Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. This is, chair Kelly calling the planning commission meeting, for Wednesday, October 15 at 6PM to order. Our first order of business is roll call. Commissioner Pool, will you please take roll?

Yes. If you can just give me one moment while

I Certainly.

The roster. Apologies. I could probably do it by memory, but let's see here. Meng, did you send that to me recently?

I did, but I can

just pull one out for Jeff Kelly or Cherokee.

I got it. I got it.

You got it? Okay.

Thank you. Alright. Oops. Someone just arrived. Okay. Good. Good. I'm glad there was a delay.

Okay.

So we've got commissioner Roche. Commissioner Bayan?

Here. I'm here.

Oh, okay. Okay. Alright. Chair Kelly? Here. Commissioner Fixdal? Commissioner Commissioner Metzen, commissioner Kanuer.

Here.

K. And we have a oh, commissioner or I'm sorry. Vice chair Artsy?

Here.

K. And we have a new member, it looks like, whose name escapes me. Is that correct? Correct.

Okay.

What is the name of our new commissioner?

DorsalPlants. Sorry. Is it not on there?

I I'm not looking at that one. I'm I found an old one.

Yes. And so it's dorsal plants.

Oh, it's plants. Alright.

It's already on two.

Okay. Thank you. Sorry for the confusion there. Commissioner, can you back?

Commissioner Pool. We do have quorum, so we'll go ahead and proceed with our meeting. The next item on the agenda is correspondence received, and we have no emails, received since the last planning commission meeting on October 1. The next item is audience comment, and those attending virtually will be offered an opportunity to speak after the in person comments are completed. Each speaker is provided three minutes to address an item.

Interested parties can also provide written comment by emailing planningcommissionrentonwa dot gov. Groups and organizations are welcome to nominate a spokesperson to speak on their behalf. And as of today, we have no one signed up to speak on non agenda items. And we have no attendees in Zoom from the public as well. So we will move on to our next agenda item, which is commissioner comments.

Commissioners, do any of you have comments that you would like to share? I certainly would like to welcome our newest planning commissioner. This it's been some time for me since a new planning commissioner has come. Some of you have been here long enough to see many come and go. I have not, and so welcome. We know you're not sure what's going on, we will get you through all of it. And please feel comfortable voicing your opinions and ideas and questions and all of those things. Commissioner Bayan, please go ahead.

Good evening. Welcome to our new commissioner. I hope you will love working us.

Very difficult to hear.

Am I?

That's better.

Okay. Let me see. So I just want to share that I will be accepting the proclamation from the city of Burlington or city council on Monday, October 20, the proclamation for the Filipino American Heritage Month this year. That will be

So at seven

I hope some of you might be interested to attend. Thank you.

Thank you for sharing. Any other commissioners? Very good. Matt, it's time for our director's report.

Alright. Thank you, chair Kelly. Thank you, planning commissioners. You can probably tell I'm a little distracted right now, and maybe other folks are distracted too. So I'm gonna get through this really quick here so folks can get back to maybe what they were doing before 06:00. Also, thank you, chair Kelly. Just wanted to also welcome our new planning commissioner, Dorsal Plants. Welcome, commissioner Plants. So happy to have you here. And, next, I just wanted to also, thank Wong Salee, Margaret Bravo, Katie Bukumarales, and Jenny Cisneros for, such a great event we had on Monday.

Several of you were here for the, Vision twenty fifty reception and award ceremony. Also saw commissioner Art C, commissioner Kanur, and chair Kelly there at the event. It was really great. Well attended. The reception was was awesome as usual.

So thank you so much. And then finally, just wanted to give the commission a heads up on where we're going for the rest of the year for the commission work. We've got four new items for you tonight for briefing and public hearings and deliberations that will take us through November. We plan to bring you the updated recommendation for the critical areas ordinance on November 5. And then what we'd like to do is bring you the new parks, recreation, and open space plan for a potential combined briefing and public hearing on November 19.

And fingers crossed, if everything goes as planned, we could then take maybe the month of December off, come back after the holidays, reconvene on those deliberations on the parks plan. So that's just the kind of a little preview of what we got for the rest of the year, and, let's get rolling. Thank you. Matt,

we're gonna move next on to our any questions for Matt from commissioners?

No. Actually, I had a had jersey. Sorry.

Commissioner Cool.

I liked the jersey.

Thank you.

He's wearing blue jays blue. I don't

know if comment. It's classic mariners blue.

We sure are.

Yeah. I'm gonna say that comedic timing, by the way, popping up on screen just to see that was wonderful. Love love the Jersey to you. Yeah. Thank you. For the the Parks and Rec plan going forward, is there any way you can send out the PowerPoint slides for that before the meeting so we can review them, before day of?

Yes. Absolutely. Thank you, commissioner Artsy. I wanna make sure that the commission has some time before, we get into a combined briefing and public hearing. I've asked our parks planners to hopefully get that plan and presentation to you.

My hope is two weeks before that actual meeting so you have some time to look at it. If if we can't get the draft to you, then we'll break it up. I don't want to get into a situation where the commission doesn't have enough time to to thoroughly go through it, formulate questions, and, yeah. So just going from those lessons learned from the critical areas ordinance, I think, yes, if it that's where I said, fingers crossed. If everything goes well, we'll combine those meetings. But if it's a last minute and we're not able to get you enough time to look at those documents, we'll spread it out like we normally do with three meetings for each item.

Awesome. Thank you. That'd be a huge help.

Yep. Thank you.

Yeah. Angelia, next is our briefing for group 20BD243 RMF two rezone. That was more than enough acronyms.

Thank you, Keller. Whenever

you're ready.

One moment. Alright. Thank you for your patience, and welcome, commissioner Plants. It's wonderful to see you. And I know you got to have a sneak peek of all of our presentations before this, but now you get to see the whole thing.

So that is great. All 25 slides for mine. So but that being said, the staff report that I prepared was quite long at 52 pages, particularly since has a a lot of pictures and lot of tables. So for those of you that are in here, I did have this printed out. So the first page shows all nine sites, and then the other pages after that shows each site as well as the parcel numbers and the current use associated with each lot in that site.

And for those of you who are not attending in person, you would be able to see all of that information and more in the staff report. But, of course, I'd be happy to send out a copy of this handout if you ever want to see it for example, the public hearing. But and I I forgot to introduce myself, Angela Weiss with long range planning for the record. So I'll I'll move on. So first for some background, last year we completed our comprehensive plan update And as part of that update, we did, try to figure out ways that we can increase density where where needed and appropriate in order to meet our housing goals.

And one way we determined, would be best way to do that was to create a new RMF two rezone. So for some context, we already had the RMF, one rezone or RMF, zone, and that has a density of 10 to 20 dwelling units per net acre, whereas the RMF two zone would have 20 to 40 dwelling units per net acre, so a lot more density. But thus far, the development standards for this zone are are pretty much identical. So at that time, we did not do a comprehensive review of all the sites that we would like to bring to the RMF two zone. We did rezone a few sites, but not a comprehensive review.

