

Did Ryan give a thumbs up?

I don't think we all have any drastic changes. Mobile home parks and protections outreach and engagement plan.

All right, so, excuse me. I just wanted to remind, I don't believe all council members were here in 2023, some are of. That's when I started work with the city, and I just wanted to put a shout out to, at the time we had an intern, Gordon Gims, And Gordon came in and was assigned this project of starting to take a look at our inventory of manufactured home communities, both in the city and the urban growth area. And I do want to say he did a phenomenal job of creating, he did quite a bit of research, did a cost risk analysis specific to parks in the city. And he really set the stage for this work to be picked up again in the future, which is today. And so hopefully I'll do okay filling his shoes because he did do such a nice job and we've got a lot of information to draw from. Okay, so just level setting here. It's good to know how many parks we are talking about. So within the city of Lacey, we have a total of 12 manufactured home parks, and then the UGA gives us another 16. So these are approximate unit count numbers. This is drawn largely off of county data. Sometimes there can be some discrepancies in parks particularly. So I would say just shy of about 2,000 units. And in terms of how many people are these supporting, much more than 2,000 people, right? So many of these units are home to two or more persons. So I just wanted to just talk for a moment about why manufactured home communities are unique. Many of us may already be very familiar with this conversation as it's been growing in the last couple of years. So first and foremost, and I didn't put this on the list, but I think it's worthy to mention that within manufactured home communities historically, and being mindful that they are not all equal, but historically there has been a higher instance of vulnerable populations that have found affordable housing opportunities within parks. So it's become a really prominent and important piece, part of our overall housing landscape. So what makes these communities really unique is the tenure or the way that the homes and the land are owned. So in most cases, I'd say 80% or more of cases, individuals own their home, but they don't own the land underneath or the lot. It's sometimes called a space, just the space, lot space or pad space, so a couple of different names for that, but essentially the owner of the overall park owns the land that the homes are sitting on. So that limits a couple of things. It limits what a person can do and it also, might be jumping ahead here, but it also impacts housing security, right? And the way that folks feel about the stability of their current situation moving forward. Another thing about these communities that's pretty unique is the way that they're financed. No, I'm not an expert on this. Council Member Miller, you may be much more of an expert on these things. But anyway, typically these are harder, manufactured homes are harder to finance than say a stick-built counterpart home. I don't know, you know, I can't rattle off specifics of terms, but I can say that most of the time terms are less favorable than what you might find in a traditional stick-built home taking out, say, a 30-year mortgage. So oftentimes there's a lot more barriers to actually obtaining some kind of funding to even be able to purchase your own home, and that may even be a home that only costs $10,000 or $12,000 or $15,000, and it still might be too difficult to find financing to purchase. So that That does fall into the uniqueness of this model of housing. And then relocation. So this is really unique about manufactured homes as well, is that most of us all think, OK, they're movable. We see them going down the freeway, and sometimes we get stuck behind them. So we're all fairly aware that they are somewhat movable. What's really being found, though, in recent years is that That's a little bit misleading. Many of the homes are not able to be moved. Sometimes that has to do simply with their age and condition, making them immovable. And then also it's very costly. So moving even just a single wide older manufactured unit is going to be upwards of $15,000 or more. just to move that. And then the bigger question becomes, well, where do you move it, right? So let's move on to, again, you know, I've talked about this a little bit already, but, you know, this conversation has been increasing, getting increased momentum at the state level, at the national level, and then now here at the local level. Is this a mandate? No, this is not a mandate. But what I will say is that the state is definitely encouraging or strongly encouraging jurisdictions to start taking a very local look at conditions and then, you know, in the hopes of having some preservation discussions in the future. So some of those, some of the high level things that are really bringing attention is the fact that land values are rising, right? And as that continues to happen, redevelopment pressure becomes more real for owners or can be. I'm not going to make an assumption that that is the case for all owners. We are seeing it though