Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

to Hope's people and their su successors, the Tleup tribes. Since time of memorial, they have hunted, fished, gathered on, and taken care of these lands and waters. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. We will strive to be honest about our past mistakes, and bring about a future that includes their people, stories, and voices to form a more just and equitable society. Thank you. Uh the meeting minutes from the April 1st planning commission meeting have been distributed. Commissioners, are there any corrections that you'd like to offer? Yeah, just one correction on the report commissioners. Um I have the note in the minutes is light industrial to MU7 and it should be light industrial to LIMU. Other than that, I think we're good. Okay. Thank you. Any additional corrections, commissioners? Okay. Any objections to approving the minutes? Uh, with Commissioner Shelby's correction. Okay. Then without objection, the minutes are approved. Uh, we now have an opportunity for commissioner reports. Any reports today, commissioners? Um, I'll report that I did have a really interesting meeting with some community leaders that are connected to the Casino Road area. Uh and of course we know that Lisk and some of their um partners have been working on some data that was brought to us and I assume we'll see again at some point maybe um and and so I just wanted to share two two things that kind of came up. Um one while they did appreciate the engagement they did feel there there could be more engagement that they they they felt that it it could have been more substantial the engagement. Um, and I know engagement is a tough piece, but that was the report. Um, the other thing they mentioned is that the Casino Road, um, Casino Square specifically is an organically grown, um, business

district. And there is a lot of commerce that happens there. And it is not unnoticed by the community that while there is a push for economic development in this city, there's also a willingness to look away from the destruction of what has organically grown as a really economically vibrant space uh because of the light rail that's not going unnoticed. There's history around it and uh it's a situation that our city will have to grapple with. Uh the other commentary was around the transportation issue. Um, and it was interesting because it made me think about the conversation with Commissioner Sullivan where she was saying we need to build bus riders. They were saying that there are folks who would like to use uh the transit system and they don't really know how. They're not sure how it connects, how the regional systems connect with our local Everett transit and they would love to see uh literal community field trips where folks from these agencies come into the community and take a group of community members on field trips. also targeting our schools uh teaching our children how to use these systems so they can teach their families. Um there is uh there there's concern about the fact that sometimes for some of the transit leaving the area you have to buy a ticket but they're not sure where to get it and and they're concerned that if they don't have it. uh they've heard, well, you can just get on there, no one will bother you. But then if you hold certain identities, you're more likely to be bothered than others, and just because they don't quite know where to get the ticket, they don't want to end up being criminalized essentially for not understanding how to use the system and it not being explained well. So, there are very real concerns about that. and and they would like a pathway to have uh community members gain a better understanding of actually how to use it by being physically shown how to use these systems and how they interact. So that was I really reminiscent of some of the things that Commissioner Sullivan in particular uh talked about when we had the transit discussion. So I just wanted to share that with you all. Um and that's the end of my report.

Anything additional? Okay. Uh we will not have public comment today because we do not have the live stream but again oh it is on. Oh excellent. Then we we do have an opportunity for public comment. Ayanna is there anyone online who wishes to offer public comment? Would the caller who is online with Janette's tablet like to make a comment? No, I don't think so. Okay. Thank you. Yes, I would like to make uh a comment to the group. Thank you, ma'am. If you could please give us your name and uh what city you're from and uh please uh confine your comments to three minutes or less, we would love to hear from you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm Janette Burton and I live in South Everett and I'd like to talk uh to the group uh about a mobile home overlay. I was actually at your meeting last month in March and so as I'm looking on the screen you I see really familiar faces so I feel a little more comfortable and thank you again for letting me speak this evening in the Everett 2044 comprehension plan that I know is on your agenda this evening on page 21 of that plan it states growth strategy G for Everett and then it gives three different points and the one point that's really important to me is the one that states allows a wider range of housing types to support people in many different types of households and all stages in life. So I'd like to tell you about my type of