So this is that opportunity to look at sites across the city and see where would we would have good opportunities to rezone to RMF two. And thus far, we have nine proposed sites. The reason we have nine currently is because these sites do not require a comprehensive plan update. It's just a rezone so that we would have more in the future. And these sites range all over the city.

You'll see in future slides, I'll show maps, but most of them are located in the Highlands. That's not for any particular reason except a lot of sites in that area are already exceeding density. We also have one large site that is located in the City Center Valley and West Hill community Planning Areas, and then we have two sites in the Benson Community Planning Area. And just for clarity, most of the sites are actually already zoned RMF, and then a couple of the sites are located in the R 10 and the R 14 zone. So some of the categories or factors that came into play when deciding what what properties should be rezoned including include, for example, aligning zoning with the built density on-site.

So we're looking for the low hanging fruit as far as what sites would be appropriate for rezone. So for example, if we see a site that already has 24 dwelling units per acre, then that seems like a good site to bring to the arm of two zone. In addition, we're looking to facilitate infill where appropriate. So for example, if a site has plenty of room to construct another building, then, that would be a good opportunity to increase density. Furthermore, we want to resolve nonconformities.

There are a few sites, for example, that have self-service storage, or or warehousing, and so this is a great opportunity to encourage redevelopment. However, they can remain if they so choose. And then the main purpose, of course, is to advance our citywide housing goals and to promote efficient urban land use where appropriate. So this is a zoomed out map just so you can see where these sites span. All the sites are shown in dark blue, but I think you'll you'll understand a little bit better what these look like when we zoom in a little bit.

So you'll see in this picture that Site 1 Through 4 are located in the Sunset area. Then five and six are located on Northeast 4th and Northeast 3rd. Site 7 is located on the other Sunset Street located on the the West Side. And then Site 8 and Site 9 are located in the Benson area.

Hold on on this slide for just a moment. I would like our commissioners to have a moment to think about where each of these are if they would like. Before we move on, just pause for a second.

Oh, absolutely. And I did forget to actually say at the beginning of this presentation. I know that usually for presentations, we wait till the end for questions. But feel free to interrupt me at any point while we're looking at these sites so that you can ask your questions because I think it'll be much easier since there's nine of them.

So

you're good? Okay. Alright. So the first site is Site 1, Sunset Boulevard Northeast and Aberdeen Avenue Northeast. Currently, this property, it looks like it has two lots, but there's actually a lot more lots that have easements on them located on the North property line. So this property is in the Highlands Community Planning Area, and this site is currently zoned RMF. The total acres is 3.49. And, like I said, self-service storage that was developed in 2000, and that is nonconforming. So it's nonconforming according to current code. In the future, it would also be nonconforming.

But like I said, they would not be required to bring their site into conformance or to develop unless they elected to do so. The other site on the South Side is currently developed at 31 dwelling units per acre, and it was developed in 1963. This site is just over half a mile to a King County Metro stop, so it's pretty close to to transit there. And you'll see that across Sunset Boulevard Northeast, that site is also proposed for a rezone, so that is site number two. So that provides some context there.

This is a good opportunity to rezone this site mostly because first, it already exceeds zoning. It's not usually a good idea to have zones that exceed the the zoning for the site. So this will help ensure that we're not discouraging people from from adding infill or from remodeling their other properties. So this is a great opportunity to encourage reinvestment. Any questions about this site?

Why not include number one zero five five? The little exclusion in there.

One I don't see a one

So there's in the right in the middle, we have this little c cut out from this shape.

Yep. Absolutely. So that's located in the commercial neighborhood zone. And at this time, we we didn't anticipate that we would want to rezone that particular parcel. So it is a a completely different zone.

Furthermore, that would require a comprehensive plan update, so we would not be able to do it as part of this proposal. RMF does or RMF and RMF two does not currently allow a lot of commercial uses. We are considering changing that in the future, and so, you know, maybe there's a a possibility that that could be an opportunity to rezone that particular site. But at this time, based on our current code, most commercial uses are not permitted within the r m f 2 zone or the r m f zone. So it does not make sense to rezone that particular site at this time, especially since it serves the purpose of providing minor commercial uses in close proximity to high density dwellings.

Commissioner Bayan? Feel free to, you're currently on mute, so feel free to ask any questions that you would like.

Oh, sorry. So transit access, it says here that it's one half mile walk to frequent service. How frequent is the service of King County Metro?

Sure. Actually, that is a good question because very recently with the middle housing update, we created a map that shows all the sites that are have transit within I think it's fifteen minute intervals and during the peak period. So that's the quick answer to your question. We have a map for it too. So after this presentation, if you'd like me to show you the map, I'm happy to do that, but fifteen minute intervals.

Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions before I move on?

Oh. Oh, yeah. I've got one as well. So is there any way that as part of this, sort of valuation, new tenants sort of look into developing these sites that we could look into, essentially, like, relooking at the transit element and what can be done to improve the the access there. Just because I know as that site gets more, more dense housing and development, it might be useful to extend the rapid ride that currently stops at the landing just another half mile up the hill to pick up people here as well.

Great question. Now that, honestly is not my area of expertise. However, what I will say is that the recent comprehensive plan and its update that that was dated for 2024, that evaluated a ten year period. And so it takes into account all of the increase in density that we're proposing. One of the reasons we're proposing to increase our density and add more RMF two sites is to meet our housing goals.

So what the comprehensive plan does is it does look towards the future even before we're rezoning this these sites. So I don't know if that answers your question or not. Otherwise, if it doesn't, I'd be happy to provide more context and and inform myself a little bit better for the public hearing. I

think it sort of does. It'd just be interesting to look at what changes might need to come about as more dense housing gets added to this because it doesn't seem like it this might not have been it considered as much. I know I know this like, as you were saying before, this was wrapped into the ten year plan, but I don't know. It'd be interesting to see if if how much of an impact this has going forward for for that plan, and if there if if it's possible

to look at mid like, a

mid five year correction, I guess, or something along those lines.

Go ahead, madam. Commissioner Artesi, I was just gonna add that we do anticipate rapid ride going up the hill here into Northeast Sunset Boulevard. In fact, the newest development just right up the road at Solara, we actually had them put in some infrastructure for a potential rapid ride stop. So, it is in Metro's plan to go up the hill and extend the rapid ride. We were hoping it was going to be sooner than later, but I think it's it's kind of a chicken and an egg, right here. They're they're waiting for the density to come before they extend the line, and they're not quite there yet. But we are anticipating to come.

Okay. Gotcha. Perfect. Thank you, June.

That's great.

Go ahead,

Angela. Alright. Thank you. I will move on to site number two. Oh, actually, no. I completely forgot that I had pictures for each and every one of those sets. I know you like pictures, so we'll just take a look at them since I already prepared them, but I'll have to remember to show the pictures while we're discussing it. So the just to clarify, the picture on the bottom right, it actually isn't in the site. I just included that picture. It's kiddie corner across the street just to show you what the surrounding neighborhood looks like because there's already clearly a multifamily buildings.