vastly at a national level. We are also seeing changes in ownership here at a local level as well. Not Lacey, but local to the area, certainly in Thurston County. And then just overall growing concerns about long-term preservation of these units and what that would look like if we start to lose this source of housing within our communities. So I did want to talk a few things about the state because the state has been responsive to a couple of issues. The issue there is is simply that it's not quite broad enough yet. And so I think that's part of the charge to locals to start seeing how we might be able to come alongside and address some issues as well. So what the state really has right now and specifically the Department of Commerce is they have a relocation assistance program. And there's quite a few tools there that owners and residents, resources and tools that, you know, owners and residents can utilize. Some of that is financial resources. If you have been displaced and you need to move your home and you can move your home, there is some funding available at the state level to do that. And that really is fantastic news. The issue is that this assumes already that a park has closed. And so why we're here today is to really think about the ongoing discussion of is there anything we can do prior to a park closing so that we're not having to come back around with an emergency Band-Aid. You know, just see if there's things that we might be able to do to help sort of preserve the long-term viability of these parks. Let's just move right on. A couple of legislation, pieces of legislation I did want to just share with you. So in 2023, there was kind of a significant bill regarding manufactured homes that came out. Very, very long bill. but two highlights from that bill to share are that it expanded notice requirements specifically for park closures. So generally speaking now, there is a two-year notice required if an owner intends to sell. Now, that doesn't always mean redevelop, right? So we don't know for sure whether when a sale hits the Department of Commerce list that staff all accesses quite regularly. We aren't sure if the intention there is to redevelop, but it does help us become aware of how many parks are starting to change hands. And then another piece of that bill that was important is that it did establish an opportunity for residents to mobilize if they want to and seek funding to purchase the park and so the bill does not require that an owner sell the park to residents the owner can still have the latitude to choose whichever offer meets the owners needs what the bill does do though is simply offer that time for residents to first have the opportunity to submit an offer. So that was a pretty major improvement on the scene. And then in 2025 House Bill 1217, it's kind of been the street name, it has been referred to as the rent stabilization bill. So under this bill, specific to the manufactured housing landlord tenant laws, There is a new limit on rent increases in communities to 5% a year. There are exceptions to that, however, so I just wanted to be clear that there is a healthy list of exceptions to those rent increases, but still possibly a step in the right direction, especially for folks that are increasingly concerned about the amount of rent increases that they've had in recent years. And again, key takeaways I feel are again that the state has really given some focus to protections and relocation assistance and rent stabilization. These are all really great things. Less attention though has been focused at the local level. And so again, I'm hoping that together this is what in time we will be able to figure out. So why local engagement? Well, existing information, provides part of the picture. Staff still feels that we have some engagement left to do. So going back to my comments about Gordon Gims and the great work that he did at that time when I came on, we also did a resident survey out to all of the Park City and UGA. That gave us some really good baseline information and that survey we really looked at some demographic information and we were interested to know things like income versus total housing costs per month, et cetera. So we got some great information there. We had a fairly good amount of participants in that survey, and we gathered a lot of really good qualitative data when we, on the survey, offered just an open-ended comment box. And that was really eye-opening for staff, and I think the benefit of having done that initial survey was really just to say, okay, we're listening. We hear that there is a plethora of concerns from the resident perspective. What we didn't do in 2023 was start to engage with owners and so staff feels that that is equally as critical to engage with owners because we need to know the full story from both perspectives and then put that information together and see what comes next after that. And then I'm not going to bore you by reading through this all just to say that we already have within our comprehensive plan, our housing action plan, We already have language policies in place that really do support us taking a look at this overall concern within the manufactured home parks.

