Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the Lake Stevens Planning Commission meeting held on August 18th, 2025 in downtown Lake Stevens. If you would all please join me with the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. We are going to uh do a quick roll call. I'll begin with myself. I'm Chair Janice Huxford. Uh to my right is Commissioner Jennifer Davis, present. And then Commissioner Michael Der

here, Commissioner Nathan Packard here, and Commissioner Bruce Morton. Thank you. Do we have Commissioner Matz on phone? And we are um at this point missing Commissioner Connor Davis. Let's give both of them a moment. Commissioner Matz did indicate that she was going to be dialing in and Commissioner Connor Davis, uh, we will give a few moments to join us and then we'll come back to roll call in a moment with your permission. Moving on, do we have any guest business either in the audience or online?

I don't see one online. Okay, hearing none, do we want to formally introduce our interns this evening? I don't think so. In fact, part of their intern program is for them to attend the meeting. And so I'm going to have them introduce themselves for practice. This is Christie Schmidt. So we've asked both the interns interns to introduce themselves if they would go to the pulpit please. Pulpit and hold uh some sort of religious meeting. No, if you would if you would just introduce yourself please. And so the microphone should be on up front.

It'll change to green. There we go. Uh what do you want me to intro? You just want to give your name where when you graduated from and what your intern purposes at the city? That'd be wonderful. Uh I'm Ella Bernard. I graduated Western uh last fall and I'm about to go to grad school at Portland State. I am the risk and emergency management intern for the city and so I'm working on updating the emergency uh plans and other related things. Thank you so much.

Um I'm Cameron McT. I graduate UDub in fall of 2024 and I'm the planning and community development intern. I'm working on updating the city's critical areas inventory. Thank you both for being here, Ella and Cameron. We appreciate your time this evening. Did a good job. I believe I believe. Okay, let's move on. Um our action items number four is to review and approve the planning commission meeting minutes. um from a August 4th, two weeks ago. Has everybody have had a moment to review the meeting minutes? Do you have any changes to those meeting minutes?

Nope. Hearing none, do we have a motion to approve? I move to approve the minutes from last meeting. And that would be Commissioner Morton. Do I have a second? Second Commissioner Packard. Commissioner Packard. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Any abstain? Let's move the meeting minutes um uh to handled and uh move on to discussion items. However, uh let's pause for a moment. We're 5 minutes after the hour. Do we have anybody online?

Uh we are still missing both Commissioner Matz and Commissioner Davis. Would we like to hold that over for another couple minutes? Commissioners, I don't see any problem with that. Okay, let's continue then on with the meeting discussion items. Number five, draft step housing code language. Principal planner Leviton will take it from here. Can you turn on the sharing?

All right. All right. Uh, thank you, Chair Hexford. David Levitan, uh, principal planner. So, we are coming back before you. It's been a couple of months since we introduced the topic of what's called step housing. I'm going to go back through just a couple of the slides that we had gone through back in May and June just as a quick reminder and then we're going to kind of work through some of discuss the intent of the draft code language that staff has developed uh some of the highlights uh some of the rationale behind that and then are wanting to get input from commissioners on that before we continue working on refining that and circulating that for public review. Uh so again, step housing uh is something that came out of House Bill 1220 um back in the 2021 Washington state legislative session. So the S stands for shelters, the T for trans transitional housing, the E for emergency housing, and the P for permanent supportive housing. So uh back with the comprehensive plan there were some updates to requirements in the housing element uh where cities were required to spl to plan for specific housing types. This includes permanent supportive housing which is kind of integrated social services, medical services, mental health services integrated with housing um as well as for emergency housing and for shelter. So basically cities need to show that they have the capacity for that. So moving forward, the next step after adopting kind of goals and policies within the comprehensive plan is actually implementing that as code language. Um, and there are specific

requirements that came out of House Bill 1220. Um, so just a reminder, we showed this map the last time, but basically it kind of splits up into two two groups. transitional and permanent supportive housing must be allowed in any zone that allows hotels or residential units. So, here in Lake Stevens, that's basically everywhere except for the industrial district. Um, as well as the kind of public semi-public district. Uh, cities can limit occupancy, spacing, intensity of use as long as there's a nexus and a relationship between those regulations and kind of public health and safety. Um and then basically the for these two in particular, they need to be treated the same as far as the design review process can't be treated differently than other types of residential units or as far as how we regulate families or households or the number of unre number of unrelated people in a household. Uh emergency housing and shelters is kind of the second category. uh that's um kind of seen as not a commercial use but kind of beyond the traditional residential use a little bit more as far as the importance of the social services there. Uh so those are required to be allowed anywhere where hotels are allowed. So in Lake Stevens that's primarily within our sub areas basically our commercial and our mixed use zones. Um there are spec some specific re requirements related to uh how regulations can be applied to religious organizations such as churches. Um and then there are also some that the city can establish limits on things like occupancy, spacing, buffers, intensity of use again as long as those are specifically related and a nexus is provided between those regulations and public health and safety. Uh so we had shared at the last meeting just some of the guidance and best practices from

the department of commerce. Um you know really quickly they recommend allowing uh these uses as an outright permitted use as opposed to a conditional use permit. Encourages them near jobs transportation services which is primarily our sub areas. Uh minimize or eliminate operation plan requirements. Um, so as we get into the draft code language for emergency housings and shelters, we did propose operation plan requirements, but try to keep those as clear and prescriptive as possible. Um, and then just some other items as far as factoring in reduced parking demand and again providing that nexus. Uh, so this was discussed uh during two initial study sessions with the planning commission back on May 21st and again on June 2nd. Um, so yeah, we didn't expect there to be, you know, everybody on exactly the same page. We appreciated the discourse, uh, really the the kind of the variety of ideas that were shared. We shared examples from several different cities from throughout the Puet Sound region. um and sought feedback on on how individual commissioners felt about each of those regulations, kind of where the city should try to land as far as when we were developing our draft code language. Um and uh yeah, the planning commission had been interested in seeing some examples of each housing type. So, we shared those uh during the June 2nd meeting. Um and then just kind of the commissioners stressed the importance of that public engagement. So now kind of we've gone through and developed this first draft of code language and now we want to make sure that we get this out in front of as many eyeballs as possible. So this is just going to be hard to read but these is just the slide that we had shared at our last meeting. It shows kind of the variety of different approaches that are out there from

throughout Snomish County and King County primarily. Um some cities basically treat it just like any other type of housing. don't have any sort of supplementary use regulations, don't require any sort of additional permit or public notice. Um, and on the opposite end of the spectrum, there are cities that have spacing requirements um that require it through um like a type two land use process where public noticed within a specific radius is required. um have requirements for operational plans, safety and security plans, uh code of conduct, and so um that was for permanent supportive housing. And I I would say that when you look at cities throughout the region, they're generally more relaxed and lenient when it comes to permanent supportive housing and transitional housing as opposed to emergency housing and shelters. the regulations are a little bit more complex and developed when it comes to the emergency housing and shelters. Um so that would really was factored and the initial feedback from planning commission is that they were that members were largely on board with that approach to kind of differentiate between the two sets of uses. And so that was um feedback that we incorporated when we were drafting the code language for you to review tonight. Uh so again, I wanted to make sure that we addressed a variety of different commissioner opinions. Uh kind of falls somewhere in between um the range kind of somewhere in the middle as far as the range of options as far as being um very lenient and kind of non-regulatory versus having very developed supplemental use regulations. Uh distinguishing between that first set of permanent supportive housing and transitional housing and the emergency housing and shelters. And then making sure um as we develop those supplementary use regulations kind of aligned with all of our other efforts to