Actually, that probably exceeds our height regulations, but there's already multifamily in the area. You'll see that the picture on the top left and the bottom or the top right and the bottom left, that is the self-service storage. And then the picture on the top left is the current thirty three thirty, yes, 31 dwelling units per net acre multifamily site. Alright. So the next site is Sunset Boulevard Northeast And Northeast 10th Place.

So this site is just across the street. You'll see that this site has three parcels, and they are all currently multifamily, and they all exceed density. So, for example, we have 29 dwelling units per net acre for both of the northern parcels, and then the bottom part parcel is 36 dwelling units per net acre. Before I forget, let me just show you. So the picture on the top left, that is the 36.

The picture on the top right is the 29, and the picture on the bottom left is also the the 36, and you just get more pictures of the same. So this site currently is all RMF zoning. It's also in the comprehensive plan area, and the site is larger than the last one at 5.46 acres. And it is a little bit closer to the same, actually, same metro stop. So the same metro stop serves both of them at 43 a point 43 miles.

And so the reason why we're proposing to rezone the site, obviously, is because it already exceeds density. It looks like there might be potential to add a little bit of infill on these sites. So it it looks like a good opportunity to just bring it into conformance with its with density. Any questions about this or the pictures? Alright.

So the next site is actually pretty close. It is Site 3 Edmonds Avenue Northeast and Northeast Sunset Boulevard. This site has a lot more parcels. Some of them are single family, and today, the parcel on the north side is a church and associated parking. You have some single family along the southern side and some townhomes at 19 dwelling units per net acre.

And then you also have some apartment buildings that are older at 43 dwelling units per net acre and 25. And then you also have a duplex on the eastern side. For this particular site, we also had some interest from property owners. For example, the church property did express some interest, and I believe it was the property on the eastern side no. The Western Side. No. I'll take it back. Eastern side, the duplex, I believe they had some interest in rezoning as well. And this site is 4.12 acres, and it is point 44 miles from a major King County metro stop. So we'll take a look at some pictures.

For context, this site is has some slopes. So if you're going along Northeast Sunset Boulevard, for example, you will see drop off. So it's there are some retaining walls. We'll see it when we take a look at these pictures. So you can see one of the single family homes in the very back.

It is on the top top left hand side, and you can see the retaining wall behind it. Some of the townhomes that were 19 dwelling unit dwelling units per acre, that is also located in that picture. If you're looking at the picture on the top right, then that is the church property. It looks like there are two buildings and two different uses, but there it's actually all of the church property. And then on the bottom left hand side, you can see the single family home.

Once again, you can see the a portion of that fencing, so I'm low I'm on the top of the retaining wall. And then on the bottom middle, can see I believe that is the 43 dwelling units per net acre site. So an older building looks like the sixties. And then the bottom left hand right hand side is also multifamily. Let's see. That one appears to be 20 the 21 dwelling units per net acre. So any questions about this site? Awesome.

The zoning on the other side of the street, is that eight? The area that's not included to the west across Edmonds?

Oh, that is our eight zoning. So you I actually it's fun that you asked that question because I was looking at that site too, and it looked like a a potential opportunity. That That property, that large lot is actually owned by the church. To clarify, the reason why the church property is interested in upzoning the the the portion that's on the site is because they have the parking available across the street. So, yeah, we we certainly considered it, but at this time, we decided to keep it as is.

I had a question as well. Was there any sort of plans to change the street network as, like, this gets developed? Like, the in terms of, like, the layout of the roads because it's a bit confusing here.

Certainly. So as properties develop, they would be required to come bring their property into conformance with street standards. They would be required to do the street improvements along their property line. I'm not sure why you might be thinking of that alley that's located on the Southern side of the church property. Is that what what you're talking about as far as some confusion?

Yeah. That one and and for the most part, yeah. And there was also some other ones on the previous site too that were it just seemed to some different interesting, like, outlets, I would say, and, like, cul de sacs.

Yeah. Sometimes it does look confusing mostly because properties are developing and complying with the code at the time that they develop. Then, you know, fifteen years later, somebody else comes in and they develop and maybe the standards have changed. So the right of way dedication, it doesn't look quite the same. I think in this particular case, a lot of those single family homes, if they were to develop individually, would be impacted by the required right of way dedication.

So it would be more in their interest to you know, for a somebody to purchase all of those properties and develop all of them at once so that they have room to develop. And then that would obviously, provide parking within the right of way, which would be, very helpful, and it would it would make the site look a whole whole lot better as far as street. Go ahead, commissioner plants.

I apologize. I was waiting till the end for this question because it was about other but kind of some of what you're talking there about, ideally, somebody would buy when identifying these sites, kind of what steps did the city take to look at displacement risks for these ninth sites and potential mitigation of those risks? Because I'm seeing a lot of these apartment buildings are rather old and seem kind of ripe for a redevelopment and maybe an increase in rent.

That is an excellent question, and we did evaluate that as part of our review. To clarify, so these sites do already exceed density, so that is one challenge. But to I think that me setting the framework of what would need to happen in order for it to be redeveloped would be helpful. So probably a lot of these sites are receiving income and are receiving good in income. But in order to redevelop, they would have to evict all of those people.

They would have to demolish that site, and I will clarify that it's not a short process. So that site would need to be vacant for an extended period of time. And so if they do develop, they would need to comply with current interest rates, and so it may not pencil out usually to develop the site. So it's not gonna be the first option that a a property owner is going to choose. More often than not, the it'll be in their best interest to areas where they can redevelop or do a building addition, for example.

So the site at 43 dwelling units per net acre, they might have room, for example, to do a building addition or maybe some of these sites can add a third story. And then that would provide them opportunity to rehab the rest of their building. So while it it is feasible, for example, if their building is in such disarray that it makes no sense to keep it, it's possible. But at the same time, it's not the likeliness likeliest scenario. And I know somebody else had a question, but I don't see that question anymore. So feel free to pipe in if I missed you.

Fine.

Oh, commissioner. Yeah.

Actually, you have partially answered my question. My I am curious whether because you are upzoning a lot of areas, and I'm curious whether you have reached out to those property owners about this rezoning.

Excellent question. Honestly, we have not sent out letters. There are property owners, for example, in this one where they reached out to us specifically. But, for example, this does not impact people who have nonconforming uses because it's already nonconforming. And sites, for example, the 43 dwelling units per net acre would still be nonconforming as far as density. But this is actually bringing them closer into nonconformance. So at this time, we we have not reached out. Any any other questions?

Yeah. So back to Torsel's point, do we provide does Rents provide any sort of assistance to eventually, if one of these developers wants to essentially knock out and rebuild one of these apartments into a more, like, denser, more luxury apartment, do we provide assistance to any of the people that might be evicted in the process to help them sort of resettle and find out their home affordable homes?