housing. I live on 100th Street Southwest and I'm in a 55 plus mobile home park and it's called Fairway Estates and there are 171 units with 260 residents. At the west end of my street is the entrance to Payeytonfield and I'm right around the corner from the Boeing plant. Like many seniors, uh, hoping to secure a safe and affordable retirement, I invested my savings into a manufactured home in a park. I am a proud homeowner. Uh, and just like any other homeowner, I have all the responsibilities of maintaining my home. Here in our park, we do rent our lot space and that's a monthly fee. We are very very proud to tell you that we have 30 veteran families in our park. Um and that our community provides opportunities for veterans to be able to connect with a very active social life. Sadly, two of our veterans died late last year. One of them being Herb Young. He was the last remaining veteran of World War II that lived here in the park. I want to take the opportunity to discuss a zoning overlay which we desperately need for our mobile home park. The park was owned by a family for over 30 years. Then we fell victim to a corporate investor, the Carile Group, and they were out buying up mom and pop communities in Western Washington. Last year, the Carile Group ripped the band-aid off. They took my rent from

$850 a month to $1665 a month, which is a 96% increase. The only words that we've been able to get out of our property management company is it's the current market rate. As seniors and individuals on fixed incomes, we are concerned about our future. We can see the owner selling the park to a developer. We have seen from this private equity company that their primary mission is not to make our community more stable or accessible or provide affordable housing. Their goal is to extract easy profit from a vulnerable resident in just a few years. If no action is taken, the future for most of us here at Fairways Estates will be displacement and possibly homelessness. We do hope that the city of Everett will act to preserve our way of life for our veterans and our elderly population here with a zoning overlay. Thank you for your time this evening. Thank you so much, uh, Miss Burton. And it sounds like you had maybe a prepared statement. I'd encourage you to email that in uh so other city leaders can be aware of this issue and uh thank you for sharing your comments with us this evening. Thank you. Do we have uh additional comments? Okay. Thank you. Uh with that we will move on to uh staff staff comments. Good evening commissioners. I'm York Stevens Waja planning director Alisanne Wetzel long-range planning manager with me here this evening. We have since the last planning commission meeting published a complete draft of the comprehensive plan and development regulations and made that available to

the public for review and comment. We are in a uh comment period on this draft through May 12th. There will be further comment periods and public hearings after that. uh but we wanted to create a major draft that folks can get a handle on the full package from. Um we are answering questions as they come in and we are encouraging folks to make their comments both uh verbally is great in writing can guarantee that it'll get to the decision makers. We are reading and considering we staff are reading and considering the comments as they come in and we discuss them pretty much daily when we hear about them. We're also consolidating them into a report for uh the planning commission and the city council that will come either later this month or early in May. And that will have uh the comments in summary form as well as a full set of those written comments going back through the entirety of this project. Um we are holding the first of a couple of informal, I'll call them public hearings. They are real public hearings, but they're not the legally required ones that will come at the very end of this process. That will be kind of the last chance for folks to uh have their say on the proposal. Uh but we did have some public hearings associated with this comment period. One of them is tomorrow with the city council and then we have one planned with the planning commission at your next meeting on May 6th. So those are defined opportunities for folks to come speak directly to the decision makers. Um, again, there will be more in uh late May and June for the next and very final phase of this project. All of the documents are available on everw.gov/2044 as well as information on how to comment via email, comment form, and