Can I make one comment real quick? Yes. And it's just in case the rest of the council doesn't know, but one of the things the RHC does, Regional Housing Council, has an opportunity fund for at-risk mobile home parks for these type of scenarios. So we are already participating in things that kind of help with this. So if anyone asks those type of questions, the county and vis-a-vis us already do have programs in place to help secure financing and stuff for at-risk mobile home parks. So just something that's good to know.

Yeah. Excellent. Thank you so much. And Ryan. I'm not sure. I would have to get back to you on that.

Did I read someplace in the packet that rent stabilization is tied to the CPI? And if so, is it CPI plus 5%?

No doubt there's a formula.

Yeah. I don't know the answer to that, but we could see if we could figure it out for you.

I don't remember it being in the packet, but I think you're correct that there's mention of it in the bill, in the rent stabilization bill.

So it's CPI plus 5%?

I don't want to say for sure, but I'd be happy to get back to you if that would be okay. Okay.

Can we go back to the last slide? How many slides do you have?

Just a couple more.

Okay. After you're done.

Okay. All right. So Ryan already covered that this is already on our CED working docket for this year, providing a couple hundred hours of staff time. The current work, as we know, has been focused on the engagement plan. I believe in your packet you were provided perhaps an executive summary, a draft. Just remember it is a draft. And then we do anticipate that future phases as we continue with this work will include policy evaluation, code considerations, and then preservation strategy development. So those are some of the main goals for this work. So as far as the proposed engagement framework, I'm just going to hit the high points here. You know, clearly staff would like engagement to be meaningful. That's the best practice and that certainly you know feels like the lacy way to do things We want to better understand the full picture and Inform these future discussions that we'd like to have around preservation So what we're proposing is sort of a to track Engagement so what I mean by to track is we'd like to continue engaging with residents and And then we'd like to open up engagement with owners, but not necessarily together. So let's take a look at a couple of reasons why that's being proposed. Residents and park owners often have different experiences and priorities. They have different concerns and barriers to participation. And they have very different relationships to housing stability and park operations. So a two-track engagement framework then is intended to support more focused and productive discussions. And then really to reduce barriers to participation. And then allow staff to tailor the outreach methods as appropriate for each group of stakeholders and ensuring meaningful ways for everybody's perspective to be heard. So with residents, what we'd like to do is we'd like to continue our survey work that we launched in 2023. So staff is working to develop a second or a subsequent survey. Questions here would be tailored just slightly differently, and we'd like to present a few potential options and see how residents would weigh back on those things. So the plan at this point is to do direct distribution of probably a QR code directing folks to a survey online. Clearly, we would also offer paper surveys or whatever the needs might be that come forward. We will make sure that everybody who wants to participate has an opportunity to do so. And then while resources are currently limited I would like to say that you know Staff would really like to consider potentially at the end of this process Maybe an open house or some kind of a wrap-up engagement so that we can kind of close the loop Particularly with residents let them know how their feedback was used what it meant to the process and where we go from here And then again, with the owners, you know, the proposal for owners is to offer more of a face-to-face or phone interview with staff, right? So we could do that a number of ways, really whatever's comfortable for owners. I do want to point out that back in 2023, you know, the initial engagement efforts really, and this is substantiated in all kinds of research as well, but We do anticipate that engagement with owners may be more challenging than engagement with residents. So staff is committed to do our best. At this point, we don't necessarily have phone numbers for owners. We do have county data, so we can reasonably paper mail a letter and or a questionnaire to owners. So that's the way that we propose to begin our outreach and then see from there what owners are willing to come forward and have a discussion with the city.

By owners, do you mean the park owners or the individual?

Thank you. That is such a good question. I do mean the park owners. Yes. Thank you. Appreciate that. So as next steps, staff would really like to consider any feedback that you may have for us this evening. We'd like to be open to suggestions for, you know, how you would like to see engagement guided. And then we'd like to return, you know, at a later date as we continue with outreach and come back with updates. So that's all I have for you, but open to questions.

Yeah, please.

The clock is ticking, and I know how hard you all have been working on this, but can you give me at least a rough idea of how we move through this and how soon we could see an ordinance come back for consideration? I know you can't put your fine pin on it.

Thank you. So our goal would be to bring something back before the council before the end of the year. I know Jennifer is going to hit the ground really hard after we got the feedback tonight doing the engagement work and trying to reach out to the owners' groups and hopefully build some connections there. And then we'll get it in front of Planning Commission if we can have some success in that engagement process. But that is our goal.

Okay. Thank you. Because this sounded like a long process.

