Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

And um I thought you said Judy. No. No. Okay. Jennifer. Jennifer. Jennifer. Three people. Yeah. So, at this point, um just for everybody, uh everybody's awareness that's on Zoom, um we're waiting for, um another planning commission member. Oh, there he is. Yeah. Who's in the audience? And we will promote them to panelist and as soon as they're here, we'll start the meeting. And there we go. Spencer, can you hear us? Okay. Sure can. Awesome.

Thank you. All right, we've got a quorum. We can go ahead and get started. All right, I am going to call to order the May 13, 2026 meeting of the Lacy Planning Commission. We do have a quorum present. We currently have four members that are absent. Um, so Erin, would you please read the land acknowledgement?

Yeah. We, the city of Lacy, are on the ancestral lands of the tribal people of the Tree of Madison Creek, including the Nisquali Indian tribe and Squawksen Island tribe. We acknowledge and remember those tribal people not recognized today who were absorbed or relocated into other tribes for survival. We recognize the ancestors and their descendants who are still here. We recognize and respect the tribal people of the treaty of Medicine Creek as the traditional stewards of this land since time immemorial and their role today in taking care of these lands in perpetuity. We recognize and have the responsibility to call attention to the histories of dispossession, force removal, and a bridge treaty rights that allow allowed our nation, state, and city to develop as they have today. We recommend that the the community members read the Medicine Creek Treaty of 1854.

Thank you so much. So, the first thing I would need an action on is a motion on tonight's agenda. So moved. Second that. Robert Dearian. All in favor? I. Awesome. And then motion on the April 22 minutes. April 2022 minutes. Sorry. To approve. Second. Kur and then Aaron. All in favor? I. Awesome. Thank you.

Okay. Public comment. Chris, are you here? Nope. Okay. And then we do have a member of public online, correct? And is she here for public comment? We didn't get anybody that that registered. So, at this point, I think we can move on to the next agenda item.

All right. Uh, commission members reports. I'm going to begin by saying we had an amazing event at the senior center a couple weeks ago um where Rick gave a state of the city and then every one of the uh commission chairs gave a report on what their committee commissions are doing. status and that we had three of the um planning commission in addition to myself that showed up. It was a really good event, was well attended and well received by the public. Any other commission members? Spencer? Yeah, I'd like to remind everybody that Inner City Transit did a overhaul of their system and redesign of service and so there's still a lot of work that's going on with that. But if you haven't checked it out, there are all new routes that will help people get throughout the county. Strong recommend. And if you have any confusion or questions about that, please reach out to any of the staff because they know that they'd love to help walk you through on finding a way to get to your destination.

Awesome. Inner City Transit has always been really really good at that. Thank you, Spencer. Okay. Any department report?

Yeah, I have a short uh report tonight. I we have a couple big agenda items that we need to get to. So, um I'll just state that um between this meeting and the last one. I attended the National Planning Conference. Um myself and our director, Vanessa Dolby, attended the National Planning Conference in Detroit. Um it was an interesting conference. I think I heard about 6,500 planners from around the country I think and even internationally attended. Um the sessions were all very good. Um but I think the highlight for me was really um the the conference was held in Detroit which I'd never spent time in before and so it was interesting to learn more about Detroit, get a tour. We I took uh two mobile tours, one um general tour of the entire city of Detroit and then another on the redevelopment of a shopping mall in Southfield, Michigan. Um sounds like

Yeah, you're aware. So, um uh both of those were were great tours. Um but you know, Detroit is a interesting place that at one point was 1.8 8 million people and is now down to 600,000. Um, and so, you know, it has a massive infrastructure to support a larger population than what lives there. And, you know, the mobile tour, you definitely see areas that are still heavily blighted from, you know, economic conditions and those kinds of things, which is interesting because you can go to one block which has maybe a single house on it that looks like it's about ready to fall down and nothing else on the entire block. and then you go two or three streets down the road and it's this beautiful old, you know, historic neighborhood with mature trees and beautiful houses. So, it's very interesting how that is, you know, affects different neighborhoods across the city. Um, the the city of Detroit has now experienced its first year of of positive population growth in 60 years. So, it's it's back growing again. Uh, which is interesting. It's growing very slowly, but it is growing in a positive direction now for the first time um you know in several decades. So, good to see. It's interesting. It's not it's it's not a good comparison to what we deal with here in Lacy, which has been what you know, ever since Lacy's incorporated, it's grown and um you know, it's and I think probably a familiar refrain for just about every city on the West Coast. um you know, we don't we've never experienced a period of really any kind of stagnation, you know, or or um you know, those kinds of things like like some of the upper Midwest has. So interesting to see how that affects the cities um up there and and that's really I think in my mind the biggest biggest kind of takeaways was from you know how they really tried to you know address those kinds of things through through different you know attracting different industries and um

you know all kinds of different programs infrastructure improvements and those kinds of things to try to attract all kinds of of folks that um you know as auto manufacturers and others have been leaving that area. So yeah, it was interesting. It was it was great great experience and a a good opportunity to go experience that. So it's a pretty cool story. I've never been there. Well, I was at the airport once. Um but you know, after watching the decline for the last 20 years and just harrowing stories and blight and all that, to watch them now coming back, it's pretty cool.

Yeah. Yep. Yep. Um, it's one of the few cities. It's I didn't realize how close to to Canada it was. It's literally across the Detroit River from Canada. In fact, you look south into Canada, which is unique. I think it's one of the few cities where you actually look south into Canada. So, um, one of the things they did talk about related to its proximity on the border there is, um, I think a vehicle will cross the border seven times before it's brought to market with all the different parts and pieces as it goes between Detroit and other places in Ontario. So, so yeah. Nice. And Judy just walked in. Thank you. Anything else? That's it.

Okay. So I am going to close our regular meeting or suspend our regular meeting and we have a public hearing on infill housing draft code amendments. I want to remind members of the public that might want to comment on this. First of all, these changes are prompted by legislative mandates. So we do not have a lot of leeway in how we implement these. We have some, but it's minimal. And um when we get to the public comment, I'm going to remind everybody you have three minutes to make your comment. Please restrict your comments to this subject. And do not say anything offensive or inflammatory. So I'm going to turn it over to Jennifer Adams, our housing coordinator. Thank you.

And we can work on sharing the screen here. I'll let you take this one. Okay. Oh, look at this expert go. Oh, that's a share a tab, I think.

Um, does anybody I've never seen this before. I haven't either. Do you have my presentation open, Catherine? Yeah. Oh, you do? Okay. And then it's just not showing up there. Okay. Interesting. So, what happens if you click on that? That's just my email. Oh, yeah. It's just your screen. No, that's new. presentations are there. Yeah. Oh, okay.

Oh, I see. I see. That's the issue is getting it cast.

So, if you click on where it says planning commission Uhhuh. and then and then click on the presentation. Does that work? No, hit share. No, it just shares the or if you go back and hit entire screen. Look at all these tech experts. Actually, can you go to the presentation and um maybe minimize the screen to see what it is where I like shrink the page and then go to the share and see if it's doing it now.

