Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Okay. Uh welcome to planning commission meeting for February 18th. Uh we will now uh we are recording and let's say the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God and justice for all. So, uh let's see. Uh let's let's do our roll call. Uh Commissioner Connor Davis

present. Commissioner Sauls. Oh, yeah. President, you have to uh hold it down until it starts flashing. There you go. Okay. Commissioner Huxford uh here. Thank you. Uh and Commissioner Lundowski here. Commissioner Der here. And I've been told that Commissioner Jennifer Davis is unable to make it tonight and she has informed us. And so I would uh ask for a motion to excuse her. So moved. Second. And it's moved and seconded. All in favor? I I opposed. And that was Hexford and Salt.

Salt. And let's see. Our agenda uh is um guest business. Uh is there anyone? There's no one in the room. Is there anyone online?

There's not. Okay. Um, we have minutes in our packet for the uh for our last meeting on January 21st. And what does anyone have any comments or changes to suggest to these uh minutes? If not, uh, if we could have a motion to pass the minutes. Commissioner Der would move to approve the minutes of the January 21st, 2026 meeting. Do I hear a second?

Commissioner Sell second. Uh great. Uh and vote. Uh those in favor? I I

Any opposed? All right. So we have uh we don't have minutes from the combined meeting that we had with the uh with the city council but uh I guess that does matter. Okay. So now we are going into the public hearing portion. I am not familiar exactly with the precise wording. I'm I'm assuming that I say we are now opening the public hearing for the uh comprehensive plan docket. uh for putting items on the docket. Uh so doing great.

Okay. And so we are opening the public hearing. Okay. Um so uh I guess uh planner Levitan if you have any details on that. I think that uh we we do have uh an action item associated with this that we do need to pass a motion, but uh we'll get to that at the appropriate time. Yeah. That is correct. Chair Morton, uh David Levitan, uh principal planner. So we are here tonight for a public hearing uh to review and hopefully forward a recommendation from the planning commission on to the city council regarding ratification of the 2026 comprehensive plan docket. Uh so I'm just going to give a real quick overview um and then happy to answer any questions. So, especially for those of you that are new this year to the planning commission, the docketing process is something that's um outlined within the growth management act. And basically, it allows cities an opportunity on an annual basis outside of say a periodic update or some other kind of minor exceptions uh where the city can update its comprehensive plan and its future land use map on that annual basis. Uh so this is all outlined within chapter 1, the introduction to the comprehensive plan which was last uh updated on a periodic basis back in November of 2024. So basically the city is required to um circulate and make uh issue public notice that uh we are receiving and accepting applications for both citizen initiated uh comp plan amendments and also city initiated ones. So, we did publish on our website, distributed through uh the city's newsletter, um a couple other channels to make the public

aware that we were accepting these applications. Uh those the deadlines for those applications from the public was January 31st and we did not receive any citizen initiated ones. Uh you'll see in your packet tonight that there are um three proposed uh text amendments T1 through T3 as well as uh three map amendments which are M1 through M3. So those are all city initiated and uh the analysis of those is included in attachments 1 through 4. Um, so as noted, the planning commission holds a public hearing, um, takes action via recommendation to city council and then the city council holds a separate public hearing and ultimately adopts a resolution to ratify that year's comprehensive plan docket. So, just looking at uh the items that are included this year, we have a couple of new map amendments uh for recently acquired city properties, and I'm going to go through those. And then all of the text amendments are essentially carryovers from last year. We did ratify the docket in 2025, but because uh the [clears throat] pros plan, the parks, recreation, and open space plan uh has yet to be adopted yet, and because the city um didn't get through all of its work on subaria plans, which is going to be co carrying forward, all of the text amendments that are included in T1 through T3 are essentially carryovers from last year. Uh the docket was ratified but never adopted. So, we're just going to move those forward to 2026. And then this map amendment M1 is one of two new map amendments. So this is a recently acquired property that the parks department picked up. Uh the city's going to be doing a master planning process for Eagle Ridge Park. So this is just uh basically there was not exactly a donut hole, but a little