make our code as clear and objective as possible um regulating but not effectively prohibiting uses because that's not permitted um by House Bill 1220. Uh providing opportunities for public input and then providing that nexus between the regulations and public health and safety. So attachment one includes the draft code language that we're had requested that planning commissioners review and we're requesting that you discuss and provide feedback on this evening. Um when you look through those regulations so again permanent supportive housing and transitional housing um it would be an outright permitted use in all of those zones where either hotels or residential uses are permitted. uh we are not proposing any supplementary use regulations or any sort of additional permitting requirements for those uses. Basically treating those more as any other type of housing uh that's required to go through abide by design regulations um be subject to traffic review, environmental review, kind of how other types of residential units are treated. Um, and then creating the supplementary use regulations within uh, chapter 1444 of the municipal code, which specifically applies to emergency housing and emergency shelters. So, it would still allow these as outright permitted uses in line with some of the uh, best available uh, sorry, the best practices um, as suggested by the Department of Commerce, but does establish the requirement for a type one permit. um develops some buffers or or dimensional basically some distance requirements between individual uses. Requires public notice similar to what's required to short-term rentals as far as uses that are immediately adjacent and across the street uh to make sure that adjacent neighbors are aware of the

proposed uses and there is the opportunity to provide feedback. Um and then kind of the the major component is that site management plan. Um that requires contact information, requires a parking analysis, and then also includes an operational an operation and safety plan. Um we also did carry forward similar nuisance activity and enforcement language uh similar to what exists in the short-term rental supplementary use regulations. Uh, so we wanted to have that consistent with the the feedback that that came from the planning commission and ultimately was approved by the city council for the short-term rentals. We thought that that was appropriate uh for these types of uses as well. Um, so in your packet there were a list of questions, a number of bullet points, and we wanted that to help steer the discussion tonight. Um, so again, are commissioners comfortable with the separate approach between the two sets of uses? Uh are there specific changes to the proposed new section 1444100? Um you know not including but not limited to maximum occupancy public notice requirements, the size of the buffer between individual uses, whether there should be additional buffers between shelters and parks or shelters and schools. Those are things that can be added that some cities have added. I would say more cities have the buffers between individual uses of the same kind as opposed to the buffers between parks, but they do exist. Um, and then are there any other concerns or issues that have not been addressed by the draft code language? Um, and then there is a renewal period in there. So, basically you would uh applicants would be required to go through that type one process to get the emergency housing and shelter permit. Um staff is proposing that then they would need to renew that every two years. Is that too frequent? Is that not frequent enough? Um wanted

to get some feedback on that. And with that I am happy to answer any questions and uh look forward to the discussion. Before we discuss um so Commissioner Matz did indicate that she may not be in the meeting. she was um anticipating dialing in. She has not. Uh but we do have some written her written comments here. So, we'll submit those and I'll speak to those momentarily. Uh it is almost 20 after the hour. Do we want to make a motion to approve her as an excused absence and Connor Davis as an unexcused? Would someone like to make that motion?

Uh so moved. Okay. So, Commissioner uh Derer second and Commissioner Morton is going to second that. So, that's how that will stand for attendance. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Any abstain? Um I'll come back to Commissioner Matz's comments in a moment. Commissioner Morton, it looked like you were jumping at the bit.

Can I ask that you put your questions up there and leave them up for the conversation? That would be helpful for me. Okay. Uh this is Commissioner Morton. uh the uh the 500 foot buffer uh it's you on one of your slides you say that the state allows uh spacing requirements for the purpose of health and safety and I don't understand how health and safety is um is achieved by separating these because especially for the emergency um uh shelters and the housing uh the those areas that they're allowed to be in are more the commercial areas uh sub areas as you mentioned and uh so those that's a it's restricted in that sense and we also uh it would make sense for these areas to want to be near public transit and those are even that's even more restrictive as far as where they want to be. So, I can imagine that uh there's going to be select areas that are going to be ideal and I don't understand how health and safety is affected by having uh one's, you know, one across the street from another.

Yeah. Um you know, we had kind of based that on on some feedback and we had looked at cities like Redmond that require like a half a mile in between and that seemed incredibly excessive. Um and so we had heard some kind of varying opinions on that at previous meetings. And so we had proposed kind of this shorter that you know 500 ft doesn't seem like a huge distance between uses especially you know that you have some of these larger parcels. Um that would basically be so it wouldn't be two in a row or three in a row. Um but yeah we this is the type of feedback that we're looking for. So if we would, you know, I think it's generally related to, you know, the potential need for additional services. Are we actually, do we have adequate services to meet the needs? Um, you know, I think that would be factored into individual applicants choosing to locate in Lake Stevens if we didn't have those services. So I can understand that point of view that probably the the private side of things would probably take care of that but wanted to propose that as an initial approach kind of to bridge the gap between the difference in opinions. Um but yeah we look forward to the the discussion of this.

Uh I have another topic for go ahead just from the rest of the group. Yeah,

I I agree. I'm struggling from a health and safety standpoint, but um I guess if I am in a community that has some of that housing, do I want mult I mean do I want multiples three in a neighborhood, right? If they were in my HOA or in something like that or so just from that perspective, is there value from a community sense of well-being or um Yeah. I I would agree with your statement on that. I think if I think you need to have some sort of buffer zone, otherwise you run the real risk of an entire region becoming kind of a center for these sort of uh developments and really kind of rotting out a neighborhood from the inside.

Does 500 ft do that though? I mean I mean that's it's not very seems. Half mile seems like a lot. 500 feet is really not that much. Um I don't know what the right answer is. I'm just trying to talk through it. Well, if uh if if the concern is uh safety to the public um meaning that the residents in these shelters may provide uh uh a a safety concern to residents, it might be better to have them close together because it makes it easier for the police to monitor. Do we want to stay per topic or to per commissioner

topic? I would topic. Okay. Do you have any other questions on buffer? I just wanted to make sure that we're that I'm clear, not we. Um this issue of buffer between uses and then the buffer between this use and other uses. It's only applying to the emergency shelter and the um it's not the trans the permanent. Yeah. This would be part of the supplementary use regulations that only apply to the emergency housing and emergency shelters. It wouldn't apply to transitional housing or permanent supportive housing. Got it. And th those uses are the ones that are limited to the mixed use in the commercial district. No. So the so the transitional housing and the permanent supportive housing is permitted within the residential, right?

Um and and the ones and the mixed use and the commercial emergency housing and shelter. There's nothing that precludes us from allowing them within residential uses, but we're not required by state law to allow them within residential areas. Uh they're only required to be allowed within commercial areas. So these wouldn't be in the like in the middle of a residential subdivision or generally within the R4 waterfront residential R six R12 because those areas are you know don't allow for hotel uses so they wouldn't be required to be covered by these regulations.

Okay. Um that which leads me to say that um I know it's a different topic but it's the very first one. I'm comfortable with the separate approach. Um so I just want to be sure that we're talking about buffers that we're talking about the two that this would apply to. Yeah. just emergency housing and emergency shelters. Got it.