otherwise. So, today on our agenda, we'll be walking through development regulations. We've talked about most or all of this in some form in the past couple of years as we've worked through the chapters and elements. Um, now we have the very specifics and we have the opportunity to see how it all fits together. My thought was to just start at the number three I think is the first uh chapter in title 19 and then uh work along from there highlighting some key provisions and seeing what questions, comments or suggestions that the planning commission has. Eventually after the next I it will probably take us two meetings to get through all of this. Um, we would be looking for a recommendation from the planning commission on the complete package, both the comprehensive plan and the development regulations. We need a couple of things to fall into place before that. We will have some revisions to this uh to this draft that we make um after hearing from the public and from city council, yourselves, and others that we'll um put into a final ordinance form. And we also need to complete the draft supplemental environmental impact statement and have a 30-day comment period for that. That needs to be in your hands. The final version of that needs to be in your hands before uh we can staff can give a recommendation on the final product to the planning commission. Planning commission needs to give that recommendation to the city council to enable this action. Um the other recipients of this draft include the state agencies of the state of Washington. Uh it starts with the department of commerce and then they share it with others department of transportation ecology health and all of the other state agencies as well as Puget Sound Regional

Council. So everybody is taking a look at the same draft, the April 7, 2025 uh complete review draft. And there are two books, one for development regulations and one for comprehensive plans. They are also available uh in print form at our two libraries for anybody who uh prefers to read through them that way. Uh please let us know as staff if there's anything else that we can do to clarify this or make it available. Um and we'd be happy to do so. Any questions on process or that early draft or anything before we start with chapter 3? Yeah, I will share my screen and put there we go. 219 pages of striketh through uh proposed changes to the development regulations. I should mention there are a couple chapters that are going to come in a second book parking uh chapter 13 which is special uses and then uh a couple other chapters where we're just updating zone references but there should not be substantive changes. Parking will be an interesting one though. It always is. So, chapter three is zoning districts and maps. Uh the big story with this one is our new zone framework. Uh we've talked about this at length in this uh in these chambers here. Replacing uh as a result of the

middle housing law and our own direction to allow more variety in residential building types throughout the city. We've replaced the four single family zones RS, R1, R2, and R2A with a neighborhood residential zone and a neighborhood residential constrained zone which preserves the status quo of what can be developed now in certain areas with limited access. We have a UR4 and a UR7 zone. These are the urban residential zones. This chapter also reflects that we no longer have a building height map separate from the zoning map. So we've consolidated those two. The numbers at the end of a couple of letters now denote the number of floors that is intended for that zone. Uh what was UR3 and UR4 is just three is more than two and four is more than three. Uh now if it's UR4 that's urban residential four floors. If it is MU4, it is mixed urban four floors. We've also renamed light industrial one, which is the light industrial zones that are primarily around Everett station. Uh, and then south along the railroad tracks towards uh, LOL. We've renamed LI1 to LIMU, light industrial mixed use or limu for short and LI2 which is in other areas of the city predominantly in the southwest Everett manufacturing industrial center from LI2 to just light industrial. Each of these new zones uh comes with a new or revised purpose statement which is also in chapter 3. These are referred to for example in a reszone process that might occur after this periodic update is complete. One would look at the purpose of the zone to

decide if a particular area was appropriate for reszoning to it. Uh, and I'm happy to linger on anything if uh if folks want. I have a question on the neighborhood residential. Yes. So, we talked about the amount of floors, but what about the amount of residences, i.e. duplexes, you know, not maybe vertical, but horizontal like is this are we because normally an R2 is no more than a duplex, right? But since with 110 and best use of a land are now everything up to fourplexes on a a plot for the neighborhood residential zone we are proposing to no longer count doorork knobs. So we would not have a limit on the number of dwelling units that could be accommodated on a lot but there are practical limits that would uh for uh that would limit it. So in we'll get to this in the next chapters. Um we have a proposed height limit now at 35 ft. We have a proposed maximum lot coverage by building of uh 50 to 60% depending on the number of uh number of dwelling units on a lot. We have setbacks and we have a shared yard requirement of 15 by 15 for any dwelling units that are not fronting on the street. Um there's also a variety of other um other development standards that together have make for a practical limit on the number of dwelling units that could fit on a lot. And how does this does this comport with federal guidelines when it comes to because we're encouraging home development or building they're going have to get loans to get loans through Fetty and Freddy you got to be zoned multifamily to get more than two. So, do