We could make it longer, but we'll work on it.

Are you sure you can't make it any longer?

So I do want to just kind of throw out a couple things on this. You're right. In financing one of these, it it can be very difficult and very costly and the rates are not good. And so typically you're looking at a minimum of 20, 25% down. And then in addition to that, you're looking at nine to 11% to finance it. So when people buy these, They are really, I mean, it's going to be a minimum of $45,000 out of cash just to do this, and then space rent in addition to whatever it is that you're paying. And then it's even more difficult to finance if it's been moved more than once. So if it's on its second move, now you've reduced your lender pool from 100 to 10, right, because nobody wants to do a second-time move man-home. VA will do it, but very few conventional lenders will do it. So if you don't have VA benefits, good luck. I think the ideal scenario in this is if the owners, if the renters, should I say, get first right of refusal in terms of the purchase. What I do, and when I say that, I say that because I don't want to see us get put in a situation where we are trying to create or consider passing an ordinance that tells a landowner what he can and cannot do with his parcel. In that, if we go down the road of you need to make this a park in perpetuity, then I think we have a whole lot of things that we need to look at before we could even think of considering something like that. And so one of the things that I was thinking of as well was maybe if your park has a certain amount of senior citizens, you could get a senior discount from the county. I think that would be beneficial to a lot of owners who own these parks. I think that could also do some rent control in terms of how much each of these spaces is paying a month to rent this, because part of that is obviously they got to cover the taxes. and some of those other items. So the thing that I saw that was most appealing, and I'm glad that the state is making an effort, is for the renters to become the owners. And I know that If RHC does have some funding and if RHC, they could actually act as a convener for these guys to put something together where they could create a co-op or a coalition that may be able to get funding in order to buy the park, and that way they could control their own rents. based on their needs. I think that would be the ideal outcome, but I know that that is, that's not an overnight, and that's something that would have to be worked on, but they would need some guidance. And I was wondering when you guys were surveying them, did this come up at all? And is this something that they said, We would be interested in everybody, all 150 of us, paying an amount that would build a pool that we could use to leverage some dollars to be the first right of refusal buyer if this thing does get close to getting on the market.

Yeah. Well, first of all, I really appreciate that you brought this up. I didn't have any information in my slides this evening about this simply because it is a big lift to do. To answer your question, I'm going back in my memory. I had some conversations with folks as I was out going door to door. This didn't necessarily come up. However, I have had the opportunity through the Regional Housing Council to serve on the committee that developed the funding pathway out of the Opportunity Fund. And so through that process, we connected quite a bit with Rock Northwest, which is resident-owned communities at Northwest, specifically Victoria O'Banion, who is just so smart when it comes to putting these co-ops together finding ways to stack capital appropriately to make it work. But in that process, we did learn, again, really, really difficult process. There is a way, and when there's a will, there can be a way, right? We know that. And so I think, to your point, it would be a fabulous outcome for all of these communities to be owned by their residents. I do wanna say as well, however, One thing that we have learned specifically through our engagements with Rock Northwest is that when the residents do own a community, their home value doesn't necessarily increase very rapidly. So it's really more of a strategy to create housing stability over the long term. So I hope that makes sense. I'd also, you know, if there's a point in time that council is interested in having somebody from Rock Northwest talk about that, I know that, you know, we could certainly organize that as well.

I think it would be a really good work session item if we could have somebody come and just kind of tell us, inform us, so that we can make sure that we're able to communicate with the parks. And maybe we would find some interest, and maybe they would want to mobilize and put together some funds to become the owners of the park. And even if they're... It seems to me like their worry isn't necessarily that, you know, hey, I want this thing to grow and increase in value every year. It seems to be more like I don't want to have to put this thing on the back of a truck and move it to some other location.

That's what the survey said, that their two fears were rent increase and rumors of owners open to selling their property.

Yeah.

So those were the two major fears they had from that survey.