That that is a good question. I'm sure that actually, I I don't know if I

So I I'm not sure about evictions, but I do believe that there are a bunch of state laws that have changed recently that the landlord is required to help out with the with the help that is there. I know that we don't directly support like, when people need help with rent and stuff like that, we provide we help fund through our human services work group, some other agencies that will provide stopgap sort of rental insurance or rental help. I don't I'll have to check with them to see if we work with any agencies that work with evictions specifically and see if that would help that. But I do believe, that there are newer state laws that were really trying to mitigate that as much as they can on what the landlord needs to do to be able to truly evict people. I think it's pretty

much

the process.

Okay. What what are your thoughts on how this might impact, like, housing costs for people in this area? Because I know it looks like I mean, there's in terms of, like, the last step possible in this case, it looks like this has a potential to take out a bit of older housing stock, which would definitely have lower rent prices, essentially, and then add in newer ones which have higher prices. So is there has that, like, been looked at at all or been considered? Thank

you, commissioner Arzee. And to get back to potentially, commissioner Plants' question about displacement. When we were looking at these rezones, we did have naturally occurring housing in mind and not wanting to upzone these properties to a point that would be attract attractive to speculative development. This I think Angelie did a good job at the beginning. These these are really light touches right now.

We're looking at properties that are already overdense. So let's get them conforming, and then let's also give them the ability to do some infill but not scrape it and start all over again. And that's when you see those rent increases. I think, Noah and naturally occurring affordable housing is very important. We were using that as a lens as we were looking at all these properties.

So our intent here is not to spur, speculative development, but just provide an opportunity again to get any of these properties into conformance. I think, you know, when property owners go in to get refinancing and they see nonconforming on their, on their assessing assessor report, it's it's a little disconcerning to them. So this is an opportunity to get that off and then to also provide, again, maybe some gentle infill development and, hopefully stabilize and not increase speculative development.

Thank you. Mhmm. And also, to add to that, these properties, for example, the single family homes in the church, these properties have been zoned RMF for a very long time. Same with that self-service storage. They've been zoned RMF for a long time, and you'll see that a lot of these zones haven't taken advantage of that zoning.

So it's just not attractive enough. And so while we're increasing zoning, it's not actually enough that would be very enticing for a developer to completely scrape and get rid of existing tenants, but it is enough to allow somebody to redevelop portions of their site just to add infill. But if it was enticing enough, all those single family homes there would probably already be gone.

That's fair. Okay. Gotcha. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Wonderful. I have a tickle in my throat. One moment. Excuse me. Sorry. Alright. So the next one is Site 4, and this is Northeast Sunset Boulevard and Union Avenue Northeast. We also received some interest from the property on the south side as well as the, excuse me, the top right hand side. And, actually, those are those are the Renton Housing Authority, I believe. They are affordable housing.

They might not be Renton Housing Authority, but they are an affordable housing institution. So this property is located in the Highlands Community planning Area. The total site size is 13.75 acres, and they are currently already zoned RMF. These are very close to metro stops. I actually included a little m there so you can see where the metro stops are located.

So very close. The, parcels on the north left hand side that are thirty three and thirty four dwelling units per net acre, they are owned by a different company. So they're they're separate, but they are higher density. And so we thought we we already had interest. We thought we would include them all altogether since they already exceed the maximum 20 dwelling units per an acre, and so this would bring them into conformance for density.

Any questions about this one? I do have pictures. And all of them actually I did forget to take pictures of the top left properties, but I did take pictures of all of the other parcels, which is just two of them. Alright. So I'll move on to site 5. This is Edmunds Avenue Northeast And Northeast 3rd Street. This is also in the Highlands Community Planning Area, but now we've gone down a step. Now we're on Northeast 3rd Street. This property is pretty large in total. It is 24.86 acres, and this is where we include another zone.

So that not all parcels are RMF. One of them at least is r 10. So we have a r 10 zone site and that's currently owned by WashDOT. It is a warehouse. And we also have existing apartment buildings and they range in density from 14 to 31 dwelling units per acre, and they range in a construction date from 1979 to 1999.

And we're also pretty close to metro stops, so we have two, one on the same side along the south boundary and across the street. And just to clarify, the washout property would not be required to bring their site into with code, but this does provide an opportunity to redevelop the site if they so choose. And the reason why we're proposing to rezone these properties even though they are abutting r eight zoning is because there is some separation due to site slopes. So and also of existing vegetation along the south boundary of those single family properties on the north side. And to show some pictures, there was a lot of ground to cover there but I got my steps in for sure.

So this property on the top left hand side, that is, let's see, the 27 dwelling units per net acre And to the property on the middle and top and to the top right hand side, that is, let's see, the 19 dwelling units per acre, so on the bottom corner right hand side. And then the property on the bottom left, that is the 27 or it is the 14 dwelling units per net acre, I believe. And then the property on the bottom as well bottom middle and bottom right is the 31 dwelling units per net acre. I might be a little bit wrong by one lot, but in that vicinity. Any questions about this site?

Alright. So the next site is Site 6. This is Northeast 4th Street and Queen Ave Northeast. This property already exceeds density at 27 dwelling units per net acre. It is only one parcel, but this parcel has a bit of split zoning.

So you'll see that the flagpoles on the bottom there, they're not included in the proposed rezone, but they are access for the site, access from Northeast 4th Street. So those are not included as part of this proposed rezone. This property, the existing apartments are were built in 1987, and like I said, 27 dwelling units per acre, and the total site is 7.3 acres. And I do have some pictures there. So here are some pictures.

The one was street view, and so that's the right hand photo. And then the other one on the left hand side is a field view. And this site is also pretty close to transit. You can see on the corner there on the south side in at the intersection, there is a metro stop both there and across the street. So once again, the reason for this proposed rezone is simply to bring it into conformance for density as well as it's in close proximity to commercial and metro stops, so it seems like a good opportunity.

And they do have a lot of room to add infill. Any questions about this site? Alright. So the next one is Site 7. This is the largest site.

It is Southwest Sunset Boulevard and Maple Avenue Southwest, And there are a lot of parcels in the staff report. I do believe that the total table with all the parcels, I did not include all of them for the sake of the staff report. However, I'm happy to provide the table that includes all of the parcels, including some of the smaller single family lots. So this property is located in the city center, the valley, and the West Hill community planning areas. The entirety of the site is currently zoned RMF.

I know that we are considering rezoning some of the CA zoned, parcels along the North Side, in the future, but at this time, we're only including the areas that are already zoned RMF. And, it includes a mix of single family, some duplexes, but the vast majority of it are existing condos and apartments that were built in the nineteen eighties to 2007, and the density ranges from 14 to 27 dwelling units per acre. You'll see that on the very far left hand side, there's an apartment complex that is listed as six dwelling units per acre. However, when I say six dwelling units per acre, that's based on the gross area of the site and not the net area, and there are critical areas on that site. So the reason we're proposing to to rezone this property is simply to provide infill opportunities, especially since the site has a lot of transit access.