And I'm sorry, can I get some clarification on uh and I want to be cautious against generalizing, right? The I'll say the situations, not the types of people, but the types of situations people might be in in each of these housing, right? So, because I'm in my mind, the strictness or the level of regulations should be flipped in my mind. uh the emergency housing and the uh emergency shelters

sound more like, hey, I uh I'm in a domestic abuse situation. I got to get out of this house. I need a place to stay. I'm going to an emergency shelter until a sister or a friend can, you know, let me into their house for a period of time, right? uh the permanent supportive housing and the transitional housing in my mind is someone who for example was in prison and is in a halfway house if that's the correct non-correct or non-politically correct term right uh and so then they're transitioning back into a society right so in my mind the restriction should be more on the transitional housing and the permanent supportive housing and less restrictive on the emergency shelters right I'm more I'm more concerned about a transitional house if I'm thinking about it correctly in my neighborhood or near my home than I would be about the emergency shelter. Am I characterizing those two?

It's also the homeless that are going to the emergency shelters and Okay. Fair. And yeah.

Yeah. And there there is there is some blurring of the lines between you know what say if there was a use that was specifically targeted towards domestic abuse survivors um would that be considered an emergency shelter? Would that be considered transitional housing where you are have a population that needs to evacuate an emergency situation and if it weren't for the situation they were in stable housing before that. Um, so you're looking at providing, you know, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, two years to get them out of that situation and get them back into permanent housing. So we can do a little bit more research on on how that would be what that would be considered if someone say came forward with that specific use. Would we consider that to be emergency housing? Would we consider that to be transitional housing? Um it wouldn't, you know, permanent supportive housing is more along the lines of adult family homes or foster homes. Um and we try to tailor our regulations to be more similar to that where those uses are outright permitted within all residential zones. And so that was the thought between the per with the permanent supportive housing that you have a a stable population that's going to likely live there for a while is going to be very well integrated into the community. Um and so there may be less of the operational concerns or less of the safety concerns. Um if the transitional housing in particular uh we can I can do a little bit more research on that. Um, I would say the general this is a pretty common approach as far as having a less restrictive approach to what would qualify as permanent supportive housing and transitional housing even though they are permitted within residential zones whereas in most cities emergency housing and shelters are not. Um, I would say generally there

were very few regulations for those types of uses and more regulations on the emergency side of things. And I wasn't thinking of yeah homeless or some of those type of situations. That's different than uh the domestic abuse situation, right? But there's a lot of overlap there.

Yeah. So that so if there is a lot of overlap then I struggle a little bit with the separate approaches unless we can characterize what's distinct about them and we can kind of say okay this makes sense. Uh I'm I'm struggling to see the need for separate if those lines of who goes where are fairly blurred and I understand you can't necessarily characterize oh these people are here these people here etc. But um that's what I struggle a little bit with breaking.

Yeah. I mean there there are general definitions and you know we've proposed definitions within chapter 1408. Um and so that's included in the in the packet as far as the definitions that come straight from the state. But even there there, you know, it's it's easy if you if someone were des to describe their use specifically using the language that's in the RCW. Um, but that's probably not likely to happen and there's probably going to be different approaches

to similar issues. And so, how would we, if someone said, "Well, I'm not emergency housing. I'm transitional housing." Um, we're probably going to have to come up with um, you know, either code language or at least interpretation or guidance or hideout handouts um, as far as what constitutes what. Um, just to put it on the record, Commissioner Mattz is 100% in a favor of a buffer. She doesn't say what that buffer is, but feel we should heir on the side of tighter regulations now that we can always consider to reduce for special circum circumstances in the next required annual review. She also states that she is in favor of having separate approaches for transitional and emergency. Um I will this is um Chair Hexford. I will simply say that when we had this original discussion and the three examples were given Redmond uh Lynwood and um what was the other one? Edmonds. Um I erred on the side of Redmond simply because of this uh ambiguity and to separate out when it's not um clearly defined what it is that we're separating and how we would do so. I think that's probably one of the reasons that Redmond said we're just not going to favor this. We're not going to obviously we can't by law say that they can't, but we're not going to um favor this because it starts getting too um ambiguous. I also will come back to your comment that um if a a neighborhood carries the bulk of any of these um descriptions um from the inside out, that neighborhood, that flavor of that neighborhood is going to change. uh when it comes to start at the top and go to

the bottom. Um so uh I think we have well let's go back to our buffer. Do we have a recommendation or do we want to continue to discuss and get public comment on a buffer? Well, I guess I'm the only one in favor of removing the buffer. But um I don't know who who else is in favor of removing the buffer. crickets hearing crickets. So I think the majority is favoring a buffer. What that buffer is is questionable still.

I I would say this is Commissioner Davis, Jennifer Davis. Um I would say I did ponder this quite a bit, Commissioner Morton, because I was I was you try to imagine different uses and different people that would be making um use of those those facilities. And I was imagining, for example, like a mom with kids and if there's a buffer away from a park, that might be something that would be great to be able to walk to if you were in a emergency situation and you didn't have your car and you had your kids with you. And um so I did think about that quite a bit. I I feel like the 500 foot uh distance is an interesting one because it's not so far. And I guess what I'm addressing right now is the buffer between the um not between facilities but between a facility and other uses like schools or parks.

That language is not in here. The I think it is. Oh, it is separation from facilities. Yeah, I think it's only separation from facilities. Oh, I thought there was a section about a buffer between schools and parks. And there isn't in in the current code language. That was one of the questions they wanted as far as do

um you know alcohol you know alcohol bars and things like that or you know marijuana businesses um you know tend to have those when they're regulated by the state and so that is something that we can establish. We haven't proposed that. That's less frequent in the code language that we reviewed. Um but that is something that we wanted to make sure that the commission had an opportunity to weigh in on.

Well, I should I should never question your reading of the you you're the um so I guess the where I came down on it was I started to think about the the idea of health and safety not so much of the but I flipped it a little not so much the health and safety of the people around the facilities but the people using the facilities. So,

is it a benefit to have the facility separated by a buffer for the resident's sake? I mean, that's something that what way to think of it. And I that's why I sort of I'll admit I've been waffling on it, but I kind of came down on the side of having a buffer just with the idea that if we are so limited in our social services in Lake Stevens that maybe it is better to have not a concentration of of high need populations if we can't meet those needs very easily. So, I it's kind of I think it's a tough discussion though when we're starting to personalize who, you know, we're we're thinking of this facility for these type of people. Yeah. Yeah. And so, it's a slippery slope to try to do that because

to Commissioner Packard's point, you can't you can't No, you're right. You're right. Yeah. design it that way. And if there was some interest, I mean, even if if it's just wanting to get additional information or kind of see what that would look like, um, you know, we do have an industrious GIS intern that would be able to turn out some maps pretty quickly as far as what properties would be affected, say if we established a certain buffer distance around parks and schools. Um, you know, I would say that most of our schools are within residential zones. They do abut some of our commercial districts. Um, so it probably wouldn't have a huge impact on schools unless we had a pretty large buffer between say schools and emergency shelters. Um, but that is, you know, the type of information that we'd be able to provide. And just as far as how limiting would that be? Would it effectively, you know, if a city said that we want to do a half mile around schools and that basically makes it so you can't put them anywhere, then that would be a basically essentially a ban that would be, you know, you wouldn't be allowed to do under state law.