these comport with that or are we going to be stuck with just everybody own hard loans and big money people came from smaller lenders? Yeah, smaller builders. I don't know the answer to that. I just want to make sure we're within other guidelines so we're encouraging the building and not limiting it by different terms that aren't being used by other people. Yeah, we're not using the term uh multif family. So we've consolidated the definitions for the various dwelling types. Uh in the existing code we have dwelling one unit, 2 unit, three and four unit and then multif family is when there's five or more dwellings on a lot whether that is uh town houses or stacked or in any other framework. Um so we're looking to consolidate all of that to dwellings. Uh hopefully we can work with uh lenders and others to understand how uh how the zoning framework works and that it does allow the number of dwellings that they would consider to be multif family uh without using the term. But we'll take a look at that and if there's an issue, we'll definitely look to solve it. Um the last change that's in this uh chapter is mixeduse centers and um we currently have one regional growth center which is Metro Everett that is designated under Puget Sound Regional Council and comes with it uh policies and an expectation for significant mixeduse growth and accommodating that growth and nurturing it. Um, it also comes with priority uh funding for transportation that is managed, federal transportation funds managed through the Puget Sound Regional Council. the centers framework at the regional and the countywide level includes two other tiers of centers, countywide centers which uh in this periodic update round

cities and Snomish County within Snowomish County are um identifying centers that would be this countywide tier which would be a smaller version of the regional growth centers, mixed use places for growth, places to prioritize and focus infrastruure. structure uh projects and funding on and we looked at the candidate options. We just haven't gotten to the point of refining those to actual boundaries to say at this time and they would be all part of a sub area plan at a later date. So right now it says mixeduse centers. We have a singular mixeduse center but watch this space. You guys will be ready to go. So you may remember our conversations with the under the urban form element in the meetings where we were talking about that where we went through the community hubs and the neighborhood nodes which are proposed next two tiers. The community hubs would be the countywide centers. The neighborhood nodes would be just a local center for Everett. Um we have those identified in the comprehensive plan. Um we have not gotten to a satisfactory delineation drawing lines uh on a map of exactly where those are. So in the development regulations you see this number five mixeduse center mixeduse centers include Metro Everett. So it's the only one uh when we go through the process uh we needed to trim that one out uh for time. We expect to finish that work within the first year of this plan. Uh finalize the designation of those other mixeduse centers which will then activate the development regulations that apply to those centers. So you will see references uh later on in the development regulations to mixeduse centers. Uh wherever you see that currently that will only apply to Metro Everett in the future and this would be done by ordinance and processed through the planning commission and the city council. Uh other community hubs and

neighborhood nodes would be identified and then they would have uh applicability to these development regulations as well. Some of them are parking and uh parking reductions and minimum height or minimum density are two that come to mind. If you see Metro Everett in the development regulations, we're trying to go through and catch all of those and turn them to mixeduse centers. But it's also okay because Metro Everett remains a defined place. So it's not a broken. Your question? Yes. uh on the planned development overlay zone. The change in that definition uh why the change why the strikeout is that to accommodate the park district? No. Uh park district is already done. So this would be for future plan development overlays. I think the purpose of this was to accommodate demonstration projects that could be in a residential zone. Um, so the plan development overlay is just a flexible opportunity to uh permit development that does not meet the current development regulations but is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Uh, staff does not have any of them in mind or any of them on the horizon. Uh, I think we just wanted to provide that flexibility should something come up uh that it might be appropriate in a residential zone. Could we add residential zone to the first sentence then? Sure. Could. Is there a minimum size to such an overlay? There is. There's a whole section on planned uh development overlays that I don't think we have made any changes to, but I will take a closer look at that. This is the only change to plan