hole in the park. Uh the rest of it was already owned by the city. Um and now the city acquired that property I think last spring. And so it currently has a land use designation of medium density residential and a zoning designation of R812 um which is a primarily single family kind of small lot uh zoning designation. So the proposal as part of the 2026 docket is to revise the land use designation to public semi-public with a corresponding zoning designation of public semi-public as well. That would be consistent with the comprehensive plan goals and policies which call for all publiclyowned properties to have that designation of public semi-public. Um, attachment two includes an analysis of how this meets the uh, ratification criteria. So, happy to answer any questions, but that's a pretty straightforward one. Uh, similarly, a map amendment M2 was donated to the city um, in I believe over the summer, summer of 2025 or maybe in the fall of 2025. It's expected to be utilized by the public works department. um uh the kind of the facilities and kind of maintenance team there. It has the same uh land use and zoning designations as map amendment M1. Uh so this is on 103rd Avenue Southeast just uh south of uh South Lake Stevens Road. And so um also proposing a map amendment, a land use map amendment and a corresponding zoning map amendment to public semi-public which again would reflect the comprehensive plan policy that calls for all city and publicly owned properties

to have uh that land use designation of public semi-public and that ratification criteria is analyzed in attachment three. This is a carryover from last year. So, this is just north of here. They're at fire station 81. This is kind of a weird site because the zoning is correct. The entire fire station is zoned public semi-public. But when you look at the land use designations, there's four parcels there. And the two northern parcels have the public semi-public land use designation, but the two southern parcels are currently zoned uh downtown local have a land use designation of downtown local commerce. And so this proposal is just the land use map amendment. There is no corresponding zoning map amendment because the uh appropriate zoning is already in place. So, this would change just those two southern parcels there on the fire station from that uh downtown local commerce designation to public semi-public and attachment four includes an analysis of the ratification criteria and then the text amendments. Uh so T1 through T3 so as mentioned these are carryovers largely from last year. There will be some additional updates to reflect updated demographic information um general administrative updates but T1 is uh we had identified some changes to our sub area plans. So we have the three sub area plans uh downtown Lake Stevens which was adopted in 2018 and then Lake Stevens Center uh which is the Frontier Village area and surrounding areas and then 20th Street Southeast Corridor sub area. Uh the latter two were both adopted in 2012 and there haven't really been a whole lot of updates to the plan

since then. Uh we made a number of changes with the 2024 comp plan periodic updates and those have not been reflected in updated sub area plans. So this was work that we had identified for last year. We're carrying forward uh to 2026. So we'll be updating maps and goals and policies to make sure that there's internal consistency. um and that they reflect basically we're going to be doing some additional analysis on things like permissible uses and how it can help us to get to our growth targets. So making sure that the sub area plans are reflective of city goals, policies and priorities. Um the sub areas are identified as kind of the in addition to the industrial area which we're going to be doing some uh sub area planning for as well. Um the sub area plans is where most of our commercial and employment zoning is. So they're really important as far as helping us to meet our growth targets over the next 20 years. So making sure um you know that things uh like design and uses and all of that uh reflect how the city wants those areas to grow and how they can accommodate the employment growth as well as the housing and population growth that is projected over the next 20 years. So that's amendment T1. Uh T2 is kind of we have this every year. Um it's just kind of the standard annual administrative updates. Um, we update the capital facilities plan. Uh, we have a six-year plan and then a 20-year plan. We do that on an annual basis to make sure that it uh stays fresh and that it reflects the most current list of capital projects uh within the comprehensive plan and then we generally go through the rest of the document. we don't have to make as many changes this year um because we had such a major update back in 2024, but just making sure that the demographics are correct