And so I guess what I'm wondering is, is there something that we can do or maybe loop in the RHC and or some other entities that would give the renters, kind of start heading them down the path of creating some leverage that they could use to not just be renters anymore and potentially be park owners. I think, in my opinion, that's the ideal outcome because it prevents us from telling somebody, your park is going to be a park in perpetuity, and it also kind of empowers the residents that already live there. Now they become owners, and I'm not sure if we can get support from maybe RAC or some of the other entities, but I would like to see... in part of this outcome that we made an effort to show them how this could be done.

If I could, Deputy Mayor, I think that's one of the things that with this engagement plan, it's setting up that process to go through it, to get that information, to bring it back to this group, to have more conversations like the ones you're starting on right now, but with more information and more details. So that way you can provide staff with direction on, you know, future, whether it's a program or a joint effort or a policy change at a future juncture. Right now, you know, staff's here to provide an overview of what that engagement is just going to look like so that we can gather the information to bring you all back more information for future conversations.

Yeah. So maybe we could look at that. And that's why I brought that up earlier because there are a lot of what you're saying is happening, but We don't know it on our end. So I think bringing ROC, if they could come out and explain what they're doing. They're doing a lot of the things you're already saying, but places just might not know about it, or the cities might not even know it's being done. We would love to know about it.

Yeah, and I think the important piece there that the city could do is provide that educational piece. There's probably a fine line being a government agency in terms of... towing that line of advocacy, if that makes sense, and just making sure that we're not appearing to be advocating for one thing over another, if that makes sense.

Right. We definitely want the appearance of fairness.

Yes.

Council Member Hsu.

Yeah, thank you. My question was regarding, like, so once we, they become owners of the park, if they choose to collectively do that, does ROC offer any training? Are there any organizations that can help them work on how to operate the park and like how to continue with its growth and like basically to kind of turn it into a little HOA so they can all manage all the common areas and these other things because once they purchase it, there's other stuff past that. Is there any organizations that we know of that helps them through that?

Absolutely, and what a great question. So I'm going to use Rock Northwest as the example again, only because I know the answer with this agency, which is yes. So if Rock Northwest does assist in the acquisition of a park, they provide 10 years of ongoing services. So that includes education and once the park has determined, say, board members or what have you. So they really do aim to... prepare the residents for managing and what ownership means, financial responsibility, putting some set aside for future infrastructure issues. So all of that really is part of their intention when they enter the picture. I would assume as well that other agencies doing this work offer something very similar.

Is that what you guys were looking for in terms of direction and

I think our main goal back to, as Shannon mentioned, if you're comfortable with our engagement approach, basically the two-prong approach, talking to owners and to residents, we will hit the ground running and come back for more discussion.

Oh, yeah, that.

One more quick thing. I'm not advocating that we jump the shark here and get out ahead of ourselves, but is there something that we can reasonably do in terms of zoning that would help protect the residents while this other process is playing out, such as if we could have a mobile home zone. It wouldn't prevent the owner from selling, but the buyer would have to continue it as a mobile home park.

And that is one of the things we have specifically identified in the engagement plan to consider as an outcome potentially, but we still want to go through the engagement effort first. Right.

Okay. And then the other thing, you know, it's great that the Housing Council has the Opportunity Fund, but it's a limited resource. I think it's what, about $2 million?

About $3 right now.

About $3 right now?

That's one thing I brought up last month is like we haven't really figured out We need to get it out there more. It's kind of been building up over the few years.

Right. And so, you know, it's only going to go so far. And the future of housing dollars is just, like, really scary. So I just don't want us to count on something that may not be there for us further down the line.

Yeah, and in using that or saying that, I think, I don't necessarily think that the Regional Housing Council should be footing any kind of a bill, but they could be a convener. In addition to that, I think it's the residents who need to pony up the money to make it happen, but they are going to need some support.

Right.

And that may be where the Regional Housing Council could come in with some support as opposed to trying to give them seed money.

Right.

I think we're just about ready to move on, but I did want to close with answering Council Member Turner's question about the rent increases. So just a quick search here. So 5% across the board, not tied to CPI is what I found.