You'll see the four stops that are located along Northeast Sunset Boulevard. And while we were thinking about rezoning portions instead of the entirety of the site, some areas are are split by the street, they're owned by the same property owner. So we thought it would be best to just have it all in one go to keep it clean. And most of these pictures or all of them actually are from a street view because the day that I decided to go was a little bit too, rainy. But, that being said, here are some pictures.

And since I did not walk it myself, I don't remember all of places that, these pictures were taken, but, most of them were internal. So for example, on, you know, Southwest 5th Place. Any questions about this site? Alright. Alright.

We only have two more. This one is in Benson, and it is Site 8. So it's Benson Boulevard South and I 405 Interchange. And this property is a little bit different, so you'll see most of them are single family homes and a vacant property. And this is a case where actually a property owner has purchased most, if not all, of the properties in that particular area, and they very, very actively requested by email and phone that we include this as part of the rezone proposal.

This site is a little bit further away from transportation access, but it's still within walking distance and bike distance at point nine miles to a major King County metro stop. And it does seem an appropriate choice to rezone to R M F 2 because we do have R M F 2. I showed a little round circle there in red in close proximity, but at the time that we rezoned that particular property, it it was an obvious choice because it already had multifamily that it exceeded density. We did not include this at that time because it's mostly single family homes, and we didn't know that there was expressed interest. But that is the reason for the proposed rezone.

Let me move on to pictures there. So you can see a lot of it is slopes and kind of a challenge to take pictures of because of the lack of parking in the in the right of way. But there are some single family homes, and if they do develop that site, they'll have a really nice view. So any questions about this property? Alright.

Last but not least, I think this one was my favorite, actually. So, this one is also located in the Benson Community Planning Area. The existing zoning is r 14, and it's two parcels. So there are condos with 21 dwelling units per acre and then a church property. And the church was developed in 1951, and the condos were built in 1993.

It is also close to a major King County metro stop at point 15 miles, and it also it's also close to groceries as well. Believe me, when I saw this property, I was thinking if they develop anything, I'll be sure to move there. And the reason why we're proposing this is for an infill opportunity. I don't know if the 21 units per net acre has enough land area for for infill. Also, it's condos, so they're less likely to redevelop.

But the church property, if they so choose, certainly has room to add density. Any questions about this site? Alright. Oh, and there's the church property and then the condos as well. There's the pictures.

I was just curious because you mentioned that you had spoken to the previous church on-site three or four. Have you spoken with the church community at this look?

But we have not spoken to the church community. They are happy to continue their church services. They are not required to redevelop their property. In fact, I don't think they're a nonconforming use at all if if they have their conditional use permit. And even if they didn't have their conditional use permit, they can continue. But this provides them an opportunity to, you know, take take an option if they so choose.

Mhmm.

And the staff recommendation is to approve the proposed zoning map amendments for the nine sites as listed.

Very much. Commissioners, any other general questions on that one? Sorry. I jumped the gun on your schedule slide.

Okay. Cool. Well,

you will see us again for planning commission public hearing on November 5, and that's it for me.

Thank you.

Our next item is a briefing on group twenty b d two hundred forty four contractors yards and offices.

Hello, everyone. I am Maya Simon, associate planner. This is my first presentation with you all, so it's nice to see you all in person and your names on the screen. I am here to talk to you about code amendment to allow some flexibility for contractor and trade businesses in Renton. So this came about because we currently allow a use called contractors offices, which is permitted only in industrial zones.

And since the city's industrial zones are mainly in the Valley, there's really limited space for these trade businesses that might be looking to operate in Renton. And not all contractor or trade businesses like plumbers, electricians, painters, they don't really generate the same level of traffic, noise, dust as traditional industrial uses. But under the current code, these businesses would have to be located in the same area as manufacturing plants and warehousing. So in looking at the potential impacts of contractor businesses, staff realize they're really similar in nature to an existing use called off-site services, which includes cleaning services. Both of these uses involve office space, limited storage, and fleet activity at the beginning and end of the workday.

That use of off-site services is currently restricted to the industrial zones and the commercial arterial zone only West of Rainier Avenue South slash State Route 167. And if it's appropriate to allow contractors to locate beyond the valley, then the same consideration should be given to all off-site services. So we are proposing to modify a couple definitions. First, to include these contractor businesses in the definition of off-site services and specifically exclude construction slash contractor yards. We'd also edit the definition that is currently construction slash contractors offices to refer readers to this off-site services use.

And then we would add a definition for construction slash contractors yard, and that's for those higher intensity uses with outdoor storage and dust and noise. Think of, like, landscaping material bulk storage or construction businesses that may have a lumber yard, something like that. And then the use table, we will allow that new use of contractors yards in industrial zones, so that's where currently the contractors offices are allowed. So those would stay in the industrial areas. Then off-site services, which would now include all trade businesses and contractor offices, those would be still allowed where they are now in industrial zones and CA zone to the West Of Rainier Avenue.

They would also be expanded to be allowed East Of Rainier Avenue in those zones with an administrative conditional use permit. Short but sweet, we recommend that you amend the city code to redefine construction slash contractors offices to yard, integrate the offices into the definition of off-site services, and then change off-site services to be permitted West Of Rainier Avenue and then permitted East Of Rainier Avenue with an administrative conditional use permit. And this will be up for a public hearing on November 5 and deliberations on November 19. Happy to answer any questions.

I am interested in more information around expanding this into the CA zone, and it might be easily answered by saying, yeah, that I can't

I'm forgetting the name of it. It's not the contractor's yard.

It's just the other one. The other use is already allowed there. You mentioned cleaning services, for example.

Yep. So offset services are current that is the cleaning services and what we would add kind of painters and plumbers to. That is currently allowed in industrial zones and CA zone and only go back to the map. Only West Of Rainier Avenue, which doesn't really help if you're living out here and you're looking for a painter nearby or cleaning service that's located nearby. It would kind of allow those uses in these outlying areas with an administrative conditional use permit kind of to make sure that it meets the context of the area.

So this combines them and then allows them to the east of the line Correct. Basically. Any other commissioners with questions or comments on this? I feel like I'll send you questions, but I don't know what they are yet.

I'm happy to answer them.

Alright. Thank you very much, Maya. Next is a briefing on group 20 b d 245 code interpretations. Whenever you're ready, please go ahead.

Welcome, commissioner Dorsal. This is your debut at the planning commission. This is also my debut at the planning commission as a docket presenter. And so, I wanna say good evening, chair Kelly, and the members of the Planning Commission for the record. I am Margaret Bravo, planning technician for long range planning. My presentation is regarding topic d two four five, code interpretations. And later on, if you have questions, I'm gonna and I cannot answer, I'm gonna call a friend. Angelia is here beside me. And if it gets even more complicated, of course, there's Matt and Angie. Okay.

So my the background, each year, we update title four development regulations to incorporate administrative policies and code interpretations that resolve unclear or conflicting sections. These interpretations are already in effect. This process simply formalizes them in the code. The goal is to keep regulations clear, consistent, and easy to apply. So here you see the process.