and kind of all the other general administrative updates. So, that's amendment T2. And then amendment T3 is updating the parks element to reflect the upcoming uh adoption by the city council of the parks, recreation, and open space plan. So the pros plan um kind of is related to the comprehensive plan and we plan to in adopt it by reference and then incorporate kind of a a a reduced version. The pros plan is pretty long. It's like 100 pages long. So we don't want that to be the parks element. But essentially what we're looking is doing is making sure that the parks element and the pros plan are consistent. So, the pros plan is scheduled likely to be adopted uh probably in in April of 2026. Um because it's not part officially of the comprehensive plan, it doesn't need to come through the planning commission for official adoption by ordinance. The pros plan will actually be adopted by resolution because it's not a comprehensive plan document. But we can when we get to our work on the parks elements uh adopt that document by reference similar to what we did with the housing action plan um that the kind of the planning commission was the driving force behind back in 2023. That's not technically one of the elements but it's adopted by reference and it really served as the foundation for the housing element that was adopted subsequently in 2024. So, the parks department uh has requested to come back during one of your March meetings to give a little bit more detail on that process. Uh the parks and recreation board, I believe, is scheduled um to make their recommendation on that plan either at their March or their April meeting. Um and then, yeah, you'll be

you'll be seeing that plan and reviewing that plan as it relates to the parks element. We didn't make a whole lot of changes to the parks element as part of the 2024 periodic update because we knew the pros plan was coming down the pipeline that they were going to be looking at things like levels of service and how to measure basically how how parks serve the population, the residents and the businesses of Lake Stevens. So, um yeah, that should be a pretty interesting one and just making sure that we have internal consistency between those two documents. Um and then yeah, we were required to do an analysis of the ratific ratification criteria for the text amendments as well. So that's included in attachment one and found to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. So this being a public hearing, we were required to notice uh the meeting publicly. So that was issued uh back on February 6th and then again on February 13th. Um the city has not received any comments on the proposed docket as of today. Um doesn't look like there's anybody here, but there being a this being a public hearing, there is an opportunity for all testimony. Um this the docket um as a minor land use action where there's basically we're not taking any formal action on a development proposal is exempt from the state environmental policy act. Um and then at the conclusion of this hearing, the planning commission is asked to uh forward a recommendation to the city council either to ratify the docket as proposed or with any proposed changes. Um and just to be very clear, this is just ratifying the docu docket. We still have to do all the work related to the analysis and how we're going to make the changes and what the substance of those changes is. So this is just for ratification. and it's it doesn't amend

the comprehensive plan at this time. And so with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Okay, this is Commissioner Morton. Um yeah, this is our discussion time. Um does anybody have any questions or comments? Did we have anybody online? Okay, [clears throat] this Commissioner SS just a another learning moment here. So on M2 um for the part that is the I did a quick like Google map search. I didn't use Scopy to see how many acres is that M2 uh the M2. Did you say 10?

Yeah. And was is there an easement running through that that from an aerial it looks like? Is it some type of public utility?

Okay. Okay. The reason I'm asking that is again I don't know that anyone's sounding an alarm about the UG, but I know a joint meeting we were having a conversation about as state continues to push goals out. Um how do we do it? And um I understand capital facilities need to be built to provide services for the city. Um and I guess there's still going to be process you said to look at the property. Um my only thought was 10 acres. Is that even developable? But if that is a easement for utilities, most likely I would assume you cannot develop. Yeah, it's a relative proximity.

It's a pretty heavily encumbered site between the easements and critical areas and and that. So that I think is factored in to the decision for it to be donated to the city that there wasn't really a whole lot that could be done with it. Um and so there is kind of the eastern part along 103 that has the potential for kind of a smallcale operation but uh yeah it doesn't you know we wouldn't consider that to have really potential for either employment or housing. Uh okay in the I figured as such but this being the first time for me to have seen it I just wanted to ask that question because it looked like a large swath of land. So thank you very much.