It says most increases are tied to CPI. All residents are aware that their rents are increasing within the next six months with most increases tied to CPI. That's why I was asking the CPI question.

So for standard rent, it's 7% plus CPI, not to exceed a total of 10% per year. For mobile manufactured home parks, it's a flat 5%, not tied to CPI. And that's based on a rent stabilization fact sheet FAQ from the Housing Finance Commission that we could certainly forward on to the council if they'd like to see it. Well, I'm glad I'm not in violation.

Thank you for that.

I appreciate it. Yeah, thank you, Ryan.

Okay.

Thanks, Jennifer.

It looks like we have one more agenda item, child care centers, parking updates, and conversion of existing buildings. Hans.

Hello, everyone. I'M A SENIOR LONG RANGE PLANNER HERE AT THE CITY. I'M GOING TO RUN THROUGH A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT TOPICS RELATED TO PARKING, DAY CARE CENTERS AND THE CONVERSION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS. THESE THREE ITEMS REALLY REPRESENT DOCKET ITEMS TWO, THREE AND EIGHT FOR COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IDENTIFIED FOR UPDATING THIS YEAR. SIMILAR TO THE INFILL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT YOU GUYS RAN THROUGH AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS EVENING, These are all areas that the state has recently passed bills related to that essentially Well actually at the end of June run the potential of pre-empting the city as far as our current policies and regulations that are currently in place, so this is a puts it on a little bit of a clock as far as why we're looking at it right now. But with that in mind, within your packet, we're taking a look at, I think, seven different bills right now that relate to one of these topics, one or more of these topics, actually. There is some overlap. And your packet does have direct links to each one of those bills. So if you do want to see them in their original form, that is available to you guys. And then there is a crosswalk there that points to the Revised Code of Washington location where those bills actually have ended up now that they've been adopted. But with that in mind, we'll run through a couple of these as they relate to these different docket items. So the first area that we want to talk about is child care centers. Currently within our code today, we do allow childcare centers pretty much in all of the zones that we do have designated within the city. This bill comes along, and I should say with the caveat of our light industrial zone, and I'll get to that in a second, but this bill comes along and essentially says that these should be moving forward and outright permitted use in all of our zones with the caveat of light industrial zones and open space institutional zones. while they won't be permitted outright in those zones, we do have to create a pathway for a conditional use permit that would still allow those uses within those zones. This is Senate Bill 5509. It does touch quite a few of our different chapters because we had to actually go through line by line any time that we referenced child care centers and make sure that they are permitted. So it touches nearly all of our zoning chapters. So it's a pretty lengthy packet. But as far as the actual text changes that we're looking at, they're pretty minimal. So that is in there. I DID WANT TO FOR A MOMENT STEP OUTSIDE OF WHAT WE'RE DOING AS PART OF THE CODE AMENDMENTS AS THEY RELATE TO STATE LEVEL REQUIREMENTS AND TALK ABOUT MINI STORAGE. REASON BEING AS PART OF THE 2025 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE We did have a pretty lengthy discussion with both the Planning Commission and the community about how mini storage fits in within our different zones. Some of the takeaways and findings from those conversations is that there's a high number of mini storage uses currently within the community. They're not really a great high-level use within some of our commercial zones. The marketability of our districts, our commercial districts, does tend to be hampered to some degree by these uses existing in kind of more of our high-profile locations. And then long-term economic development strategies within a lot of our commercial zones don't align with the continuation of mini storage in a lot of places. The takeaway from the comprehensive plan was that in two of our zones, specifically the Woodland District and General Commercial District, we interpreted our current language