Yeah, I think Sorry. So, I mean, I just Google maps. I mean, Boys and Girls Club is 0.2 miles, right? So, half a mile when you originally said it. Wow, that's really far. But Boys and Girls Club is less than a quarter mile. That's really not that far, right? Like that's very close to a school, to a park, to between other units. So a quarter mile is still not that big of a deal in my mind. If anything, it might not be big enough when I look about it look think about it that way, right? Um

well, and I think I think about some of the people who may need to use these services who would need schools. So I think we need to be cautious. In my mind, it's the distance is between uh various other step type house uh units versus a school, you know, which may have students who are in that program. So to my mind it's it's the distance between the facilities and not necessarily a buffer uh of a half mile because that would exclude quite a few people quite a few areas of the city.

Just a reminder Christy Schmidt planning manager as we discuss make sure to state your name and who you are. That way if council comes back and listens or I do I know who's talking. That'd be appreciated. Sorry. That's okay. So, we are not clearly defining um what we want the buffer to be, but the majority want a buffer. And I'm hearing that most of that majority is talking about a buffer between facilities rather than a buffer between municipal uses, for lack of a better way of wording it. So, I'm going to change the language. You're saying when you say facilities,

that was Commissioner Huxford. Sorry, Commissioner Packard. So, you're saying uh individual uh types of housing on this on this table, right? That's what you're using by facilities versus municipal purposes meaning uh services meaning from a unit to a school, a unit to a park, etc. Yes. So again, we think the buffer should be separation between temporary housing and temporary housing, not temporary housing and school. I'm I'm trying to characterize what I'm getting from the conversation except for then your comment about homeless, right? Do I want

Sorry, I need to be careful about what I But yeah, if there's a if there is a type of housing that is more prone to have drug and alcohol abuse in it, do I want that? that right next to my school. No, correct. This is Jennifer uh Davis. Um but that might be where the our GIS awesome intern could help us out to to show us where if that is that even going to be an issue if it if the those types of uses are primarily in the commercial and mixed use. Yeah, I mean it would depend it would depend on the buffer distance

the locations. I would also note that the distance, you know, for marijuana dispensaries or production facilities or, you know, um, you know, alcohol distilleries or I can't remember what the exact it's a relatively no low number. I think it's like somewhere between 300 and 500 ft. It's not a huge distance. So, I think it would be hard to make the argument that, you know, emergency housing uses would be um, more of a public health and safety concern than some of those uses. And so I think it would be hard if if we don't have these huge buffers around those uses to then have them around emergency housing and emergency shelter. We would just have to provide that nexus as far as why we we think that this is warranted. So

marijuana though is a great example of how it wasn't done well if I may be so bold in the city and we have conceded an entire area of our city. So, um, using that as a jump off point, I think that there needs to be more discussion around this based on the conversation, the feedback that you've received from us this evening. Okay.

The other and we've been stepping back and forth, but are the commissioners comfortable with separate approaches? I can tell you that Commissioner Mattz says she is in favor of separate approaches to transitional and emergency. I kind of error on the opposite of that. I think that there um I think that it just causes more confusion and um uh ambiguity where this is already fraught with that. And that's Commissioner Huxford speaking.

Would that be for both permanent supportive and transitional or just for the transitional? I would say that the permanent supportive is the most likely to have long-term residents. that would just be that would probably be hard to distinguish from other types of housing. The transitional um you know it's intended for potentially up to two years with the hope you know when you look at the definitions and that we're proposing in chapter 1408. It still is people at risk of homelessness or that are experiencing immediate homelessness. But I think that that the transitional would probably more be someone that has lived in a stable environment and all of a sudden is subject to domestic violence and needs someone to somewhere to go immediately. Probably more likely to be smaller residential use as opposed to a large facility. Um but yeah um that I'd be interested if we are wanting to have you know all four uses subject to the same process the same potential supplementary use regulations or just adding transitional to the two emergency emergency housing and emergency shelter. Um that would be something I I have seen it that way. I would see there are very few cities I think that have very strict regulations around permanent supportive housing because it's really a lot of times hard to distinguish that from an adult family home or something else that is by by law is required to be allowed in any residential zone and generally can't have any of these additional requirements. So I would say if we're you know adding transitional I that's something that we can look at. I would say, you know, at least from the staff side of things, probably wouldn't recommend that permanent supportive housing be required to go through that similar process and those similar supplementary use regulations. Would the

Commissioner Derer,

sorry, Commissioner Derer. Uh would the permanent supportive housing uh still require though a uh can we still put a requirement that they have a well-defined plan and that there is some sort of uh uh comprehensive service uh available to those uh who are availing themselves of that housing. Yeah, there there would be. It would just it would be hard within the supplementary use regulations as we've proposed it within 1444100 as far as being a new section. Um that's where all kind of the the parking analysis and the operations plan and the kind of what we call a site management plan. That's where that comes in. And so the way that it's currently written, it's like you're either subject to the supplementary use regulations and you have to do everything as opposed to I mean I guess we could develop um you know it maybe wouldn't be within the supplementary use regulations but like a footnote to the permissible use table could maybe just say you know outright permitted not doesn't require emergency housing and shelter permit but shall provide a you know an outline of activities or you know how we could, you know, kind of finesse that language so that it they're not subject to everything, but are required to develop at least kind of a general outline of the population that they serve. Um, what the duration of stay is um you know, what the parking needs are. It just it kind of reaches a slippery slope. Well, it's like, well, then at some point you kind of just you might as well just throw everything at them if you're requiring them to do um you know certain aspects of as far as defining their operational characteristics.

And the reason that I brought bring that up is uh at a previous meeting I shared some of the troubles that other cities have had with permanent supportive housing especially when it is not actively um managed. And so ensuring that there is uh a solid plan for any level of these step uh programs I think would be critical to seeing it succeed within the neighborhood and not becoming a blight.

Good comments. That was Commissioner Der. Other comments um specifically about the separate approaches? Uh, I'm in favor of uh treating the emergency ones uh separate and and keep the uh the PSH and the TH uh uh the same. Thank you. That was Commissioner Morton. Oh, yeah. Sorry. It's okay. I feel like I'm on a talk show. It's kind of fun.

Uh Commissioner Packard, I'm still undecidive. I'm sorry. Um, what you just said made sense to me until I looked up, you know, what types of people are in permanent supportive housing and this says permanent supportive housing is an intervention. Well, it will address the needs of chronically homeless people, right? And so then that makes me say, well, how is that different than the transitional housing? Now, if again when I think about it from the foster child environment, that makes a lot of sense to me. Established homes uh established uh adult or sets of adults and maybe the kids are moving and out in and out, but at least there's stability in that home. Okay, from that perspective, yeah, less restriction, more inclined with residential environments. But then I read this and it says, well, maybe that's not all it is. And that scares me a little bit that it's different. But so I don't have a good answer yet. I'm sorry.

Yeah. And just the the the def sorry the definitions that are included within the you know within the WAC and within the RCW do go probably you know if you look at our definition that we're proposing for permanent supportive housing on page nine of the packet. It's by far the most extensive definition. Um and you know this is one of the ones that does require um you know subsidized leased housing and along with that typically operationally is um it's a little bit more involved and there's you know more likelihood that there's a code of conduct and things like that on the on the provider side of things you know with the cav caveat that there obviously you know as commissioner Der has pointed out to some examples and I've ever read and elsewhere that there have been some per permanent supportive housing that hasn't been well managed and where there have been some nuisance issues and so um yeah the the permanent supportive housing I I think really the prioritization of of populations that need more comprehensive services is really what distinguish permanent supportive housing from the other ones is that you're really probably going to need this type of housing if not just for years potentially for the rest of your Um, I would say that that kind of lends itself to, you know, probably needing a little bit less regulation, especially. So, just some thoughts from staff.