development overlays that I can think of. Five, row three, great. Okay. Um, of course, we replace the zoning map with the updated one. We've talked a lot about this. Um, check them out. No changes to all the details of how zones are administered. That's it. Any questions on 1903? Pretty straightforward one. Uh definitions. Just a couple here. We reorganized the residential definitions as I mentioned. You will see this around page eight of the chapter which is page 18 of the PDF. Uh so duplex and you see here um I'm taking a closer look at this definition for dwelling because it's in a chapter that is for lot building and structure definitions which is different than use definitions where dwelling appears again. So I'm going to uh do some checking with the uh permitting team and make sure that there's uh no problems created by removing one of what is a duplicate definition for dwelling. This exact same definition for dwelling appears uh a couple pages down. Todd, can I answer your question? Just in a quick search of Fanny May says if it's legally require legally permitted in the underlying zone, it's Fanny May eligible. So,

yeah, you're welcome. you'll see a definition for facilities for cooking or kitchen. And this is uh one of the uh so other than changes to the regulations to implement the comprehensive plan, we had a punch list from rethink zoning of um refinements and clarifications and other corrections that we needed to make. So those have all been incorporated into this package. And then we're also trying where we have a planning director interpretation which uh was was issued by rule to clear up some unclarity. Uh we're trying to clear those up in code to be able to remove the planning director interpretation. This was one of those. There have actually been two of them. One in 2013 and one in 204 2024. Uh this concerns the fundamental definition of a dwelling. So, when is it that you know that a a home has been split into two homes? And we use the presence of a kitchen with a uh stove and the utility connections for it as a a clear indication of such. Um I think for this one we wanted to uh clarify you can see the second sentence in the bottom home occupation food processing plants are not considered facilities for cooking. We had a home occupation bakery that was seeking to establish under state department of health uh rules. They need a separate kitchen that you may not mix your personal cooking with your business cooking. And that created a situation where we had at first we had to reject it because that would have created a de facto second dwelling even though obviously it wasn't. And so we issued a interpretation to clear that up for the moment and now are incorporating that into code.

We added a definition for park and ride. I'm not going to flip through everything because it's going to make people dizzy. But I will say that we added a definition for park and ride which separates it from commercial parking. You'll see in the use matrices that we have a restriction on commercial parking as a standalone principal use within mixeduse centers and we wanted to make sure that park and ride lots such as the uh garage that is planned for the downtown Everett light rail station wasn't captured in that. Um happy to discuss whether the restriction on commercial parking is principal use is appropriate or not but we wanted to at least separate it so that we could talk about them separately. We also combined uh there was a use for micro brewery, micro distillery and micro winery and we f that had virtually the same or identical places it was allowed to food and beverage establishment. So we just consolidated the two figuring they basically operate exactly the same large scale production of any of the above that at some point would get into light industrial. And then the last one uh that's interesting is uh office the definition of office we added where this is sorry uh we added remote provision of services such as education or health care is considered office. Oh there it is. Here's all the dwellings stuff on page 24 of the

PDF. There we go. Office remote provision of services including health care, social services and count counseling are included in the category of office. This is another uh specific case that came up where we have areas where social services or uh education is not allowed but office is and um in the staff's opinion if you're providing it remotely you come to an office you put on a headset you're in front of a computer doesn't really matter what you're doing the impact outside of that office is equivalent to office. So, we wanted to clarify that that would be allowed. Um, I saw two other ones to note really quick. That's the coffee roasting. Uh, added a definition for sleeping unit. This is connected to state law and co-housing which is where you uh have your own room but you share a kitchen and a and bathrooms. Um I think we currently call it microousing to align with the state law. We're renaming that to co-ousing. Sleeping unit is the equivalent of a dwelling unit in those contexts. major transit stop. Again, aligning with state law for a parking a parking reduction next to major transit stops, which is basically rail and bus rapid transit. I think that's it for definitions. Any questions there to chapter five? Lot of critical area definitions flashing across the screen. We will be diving into these uh as the year