to read that they are either not permitted currently or not a compatible use within these zones. So we didn't touch them as part of our kind of minor code amendments as part of the comprehensive plan. That said, our current planning staff has asked, since we are cracking open a lot of our different zoning chapters, including both the Woodland and General Commercial District that if we could add some more clarifying language as it relates to mini storage while we're also updating the daycare center language when we have the chapters open to be more explicit about where they're permitted and where they're not. So I did want to bring that in front of you guys just because this is an opportunity when we're opening up this section of code already to take a look at it. But it is not part of our state required work that we are doing, so. Wanted to get that in front of you. And as a helpful note, mini storage is currently permitted within our light industrial commercial districts, our mixed use high density corridor districts, and our community office districts. So while we could be potentially providing clarifying language for the Woodland District and general commercial, there are still quite a few different zones within the community where this is still a permitted use. So something to think about. Now, getting back into our STATE LEVEL MANDATES. SO THE NEXT AREA THAT WE HAD A COUPLE DIFFERENT BILLS THAT TOUCHED ON RELATED TO PARKING UPDATES. SO WE HAD SENATE BILL 6015 WHICH SPOKE TO MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS SPECIFICALLY AROUND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS. AND THEN WE ALSO HAD SENATE BILL 5184 WHICH WAS TITLED THE PARKING REFORM AND MODERNIZATION ACT. AND I'LL GO INTO ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT OF DETAIL ON BOTH OF THESE. SO THE PARKING REFORM AND MODERNIZATION ACT. actually touched on a lot of different types of uses and essentially said that you can't have... Man, this is going to be the fun part. So it's our maximum minimum, and I always get this twisted when I try to say this, but essentially it reduces our minimum... Oh, man. Ryan, I might need to tag Demian here. I'm going to get it mixed up. But essentially what it says is no more than 0.5 off-street stalls per mint multifamily units, no more than one stall per single family unit, and no more than two stalls per thousand square feet of commercial space. So within our parking chapter, we have a whole table that identifies a list of different uses, and then it's kind of a crosswalk of what is our minimum requirement of parking stalls and our maximum requirement of parking stalls. And what this does is it lowers our minimum requirement of parking stalls. Yeah, so that's hopefully a better way to say that. I will note that it doesn't touch anything to do with the Americans with Disabilities Act, so all of that would remain the same. And it does create some carve outs for religious organizations as well, so they're not as impacted by this bill. And then continuing on, it also calls out some specific types of uses where we're not allowed to require any parking. And I will note that this is while the city is no longer allowed to require parking for these types of uses, that doesn't prohibit a developer or property owner from electing to on their own to provide additional parking to meet whatever that demand that they anticipate being. But as far as our code and what's now going to be mandated, a city may not require parking for residents under 1,200 square feet, commercial spaces under 3,000 square feet, anything that would qualify as affordable housing, senior housing, child care centers, which we already talked about a little bit, ground level non-residential space in mixed use buildings. or buildings that are undergoing a change of use. And the change of use one is primarily an existing commercial building that is transitioning to a residential use, or a portion of that building is transitioning to a residential use. The caveat there is that that building likely already had some parking requirements associated with it, so you're just not allowed to require additional parking on top of what was already in place before that renovation were to take place, if that makes sense. And all of this is within your packet and also within our parking chapter, but it's specifically under Table 16T-13 is really our big breakdown of all the different types of use that we have within the city and then the allotted parking associated with those uses.