When we identify an issue, the staff will draft a c I n or code amendment and then post it for public comment, for fourteen days that is on our official web page. And then after fourteen days, it gets adopted and signed by the city administrator. And then after that, there's planning commission recommendation, and that's the reason why we are here for for for the formality of the process because we want it approved before we actually codify or make the necessary changes in our code. So these are the list of eight code interpretations for this docket item. Hopefully, I will not bore you, but let me try to explain it as entertaining but as educational and informative as I can.

Let's start with CI164. Okay. So this is called residential rental registration and inspection program. So in 2021, the city established the residential rental registration and inspection program. The program requires all landlords to register their rental properties.

However, inspections are not automatic, and they and they are initiated only when requested by a tenant or when the city identifies a violation. The code is unclear on what happens after a certificate of inspect of inspection is submitted. Therefore, staff recommends amending code to clarify that enforcement follows the existing processes for remedies and penalties. Next up, we have c I one seven six. This one is a bit long.

The title is long. Compliance with RCW 35 a dot 21 dot four three zero. This is related to transitional housing and permanent supportive housing. For simplicity, I will refer to this use as simply transitional housing. Just for clarification, we actually completed a code interpretation on this item in the last cycle, but a small piece was left out of the ordinance in error.

So this update is just to correct and finalize that work. As background, state law requires cities to allow transitional housing in any zone where either residentials or residential or hotels are permitted. Transitional housing means a facility that provides housing and supportive services to homeless persons for up to two years, and that is why transitional is just for two years. And that facilitates the movement of homeless persons into independent living, The city amended code for compliance. However, state law defines transitional housing as complete dwelling units, which make them subject to maximum density.

The challenge was that in zones allowing hotels but not residential dwellings, no density standard applied. It was also unclear whether standards for attached dwellings in commercial zones should apply to transitional housing. So this item amends the zoning use table to remove remaining ambiguities and complete the work that was left unfinished. Moving on, we have c I one eight three applicability and definitions for building lot building slash lot coverage. This CI was developed to clarify the terms building coverage, lot coverage, and building footprint since building coverage is used in RMC standards but not defined.

Since the ad adoption of the the CI, an ordinance was enacted as part of the city's middle housing and ADU updates, which already addressed most of the CI's proposed amendments. Staff recommendation today is to fully implement the CI by focusing on the following. Number one, add the definition for building coverage in the city code, directing readers to refer to the lot lot coverage definition. Number two, further refine the building footprint definition. And number three, to clarify lot coverage definition and provide new illustration.

Next stop, we have c I one eight four limits on alterations of single family dwellings. Currently, code allows nonconforming single family dwellings to be replaced or altered if they meet current standards for height, lot coverage, density, and setbacks. However, this is contradictory since nonconforming dwellings, by definition, do not meet current code. To receive to resolve this conflict, staff recommends removing replacement as an allowed alteration under the nonconforming structure section based on the following. First, code allows legal nonconforming structures to remain but not fully replaced unless damaged or unsafe.

Second, full replacement should meet current code standards. And third, this section regulate regulates alterations, not replacements. Alright. We have, c I one eight five, public notice for additional permits. So currently, the city limits vehicles on residential lots, but owners may request more through an additional vehicle permits.

Like additional animals per animals permits, there are types of permits that require public notice, though additional animal permits are already exempt from posting requirements. So for additional vehicles permits, impacts are localized. Neighbors within 300 feet already received notice, so posting signs adds very little value. The signs cost exceeds the permit the permit fee, and the short review period makes posting impractical. So for these reasons, staff recommends amending the code to exempt additional vehicle permits from the public sign requirements.

The next is c I one eight six. It's called definition of adult family home. City code defines adult family home as facility providing personal care, room, and board within a dwelling unit serving up to four unrelated adults. However, state law allows for up to six. So four and then six for state law, and in some cases, up to eight if the home is large enough and meets state licensing standards.

So to resolve this inconsistency, staff recommends amending code to align with state law by revising the definition of adult family home to allow service for up to six adults. Next is c I one eight seven. This is second to the last. It's called permit requirements for fences. City code includes regulations pertaining to fences, hedges, and retaining walls.

Currently, city code says that a fence taller than seven feet requires a building permit or an exemption from the building official. However, the construction administrative code says that fences up to six feet in height. So there's seven feet, and then there's also six feet in height are exempt from permit requirements. So, obviously, there is a conflict here, and it creates confuse confusion about when a permit is required. So to fix this, staff recommends amending code to require a permit for fences taller than six feet.

So that's the minimum. And then finally, we have c I one eight eight, minimum dimensions for parking stalls. In 2024, the Washington state adopted a senate bill which sets new state statewide standards for residential parking under the Growth Management Act. The bill prohibits cities from requiring stalls larger than eight feet by 20 feet, well, except for ADA accessible spaces. Current code that the RMC requires nine feet by 23 feet as a minimum dimension.

So, obviously, there's another inconsistency there, and so that's why the staff recommend staff recommends amending city code sections to just reduce minimum required parking spaces to just eight feet by 20 feet to align with the state law. So here's the summary of all the proposed amendments under this docket item. I'm not going to read each one anymore at this point. And so what is the staff recommendation? Staff recommends codifying all the eight code amendments as described for administrative policy and code interpretations.

So our next next steps would be we're gonna see each other again November 5 for public hearing, November 19 deliberations and recommendations, and then we go to planning and development committee November 24. So that's that's all the what's gonna happen. So, yeah, that's all that concludes my presentation. Thank you so much for, letting me share. Good vibes only.

Commissioners, do you have any questions?

Go

ahead, commissioner Otzi.

Yeah. Hi, Margaret. Thanks for bringing this up. We'll rarely ever get to see what happens to what we've reviewed after it's already been accepted. So seeing the what's been going on the site, like, behind the scenes is very helpful.

Can you go back to that slide 12, the summary table again? Yeah. Sure. Okay. I think that was pretty much what I was gonna ask at this point just to be able to keep to review it, but I'll jump back on if I have a question afterwards.

But if you could hold the table sorry. If you could hold the table here in the meantime, that'd be really helpful.

Okay. Any other commissioners with questions?

No question, but I think she did an amazing job, and I appreciate the flare and nice summary at the end. So well done, Margaret.

Thank you for making or data.

Or, Arce, if you find that you have additional questions on them on this, please feel free to send them in by email so the team can

Sounds good.

Have a look. Thank you very much.

Thank you, everyone.

Angie, you are on deck and now up to bat. Sorry. I could have said that before the last one, but I figured I needed to give Matt a bone after giving him a hard time on his blue color. Next the next item is briefing on the resource center in the valley by Angie.

So do I just start going, or do I need to share? Oh,

got it.

Thanks, Maya.

Oh, I'd cheer from there. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Alright.

Planning commissioners, for the record, my name is Angie Mathias, and I am the long range planning manager here for the city of Renton. Here to present to you an item that will follow the exact same pattern as the docket items, but it was submitted outside of that cycle as an agenda bill. So it just needs to not have a d in front of it and a number assigned to it. So by way of background, as you're probably aware, we do not currently have a resource center or a year round overnight shelter here in the city of Renton anymore. We now provide resource we never have had a resource center, but we provide our resource center type services by planning, facilitating, and funding support systems by for providers that do those systems.