Thank you for the clarification. Does that help with your recommendation? I'll let you know at the end of the meeting. I'm on the fence as well. And you Commissioner Davis I think yeah Commissioner Jennifer Davis I think I'm comfortable with the as proposed separation between the four two and two. All right let's move on and then we'll come back to that if we've have any uh more thoughts um between now and the end of the meeting. Do we have any thoughts on maxim maximum occupancy?

And I would note that most places do it generally based off the building code in the fire code. Um there are a few cities that will distinguish they'll outright permit, you know, it'll be an outright permitted use up to a certain occupancy and then say if you want to go over 50 or 100, that's where a conditional use permit would kick in. So there is the opportunity for that. Um I would say more often than not most of the places keep them as outright permitted and don't put a cap on occupancy but um just building height and um you know the ability to accommodate um you know a certain number of residents is is generally controlling as opposed to um you know governmental regulations. But um just wanted to put that out there just cuz there have been some cities that that have done that.

This is Commissioner Morton. Uh I'm as far as maximum occupancy, I don't think there needs to be any additional regulation uh what that's any more restrictive than what's already uh in place for uh for other types of housing just residential housing. Uh, Commissioner Der, uh, I would agree that, you know, just adhering to the fire code and then if you have a a small property or a large property, as long as it's adhering to that max capacity, I think that's sufficient. Any other thoughts? Commissioner Jennifer Davis, I I agree with the two prior statements. I think the development standards and the fire code are adequate.

Commissioner concurs. Then let's move on. Commissioner Matz's comments don't um deviate from what we've discussed, nor do my thoughts. Uh moving on to public notice requirements. She does uh Commissioner Matz does have an item here. Notice should be given sooner to adjacent property owners than what is proposed. Also, I'm assuming the owner slashorgganization of the shelter would be required to attend the public meetings. Yeah. And if I could just provide some context from from staff. So, we kind of had a couple different thoughts on the noticing requirements. Um, you know, with the recommendation that this stays and it's an outright permitted use and is subject to a type one review process, which is a purely administrative typically with no public notice. that includes short-term rental permits or a type one, but this the supplementary use regulations go above and beyond the type one outright permitted process and require that specific those specific noticing requirements to adjacent property owners and property owners across the street. Uh we had thought about bumping it up to a certain distance, say 200 feet, 300 feet. At that point, you're really mimicking a type two process. So, if we're going to do that, um, you know, it doesn't really make sense to keep it as an outright permitted use through a type one if you're going to impose type two permit noticing requirements. So, just that's where we came up with and with the similar language to um the short-term rentals. Um but yeah, if planning commissioners are saying that this is something that should be more subject to, you know, if this is a use that they believe should be more subject to that type two land use review

process which applies to things like short plats and and along those lines. Um that's something that we could do look at doing. It's just obviously a more involved process um to get through the review and approval process. Commissioner Morton is in favor of public notice for the immediate neighbors. Um I'm going back to the other question just as a context for my answer here. Uh yeah, as I read nine and this is Commissioner

Commissioner Packard. As I read the definitions online, uh I am more in favor of yeah the permanent supportive housing and the transitional housing being lumped together and being distinct from the emergency housing and emergency shelter based on your definitions here. From that context, I uh am okay with the um notification requirements being similar to STRs for the permanent supportive housing and transitional housing, but I think broader awareness should take a place for the emergency housing and the emergency shelter, right? If there's an emergency shelter, emergency housing going in a quarter mile, half a mile away, I would like to know that more than if just permanent supportive housing is going in. So again, I don't know what that right answer is, but just the property adjacent to me. Uh if I was one adjacent to the adjacent and I didn't know that an emergency shelter was going in, that would be frustrating to me. So again, I don't know what the right answer is, but adjacent doesn't seem like enough for the emergency housing and emergency. And if I could just clarify that the actual the the noticing wouldn't apply to permanent supportive housing or to transitional housing because they wouldn't be subject to to the supplementary use regulations. So there actually wouldn't there wouldn't be noticing involved with those. So we're asking if if the thought is that you feel that there should be then that's something that obviously we would need to address.

But then based on that still again more than just adjacent in my mind.

Okay. Yeah. No, and that's that's the feedback that we wanted and would appreciate additional discussion from commissioners to see where they where they land on that. I would notice that we don't have any um uses whether it's through a type two, a type three, or a type four process that requires noticing beyond 300 ft. You know, I don't think I've seen cities where they have certain uses that go up to 400 or 500 ft. Uh but we don't have that. Basically, anything uh in the city of Lake Stevens that's subject to a type 2 through type six process doesn't extend beyond a 300 ft noticing buffer. Um so that would probably be the the farthest that we would recommend, but there's nothing that precludes us. We again would just need to tie it to kind of a public health and safety as far as why we would be requiring that if it were to extend beyond that.

Commissioner Packard. And so if you would define for me the worst case scenario if you will right what what would be the most extreme situation that would require say a 300 foot radius and then just so I can compare that to something like an emergency. So a whoa so a 300 foot uh I'll step back

um a 300 foot buffer would apply. So, examples of type two permits are things like shoreline substantial development permits, short plats, site plan reviews, say if you have a commercial site and it's being reviewed for things like setbacks and all of that. There is a land use process, a land use application. So, the those are examples of type two land use applications. Those require public notice but don't require a public hearing. Uh this the next step up above type two is what's called type three land use applications. So that's things like variances uh conditional use permits uh long plat. So any subdivision 10 lots or more uh those all require also require a 300 ft uh notification. any property within 300 ft of the perimeter of the site and those also require a public hearing before the hearing examiner. So that's kind of and then type four would be things like sight specific reszones that go to the hearing examiner and then to the city council. So say if a property is being reszoned, everyone within 300 ft gets notice of that, they have the opportunity to come and provide testimony before the public before the hearing examiner. So those are examples of type two, type three, and type four land use applications, all of which are subject to that same 300 foot noticing buffer. Thank you for that clarification. Again, Commissioner Packner, I will just say then based on those descriptions, I'm fine with the emergency housing or emergency shelters being beyond that 300 if we justify it. I think the this is different than anything you just described to me. And I'm not suggesting that the home the the people notified should be able to protest it or do anything about it, but at least awareness I think would be valuable. Again, for me and my family, I'd like to know that an emergency

shelter is going in somewhere nearby. And yeah, again, uh, principal planner Levitan, um, I would just, yeah, note that if we are going to be extending that to where it even gets up to the 300 ft that is subject to that, you know, that's characteristic of a type three through type 4 land use application. Probably ma maintaining the emergency housing and emergency shelter permit as a type one permit probably wouldn't be justified. we would probably need to at least bump that up to a type two just because, you know, when you're allowing when you're expanding the noticing requirements and encouraging additional feedback, we don't want to keep it in a type one where it's purely administrative and where, you know, you're largely trying to create clear and objective standards that if someone can meet those standards, you can still have things like operational plan requirements that if you can meet those and and provide information on your proposed use. Um, you know, we don't want to set up unrealistic expectations with the community that if they provide enough comments that you're going to be able to kind of make it so these things don't get approved. We want to make sure that we're aligning our land use review process with, you know, what the intent is as far as soliciting community feedback.