Catherine for the win. Spencer. Spencer, are you able to see the PowerPoint presentation? Okay, perfect. Okay, here we go. Nicely done. Good job. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Uh well, good evening and good evening, Spencer. Uh thank you for being here this evening. Um and good evening, chair and uh commissioners. It's really great to see everybody again. My favorite group. Um, okay. So, uh, if commission doesn't mind this evening for this particular topic, um, I have just prepared notes and I'm going to just follow along closely with those this evening. Um, just just stay on track with this item. Um, all right. So, tonight's, uh, public hearing, as as Jeff uh already indicated, uh, is for proposed chapter 1652 LMC, um, the infill residential development. um and associated code amendments related to implementation of recent state housing requirements uh for middle housing and then also for accessory dwelling units. Um so let's take a look at state requirements and just refresh uh where we've been and what we know to this point. Um so recent changes in Washington state law uh require cities to expand housing choice in in traditionally single family residential areas. Um ESSHB or House Bill 1110 requires cities to allow middle housing in residential zones where detached single family homes are permitted. Um under the legislation uh cities like Lacy must allow at least six of the nine state defined middle housing types. So together we have proposed um as a group uh reflected in our draft um the code updates uh to include uh the housing types of duplex, triplex, forplex, town homes, cottage housing and then also stacked flats. So, uh, for Lacy, uh, the forplex and the stacked flat will be a new, um, housing type. And then as a tier 2 city, which was based on population,

um, Lacy must allow two units per lot and up to four units per lot, uh, with the caveat that one of those units would have to meet affordability requirements. Um so the legislation also establishes a uh units per lot framework rather than what is traditionally used uh uh which would be units per acre um approach uh you know used here commonly in Lacy. Um so it's also important to note that only objective development standards may apply to middle housing development. Um such standards may not be more restrictive than the standards that are already in place for detached single family homes. uh these and other standards found in the RCW form the foundation for this proposed infill residential development chapter and then let's continue on and take a look at those um ADU requirements from the state um and highlight some of those. So in addition to those uh we also um as noted are taking a look at these new provisions for accessory dwelling units. So, under House Bill 1337, um cities cities are now required to allow up to two um ADUs per residential lot in qualifying residential areas. Um the legislation goes on to also in uh include um increasing the minimum allowable ADU size uh which we see an increase uh to 1,000 square ft of habitable space. Um the legislation removes owner occupancy requirements. It allows both attached and detached uh ADUs. Um and then it limits ADU impact fees to no more than 50% of the fees that are already currently established and charged uh for single family detached uh dwellings. So together the requirements for middle housing and ADUs shape the framework that staff developed um for this proposed chapter 1652 for the infill residential development.

Uh so taking a look at the local response. Um so rather than address the middle housing and the ADU requirements through separate code sections um and we did start there um if you recall and then we took a uh staff took a pivot um and we developed a proposed the proposed chapter as one consolidated uh place uh to address all of these requirements. Um so again that's including the middle housing and the accessory dwelling units all in one place. And the chapter is intended uh just really to create that single uh framework that can be applied um across all of the qualifying residential zoning uh districts and then uh reaclimating with some of the key objectives uh for this work. So um one of the major objectives was to rely on the development standards of the underlying zoning. Um so standards such as uh setbacks um height lot coverage um and then really many different design requirements all of those things will continue um to come from the city's existing uh framework that's already in place for uh design review as well as um as as well as the zoning. So the proposed chapter also utilizes existing design review standards which I was just talking about and guidelines were applicable um while also working to reduce conflicts um and inconsistencies across um related sections of the code that would impact this. Um and then an additional objective uh was also to improve consistency um across those chapters that we were touching with this work. Um and so that uh if you recall included um some part of title 14 specifically um the design review chapters um and then uh many chapters in title 16 our zoning chapter. Um and this was really uh done through

very incremental code refinements um and sort of some modernization efforts where we felt that there was opportunity to do so and if it made sense within this body of work to do so. And then um let's go ahead and reorient ourselves to kind of the the meat and potatoes of this which really is that density framework and and how that's different um compared to our legacy or our existing um code. So the proposed chapter does establish a density framework based on the number of dwelling units permitted on one single residential lot. Um, consistent with recent state legislation, the framework utilizes a units per lot approach rather than that units per acre, which we did talk about. And then under the proposed framework, up to three dwelling units may be permitted on one lot. And then a fourth may also be permitted um when one unit meets affordability requirements that are established within this chapter. Um and then if you recall, and we won't go into great detail, but um certainly it's in your packet, but if you recall, we also have left open an option to for developers to um actually develop up to six units on a lot. Uh the caveat there would be that all six units would meet the affordability standards set forth within the chapter. Um we do feel staff does feel that this offers a flexible approach um with unit combinations. Um so let's go ahead and take a look at uh maybe an example here. So um using the lowdensity residential district here as an example. Um this illustrates the practical differences between the city's existing residential zoning framework and then the proposed development um option for infill. So, under the existing zoning structure, development potential is generally tied to or has

historically been tied to a single um housing type um and lower per lot unit counts. But the proposed infill chapter creates an uh optional development development opportunity that may provide additional flexibility for redevelopment for small-cale infill projects and a broader range of housing configurations there. again. So, it's important to note that the existing zoning framework will remain in place. So, that's not going to change and that is not being proposed to change. Property owners can still continue utilizing existing zoning standards. Um, or there may be instances where they elect to use uh this proposed infill development chapter instead. And then taking a look at um you know, where have we been with this? Just a quick peek and a reminder um that um this h this item has been reviewed here by the planning commission uh over the course of months um with the most you know recent engagements uh being listed here bringing us to tonight's uh public hearing. So I know it's not a new item in other words for folks that are here tonight. And then if we uh take a take a look and just remind ourselves about kind of where we've been in our discussion process as as we've framed this up together. Um so prior prior discussions have focused not only on the proposed chapter itself but also on the related code updates uh that have been necessary to support the implementation um and then improve consistency across uh the development code. Um so this included conversations around um title 16 zoning provisions, chapter 1423, the design review standards um and then related efforts to improve objective standards um to ground things such as um you know instances of of having uh director discretion really uh grounding those and make sure that those are tied to an

objective standard um and not just you know a subjective um opinion. Um and then uh support overall code consistency and modernization. Um again where it we found that it was appropriate uh to propose to do so. Um so where have we been since our last meeting which was um a bit ago. Um staff has continued to make those small adjustments and refinements through our review process. Um and then excuse me, additional updates um have included consolidation of some duplicate definitions that were found. So we have proposed to just remove those from one uh chapter where they weren't really necessary and have those in a centralized location. So you'll see that there are in your packet as well. And then again with those um incremental um adjustments, one thing uh that staff is now proposing is the removal of the term multifamily. um from various code sections. Um another uh item that staff is proposing and this one's a little a little different is removing the standalone term single family from the definition section only. So that would have been housed in uh within the zoning in title 16. Um so these updates are intended to improve consistency with the proposed infill framework and evolving state housing terminology uh while also maintaining the city's existing residential zoning structure. U so it's important to note that the removal of the definition for single family again this does not impact the ability for detach single family homes to be built in Lacy. This is just um we might look at it as just slightly moving the needle for work to come at a later time. And then I wanted to uh talk about a couple of other important updates since