That goes through our human services work group, and they, make sure that pretty much everything that would be covered by a resource center is being provided, but we're not providing it directly. For overnight shelter, the only service that we have right now or the only thing that we have that covers that remotely is severe weather activation, so for both hot and cold. But that's really just a short term emergency only function, and it's dependent on volunteers. And while it's essential in extreme weather, it doesn't really it's not as effective as actually having full blown shelter where people can rely on it more steadily. After we decided to start collecting tax money through 1590, the I don't remember if it's a house bill or senate bill, but it allows us to to collect an additional sales tax and then channel that money to certain populations with as far as affordable housing, but it also can help with support services.

So we did a we had a consultant help us with trying to figure out and identify the best ways to spend that money, and it's got some short term goals, midterm goals, and long term term goals. And one of the high priority short term goals was to go ahead and develop exactly something like that, a resource center. They with supportive services starting to we need to be providing meals, laundry, hygiene facilities, all those sorts of things, as well as housing navigation to try to help people get into housing. So we've identified that we have this problem, this issue. So, mayor and staff have been looking for what a good solution would be for this and what's the best way to operate a resource center and came across Auburn doing a really, really good job of providing a resource center that is incredibly successful.

One of the main differences between this and then other models for providing a resource center and some housing is that they require them to go through an intake process. And so now they're truly connected with city staff, and they can help make sure that they get to these places and they're getting the things that they need, and it gives them a more personalized case management type situation as opposed to just you're a cog in the wheel, and you're not there's not somebody sort of helping you walk through that process. A lot of times, even, like, when they're connecting people to housing, they might put them so one of the steps is to put them in the King County database and make sure they're clicked in and hope you're on the list for getting housing. But one of the key steps to that is that they have to go do an interview with King County, and that's in Seattle. So And people have a hard time getting to that interview.

And this Auburn staff does get people to those interviews, and they've been so successful at doing this. They helped house over 200 people in 2024, and they are the biggest user of the of for the of getting people out of homelessness and into permanent supportive housing of all the users within the King County system right now. They're like the huge majority of them are going to people that are coming out of this Auburn Resource Center. Oops. Sorry.

So the Resource Center offers the basic health and or the let go back to this one. They provide those direct connections to medical, behavioral health, employment, and housing resources. But in addition to that, beyond just connecting to services, they have a laundry and shower facility so people can take care of their clothes, take care of their body. They're providing meal and food. They give them some food if they're gonna take off. They give them a place to be during the day. They give them a place to be during the night. They help them get an address, make sure they have an ID, and then can provide work assistance. Sometimes folks are, like, required to help do work within the facility to keep it functional. They connect to everything for medical and behavioral health.

They can also provide legal and educational support. They have computers and everything for them to use, and then they do have safe overnight accommodations and substance use disorder treatment. So staff would like to establish a resource center that is modeled after this Auburn, resource center. And after reviewing for potential locations, a site that is in the commercial arterial zone in the valley along East Valley Road is available. And in fact, we have started we're in the process of Accomet acquiring that property.

So this site we also have a need for a new parks maintenance facility. The one that we have currently is not safe for people to even really be in for more than a very short period of time, so they don't have a actual legitimate headquarters where they can get their stuff and then go out for the day. So this site could also accommodate that. It is and they could accommodate that in a building that is currently low with the signage says Compton Lumber. Compton Lumber hasn't operated out of that site for a while.

So there is an existing building, which makes it a very attractive use to be able to share those two space spaces. The site actually has four parcels, so the resource center would not be on that shared parcel with Compton Lumber. It would be on a different parcel, and it would have to be distinctly different because we can use $15.90 money to purchase the property. That is something that is allowed, and so they would be they have to be removed just by the nature of the funding sources. The maintenance facility is already an allowed use as a hearing examiner conditional use in the CA zone, but a resource center which would is considered as a homeless services use by our code by definition is not allowed in the CA zone.

We have an existing footnote, footnote number 29, and there's actually other footnotes, but there's a lot of places in the code where we allow uses that are only allowed basically in the Valley. South Of 1 Of I 405 and West Of 167. So there's a lot of different uses. Things that are are those types of uses are, like, large vehicle sales, which includes boat sales and those sorts of things, auditoriums and expositions exposition centers. Is that the right I think that's the right word.

Those sorts of things. So there's a lot of different uses that are just allowed in the valley. So as I said, are four parcels on East Valley Road. A little bit of a concern about access to transit when we first started talking about this, but actually Metro Route 153 provides service between 6AM and almost 8PM about every half hour during the day. And so that seems like that's a pretty good that's a pretty good turnaround, pretty good frequency.

The route begins at the Ranton Transit Center really close to our downtown and then runs through the South Renton Park And Ride, follows Lind goes along Southwest 7th for a portion, then goes down Lind and then continues on through Kent on East Valley Road all the way to the Kent Transit Center. The nearest bus stop to this site specifically is about point three miles away, so that's a reasonable walking distance. And then there's a stop further down on on Lind that they could access that was about point five miles from Valley Medical Center if they had some sort of a need that they needed to go there for. And then along the route, there are several restaurants, fast food, sit down, higher end, lower end, all kinds of different restaurants. Also, DK Market, which has a lot of food and vegetables and all that kind of stuff that's in there, shelf stable food that is more a very diverse stop place to shop.

Doesn't have, like, your well, sometimes they do. Like, Lay's potato chips, but they sometimes have those things. But there's also Walmart Supercenter that has groceries and clothing and things that could be purchased. So homeless services use is defined as three different things in our code. First, a day shelter.

And if you read that definition, that is exactly what we wanna do with our resource center. It is it meets it almost to the letter. The emergency shelter is more we just point to the RCWs. Emergency shelter is we can't require leases be signed for it, and it really is more like it's defined as, like, if we had a natural disaster and people needed and it was not a long term thing at all and could even be in a not not permanent situation. Emergency housing is a little more permanent in that it can have a dedicated, like, specific site that it occurs on on an ongoing basis, but the distinction is we still they still aren't required to sign a lease.

They can just be there. So we do allow and so that would be that overnight shelter portion would qualify there. So they both fit into that bucket of homeless services use. That use is allowed in 11 zones that include residential such as R 14, all of our industrial zones, and then many commercial zones. However, the CA zone is not one of those zones that is currently permitted in.

So as part of this, we looked at so for the comp plan, we had to demonstrate that we had the capacity to accommodate our emergency housing target. And within that, where we allow emergency shelters and housing, they're allowed at the density of the underlying zone. So if it's happening in the r 14 zone, then you can't exceed that r 14 density unless you're doing bonus density or something like that. Up to a maximum of a 115 residents, and may not be closer than a half mile to another emergency housing use unless the total of those multiple sites, two or more sites, is not greater than a 115 units. And then if it's more than 50 beds, it needs to be within a mile of a transit stop that we don't want you just in some outlying area where you don't have any access to grocery stores or medical or things that people might need, jobs, those sorts of things.