progresses. We're doing an update to our critical area regulations and are starting to mark that section up. Okay. Uses. Um, the big stories here include neighborhood commercial uh zone, no neighborhood commercial concept, I guess. Haven't figured out a great word framework. Um, I'll stop here first. adaptive reuse of non-residential buildings. This is currently uh none of this is new. This used to be or is currently in the use matrix as a use. Um we found that it didn't fit very well as a use because the use is what results from an adaptive reuse and so we moved it to just a section in 1905 just a reorganization without a change. Um I do note uh did note after we published this that in the single family zones it is an administrative use permit to take advantage of this section and in other zones it is permitted. We have lost that distinction. So, uh, that is something that we need to think about whether we apply an administrative use permit to the neighborhood residential zone to adaptively reuse a non-residential building and then also reconcile that with neighborhood commercial which is another pathway to the same. So, it could be when we take a closer look that we don't need this adaptive reuse provision or maybe it is only for commercial buildings. Um or maybe we do or and we need to think about that administrative use permit whether conditions might be necessary any of the commercial uses

right now it doesn't say what uses are allowed um there this code here there are circumstances oh there are uses here dwelling units assisted living, libraries, museums, social services, public services, business incubators, artists, studios, music venues, cafes, beastro. Oh, that's why I said there's not uses. Number 13, other uses not listed if determined to be compatible. There's a list of examples or suggestions and then it's anything else. I suspect that this has may be replaced by neighborhood commercial but maybe there is a need for this framework in the commercial zones but that's it could be greater than well let's take an example of a large church structure that is no longer being used for religious uses and somebody comes along and wants to change it into something it's going to be greater than the size that's permitted in neighborhood commercial. It could also because of some of the conversations that are going on with council not be on an arterial or within blocks of an arterial and are we then saying no, you can't do this where we really would like the structure saved and we would love the active you activisa activation of the facility. So, um, I I think it was put in at a time when people were looking at how to use some of these underused facilities in the city and did it that way. And so, um, I think it's a historic relic in both senses of the

building as well as the language of the code. So, a double entandra So, we will take a close look at this lined up with neighborhood commercial and see what uh how to reconcile those two. Yeah. Okay. Um we've also um I'd say this is this looks just clarifications. Many many many of the changes in here are just reorganizations for clarity. So I'm trying to hit on the substantive ones which this does not appear to be. Says basement or other. May as well just say building spaces. So neighborhood commercial. Um I think we've talked about this before. Um we have not made any changes since we last talked about it. The council has had some discussions and will continue to have some discussions on whether to restrict it to uh arterials or perhaps even to within a couple of blocks of arterials. Um and I think we'll pick up that conversation if not tomorrow in one of the uh upcoming council meetings. That's the kind of thing either u I'm not sure on the sequence of of when the planning commission can give their um their feedback on that. I've heard some community comments about that and I think we've kind of discussed it a bit because it has to do with the the difference in how the streets look in South Everett, uh, central Everett versus North Everett, and concern that the allowances are more geared towards a North Everett pattern. that's not really going to serve some of our central and south area neighborhoods in terms of

them being able to access these opportunities. So, I'm not giving a solution to that. I'm I'm saying that that is a concern and and I don't think we we resolved that. I we had discussions around that issue and I don't think we resolved that piece. So maybe as we look at like sub area plans or we're going to have to do more to flesh that out and ensure that there is really equitable opportunity across the city. Sure. That is one of the things that we heard through our engagement with the Casino Road neighborhood is that they wanted some more opportunities for small-cale commercial uses. And that is one of those uh it's a road without many corners of public roads compared to North Everett where they're very regular. Um, you can see based exactly on that feedback, we added all lots fronting on West Casino Road are eligible. Just to recognize that there are there are many corners. They're just often private roads or driveways versus public roads. So, in any one of the lots on West Casino Road, you would be allowed a neighborhood commercial, small-cale neighborhood serving business. There are also larger nodes at the intersections as well. What would be the process if we needed to expand that that list of extra roads? Like what would be the process for that? Uh to kind of meet with chair's kind of comments. If we want to add extra streets, how big of a process is that going to be because businesses need to be a little more flexible. Is there going to be like a comp plan update which is yearly or is it No, just as needed. Yeah, this could be changed at any time by land use ordinance. Um, if there's one in mind, we can get it in here now if it makes sense and would would love to hear that. But as these come up, it's a it's an ordinance planning commission recommendation and council action. It be like a cit citizen