we've last met. So um staff conducted uh another you know good thorough examination of where we're at looking across code um for different things and it was found in our development code um oh I'm sorry thank you. So it was found um in our development code which is title 11 uh development procedures. Uh there was one finding that has influenced the previous draft. Um and so I did want to take some time to talk about that. Um so those staff had initially proposed and we had a conversation at our last meeting. We had proposed to remove intent sections from the code um for multiple reasons. uh one of those being that intent sections may be most appropriate for a document like the comprehensive plan. Um and so that is I believe reflected uh and and has been the direction that we have been proposing. However, um during this continued review uh it was identified here uh and I've put it here on the screen this uh little caveat here that uh indicates criteria for reszones. Um, so I'm sorry. 111350B4 uh reads characteristics of development upon the land subject to the reszone application are compatible with the purpose and or intent of the proposed zone. So this has to do again with applications for reszone and this kind of um uh how do I want to say this? Well, we're just changing direction now uh with this sort of guiding that process. This really does support leaving those intent sections for now um and then possibly addressing those in the future uh with a larger broader code modernization effort. Um let's move on to the next one. Uh so the next recommendation I got ahead of myself just a little bit there. Um so the the

new recommendation from staff would be to go ahead and retain those sections. However, we did talk about also removing those and have proposed in your packet to remove intent sections from 1423 and staff would like to move forward with that as as um as a decision for this process. Um they they really aren't needed uh within that chapter. So, you will still see that reflected. Um and then let's see, I do have an update here I wanted to talk about. Uh this is specific to uh more specific to the high residential high density residential zone. Um so during our continued review uh process, staff also identified an additional zoning consistency issue uh within this zone, the high density. Um so at this time staff is proposing removal of detached single family residential development as a permitted use within the high density um district. Um the proposed change is intended to better align permitted housing types with the district's higher density residential purpose and development expectations. Um because the proposed infill chapter is tied to areas where detached residential development is permitted. This change would also mean the infill residential development option would not apply within the highdensity residential district. staff does believe that this approach better supports the district's um intended residential density and long-term housing um uh objectives for this district. Um so gosh, we got we got to the end fairly quickly here this evening. Uh following the public hearing this evening, the planning commission um is asked to consider a recommendation uh regarding this proposed chapter 1652 um and the associated code amendments. The commission um as we see it uh this

evening has two primary options. Uh the first option uh would be to recommend that the city council uh consider the proposed amendments and the associated code updates. Uh the second option would be to direct staff to return at a future date with additional revisions. Um and then you know for further uh planning uh commission consideration based on the level of review completed to date. Uh staff is recommending the commission move forward with option one at this time and forward the proposed amendments to the city council for further review. Um Ryan and I are both available if there are any questions. Um sharing. Yes, of course. Thank you so much.

See this one. No. Right click and then end show. Show. Yay. There we go. Oh, does that work? There we go. Okay. So, I'm gonna open this up to public comment. Chris, do you have anything? Nope. What about the woman? Um,

so we do have somebody in the audience that's attending remotely. If you'd like to give public comment, um, you can do that right now. You can do that by using the raise hand function in the webinar and we'll go ahead and bring you in. If not, then there's nothing you need to do on your end. So, we'll give a second here to see if anybody uses that raise hand function. If not, we'll assume that there's no public comment. So, Miss Dominguez, do you have any public comment tonight? She's not going to be able to respond. So, Oh, okay. All right. We'll give it a few more seconds. If we don't see a raised hand, then I think it's safe to close the the hearing.

All right.

All right. I am going to close the public hearing on this matter and reopen the regular meeting. And at this point, um, the city count. So, first thing I want to remind everybody is that the legislature directed these changes be made by the end of December 2025. We are running a little late, but they understand that because they sort of fasttrack this. So, time is a little bit of the essence here. And um so we don't want to belabor this unless there's serious concerns, but I will open this up to questions for Jennifer. I'm going to start with Spencer.

Nope. Okay, Erin. Uh yeah, I guess in terms of timeliness. Um so Jennifer, you mentioned uh what was it like the the intents like in at section 11, section 16 and like you'd be looking to like a a future date of kind of redoing some of that. how how much further in the future would would that be? Um just thinking like if it would maybe counteract anything. I mean as everything that's proposed, right, it's meeting this what the state wants. So that's what's the basic part, but just making sure that there's nothing hanging there that would like interfere in any way.

So this um you know removing the intent statements from the zoning code is um is not a requirement of the state. The state's not telling us we need to do that. We we found that we needed to do that as a general cleanup part of our code. And so we got in there and we started, you know, figuring out, okay, we need to make some modifications, removing those sections. And then we discovered this title 11 that says you need to look and make sure that when you're reszoning something that it meets the intent of the zoning district as stated. The only place that that's stated is in the zoning code. So, we need to take that language and essentially bring it into our comprehensive plan as part of a future comprehensive plan amendment, which would be done likely next year. So, it would we're probably a year out from doing that, removing it from the intent statement of the zoning code, putting it in the comprehensive plan, but it doesn't affect any of the middle housing regulations or anything like that. Um, it's, you know, those intent statements are best served in the comprehensive plan and not necessarily in the zoning code. Um what we found our staff experience is that those intent statements can be used against us. Um when evaluating a a project a lot of times the public will come out and say well the intent of this zone was was X. This project does not meet that intent. So city what are you going to do about it? So it leaves the intent statement up to interpretation. It's not a hard and fast code language. It's a little bit squishy which then probably best deserves to be in the comprehensive plan.

Yeah. I think it would be much better. Intent should be in a guidance document rather than code. Yeah. And how to Yes. Judy, no questions. Kieran. Oh, good. Robert, uh, I just had a question. Two times ago, we met and high density residential wasn't going to be included. What caused you to notice this? Was it the amount of individuals for the detached single housing like it was a dimmin a dimminimous amount where it's just it doesn't really follow the intent of what high density residential is and and at this point do we not see

people even taking advantage of that caveat of a detached single housing? I always like to just kind of have numbers associated if there are any like oh there's a handful but it's not something that's being expressed. We're not we're not going to be curbing interest by by doing this amendment. I don't believe so. Um, you know, the high high

high resial high density resing off the tongue tonight, but the high high density residential um you know, no, I don't think that we are going to be um missing any opportunities there for for residential. And in fact, um I don't want to I'm struggling with the term. I I I'm just going to use not allow, I guess, you know, to not allow uh the single family detached. Again, I think just um helps support that sort of density and tension within that zone, which is kind of part of, you know, our overall housing charge, if you will, even beyond middle housing. Um and our comprehensive plan addressed a lot of that as well.

Yeah. And so, um, you know, we wanted to clarify that highdensity residential was really to meet the intent of the zone, which we just got done talking about, which is, you know, a higher density area for higher, you know, more units. So, just by way of example, our highdensity residential allows 12 plus units per acre. And so, if you think of it that way, then and that's a minimum density is 12. There is no maximum density. And so a single family residential um house on in a single family subdivision is usually around like we'll just say six maybe seven units per acre. 12 units per acre is much higher than that. And so by allowing single family in that zone, it would have um precluded being able to do more more density. Are there existing homes in highdensity residential? Absolutely. Um they're usually in older neighborhoods. Um, I'll say they're most of them are kind of centered around Panorama kind of in that area. If you think of that area of town, um, you know, if those were torn down and redeveloped, then they would have to be developed at that higher density use. Um, if somebody bought a house, they're allowed to continue that home in that area for as long as it remains. Um, if it burns down, there are existing non-conforming regulations that they wouldn't be able to rebuild in the same configuration in the same place. So, all those things remain the same. it's just upon redevelopment. Um, you know, if they tore the house down and wanted to do something different, then that's when the minimum density regulations would apply. So, for a quarter acre lot, they'd have to do like a triplex. So, if you think about um, you know, units per acre and being 12 at that minimum, a quarter of that is three three units per acre on a quarter acre lot.