Yeah thanks for the question. I appreciate it. I have a learning question too for the same property. This is um Commissioner Luwendowski. When someone donates land to the city, I don't know, do they still have to like pay $1 like when you do a car or can you just tell me a little bit about that process? In this case, it was truly a donation. So, the city isn't [clears throat] providing any compensation. There are times that there might be instances that the city does purchases as you're describing for amount, but this is truly a donation.

Thanks. Uh this is Commissioner Der. Just a quick question. These are all city uh originated uh moves. Uh is there a time or or did we just not receive any citizen or resident uh uh instigated requests for land use changes?

Yeah, we didn't receive any this year uh either map amendments or text amendments. Um so we do we try to get the word out, you know, via social media, via the city's kind of the newsletter that goes out. We put it on the website. We have a docketing website. we kind of have run a little news flash. Um so there are ways that we try to get the word out. We we don't typically get um we've had them off and on. Uh there definitely are [clears throat] commissioners here that have had citizen initiated ones. We had one down on 20th Street Southeast a couple years ago, I think, as part of the 22 or 23 docket. But um yeah, and we had some where people were potentially interested um you know where they had we'll just be talking to somebody at the counter and we'll be like well that you know that needs more than just a zoning map amendment that would need a land use map amendment and you can only do that on an annual basis. And so we make sure to make people aware when they're inquiring about properties. Hey, if you want to do that you would need to basically propose that it be included on the docket. Um, but we didn't receive any applications.

Thank you. So, this is Commissioner Morton. I have a question. Uh, this this little triangle, it's by the fire station. Is that already owned by the fire station or by the city or who actually owns it already? Uh that's that's by the fire station, but basically the policy is um that any publicly owned properties should should have that land use designation. So whether it's, you know, the fire district, whether it's the sewer district, basically we're trying to make all of those properties have that designation. Okay. I'm sorry. Could you repeat that? I didn't hear you say it's already owned by the city. Yeah, it's all Okay.

It's owned by the fire by the fire district. Yeah. So the the policy about about that public semi-public designation applies not just to city-owned parcels but also to fire district owned parcels, sewer district owned parcels. If there was anything owned by Snomish County, basically the policy is any publicly owned property should have that designation.

Commissioner SS again. And then barring any growth from the fire district that would use that property, is there anything that precludes someone from be able to come back and ask for a reszoning of that for commercial that it currently is? Cuz I know there's been conversations about continuing to develop I guess this would be our downtown. Um, and that being a potential developable piece of property. So if it goes to this designation, could it then be reszoned if all the parties agreed? Uh well, so this one is weird because it already has the public semi-public zoning for all four parcels. It just two of the four parcels, the land use designation doesn't match up. So that it's actually, you know, kind of isn't consistent with the growth management act and that your land use and your zoning are in conflict with one another. And so we just want to make sure that we clean that up. But there are plans from the fire station, you know, for a new fire station there. Um and so um yeah, this would serve that public use and we um you know within chapter 1440 of the municipal code, that's where we outline our permissible uses. And so again, it already has that public semi-public and there there are certain types, you know, there's a variety of uses that can be within the public semi-public zone, but it's generally intended for public facilities. Short short answer though if the fire district in 20 years is more use [clears throat] for that property could be surplus sold and a resone process to something other than public. Okay.

I have a couple questions and I'm not sure if I want to hold them until we're out of public hearing or not. Uh Commissioner Davis, do you have anything before I decide? You gave me no time to decide. No, I appreciate that. [laughter] I'm just kidding. Um, okay. Well, let's um I'll wait until after we close the public hearing. Okay. So, yeah, maybe just um for sort of a point of order, we go through the staff presentation. You sort of um have your your brief comments. Your in-depth discussion should happen after you've called for public. Okay. You loosely ask if there was anybody online, but you should open up the public Okay.