I think I remember seeing a community that kind of had these parameters and framework. It was like D.C. or Georgetown or something.

Yeah, it's likely possible. And a lot of this language is almost copied verbatim from the state level bills themselves. So the origin of where those lists of uses came from, a lot of times when planning, it is borrowed from other jurisdictions. So I wouldn't be at all surprised by that. And then moving into the conversion of existing buildings. So there's two different bills that touched on this topic. One is 1042 and it's the use of existing buildings for residential purposes. So again, this has a lot to do with conversion of existing buildings. primarily commercial uses into more of residential ones. And we're already seeing that a lot today, actually. But this is just adding some additional code language around those instances, and I'll get into that in a second. And then we also have House Bill 1183, which has to do with energy efficiency and affordable housing. AND THIS ACTUALLY HAS A LITTLE BIT MORE TO DO WITH THINGS LIKE FACADE MODULATION AND DESIGN CRITERIA FOR BUILDINGS THAT ARE UNDERGOING CONVERSION. SO LIMITING THE ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT MIGHT BE REQUIRED AS PART OF THE CONVERSION FROM ONE TYPE OF USE TO ANOTHER. SOMETIMES THE CODE LANGUAGE FROM THE STATE THAT ENDS UP UNDERNEATH THE BILL AND THE TITLE OF THAT BILL DON'T CLEANLY ALIGN. There is a little bit of kind of slotting in additional kind of bill language in kind of canopy other bills that are being advanced. So there is a little bit of a mismatch there, but there's also some discussion on other types of structures like mass timber and modular construction that we'll get into in a second here. But as far as the chapters that are actually being impacted by one or a number of these bills, I've listed these out here. Within Title 11 development procedures, the primary area that is in your packet that would be impacted by this legislation is 1109, conditional uses and permits. And that primarily has to do with the daycare language that we had to integrate with into our existing code. Moving into Title 14, building construction chapters, there's two different areas that were primarily impacted by these bills. The first one is our design review chapter, primarily in our definitions. So there's a number of new definitions including things like tall timber, modular construction that we didn't currently have within our code. So those are being either added to that section or within our definition section in Title 16 that I'll get to in a second. And then standards for parking lot construction. So there's some additional language there on the number of parking stalls that we're allowed to require for different types of uses or in different scenarios or when a building is undergoing construction or redevelopment. So there are some smaller changes in that chapter as well that you'll see in your packet. And then within Title 16, our zoning chapters, that's where the majority of these changes are gonna be taking place. There's a fair amount that actually landed in our general provisions, which is 1603. Reason being is that they're kind of one offs that don't cleanly land within one of our other chapters and our general provisions is kind of a catch all for some of those kind of standalone requirements that we had to adhere to from the state level. And then as I touched on that earlier in 14, Also within 16, our definitions chapter had to be expanded to accommodate some of the new language that the state was requiring. Just when those uses are required, if we don't have a definition that defines that use, then we had to go back and add that to our definitions as well. So there's some of that crosswalking. And then specifically chapter 1665, which is daycare facilities, there was a fair amount of update and change that took place there in response to those bills. And then 1672 is our off-street parking and loading, and that's where you'll find our big table of different uses and the minimum parking requirement and our maximum parking requirements. the state kind of went in a fair amount line by line and actually dictated how many stalls we were allowed to require in each one of those instances. So you'll see a lot of track changes in that area as well within your packet. But with that, yeah, as far as next steps, hoping to tag team with what Jennifer presented to you earlier on this evening and take this back to a regular meeting for your consideration and potential ordinance adoption. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

On the parking lot construction, does it make allowances for electric vehicle charging stations?

Interestingly, no. Not to say that there weren't allowances. It was just kind of the bills that we looked at as part of this update were pretty silent on electric vehicles. So nothing new out of those bills that we're responding to as part of this had to do with electric vehicles.

But don't we have in our climate? 5%. Yeah, 5%, so that would apply there too?

Yeah, the existing requirements that are in the building code for providing for either electric vehicle charging stations or electric vehicle ready, meaning you basically have to lay the electrical lines, but you don't have to put in the actual stations, still exist. They're just not a part of this proposal, and we are already implementing those. Okay, good.

Anybody else? See none. Well, thank you guys for coming out and staying late tonight and your presentation. A lot of information there.

So, Council, sorry, Deputy Mayor, just to confirm, just moving forward with an ordinance and just understanding, too, based on what I heard was to include the mini storage language as well. And so I just want to make sure that Council is aware of that, of having consensus to move forward with bringing that back as an ordinance.

When would we be seeing this come back? Is this again by the end of the year, same as last?

I think right now we're kind of penciling in July. I believe it's July 21st. Yeah, so we need to work with the city attorney's office to draft the ordinance. That'll be our next step based on the timeline there. Our expectation is it gives us about a month, so we'd be back July 21st for adoption.

Okay. Well, I think we have consensus. Thank you, everybody. And with that, we have reached the end of our agenda. I don't see any other agenda items. So unless somebody has any more commentary on the last agenda item, we'll call this meeting adjourned.