Great. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Jennifer. So, what we're looking for is direction from the planning commission to council on this. So, we will need a motion to either recommend um adopting these amendments as proposed or a recommendation to not adopt these recommendations as as proposed. I move that we recommend that the city council adopt the info housing draft code amendments for dockets 04 and05 as presented.

A second Tian and Robert. Okay. It has been moved and seconded to recommend to the city council that these proposed amendments be adopted into city code. So, any further discussion? All those in favor? I unanimous. Awesome. Thank you. That's great. We got it done. Yes. Wow. Okay. I'm going to need something new to be able to keep coming back.

So, with that, I'll just before we move on to the next agenda item, uh I just want to recognize Jennifer for all of her hard work on this. Um I looked back and the first briefing to the planning commission on this was back in February of 2024. So we're over two years into this process. Um a significant amount of community outreach to start with and then now you know since the beginning of this year and even before um the the code updates which have been substantial. Um you know when I first looked at this I was like oh no big deal Jennifer you know we already allowed duplexes and triplexes. What's a forplex? And then it became, you know, this big thing about how do we, you know, um, get this into our existing code. And, um, you've done a great job of figuring out how to do that. Been very collaborative along the way and making sure we've gotten a lot of input and and, um, fantastic job. Thank you so much, um, from all of us here. So,

that goes back to you because really truly, and I've mentioned before, it has um, you know, I'm I'm not just siloed just making things up. you know the guarantee here is that you know we are working collaboratively not just in our department but in you know on some issues across departments so um it's definitely been a team uh a team approach so I also want to express my appreciation to you because you're fairly new to the city but you really get what Lacy's vibe is about and I appreciate that and your hard work thank you Jeff Well, I appreciate each one of you very much. All right. Well, you're on still on.

I'm still on. Mobile home manufactured home parks. See if Katherine can figure out this time how to She got it. Marty, thank you.

Hey, excellent job. Thank you so much. Yeah.

Okay. Well, I'm going to skip my introduction since uh since we've already been chatting this evening. So, I am fairly excited this evening. Um this is some work that I've been um you know just energized around for a while and it's really really kind of cool to see this conversation come back to the table. A number of you are new. I feel like maybe Kerrion and Judith perhaps you both were here in 2023 when we first opened this conversation. Excellent. So, I'm going to rely on your memories as well. So, jump in at any time this evening, you know, with thoughts that you may have. Um, but in your packet um so staff uh has been working to put together um a draft and again I do use that that word draft. What you see before you is not set in stone. This is, you know, our first uh starting point to start having discussions. Um uh but a lot of a lot of time and thought has gone into this um and you know how we might look at this and how we might start moving forward on engagement. Um so before we jump right into some of the specifics of the plan, which is not really my intention tonight is to not go through how you know every detail that is in the 30-page document that you have that you can cruise through. um but really to spend time in discussion and so we'll probably just cruise through some slides and then open this up and do a roundroin or you know just popcorn or or whatever comes to mind for us um because your feedback's really important. I'm really excited to see what you guys might you know have to contribute for my next step. So um let's go ahead and let's uh let's just um uh do a little level setting here on the conversation. Um so um a lot of you probably know that in the last maybe five, six or more years uh

manufactured home park preservation has been gaining um attention um and you know in increased conversations have been stirring uh at the state level at the national level and then of course now at the local level as well. Um so M bless you Chris. Sorry. Um so MHPs and uh I may use that uh acronym this evening. So um so MHPS they do represent a very unique segment um of the housing market because they often do provide some of the region's most affordable housing opportunities. Um, and something interesting about manufactured home parks compared to other types of what we might consider affordable or naturally occurring affordable housing is that manufactured home parks for whatever reasons I'm not completely clear on don't rely on any kind of public subsidy. So there is a bit of a difference there. Um so for many reasons and again this is kind of in a historical context these types of communities have um you know represented uh kind of a a pathway for lowcost home ownership opportunities. Um and and at the time you know what could have been seen as long-term housing stability. Of course today we're here because that is on shaky ground a little bit. Um so they do though serve you know again uh historically just a wide range of of household types. So uh seniors and working families um oftentimes you know folks with disabilities um uh those on fixed income. So you know a good variety of folks that have looked to this type of um home tenure um as you know a really good option for them. And one thing I did want to bring up as well, and just again to reaclimate back to the conversation, I know that

everybody here is familiar, but just in just for a refresher, typically within these parks, the tenure structure, the ownership structure is split. It's a split uh tenure, right? So, a home owner may very well own the actual unit, the manufactured home or the mobile home. We still have mobile homes. There there's a difference. um but not own the land, right? So, so the land owner continues to own the land underneath um that unit. So, that you know gets us into a little bit of a sticky ownership model. Um and then at the same time, many of these community communities have become increasingly vulnerable to redevelopment pressures. um rising land values as we know, so many infrastructure challenges, um lack of investment in appropriate and and up-to-date infrastructure. Um and then, you know, all of that generates um displacement concerns as well, particularly with the redevelopment pressures that we're seeing more and more um in communities. So, um thank you, Ryan. You so good at reminding me to do that. Um so you know as we look at well why is this work emerging or reemerging for us here since you know 2023 when we last talked um as affordability affordability challenges are continuing across our state um this is why jurisdictions are now evaluating uh the manufactured home parks within their communities starting to have broader discussions about preservation opportunity um and what that might look Like so over the past few years, local governments are starting to really explore these some different strategies. Um updating housing policies has become very popular. Of course, we've done that here in Lacy. Updating comprehensive

plans. So we're starting to see things about manufactured housing come into a multitude of plans, right, with you know some um some thought about the future. So um this this work is occurring alongside broader conversations around housing allocations for Lacy, around displacement risk. We've talked about that quite often with our comprehensive uh plan work updates that we did. Um housing supply constraints um and then again preservation of any existing affordable housing opportunities that we may still have, you know, here within our communities. So, um I also did want to, you know, the question may come up, well, is is this work mandated by this state? And and the answer there is um a soft no. Um it may come and we'll have to watch and see. Um but however, right now, the language that we're seeing come come out of the state level is basically strongly encouraged. So jurisdictions are are strongly encouraged right now to be reviewing policies, taking inventory of their, you know, of their parks, taking inventory of what the concerns are, and then starting to strategize about, you know, what what could come next um for support for these communities. Um I did want to take a look though however at our policy alignment because what is interesting to me is that um our I'm going to start with our house housing action plan which uh was released in 2021. So that was even prior to our 2023 discussion that we had here and you see that in 2022 2021 this was already on the city of city of Lacy's um action plan. So we see two items um that really clearly identify establish a program to preserve and maintain healthy and viable manufactured home parks and then we also see uh possib uh possible policy to reszone manufactured home

parks to a manufactured home park zone uh to promote their preservation. You also see those have carried over those ideas and concepts have carried over into our recent tw uh comprehensive plan update. So, we're seeing some similar language here regarding preservation of these communities. So, all to say, um, you know, these are some of the things that are helping that helped get this item onto our docket uh for this year. Um, so looking at the lacy context and the prior work, and I know that I um did uh bring this up already about 2023. Um so in 2023 um the planning commission uh began discussing this topic uh with staff um and staff went out in 2023 and if you if you recall Judy um Gordon Gims Gim Gimsey