Comment portion and then close that and then you can continue your deliberation rewards in action. Okay. So, uh in this public hearing we'll open for public comment. Is there anyone online? That's not okay. I will then close the public comment and we will close the public hearing. And that doesn't require a vote, does it? No. Okay. Okay. Public hearing closed. Commissioner Huxford. Thank you. I appreciate that. Um the Eagle Point Ridge

Eagle Ridge is a no-brainer. That's I mean in my opinion. Um it's been sitting there for a long time waiting for that to happen. The public works piece of property. My concern there and there are two of them. one, it butts up to residential. And so my concerns are even though it is an easement, even though it is a a thoroughfare for other things that um I just want to be cognizant of the fact that there are going to be people that look out onto whatever winds up being there. So um not that that can be ours to help design, but I just wanted it made public that there it is it is butting up to residential. I also wanted to ask the question is there and we've done this in the past as a matter of fact it'll come up in the next with the triangle but is there any sort of trade um not necessarily to the person that donated this property but in the city's thinking of where we take um that medium density somewhere else. And I know that this was never going to be developed. I get it. it was cumbersome to do so. But uh if we're giving up 10 acres of usable land, is there something in the foreseeable future that's going to backfill that so that again we don't come off of our quotas? I I think generally speaking when we have done our buildable land survey we go through a process where we identify parcels like this that have limited potential and as we've talked about in previous meetings within that general medium density we're sort of over our target. So if you were to look at that site, I don't know the exact number, but there's less than half an acre of

buildable property. So really, we're not talking a large number, and in that particular target, it's not an issue. So it should not come back and be

I appreciate the clarification. We've swapped zoning before and I regret to this day that vote. Um, moving on to the triangle piece of property. going back in history. Again, I know how that became um awarded to the fire district. Um it has since been used for parking for local businesses. Um and I know that that was not the intent of the um people that bequeafd that property. Uh what is the um what does this zoning do now for the usability of that space? Um

I mean yeah as uh planner Levitan has already discussed it is for a public purpose to construct a fire um department will be there. So a fire station will be located on that property and the previous use of that is parking has never been a formalized or recognized use. So it doesn't have any type of prior standing. So exactly. Okay. Thank you. Needed to say it out loud. Appreciate you.

So a re suggestion that the the property that the the triangleshaped property south of 22nd Street is going to be that's going to be developed as the new fire department. Yes. Okay. the property north, the existing fire department is that's just being leveled and they are expanding their station there to increase getting a little off topic, but they are in increasing the size of their fire station there and it will be constructed in phases. Gotcha. Thank you. It's going to be huge.

I I could we clarify just because we talked about it a little bit this morning. This is um Amy Lundowski. So, they're going to build a new building and then change or demolish or whatever the existing one, right? You can't not have a fire station, right? So, that clarifies. So, we're talking about potentially more bays or more more apparatus.

Okay. Any other questions or comments? Okay. So, uh, as we've been told, we're not passing these these amendments. We're just simply adding we're is putting them into the docket for further analysis. And then later in the year after we've got the the after this has been processed. Uh, and we will have the full text changes that go into the the uh comprehensive plan. Uh and that's so that will be uh reviewed later. All we're doing right now is recommending to the city council that um we that we're putting these these six items onto the docket. So uh could we have a uh a motion as such? a motion to uh to place the items T1 through T3 uh M1 through M3 onto the docket uh and recommend it to the city council.

So move Commissioner Stalls. Commissioner Davis seconds. All right. Any discussion um before we vote? Okay. Well, then we will move on to voting. Uh all in favor? I I Any opposed? None. Okay, we have a recommendation to the city council. All right, thank you.