Good discussion, Commissioner Der. I'm generally agreeable to that. Commissioner Jennifer Davis. Um I'm comfortable with the buffer as proposed. As proposed. Okay. And I am going to go on record.

I mean, not the buffer, the noticing requirements. I lost my mind. Commissioner Jennifer Davis lost her mind, but I've recovered. Commissioner Jennifer Davis lost her mind. Everybody, August 18th, 2025. Um I am actually going to go on record. Um I the discussion has been helpful for me. Um I the separate approaches I'm comfortable with, but I would recommend a type two for emergency housing and the emergency shelters. I agree that if I am in a neighborhood and something is moving into that neighborhood, I want to be notified and have the ability to make comment. So, moving on. Um, we've already talked about buffers. Let's not talk about them anymore. How about concerns and issues that have not been addressed?

Okay. Um, about

Morton. Yes, Commissioner Morton. the renewal application for uh every two years. Um that's in the section was it uh 144 100 uh B uh in the licensing and registration section there's uh paragraphs 1 through five just the the the what's said in paragraph 4 uh basically in my mind eliminates the need for paragraph 3 because uh it says any substantive changes to site operations such as increase in number of residents served during the duration of stay shall also require a new application. So why renew uh an application every two years if nothing has changed? I would think that as as long as the the the shelter is being operated uh according to the same plan that was submitted uh with same conditions, why renew? In the case that, this is Commissioner Huxford. In the case that Commissioner Derer brought up in June though, that was a facility that had all the best intentions, I'm sure,

but has now become a hazard. And so, um, until I guess what, the health department shuts it down, it would be up to the municipality to have an opportunity to revoke that license. I would assume if that's then the health department if the health department is going to shut it down then the health department's taking care of it

but it it hasn't and it hadn't been and I I guess I would like there to be some sort of checks and balances along the way um to leave it again where it's open-ended and some other state entity has to come in and shut it down. So, is the city going to be going in and doing inspections to make sure everything's operating fine or or or what? I in Well, city can jump in at any moment, but in our city, it is a community response. I have to complain if something is a problem and then they have to go out on

to look at my complaint. But as we've seen before, it takes a lot of complaints and even then things are not corrected often. And if it's a safety issue, that's even more problematic. Well, if if there's a if there is an issue or safety thing uh that causes a need to or that's a concern, we wouldn't want to wait until the end of the 2-year period. Correct. We would shut it down right away, right? You would think.

Yeah. So, uh I don't the the the the reapplication just seems like a arbitrary thing. Just it's like a uh if nothing has changed, if they're operating fine, if everybody's happy, then uh why burden them with this process?

Okay. And I would just know, you know, from the staff side of things, if if if others agree with that, you know, if things are going well, um, you know, we could try to tackle this from the other side of things and develop have more developed and prescriptive language as far as what would potentially necessitate a revocation of a permit. Um, there is probably a little bit more language related to that within the short-term rentals than in here. So we could potentially try to build out a section that details um you know what would lead to the potential revocation of the permit um and tackle it from that side of things as opposed to making good stewards and and good operators go through maybe a necessary renewal process. Try to build out the you know what would constitute such a nuisance that it would justify a revocation of your permit and we can kind of come at it from that side of things. This is Commissioner Packard. I agree with that approach. I had similar concerns before he addressed them that it was unnecessary government overreach to say every two years, especially Yeah. then what's the cost of doing that? How long does it take to get approved? And uh I appreciate uh Commissioner Huxford's concerns, but yeah, I think if you take an approach of clearly outlining what what a revocation process would look like and and uh providing guidance or warning signals that says, hey, we have the ability to revoke this at any time if the following things are occurring. And that allows us to take action more quickly, but without requiring this unnecessary process on people or businesses to to go through this every two years. Okay.

Yes. This is uh Commissioner Jennifer Davis. I was uh thinking of it less in terms of nuisance and like failure of the process and more in terms of um sometimes an activity is is uh envisioned that then transitions over time into something slightly different. We've talked about the kind of the potential blurring of lines between one type of stepous and another. And so for me it was more of an idea of having to revisit the representations that you've made for what activities are going to be taking place or what type of housing it's going to be. So checking in and maybe it isn't every two years, maybe it's every 5 years to say I wasn't thinking of in terms of like they're causing a problem in the neighborhood. It was more yes, we are continuing to serve this population. We are continuing to have this amount of parking. Things haven't changed, you know, in these certain areas that are part of the initial application process for this use. So, um, that's kind of how I was thinking of it was less less of a enforcement issue and more of a checking back in with the city to make sure that the use is still ongoing in the same way. It's sometimes something starts out and 10 years later it's evolved into something entirely different. So,

in in a space legislatively, it's the wild west.

U, this Commissioner Der, I think, uh, I think with this with this section, it is a two-way street. It's a trust but verify uh scenario. Uh having a renewal of your application is the verify part. It's ensuring that the plan that was presented to the city is being carried out. That if they say they're going to have somebody uh on site to monitor that site, that there still is somebody uh monitoring that site. Uh just because we don't know about it as the city doesn't mean it hasn't happened. And so it is an opportunity I think for uh for City of Lake students to ensure as Commissioner Davis was saying that the plan as it was presented is followed through with Commissioner Packard. Can you help me understand though what that looks like? I mean because So if there is a renewal process, I'm okay with that. If it's some sort of form that just says, "Hey, is everything the same as it was?" If so, this is a twominut checking the box exercise. I submit it to the city. I pay $10, $15 because the city is only going to look at it for five minutes and say, "Oh, everything looks good. File it done." Uh, but the verify, I mean, are they actually, is the city going to send somebody to the home and do a random check to see if someone's watching? So, then how prescriptive does it get? Then it becomes this big honorous process and then yeah, you're burdening a bunch of people unnecessarily. And so that's the balance I'm trying to find. How do you how do you do what you're saying? Because in theory, I like what you're saying, right? Find a way to keep things going the way that they were intended to go and the way the city originally proved, but without having to burden the majority of the people who aren't going through that.

Yeah. And I think there is there is a component of as Commissioner Der uh there is a component of uh I guess trust that is in that in that uh so that if if we present or if the city was to present somebody with um their former application saying are you still doing all of these things we would have to take that at face value absent some sort of code complaint or something like that but it is the opportunity for a check-in to sure you know as long as they're being truthful but as you would with a business license or anything else like that, right? I mean, it's I don't see how that's which is renewed often annually. Yep. Annually,

and I'm not saying it should be annoy. That's not what I'm saying. But but yeah, there is from the standpoint of the trust, right? There has to be some level of trust between the citizens and the government, right? Otherwise, we don't have an effective society, right? But where's that balance? And I'd like to lean less on the government oversight. How that looks, I'm not exactly sure. But yeah, so if that renewal process is a very quick and easy process, low cost, fine. If it's restart the process over again and it's still multiple hundred dollars and takes months to get through, that really would concern me.

So I think Dave can speak to that, but I'll speak about the STRs. This is Christy Schmidt, planning manager. Our STR renewal process is exactly that. It's a one sheet wonder. It's a very nominal fee and their renewal is done in a week.