be

yes and he was an intern here and he did some really great work uh for Lacy regarding the manufactured home parks and so what he has queued up for for me now, which is wonderful. Um, is, you know, some data. So, I've got a starting place with some of the hard data that's going to be needed to, you know, further the work. Um, facts around who the owners are, facts around, you know, um, park conditions, those kinds of things. And then when I came on board, the first thing that I got to do, um, which was actually really, really fun, um, never do it again, but it was really fun, uh, which was, you know, I asked could I do a door-to-door survey? Um, and at the time my manager said, "Yeah, you can do that." And so I spent a couple of weeks, um, it was summer, so it was nice out. And I spent a couple of weeks and I hit the ground pretty hard with, um, you know, just a flyer to insert in a door. Um, and I went around and I, um, I got pretty close to hitting almost every door within the city parks and also the UG parks. So, it was a lot of doors. Um, and if you recall, those of you that were here at the time, we did get a fairly good survey response out of that. I think we got over 350 responses. Um, and so we were able to collect some very good baseline data. Um, again, that data really just I would say the culmination of that data really just told us, yes, there are concerns and yes, those concerns are growing and this might be the time to start having conversations about things. But the data didn't go um as deep as maybe it could have. Right. So I I do believe staff does believe that there still is a lot more that we could learn to inform um the work as we move forward.

Jennifer, yes, I did get the sense if I could share with with the commission as well that um they were open to the advocacy and I think that's where the response came from.

That's a really good point, Judith. Um, and you're right, and I shared in that presentation, and I can if anybody's interested, just let me know and I can send that out to you because one of the things I I did capture, um, was a lot of those open-ended comments that, you know, we left room for that. And that really had the highest response. we got nearly a hundred uh some very lengthy open-ended comments and that was the place you know and that's what I found more and more with um engagement uh within the parks is you know folks are really looking to um have somebody listen to their grievances and so it did give an opportunity for for people to um at least feel heard um about that and we did go through every single comment and like I said we did share some of those and and they were you know some of them some of them uh very concern concerning um and uh gave us cause to to pause and you know know that we would probably be back here with a with another discussion at some point. Um so anyway, back to the the bullets here on the slide. You know, some of those um some of those things that came out of our past efforts were, you know, significant increase in the c in the housing cost burden. Um and in the case of the manufactured home um parks, two things are happening with the cost, but the primary one is that that land rental cost is what is um increasing at a rate that is not sustainable for folks. Um, as an example, uh, one local park that I've had a lot of touch points with, um, in 2023, um, had reported being at $900 a month for space rent, which was up several hundred across, you know, the last couple of years today. And I and this is um, this is what I've been told by folks there. So, you know, I I'm just going to share share what I've been told is that

newcomers to that park today are being asked to pay up to $2,300 a month for a space rent. So, you know, when we look at that, at that point, you may as well be, you know, in some other type of of housing where you might actually also own the land for that for that price. And so things are becoming quite out of balance um for what historically this tenure has you know um provided for people. So that was pretty uh pretty informing to to hear that information. And then we talked about lack of infrastructure investment um and then you know just really struggling with not not having any ownership of the land that leads to housing insecurity as those prices continue to rise. Um so lots of challenges going on. um just you know Gordon and myself as we went out and I was walking out you know looking at at parks and taking some photos here and there just for reference um you know some some problems here and there with proper waste disposal and things like that. So just a whole gamut of of concerns that seem to be growing. Um so we talked about this making our our current work plan. So I just wanted to touch on this that um currently for 2026 200 staff hours have been allocated to uh this work um which of course is starting here today with the engagement um discussion um and then future phases we anticipate you know as we get further into the work. Why are we doing this? as well so that we can have good and informed discussions around policy evaluation around code considerations and then preservation strategy development. So that's kind of what we need. We need to figure out what we need to know so that then we can you know move forward with what we want to do um about it. So let's move on. Um I think you already

the one thing I want to highlight here is um and we'll talk about it in a moment is just that this proposal I would say the main theme of this proposal is that this proposes a twotrack engagement system. Um and if if you had an opportunity to look at at it, you'll see um a resident engagement path and an owner engagement path. And there are reasons that staff has selected that and we will get into that here in just a moment. Um so we'll get into it right now in fact. So the proposed engagement framework um so it's designed uh really to gather meaningful input from all stakeholders to better understand the local conditions and concerns and then again to inform our future policy direction um and and also to support um a structured and as as and and as transparent a process as possible. Um, so that's why the two-track engagement approach. Um, and then I'd like to get into a little bit more about why. So why separate those tracks? Um, across research and I've had, you know, I've had a lot of good opportunity to research this really not important to this conversation, but just as a side note, I also uh did my thesis work um on this topic. And so it's been um it's been nice to draw on on the knowledge base that I had to bring that into the actual work. So that's been a really, you know, valuable sort of tool to have um in place to start moving those forward. Um, so residents and park owners, they often have different experiences, different priorities, different concerns, different barriers to participation, different relationships to housing stability and park operations. So they're coming from two completely different spaces. Um so a two-track

engagement framework would be intended to uh support a more focused and productive discussion uh reduce those part barriers to part participation allow staff to tailor the outreach methods very appropriately for each group um and then ensure that both perspectives are meaningfully represented which is staff staff's job right so we don't want to dismiss one group we want to make sure that there's you know opportunity for all stakeholders Um, one of the things again in in in research that indicates is um, you know, this can be this this topic can be very emotional.

Um, and so, you know, I think the reason staff is is partly recommending this choo track approach is is intentional to to to separate that emotion. um because so quickly in meetings and I'm sure we have all experienced this an emotion can really overtake or kind of throw off the direction of a meeting and we really want our time to um be used meaningfully and wisely and make sure that we get the most out of you know our engagement opportunities with folks as as we get into this work. Um so a couple of challenges um to consider with res resident engagement uh specific to resident engagement. Um some challenges to think about are variabilities across parks, right? So not our all parks are equal like not at all um are all parks equal and we've all probably seen that as we move move through our community. um they may be different in size, they're different in um uh demographics, uh different in uh you know quality of of homes, quality and upkeep of infrastructure and so on. Um and then we just talked about participation barriers. um want to be cautious when I talk talk about the resident population um to not just you know assume things but again across research you see a lot of um references to marginalized populations um and so um there there are those things to consider. Sometimes with a marginalized population, you then see things like um maybe lack of transportation, uh lack of child care in order to like participate in an engagement opportunity or an engagement activity. So things like that should be considered when we're talking about the resident engagement portion of this. Um difficulty establishing park level context. So Gordon and myself, this is one thing that we both struggled with