All right, so uh we will move on to our next item which is uh the pros plan. So yeah, we had put this one on there and we're just going to give a really quick overview because I as I noted the parks and recreation department does plan um kind of once they have their public review draft of the actual plan come and and brief the planning commission. But so the pros plan is again it's perfectly related to the comprehensive plan. It's actually a requirement um from the state uh recreation and conservation office, the RCO. [snorts] Um basically to be eligible for state grants related to parks and recreation, you need to have a pros plan. They do it on a similar cycle, but it's a it's actually a little bit of a more frequent cycle than comp plan updates. It's a sixyear cycle. Um, still I don't know they keep changing all of these timelines, but uh the park the pros plan is still on a six-year cycle. So to stay eligible to receive state funding uh you need to have this pros plan. There are certain requirements similar to how the growth management spells what spells out what needs to be included within a comp plan. There are certain items that they need to include. Uh, so it has a lot of the same analysis, things like level of service, the different types of parks, maps of neighborhood parks versus community parks. Um, but then they get into much more detail on things like levels of service, how you measure that level of service. Is it a walkshed? Is it based on a population metric? Um and so that's all the work that the parks and recreation department has been leading over the last year uh with some input from uh from the planning and community development department as well. Uh so they will the recommendation

for that actually comes from the parks and recreation board and then that goes to the city council. So that'll be happening over the next couple of months and they'll be sharing that public review draft shortly. But we just wanted to introduce it and just note that essentially the way that this dovetales with the 2026 docket is we're going to review that plan once it's adopted and we've been doing that over the last few months and then incorporating that and making sure that the goals, the policies, the analysis, the maps, the graphics that we're able to pull that into the comp plan. So that's um you know one one of the amendments that's included in this year's docket is to do that. So, we just wanted to introduce it quickly tonight because we knew that we were going to have a pretty short meeting. Uh, happy to answer any questions, but again, uh, Jill Me, the parks and recreation coordinator, has, uh, offered to come and speak to you during one of your March meetings, and she can provide a lot more detail and kind of walk through the plan once that public review draft is issued. So, yeah, just wanted to chat about it real quick. Happy to answer any questions. That 10 acre parcel that we just I'm sorry. Go ahead. May I 10 acre parcel that we just spoke about has some paths in it, some things that have been developed and that is considered a park in our uh um grand scheme of things. Is this changing that we've just recommended going to impact that at all? Or is by by doing the land use and the reszone, are we able to add more park like facilities in that space?

It would be eligible given the the that we are proposing to change that to public semi-public which is the z the zoning and the land use that you have for parks. But my understanding is that the parks department is not interested in that.

They don't plan to incorporate that as a a formal park or program it really we're looking at it as equally important. Um we have need for open space in the city for wildlife corridors and other things like that. So right now we really are just looking at it more for open space and as we said there is a small piece on the upland that public works has had an interest in maybe using as a seasonal um little facility but the trail through there won't be closed. No. Okay.

Yeah. There are limits even for parks and recreation uses and there you know you need to factor in things like critical areas. there only certain types of, you know, outright allowed activities um when you're dealing with wetlands and streams and all of that. And so, um I think that that was analyzed by the parks department and that's factored into kind of why they don't see that as really realistic to program an actual parks and recreation use there. So, we'll be getting the the that final like plan of what we're going to be doing for parks um soon in the next few months.

Yeah. So, the pros plan will be again that'll be going through the parks and recreation board is who makes the formal recommendation and then because that's not actually a comp plan amendment. It's it's not adopted by ordinance the way that the when you guys make a recommendation on a comp plan or a development code amendment. Um that has to be adopted via council ordinance. Uh this would be similar to the housing action plan which you guys did work on but again wasn't an official comp plan document. So, it's adopted by city council resolution following a recommendation from uh their essentially their technical committee which for parks and recreation is the parks and recreation board. Um but then ultimately when we update the parks element that will be a comp plan amendment. So that will have to go through the planning commission and ultimately be adopted by city council ordinance. Well, that'll be interesting to see what is in the works. Any other comments, questions?

I do. Sure. Um, while we're learning about all of this stuff, um, the Growth Management Act gives us targets for housing, employment, and such, and so our zoning affects that for parks and open spaces. Do they have um targets for for those facilities or spaces or certain amount of acres that are parks and that are open spaces?