Yeah, this is Commissioner Morton and if if it's super quick and easy and there there's no checks or inspections, then why do it? Because it's it's just a paper that someone's going to get look at and it's it causes more uh it causes effort at city hall. Did I say this is Commissioner Morton? uh this there causes an effort at city hall that is towards processing paper rather than checking the site

if if this if I would ra instead of putting a burden on the facility to check to to verify that they are compliant it should it should be the city's responsibility to go in at the a frequency that they desire that of either two years five years whatever six months uh to to go and check on uh to make sure it's going okay. A piece of paper doesn't provide any enforcement at all.

This is Commissioner Jennifer Davis. Um it depends on what kind of paper it is. So I don't I and I confess I have no idea with any type of licensing application, but is it a legal declaration? Is somebody making a declaration? I mean people sign papers all the time where they present information and they say I declare that this is true and there is weight to that.

Sorry. Christy Schmidt, planning manager, the STR does state that they have a check box that the items are still the same and haven't changed and they have to sign that they're stating that this is true and that they comply. So the Jennifer Davis the um I think the weight of that is then if the if the enforcement mechanism is tied to that if it turns out that it's not true that and there's immediate revocation or there's whatever you know enforcement recommendation or the enforcement mechanism that the city wants. I don't I guess I don't see that it's a completely useless exercise depending on what it is they're being asked to say and how they're being asked to say it. So, do we know? But I agree. Busy work is stupid.

No. Again, August 18th, 2025. Jennifer Davis says something is stupid. You're on a roll tonight.

Um, making sure that we uh that I fulfill my responsibilities on behalf of Commissioner Matts. She is fine with every two years and then says it would be nice to see some language requiring an earlier renewal if they hit certain limits like max occupancy reached etc. So those were her comments. I would um be fine with some of the discussion tonight. Um the revocation satisfies my concerns having wording in there that has some teeth in it. Um and the every 2-year if it is something that is um simple as been defined but it also gives uh both the owner facilitator and the city the opportunity to come to a meeting of the minds to accommodate any changes that are going on either within the facility or within our legislative process. So I think that um to have eyes on this right now because I don't think that this is the last time we're going to discuss it. Any other comments? Yes, Commissioner Packard.

Commissioner Packard. So uh section or paragraph four of that same section says any substant substantive changes to site operations such as an increase in the number of residents served or duration of stay shall require a new application. So I struggle with that um from ambiguity standpoint. What is substantive even from the standpoint of your example of an increase on the number of residents? So if for example I have a shelter or a home that um houses three people and they want to move it to four, okay, that's a 33% increase. if they were at 10 and want to go to 11, you know, they both raised it by one.

The effect was not the same. So, I guess Commissioner Matz does say something about, oh, if you're already at the limit or close to the limit, but I guess I I'm just struggling with some subjective language around what does what is substantive? And if I go from 10 to five, yeah, I reduced the number, you know, that's a substantial reduction. Yeah, I reduced it rather than increased it. But uh yeah, I'm just struggling a little bit with the language there. It seems too ambiguous to me to define what is what requires new and what doesn't.

Yeah. And yeah, thinking about that and I appreciate the feedback. Um you know, when you're subject to this permit and you're required to submit your site management plan and your operation plan um as we build that out, the intent was to evaluate a specific number of residents served. And so, um, yeah, I would I would agree that's probably a little bit too subjective as far as if if you get approved for 25 residents and you want to go to 27 residents, um, you know, that's an 8% increase versus, um, you know, if somebody wanted to go from 5 to 7, that's a 40% increase. And so, like, are those the same thing? Um, so we could either remove that or we could try to come up with language or we could just say that if you want to go above your cap that you need to basically do a new application. Um, you know, we would essentially be evaluating a specific proposed number of residents served through this permitting process. So if we don't want there to be or if we want to say you can have a certain amount through the renewal um you know again it's kind of a slippery slope if you let people well if you only go from 10 to 11 you don't have to come back to us and it's like well how about if I go from 10 to 12 or 10 to 13 you know that's not as big of a deal as going from you know 50 to 60. Well you know on a percentage basis it really is. And so um yeah we can work on that language or we can remove it. um happy to, you know, gather additional feedback.

This is Commissioner Morton. I thought we had already decided that as long as they're within the maximum occupancy, we're we're fine. Right. So,

you would still Yeah. I mean, if if we're doing that, if we don't have a maximum occupancy, if we're not going to be evaluating that, um you know, we still would be evaluating probably not a maximum occupancy, but a certain occupancy as far as what their parking requirements would be. Um, you know, that goes towards both residents and staff. I mean, if you have more residents, you're likely going to need more staff. You're going to need more parking. So, you're probably going to need to go back through that site management plan to do potentially an updated parking analysis. like if they came at the at the bare minimum and they want to increase their operations even if they're still okay on the fire code side of things, there still are kind of land use considerations like things like parking. So, we probably need to work on this section a little bit more and and think it through and this has been incredibly good feedback and I I really do appreciate it. So, but yeah, as far as it relates and how the maximum occupancy relates to either the licensing or the licensing renewal process, I think we need to flesh this out a little bit more. This is Commissioner Morton, the suggestion I would have is uh a substantive change would be defined as uh a deviation in the operations and safety plan that's highlighted in the next section.

Okay,

Commissioner Davis. And then I have another comment. Um, I just have a question about the operation plan and safety plans that we've kind of tangentially touched on. How do you when once that's submitted, how do you evaluate the adequacy of those plans? Is there is that is that a whole separate I mean I know it's not going to be part of the code, but I'm just curious if as part of the process you are you get an operations plan. How do you know if it's adequate? Yeah, I think we need to build out that program, but it probably would be getting reviewed by the building team, the planning team, potentially police, um you know, the fire marshal, um you know, all of those things for evaluating it. Hey, based on this number of people and this amount of square footage with this amount of parking proposed for this population served, um you know, are there concerns, are there conditions that we need to impose on this? And so we still need to build out I think on the program programmatic side of things.

Yeah. So it would be a template that we would develop and we I've looked at some examples from from some other cities because yeah generally the code language is not

incredibly prescriptive but you probably want to cover yourself as far as saying you know operations plan as outlined on a form developed by the planning and you know community development department. Um, so I think we're going to need to work on that over the next few months before we do adopt the code language so it's ready to implement. So we don't have code on the books and people are like, well, what the heck do I have to do to comply with this? So um, no, that's that's good good feedback as well. And under other concerns, issues not addressed. This is Commissioner Huxford. The um the idea that we talk about parking, but we don't talk about traffic impact. And this takes me back to a couple other discussions that we have surrounding daycarees and businesses that are in the middle of residential locations. um the anything having to do with bringing in staff, bringing in resources, bringing in supplies, bringing in whatever that's going to impact a um the traffic flow in any given area I think needs to be addressed as well.