and I'll and I'll say it before I got here and we had a conversation. I said, I mean, how are the owners, you know, responding to you? And he said, oh, not at all. Um, and you know, and that's not not I don't mean to laugh at that, but he he really did give it his best effort. I I've got, like I said, I've got a spreadsheet with every amount of information that he was able to find. He did a great job to to really prepare that. um but difficulty in reaching owners and then difficulty in those that were reached to for them to want to engage at all with the city. Um so just want to recognize that that in and of itself may be a continued challenge as we move forward. Um and then just again we talked about the sensitive nature of discussions and how this could potentially be an emotional topic. you know, when you're talking about housing security, um you can probably see why that can get very emotional very quickly. Um so the engagement approaches as staff was um sort of forming this draft um really considering on the left you see a localized sort of park specific engagement sort of theory which would be higher touch engagement. um you know smaller coffee clatches or uh discussions with park residents. Um but you know this type of engagement takes a lot of things significant staffing time and then a lot of coordination needs and probably other resources that would include financial resources as well. We're going to get there as well. Um, also I want to I do want to say about the localized engagement. Um, again with research you do see this mentioned as a best practice, right? Especially among marginalized groups um to meet folks where they're at. As we continue to talk about this though and you see the approach for the centralized um proposal, um I just want to say that again,

how do I want to say this? um the localized approach could mean many many many meetings across many many parks. I think in that kind of a situation there's a lot of things to consider. One of them is just simply like a watered down message, right? Almost think of the telephone game and I think of like myself or other staff going out and having you know going to 24 parks three times, right? So let's just pretend 75 meetings over a year or something. um that's a lot to manage. Um and so that's part of you know the proposal for a centralized um meeting approach with residents. So that's what you see in the proposal at this point in time. Um so a shared location. I think in the packet I have an example of say like um the Lacy Community Center as um a common location not at city hall. think city hall might be, you know, a little more challenging for certain reasons. So, just a proposal there. Um, consistent facilitation and messaging. Um, you're more I'm, you know, you're more apt to get that with kind of a centralized approach. Um, and then just a more manageable, uh, structure for staff. So the proposed resident engagement structure you'll see uh references um three or more centralized community meetings each of those would have uh a clear purpose um broad notification about these meetings would go out through direct mail. Um and then whatever you know standard city commun communication methods or channels we use to get information out there. um communitywide resident survey um is proposed. Now, we just talked about having a 2023 survey. I staff has still proposed taking that a next step and seeing if we couldn't get um more

response and really be able to take a look and prioritize what the deepest needs are across parks. Um so that is is one thing proposed as well. and then multiple uh participate participation methods. So, we want to make sure that folks can um either, you know, come to um an in-person event when they're hosted or have an opportunity online to somehow participate. That isn't spelled out, you know, quite yet in the engagement plan. Um but we would want to be conscientious to make sure that there's uh multiple opportunities. And then when we take a look at the owner engagement side of the ledger um you know objectives there to better understand uh the operational aspects um ownership perspectives identifying challenges uh for an owner keeping a park uh long term as a as a manufactured home park. Um we want to explore interest in potential preservation related tools like we saw in some of the language in our comprehensive plan um or incentives. So these are conversations we'd really like to have with owners. Um and so proposed methods there are again uh you know really making this kind of a a flexible participation approach to see if we can't get owners a little bit more interested in engaging with us. So if we possibly provide some opportunities for maybe a one-on-one interview if there's interest for that um a phone call we could set up a virtual meeting or we could even you know propose to meet um in person. So I want to make sure that we are flexible enough to be able to capture any interest from owners in being involved. So implementation and resource consideration. Uh so something here I kind of kind of wanted to point out right is that really engagement um what we get out of engagement is

really going to be commensurate with the type and amount of resources that it has matched with it. So I just want to kind of put that out there. Um because though we have 200 hours allocated for this process, we don't have any budget allocated for this process. Um, now I'm not here tonight to ask for a budget. Um, so so don't don't worry about that, but it is something I do believe that we need to discuss a little bit. Um, so potential resource considerations could include, you know, just in printing and mailing if we were to do no in-person outreach and we just said we just don't have the resources. We need to handle everything through, you know, email communication and then paper mail. Just doing paper mail printing is incredibly expensive. um you know if you're trying to reach 200 doors. Um so there's a there's a significant cost in that alone. Um not to mention if we were to uh proceed with a centralized uh meeting approach there would be facility rental fees involved with that. Um we do have some translation and accessibility services through the city. I'm not completely clear on you know how those would apply to an in-person process, but nevertheless those are things to consider. and then facilitation and staffing, right? So, if we do have a proposed uh centralized engagement, let's just pretend that there's a huge turnout. Um, you know, we're going to need more than just myself or or Ryan. We would need multiple probably planning staff to be there to help facilitate smaller discussions and keep the flow going well. Um, so that brings us to where I really wanted to be tonight. Uh, so I can pass the baton to you, but I've got four questions here, and these would really help staff, uh, you know, your feedback will help staff get to the next step as we revise a plan for engagement. Um, so I'm just going to read these. The first one here, uh, the resident engagement approach. Um so we want to kind of hear

from you about what you think about a centralized meeting model. Um even though it may not represent uh the best practices across all you know language that we see out there today. Um want to look at the geographic scope. So Ryan and I had a discussion and we started talking about gosh we've got just as many parks in the urban growth area as we do in the city limits. Some of those are probably slated for a future annexation. um not sure on timelines for that. So the question then becomes, do we take this process written right now for city parks and expand that to be all-incclusive for all parks within um you know the UG as well? And then engagement resources which I just talked about um should we evaluate potential funding uh resource needs um to support this work? Um and then finally future direction. Just want to hear from you. Are there additional considerations that staff has failed to think about at this point in time? Um, so I'd like to just turn it over to you all for your thoughts and um, you know, just conversation. So,

stop. Yep. All right. So, I'm gonna start with Robert right quick. Keep the questions open. Make it smaller. Uh, sure. Catherine, how do I make it do the end show? Oh, no. What did I just do? Okay, there we go. One more. End show. Click. Right click. Oh, right click. I'm sorry. And then end show. End show. Oh, there we go. And then I can take it and see what the screen.

Okay. Thanks for now. You did it. Don't worry. Yeah, that'll work. Now we can see Spencer, too. So, that's that's perfect. So, let's start with Robert. All four questions. Yes.

Just want to make sure I don't I don't get cut off. Um, I really appreciate you taking the time to do this. As someone who grew up in a mobile home, it was an opportunity for my mom to buy her first home and then eventually buy a standalone uh home outside of a manufactured home. And I think it's it's it is worth uh exploring. I think the challenge is you talked about these uh individuals who might be experiencing like some high levels of vulnerability coming and talking to you and I come and pour out my heart and then you say thank you and we don't have any resources to actually fix anything. It there there is a potential to actually damage the relationship by getting them to open up and talk to you and then not having the resources to act on it. I also think it might be helpful for the city and again I know you all are wizards and can do a lot of things but one of the things that comes to mind is you know the cost of everything is going up and so it's hard for me anecdotally to say are these are these manufacturer home facility owners like ripping people off or are they raising costs to cover the cost of things the services provided right and I don't know the magic number of like right like as a business owner you do want like your P&Ls, your profits and loss statements like you do want to be profitable, but there's a difference between profitable and then predatory. Correct. And so I don't know if we have a way to predict have any sort of predictive model of like what it would take to run a mobile home facility of of a certain size and then basically say we think lot rent with a x% margin of profit would be $600 and people are paying $1,200. Right? that that helps us versus right now it's kind of this mysterious is this person being predatory or is this person trying to keep a business open because I know you know for locally like my family are involved in restaurants and restaurant margins are paper thin right now and so people keep

saying oh my gosh you're you're taking advantage of us by raising our prices I'm like no we're trying to keep our doors open um we're not we're not rolling in money the way that you might think because perception can be reality but sometimes perception perception, right? And so I think that would be helpful.