Yeah. So that's kind of the purpose of the pros plan is to identify kind of how you define your levels of service and how you assess and analyze whether there's adequate parks and recreation facilities to serve your population. And so that's the work that they've been doing and and Jill can give a little bit more of an overview, but cities have done it differently and there have been different best practices over the last couple decades. that you really used to be like population based or distancebased and it didn't factor in things like well you could have something that's a half a mile away but if it's completely blocked as far as not being able to walk to it or to bike to it that doesn't make sense. So now there's walk there's different ways to do it. There's walkshed analysis. Um, you know, there's ways to factor in um kind of other ways of analyzing your levels of service. But it really it looks at, you know, the the role of say North Cove Park is going to serve, you know, a different role and a different population than say Lake Stevens Community Park, you know, where you have, you know, regional attractions and and things along those lines or Cavalo. Um, and so it really gets into that level of detail and do we have enough of each type um, you know, to meet the needs of um, you know, everyone that lives and and works in Lake Stevens.

Thanks. Anything else? All right. Well, then uh, I'd say let's move on to commissioner reports. And I would just note one thing that'll come out of that as well. I should have mentioned is that in that you will have a hand in is parks impact fees which are included within the development code. Um you know that'll be an implementation item to make sure um as we go through and update those parks impact fees you guys would be involved in that process because that's uh within title 14 of the municipal code.

Okay. Uh let's move on to comm. Thank you. Yeah, Levitan. And uh let's let's move on to commissioner reports. Conor Davis. It um really just want to take an opportunity to uh my my ears are on fire when I heard about um House Bill 2489. Um, so if you guys haven't uh heard about this, uh, it was a couple weeks ago I first first read um where it's uh there's the requirement to provide quote unquote adequate shelter and I've written all this up um defined in ways that are you know just objectively, financially and logistically impractical for municipalities. um the where uh it restricts jurisdictions from enforcing any kind of camping ban as we know uh you know probably a dozen or more municipalities in Washington state just in the last year that passed camping bans and then even followed it up with more stiff restrictions. Um my biggest concern in all of this and uh Mayor Gaye hinted on uh was House Bill uh 2480, Senate Bill 60 6026 around incorporating uh you mandating housing allowances in all zones. He mentioned that at our joint uh council meeting. It's this non-stop erosion of local control um by fiat from a uh you know an ideological minority at the state level. Um the there's the one it's the inability to enforce any kind of ban. Not that we have a ban here in Lake Stevens, but there's the inability to enforce the ban and this idea of this oneizefits-all. Um you know municipalities are not you know Lake Stevens is or other specialized districts. Uh we are not Seattle. uh we're not Bellingham. Um there's also this a it's seemingly an intentional loophole in what they

consider to be adequate shelter. So bear with me. So there's the adequate alternative shelter is so broad and strict that it makes enforcement almost impossible. So under the bill, shelter is only considered quote unquote adequate if it one is available at no cost. Okay. two, accommodates pets, partners, and family members. Three, allows the individual to keep their possessions. And four is what is considered to be low barrier, which means that it doesn't require sobriety or treatment. Um, obviously, those are huge concerns for municipalities. I know that this is not a an immediate, you know, wouldn't have an immediate impact on Lake Stevens, but I do look at what what occurs throughout our region. What's good for Everett is good for Lake Stevens. What's good for Mary'sville is good for Lake Stevens, vice versa. What's bad for these municipalities also has a direct impact on on us. Um there's of course the public safety and health risk uh side of this and then the legal liability. Um the if a municipality has a ban that's in place um you could have justified at that point litigation against the city. um there is precedent for that in Washington state. Um so my larger thesis is as uh as commissioners, as advocates for our city, as advocates for our ability to put into place comprehensive plans that we spend exhaustive amounts of time on um for the love of our city and what makes it, you know, special and and unique does require for us to have local control. Mayor Gayy hint Mayor Gayy uh um hinted on some of the the other challenges that we're having at the state level. Um I do encourage regardless of whether or not you agree or disagree to invest more time in learning about these these bills um and voicing any kind of concern that you

have with our elected officials. Uh several uh of these are are also not only sponsors but you know supporters but sponsors of the the bill here in our backyard. Um, so just please educate yourself and figure out what's going on. And that is it for me. Thank you, Commissioner SS. Um, comments. Thank you. Yeah, Commissioner Huxford,