So for the comp plan, we were we did that evaluation. We needed to demonstrate capacity to accommodate 300 and 3,245 beds. Analysis showed that we did our consultant did it actually, showed that, we have the capacity to accommodate 3,406 beds. So given the capacity is not really needed, it does seem reasonable and fair to just limit the expansion to the CA zone to the Valley with the caveat that this would not just apply to the potential properties the city is seeking to acquire, but to all CA zone properties in the Valley. And there are basically, they kinda run along East Valley Road, and there's a pocket of them that are right above abutting the Kent City limits, whatever that road is there.

I can't remember exactly what street is. 4 is it 43rd? Yeah. That's what I was gonna say, but I wasn't certain. So the staff recommendation is to amend code to allow homeless services as a hearing examiner conditional use in the CA zone provided it is South Of I 405 and West Of State Route 167. And as I said, it follows the exact same path with seeing you here on November 5. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Commissioners, if you have questions, this is a great time. Commissioner Artesi.

Yeah. So I think I might have missed it or misunderstood. I think earlier on, you mentioned there was a center for, I guess, transitional housing. Is this meant to be this meant to be included in here as well, or is this just for homeless services?

This would just be homeless services. Permanent supportive housing and transitional housing is considered a a bigger step out of this emergency housing. It's meant to get people and that's what that's what they do in Auburn. They're only there for a period of time. I don't it it depends on when spots open up, but a few months, hopefully not more than a year before they're able to get out and get into permanent supportive housing or transitional housing.

Okay. And this this recommendation wouldn't cover transitional housing. This is just for homeless services?

Correct.

Okay. And then the other question I had is, I know there's been some or some of the reasons why this kind of setup hasn't always worked in the past is because a lot of times it require the homeless to be clean to use these services. Is there the potential to add, like, a sobering or, like what's it called? Like, a civilization center as well for them to come down in a clean place or in a safe place before using these services?

Okay. So here's the big reveal for you all. Your newest commissioner, Dorsal Plants, commissioner plants, is the what's your position with Skip?

I'm the program coordinator.

Program coordinator with Skip, South King County Homeless and Housing Partnership. And they are housed. They they they do their work out of Auburn City Hall, and so Dorsal is much more versed in this than me. So I'm gonna punt to Dorsal. I'm sorry that it's your first night. My other answer would have been I will find out, But since you're here, I would love it if you didn't know the answer to that. If you don't, then we'll we can find out.

So full disclosure, I am a a City of Auburn employee, but I don't work at the the resource center. It it's it's an interesting and great facility. I believe the question was around, substance use, support. As I understand it, there is not a very hard, strong rule on-site that you have to arrive completely clean and partly because Pure Daily is on-site. There's case managers there that work with people and make sure that they're still appropriate and safe to be in the space, and work to connect them with chemical dependency resources, in association with kind of saying this, Stella, I think that's that's part of, you alluded to why do some of these programs succeed where some fail.

And I think, at least in my experience, you know, there there's a need to get someone stably housed, but that may be just one of several steps that need to be taken at the same time. And so the the beauty of a a type of service like this where you're able to bring in multiple services in one place is during that intake process, you actually sit down and identify the barriers to, housing, that are very specific to that individual. And then from there, as the case manager, you're able to send them out. And in this case, the reason I think the Auburn Resource Center is so successful is sending them out is literally walking them to the next desk. It's walking them one door down instead of giving somebody a bus ticket and a date and a time to show up in Seattle or some other area.

And so there will be support, at least at the Auburn Resource Center, there's support to help transition out of chemical dependency. But it's understood that part of the journey of transitioning from street homelessness into stable housing may require, having somebody go to detox, for, you know, a couple weeks or thirty days, and that might be the first step. But having that central location to where you can have that one person kind of answer and direct that, I think, is is potentially one of the the advantages of the site. I apologize if I didn't answer your question or went a little too verbose.

No. That was perfect. Thank you. I think, that makes a lot of sense, and thank you for the context. I think if if that's well, we're pro posing a similar idea here in terms of that concept as well. I think that works pretty well. Thank you.

Thank you, commissioner. Plants for being here.

Good timing.

We're we're already using you as a resource.

Any other commissioner questions, comments? Yes. Go ahead.

I'm curious, and it it might be too early in the process. But is the intention largely for city of Renton staff to staff the resource center, or would you be contracting out with an organization?

So I will verify this, but I actually spoke with I'll double check, but I that is my impression is that we are gonna staff it with rent and staff. I don't know that for a fact, though, so I do I wanna double check that and sure. But my my that's my impression at this point is that we are looking to create a new position to to be able to do that.

Thank you.

Hi, Sheree.

Yeah. Hi. I just wanna say this sounds amazing. I've you know, I've had a history with kind of dealing with this sort of situation of kinda helping someone navigate these pathways. And it's it's almost impossible to do kind of on your own, and it's so great that us as a city are going to embrace this and and follow a model that's actually working. That's just very it, you know, it brings light ness to my heart, I'll just say. Sorry. So thank you. Yeah. Excited for this one. Well done.

Commissioner Matson, would you like to jump in?

No. I was just saying I agree. It's awesome. It's a great location. Conceptually, it's much needed. I you know, my mind always goes to career career connections. I think that's further downfield. So, you know, what my role would be would be that workforce development. But there's actually some good, really great human services agencies right in that location too. I'm just thinking of some of our partner programs. So it just that it all seems to hit all the the boxes in terms of making a functional center. So, yeah. Bravo. Great job.

I think my question is, since this is a massive enabling step, if we were to take this and follow the staff recommendation, where else does this get reviewed? So you'd go to city council, I presume. Anything else I may I mean, go to committee and go to council. Any other anything else there that I'm missing along the way? I'm thinking of the other voices of the public that may want to chime in on this. And because there's an implication here of some other things that would change that are not associated with zoning to support a facility like this as well. So that's what I'm thinking about.

So all this action would do is allow it to occur in the valley. And if if this purchase and sale fails and we need to find another site, it would probably still be allowed in the valley, and we would need to see where else we could potentially locate something and whether that was allowed in the zone or not. And then it would still need to go through the full permitting stage of applying for permits and going through that full land use process, and it requires a hearing examiner conditional use. So it will require a hearing at the hearing examiner, which is a public hearing that is notified, and the hearing examiner can hear everybody out, and he can put his own conditions on how it develops and what might be required for that use to happen there. So there's still a whole lot of layers before it would ever move forward as even to the construction part of it.

Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you, Angie. Commissioners, we're now on to, our second round of commissioner comments. If any of you would like to share anything else, this would be a good time.

And hearing nothing, I would appreciate a motion to adjourn in a second.

I motion to adjourn the meeting at 07:31.

I'll second that.

Been moved and seconded that we adjourn the meeting. All of those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, say nay. Thank you. The meeting is adjourned. Thanks, everyone.

Thank you.

Bye.