I really like the idea of the the incentivizing and I and I think that maybe leading with that approach of trying to get a couple park owners to actually buy into having a conversation before you full-fledged go out um might might be a nice approach where you don't have to commit quite as much time. um where if you actually get some individuals to talk to you and be a little bit more open, honest, and confidential about what would be helpful for them to maintain and and not to sell out for redevelopment. Um so I understand the the resource constraints from a centralized approach. I would just say finding locations that would be easily accessible from a bus line, especially thinking about Spencer's announcement, looking at those new inner city transit routes of from a mobile home to a place. If it's going to take me an hour and a half, I'm not coming. Right? And so being intentional of if we have it at the Lacy Community Center,

what is realistic in the surrounding area, one bus line, less than 30 minutes, maybe we target those couple parks first, right? And so thinking strategically about these centralized locations for our most vulnerable populations. Um, and I know it's intentional work and I know it takes a lot of time. Um, but I just don't wanna I don't want to put our face out there and really build a relationship just to fall short um and not be able to actually give them a step towards a solution or or a safety net or something.

Um, but I really appreciate the work because as someone who walked that path um with my family like it is a path that protects a lot of individuals um and right it is kind of the circle of life. Sometimes people start off in mobile homes and then they end their lives in mobile home communities because it's an opportunity to downsize and and protect what's still yours and still feel like you have a piece of the pie.

Um I did want to make uh just one comment um on one thing that you said and I um could share this out if anybody's interested, but Gordon did do um kind of a cash flow analysis um of the parks um at least within the city. there may be one on UG's parks as well. So that was helpful not to determine if somebody's predatory, but it was helpful to really take a look at sort of, you know, the median uh revenue being earned and then if if is there an outlier and there were for sure multiple outliers, right? And and so anyway, you know, just just just to say there might be some, you know, some baseline information we can go back to and yeah

and take a look. Thank you. Um, yeah, thinking about the UG and seeing that there's a lot of parks right on the Martinway corridor and the plans for the future development of the corridor, it seems like it would be pertinent to include those parks into the discussion. Um, and I did see, you know, incentivizing with maybe, you know, like, I don't know, gift cards or or childare. I don't know what could bring people out, but that's pretty hard to do without a budget. So, I'm hoping the city does allocate money for you to expand this this outreach.

Thank you, Karen. Judy,

um I too think you should expand to what Kurion said because I think the um incremental cost to doing that is better than missing out on learning that in the moment when everybody's got this momentum and thinking about the topic. Um so that's my first thought. Um, another thought is I think that um the residents could fear retribution um depending on what they shared um from the owners. I think they have different goals, very different goals. And I think part of the um the fear factor should be removed there. That not that they're anonymous because they want to feel heard and present and accounted for, but that their responses will somehow be animized or protected from any other discovery. I know that's a fine balance you have to do with um using public funds to collect information, but also protect it. So, I would just think that's an important factor to consider.

Yes. Thank you, Judy. Um, I was just thinking about the transportation part when you were talking about it and buses and maybe it's not I don't mean to get too tactical about it, but you know, just thinking about um inviting them to a central event for efficiency, but running a bus that's going to stop at these parks and saying, "Oh, you can catch it at your home and it's going to run this route and then it's going to drop you off when it's that takes away maybe some of the barriers of cost and interesting skills and language and all those kind of things. So

that's that's a really interesting uh thought that had not crossed my mind. That might be something that Spencer could weigh in on as well. When we get to you Spencer, let me ask you if you can get us the bus. We'll get to Spencer or too. Okay.

Uh yeah, I mean just to echo what was been saying. Yeah, just considering that yeah, these folks are yeah, some of the most vulnerable populations and have those yeah, non-traditional work schedules, maybe no access to transportation, child care. Um, if you are using the centralized meeting model, um, yeah, finding finding a way that's going to work best to to to reach as many people as possible. also yeah maximizing efficiency of your all's time and and funding resources and um and then um yeah definitely reaching out to the urban growth area ones as well because certainly if if even if annexation's a number of years away it's it and it does happen anyway at least having a plan for those uh communities when they get rolled in. Um and then kind of a thought too about the financial analysis piece and and it sounded like you'd have put together a spreadsheet of all the owners. Um

there is one.

Yeah. You know, maybe starting with the outreach targeting like if there if there are still local quote unquote mom and pop owners um as they you know that might be more amenable amendable compared to like an investor group in California. Um, and you know, there's there's maybe more opportunity there to engage with them. And those are the folks that may, you know, they they probably still have some of that tenant landlord uh disparity there, but maybe those mom and pop folks are also feeling that the increased prices, that push from investors, that's that makes them vulnerable, I guess, in a sense, as well, which then puts the community at a vulnerable vulnerability risk. So maybe yeah trying to target those folks for those those owners for outreach on that in that owner track and then um you know that might inform some of the resident track as well. But um otherwise no I think o overall yeah the the the draft plan so far I think is is a good good approach.

Spencer.

Yeah. Hi. There might be some conflicts of interest with inter city transit providing a bus because I know there's some statutes about for higher transportation, but it's something I will absolutely pass on and we'll see if that is something we can do because I know that we do arrange it on occasion, but I'm just not sure about what the regulations specify qualifies versus what doesn't. So, I I will I will again pass that forward for you. And then my only comment was going to be basically on the theme that's been talked about quite a bit right now of strategies to find ways to include the most marginalized and vulnerable groups. And I think that that's already been well discussed. So I have nothing further to add on that.

Thank you. Oh boy. Let me have it. I'm ready.

Yeah. I I've been dealing in land use issues for 40 years and manufactured housing has always been a touch point, right? Because like Robert said, it is it it does offer an opportunity for some of our lowest income residents to have housing. It also offers a lot of people that first step to future home ownership. That's how my wife and I got started was owning a manufactured home to be able to then step up. And that of course requires some appreciation and value so that you can have that leverage. And going around and in in the years that I I I was working at the assessor's office and talking to not just uh mobile home park owners, managers, but also residents. Um there is there's some parks where the owner really really is really good about engaging with the residents and making sure they're aware of what's going on and stuff. But there is also a lot of fear on the part of residents, especially as the city continues to grow that these residents are fearful that they're going to lose this affordable option that they have. And you made a there's a distinction between mobile homes and manufactured homes. And there is. And the first change big change came in 76 1976 for those of you that were born in this century. Uh and the second huge change came with the HUD regulations in 1982, right? And so there are some homes that are located in these parks right now that cannot be relocated anywhere

because they don't meet standards that that will allow that. And and so that's where some of the mobile home park owners feel like they're stuck, right? Because I've I still have this 1968 home at on this lot that's perfectly livable, but if this park closes, that home has nowhere to go. And so then that resident has nowhere to go. And and I'm not trying to get too wordy here or or or to ramble too much, but I just want to say we've got two distinct groups here. And that is the residents and owners of the homes and then the owners of the parks. And the owners of the homes definitely need to be heard. And what they don't need to Robert's point is they don't need to come to a meeting and be very vulnerable in what they're stating and then whatever comes out of whatever we're doing, they feel like they were never heard in the first place.