I would, um, commend you and I would add to that, not only go to the representatives that represent us, um, you need to go testify. And, um, it sounds daunting, it is not. And if you have the opportunity to um do it, do it. Um thank you for your comments. I have a compliment to make. I rarely give compliments. I think [laughter] them, but I rarely give them. Um but a compliment to make on the joint meeting um and the backing up of a lot of different discussions that have happened since we have um new members on the commission as well as new members on the council. uh your explanation on nexus was brilliant and I was watching some faces as you asked whether or not they understood and I knew they didn't and our one of our newest council uh uh um uh commissioners raised her hand and said she didn't understand and I was so appreciative for that. So, thank you for the explanation. Thank you for backing stuff up. uh the budget meeting that you had after ours was kind of in the same vein and and I appreciate that there are some um learning opportunities that this is lending. So that is all I have to say.

Um no comments for me tonight. Thanks. I have no comments tonight. Okay. So Commissioner Davis, I have some good news for you. I did a quick search and House Bill 2489 has died. Yay.

Uh it's u it's they have a very short calendar and they have strict deadlines on the uh legislature. Um and it did not make it past uh a certain requirement that it needed to be at a certain point uh by a certain date. It says uh a a state bill that could have undermined the Spokane ordinance to address homeland homelessness failed to make it out of a House committee. And that's that was in the news today. So yeah, and if you look on the the the page, it's there's been no action on the bill since February 4th. So that's good news. Now for the bad news. [laughter] Senate Bill 6026, which I also mentioned, which is the one concerning uh developmental devel uh residential development in commercial zones, which would allow basically uh outright approval of residential um properties on on commercial land, commercially zoned land. uh that has passed the Senate and it is in committee um and is on track to uh well I wouldn't say it's on track to be passed but at least it's it's moving forward. Um it's uh there have been some amendments to it. I invite you to just Google it and go to this the page and read the the actual legislation. The other bill that uh that has been of our interest is um there's an an update on step housing and that has also passed well that has passed the house. So one is going through the senate first, the other one's going through the house first. So um that one I'm it looks like it is on track for for continuing work in the senate. Uh maybe voting for it. So we may have to redo all that all that step

work. Uh but that's all maybe but likely. So uh other than that I have no other uh comments. So um we have um any other we'll see we have now uh commissioner's report. Oh no plan director's report.

Um I'll just um chime in a little bit on the legislative session. definitely something that I keep track of and provide comment um continuously to association of Washington cities who acts as our primary lobby um to the legislature. So definitely commenting on some of these that you've mentioned tonight, the step housing one, what it would do is essentially where the commission made a recommendation on a certain permitting pathway. it would remove city's ability to create those pathways and they would become outright permitted uses. Um so some of the locally based um controls you wanted in place would go away to put it simply and some of the amendments to the multifamily housing and commercial districts. Um the last time I looked at that they were offering a 20% um ground floor commercial and defining what's an amenity space that had been they wanted to count all amenity spaces as commercial spaces in an earlier iteration which means if you have a gym or a post office or something in your complex you had to consider that commercial and a lot of cities objected to that. again it doesn't do what commercial is intended to bring in additional tax revenues balanced in jobs to a community. Anyway, I am keeping a breast of those and do provide um comment and if you want specific details on those, I can um bring more regular reports. Otherwise, I didn't have any other comments prepared. I'm happy to answer any questions if the commission has any that I can answer tonight. Seeing none,

uh I think now we are at the point where we will have I will I will entertain a motion to adjurnn. So moved. Second. Uh all in favor? I I oppose.