Yeah. Yeah, and that would be something generally through the, you know, even if it's not through the land use side of things, through a building permit. Um, you know, we do have adopted, you know, we've adopted that our traffic impacts and our concurrency chapter within the municipal code is subject to, you know, traffic evaluation and that they're required to fill out, you know, basically a traffic worksheet that estimates their trip generation and what their impacts are going to be on this on city infrastructure as far as street infrastructure. Um, so that's something that we would be able to do regardless of the land use process. Hey, we're proposing this use. It has 5,000 square ft. This is the Institute of Traffic Engineer trip generation rate. It's going to generate 5 PM peak hour trips and each of those require a mitigation fee of $3,300 per trip. Um, that's all stuff that we can already do. Um, you know, this is a good segue for something that we wanted to touch on during the director's report related to specific uses like affordable housing, like daycare providers. There are opportunities and we can build it out through our concurrency chapter that if there are community priorities as far as providing affordable housing, providing affordable child care, providing you know services for our homeless population, there are the city can either wave or subsidize or reduce impact fees. um the the city council will then would need would be required to essentially budget for that through their annual budgeting process or else it would be considered a gift of public funds. You would have to find funding resources elsewhere to help to fund and subsidize that program. If we said we don't want to charge traffic impact fees for affordable housing that serves, you know, 60% or below a very median income. Um because these projects are hard

enough to pencil out. That's that's something that I think as we discuss the concurrency chapter that Christie's been leading those efforts along with Russ, we did want to have some of those discussions related to specific uses and would would those reductions and impact fees be be warranted as long as the city council can find the funding from someplace. And that was the RCW that was put in front of you this evening because we had a feeling this topic was going to come up and if not we wanted to bring it before you because it would be a future topic. Thank you. Are there any other questions on the uh feedback needed for staff comments? Not questions comments hearing none. Let's move on. Uh commissioner reports. Let's start with you, Commissioner Jennifer Davis.

Commissioner Derer, think for me. Commissioner Packard, nothing. Commissioner Morton, I have nothing. Um, I will only add that on a traffic um discussion, I did meet with the mayor and I will be meeting with the public uh um director, public works director,

public works director upon his return. again renewing my concerns about the uh South Lake Stevens and Machias um tea. I have requested that there be a four-way stop installed and um am making the case that that will if moved up the food chain after the consultants did their work and left it off of the food chain. Um that that would help uh regulate traffic on South Lake Stevens. um add to the walkability of the investment already made on that South Lake Stevens um walk um path and um be a safety um uh we had yet another accident two days ago. So um my concerns continue and I will continue working that with the powers that be. So thank you. Wanted to make you aware of that.

Can I go back and Sure. So, um, maybe this isn't the right forum, but I am concerned about the number of teenagers riding ebikes through the city willy-nilly. Uh, I can't get on a dirt bike and pop wheelies down the middle of the road. I'll get you doing that,

but there are kids doing it all the time. Now, I'm not trying to be a Scrooge, but I was going down this road the other day around the lake, and three kids came up the road, opposite direction, popping willies at 30 miles an hour. Right? That's a safety hazard for them and for me, right? That shouldn't be allowed. So, I don't know what the city can do about it. I don't know if it's just police or what, but it's becoming a problem. And some kid is going to get hit by a car and die. Mark my words. I hope it doesn't, but somebody's going to get hit and die because there's they're able to do whatever they want, and it's not safe.

I can tell you that the police won't do anything because they're underage. the bikes are under a certain CC and they can only the worst thing they can do is confiscate the bike if they decide to do that and it's not happening. Yeah. It's just it's a double standard, right? Just because my bike uh my dirt bike has gasoline uh then it's under some different rule. But I can get an electric bike that can go just as fast if not faster. It it's just dangerous. So, are they going? Uh, whether they are or they aren't, at 30 miles an hour, if they get hit by a car, they're going to be in big trouble.

And I will tell you that was the precursor to the accident that I witnessed on South Lake Stevens. And I mean, they missed the guy on the bike, but hit each other. The cars hit each other. Based on your comment, uh Christy Schmidt, planning manager, I would like to note that this is a topic often at planning conferences and it's become come to the forefront because it is an issue in societies, particularly more urban areas. There are jurisdictions who have chosen to go so far as to regulate ebikes, escooters, etc. And there are regulations out there if that's a direction the community chooses to go in. On that note, this is Commissioner Packard. And so I'm from Carlsbad, California. Learned that uh yeah, at my high school where I grew up, they have over a thousand kids showing up to school each day on some sort of ebike, ecooter, etc. And yeah, they've had to impose a number of regulations in that community because of just the amount of kids that are doing it, right? Uh so, uh my uncle is a former city council member. I'll call him and see if he has anything to send my way that uh we could potentially use for that

because it's only it's getting more and more frequent. Again, somebody's going to get hurt and it's going to be real sad. Thank you. Um no other uh planning commissioners reports, so we'll move on to the planning director's report.

Sure. Well, Dave Levan went ahead and talked to you about the RCW that Russ Dave and I wanted you to talk about. So, these are exemptions that will go forward at some point to the city council about a financial decision whether or not we choose to have exemptions for certain types of public uses and public benefits and provide a discount and or subsidize for traffic impact fees. The only other item I have for you is that at the next planning commission meeting, we will be providing a quarterly report for you. And that is it for the evening. And yes, we are moving to Wednesdays, I believe, in September. So that would be

September 3rd. It's the 3rd, right before Yeah.

So please note that on your calendar. Anything else from staff this evening? I would just note that the city um we're looking at working with a couple of different jurisdictions. Uh the cities of Monroe and Mary'sville, Stanwood of Arlington have all expressed some interest in working to together to develop some pre-approved uh ADU accessory dwelling unit plans to kind of help reduce um some of the barriers uh some of the cost to developing. So these would be we would look at developing a number of different plan sets that the community could then use that if they went with that plan they wouldn't have to go through kind of the as rigorous of a land use and building they would be vetted by staff already. Um there was there was a consortium of jurisdictions in Kitap County that did something similar and there's a group in King County that's doing it as well. So basically these five cities and potentially others would all adopt these pre-approved plans and um you know offer a variety of different designs and sizes and and all of that to help reduce some of the barriers barriers to ADU production which we see as important um you know in helping us to meet our housing needs. So that's just an interesting program that we're looking at pursuing.

And then Dave, did you have an update on critical areas?

Uh yeah. So, we are looking forward. We're going to be getting back a draft of the best available science review and the gaps analysis of the current critical areas ordinance. Uh, that'll help dictate some of the things we need to focus on over the next couple months. Um, so we're getting that from our consultants tomorrow. Um, so I think we'll plan on sharing uh some of the results from that and the the preliminary direction that we're needing to go as far as updating specific sections of the critical areas ordinance. will look at doing that at your September 3rd meeting. Um, as I've mentioned in the past, we're generally in a pretty good spot as far as not needing to go through, say, the process that Snomish County had to go through over the last two years. They basically hadn't updated their code since 2007. And so, it was a pretty involved process to get them up to best available science. And they faced some serious feed, you know, push back from residents, from developers. is they kind of didn't really make anybody happy with what they were proposing. Um, we're, you know, we last updated our ordinance in 2019 and it still largely reflects best available science. So, we need to update our critical areas. Well, we need to adopt critical areas critical aquifer recharge area regulations and do a couple things related to riparian buffers, but other than that, we are looking pretty good as far as our critical areas code. Thank you. We will look forward to discussing that on the third. Uh good discussion this evening. I love it when we disagree. It's what we're here to do. So, thank you for coming prepared and for speaking so eloquently. I'm proud to be amongst you. With that said, do I have a motion to um adjourn?

Commissioner Dero moves. Do I have a second? Commissioner Packard second. All those in favor? I. Thank you. Ella.