So, we've got to avoid that at all cost. The owners, you you you've got a broad set of owners. because some owners they're so concerned with wanting to make sure that this housing is preserved, right? And I'm thinking of uh is it Mountain View Estates off Yway? Yeah. Yeah. The owner of that park and he also owns W um Westwood. The one off Row. That one doesn't ring a bell to me. The one at the end of 45th. Gotcha. Okay.

Yeah. Yeah. very very concerned about preserving those homes for these reasons that we've been talking about. They're affordable. It's a nice neighborhood that owner works very, very hard to maintain that neighborhood so it stays nice. And what they don't want as they're getting closer to retirement is to face the prospect of either selling that for commercial development or just closing it. Right? So, we've got to keep that in mind as well. And then you have other institutional owners that are in it for profit. And I don't know how many mobile home park owners are predatory, I would say that's a very, very small number, but they have to meet their obligations as well. And if they've had to go out and take a loan to make, say, infrastructure improvements in the park, they're going to meet that nut. So, we need to make sure that that we're keeping all of that in mind as we're working through this. As far as the meetings for the residents, I would say I like Judy's plan. I didn't even think about that. If we could get transportation for them to come to like the community center, right? Otherwise, my suggestion would be we pick three or four of the schools and because the rent for those to us as a government agency is minimal. And so then you are regionalizing it because then you're you're not just getting a room full of residents from all over the the city. you're getting residents that are in that area that are probably going to bring concerns that are unique to the area that they're in. Okay. For the owners, you can do a um centralized meeting at the community center, right? If they're interested in

putting their input in, they'll show up. Um and that's not to be cavalier about it, but but they have more resources than than most of their residents. Um, but I've seen those meetings be very, very productive as well. So, I'm going to stop.

Well, first of all, u thank you uh for your thoughtful input on this. Um, all things um will be considered as we move forward and so it I' I've heard a lot of common themes tonight. So, I just and thank you Spencer as well. I don't want to leave you out of anything here. Um, I did want to real quick, and I know we're at 7:30, but I did want to share an experience uh that I had um I just feel like it it's appropriate to the conversation we're having. Um, and you know, may have influenced a bit of the direction of the draft as well, which is, um, there is one uh, one park uh, here in Lazy who's been very active. there's a just a handful and by handful I mean three uh folks who have actively called me you know multiple times a month across a year and a half or so. Um, and so those have become very familiar folks, uh, you know, uh, to me. And so, um, I told Ryan, I said, you know, I'd like to, this was a couple months back, and I said, you know, I'd like to take this opportunity with this semi- relationship that I've started to build with these three folks who, you know, they seem like the touch points across their park and seem to kind of know what's going on. Um, so I'd like to just get together with them just very very informally, you know, and have a discussion about preparing for appropriate engagement. So in my mind, I was really looking to learn, you know, what kind of demographics would I be would we be anticipating? Um, you know, would interpretation be needed? Sort of some of those highlevel things that I was hoping to learn that day. Um, and I decided to best practice approach and uh asked if I could meet them. They're at their community. They were happy to accommodate that in there. They happen to have a community room. That's the other thing is not all parks that I've been to have a community space, but this one did. They said, "Come on down. We'll be ready with our coffee." Um, and I did. And when I

showed up, instead of three people, there were um 11. And then a 12th one, a 12th person came in later. The issue there was that a I wasn't prepared for a formal uh discussion and folks were there and they were ready and they had pen and paper. I mean I'm not kidding. They were ready for the city to take action like today. What I learned from that experience was really important for me on multiple levels. But one thing that I really learned there was it was beyond challenging to I didn't have a strategy because I wasn't anticipating that. So that that could there could be more prep, you know, that that goes in into preparing for something like that. I did the best I could and I thought I did pretty darn good for, you know, just off the cuff. But um at the same time, what I learned was a the biggest desire is to air grievances, right? That's the first thing that folks want to do. Understandable. What I have continued to do with the three folks that I've been talking to for over a year is re reassure them that the grievances they have so far are grievances that need to be directed to the attorney general uh the attorney general's office which they are also doing. And so I'm, you know, giving them kudos for going in the right direction with that sort of bucket of grievances because those are things that are outside the city's scope. Um, and so when we come back to thinking about future engagement, um, what I feel that I learned from that, um, is really need to be very prepared in our plan to stay focused on what the city can do. So I think before we just you know start opening doors to big conversations all engagement moving forward with res the resident group needs to be very prepared very laid out so that we can

more easily get folks back on track. So, I don't know, Robert, if I'm sort of in the same conversation that you were in because you made some really good points about how things can go ary and you might lose some credibility when you're actually think that you're trying to do the right thing and that makes a lot of sense to me. Um, and so, but I wonder if, you know, if we do some level setting from the from the beginning, I wonder if that could help um minimize um, you know, that potential. In other words, if folks come already knowing, hey, we're focusing on three things at this meeting. Um, you know, we're going to focus on whether or not we should do a zone overlay, see if there's interest in that or whatever those two or three things are. So, I just want to make sure that that work comes prior and becomes solid in the plan before we, you know, move on to actually engaging folks. So, just just some thoughts there with that.

Thank you. So, I I got a couple more things. So, so the first thing is for those of you that don't know when I referred to the 1968 homemat, I was not referring to a 1968 small home. Homem was actually a brand of manufactured home at that time. So, u So, I wasn't trying to to denigrate anybody, but the other recommendation I would have for staff is to uh before you start anything, uh use the Department of Commerce as a resource. For the last five years, they have been doing an extensive amount of work on manufactured housing as an affordable option and there's no sense reinventing the wheel if they've already done it.

Right. And so Jeeoff, you make a great point and I'm on it. I'm on that which is great. So we're aligning there. Um, and I was going to comment earlier, um, uh, so, um, I've actually met, uh, Bridget, uh, Henderson, uh, with the Department of Commerce in this, uh, section in the manufactured housing section, and she's, uh, a lovely woman, very informed, and so she she was, you know, helped me become more informed. Um and this is not a disparaging comment about commerce um by any means because they are developing um a program for support. I do though however um there are some gaps in the program uh what they have right now. So the offerings that commerce has currently really have to do more with when somebody is displaced. Um and at that point then they have some amount of resources that they can step in and for example try to help financially if you're able to move your unit. Now we already sort of discussed briefly that in some cases nearly impossible to move a unit in all cases incredibly expensive. So where the department of commerce may offer $10,000 to you to move a unit in reality it may be 25,000. So coming up with that extra 15,000 may not be a possibility for somebody who's faced with, you know, and then where do you put it, right? So again, great resources coming out of commerce. One thing that I have really read through and continue to read through is their engagement process with stakeholders. Um, and they were able to go fairly deep with that. And so there's a lot that can be gleaned from that as well. So

yeah, and I know more of their focus has been on the owners and trying to reserve the parks. Yes. as opposed to dealing with the residents. So, yes, they've got they've got more of a Sure. And local level on it where we're on the ground. Absolutely. But I do appreciate you bringing that up and yes, staff is is definitely considering their resources as well. All right. Well, thank you so much. You're welcome. Thank you. Been awesome.

So, uh, our next meeting is the 27th of May. I will not be here. Um, but everybody, this has been awesome tonight. Thank you. Have a great evening and we'll see you soon. Thanks, Spencer. Thanks, Chris.