initiated one. Um, could we will have annual docket process where uh sorry well we call them specific amendment request process where we uh anybody is able to uh make a request. So it could come from the public that way or they could just get the ear of a council member or planning commissioner to initiate it for them. Do you have that? I know there was a map I think you shared at the council meeting that showed what all the arterials were and kind of the the area that this neighborhood commercial would cover if we could get that. I think that might be a good starting point of places that we feel maybe are not covered as much. It really does impact South Everett because of the the the distance between those arterials is huge. And um I can definitely email you all the map. Pull it up. You give it to your Yeah. The other thing um we've heard and maybe maybe it's it's okay but there was uh somebody said what about a bike shop and somebody said what about a art studio was it or an art it's a there there is a potential tenant for one of the commercial buildings in North Everett that is a combination ice cream shop bike store and antique business and of which two of the three might not be permitted under it and I've said them sounds like a great opportunity. Glad the building's being used do it before June. So I mean there we are fl this is a a a a project that's going to take time to get specifically right and we

might not get it right all the time and there might be complaints and but then there could be others that are just roaring successes and I can't answer that specifically. So, it's one of those ones that you're trying to to work out, but let's try to get it right uh as much as possible. So, if uh I don't see in this draft, and that's kind of the value of seeing it all as it will be as code, I don't see a route around these subcategories, for example. So, I would read that if it's not on this list that you would not be able to do it. Um, so that can be something to to chew on and maybe we get comments on and I do expect this to come up with the council as well. But if there are other types of uses that you as a commission feel like are um missing here, then this would be the time to get it in. or if there's some way to get a um a higher level of review for a use that's not otherwise listed on there, maybe that's the thing that we borrow from the adaptive reuse side, public notice or something like that that makes it a little bit tougher. Should we look at things being more broadly broadly looked at or stay narrow focused like to be I guess I guess that would be the question for us as a group or moving forward is are we looking at more a broad look at everything so we're not having to every little what if moments or yeah that the tension is between uh whether the community is going to not appreciate that we have permitted something uh or whether a community is going to wish that we had been able to permit something which is difficult to know. Um we can administrative

flexibility is um is helpful in that regard. guard rails or criteria. Definitely criteria. I I ask what is the what am I looking to what are we looking to when deciding whether a use is appropriate or not. It can't just say if appropriate because then we don't have much to go on. But if there's specific criteria then it can be opened up and then things like public comment as long as it connects to the criteria. So it's not just somebody says I don't want it but somebody makes a good point that's connected to that criteria. No easy answer on that. Sorry. You back on the on the uh on B where neighborhood commercial uses are permitted for one two three. Is that should that be or instead of and on three one and two and three. Should that be? These ones up hereove above section B. Oh, section B or section B or or or Yep. And so, thank you. We're going through and catching lots of little things like that. I definitely want to hear about it. So that's neighborhood commercial uses. Any more questions or thoughts on that? We have not changed a prohibition on manufacturer of explosives within the city of Everett. Euro on that same section.

Um, well, no. Under neighborhood commercial, section C talks about off- streetet parking prohibited between the building and the street. What if it already exists and it' be permitted. Okay. Not informing at anyform at that moment. That is one of the hardest uh parts about this is thinking of things that already exist or conversions or additions or or something. Back on that page, I think the confusion was we have two sections labeled C. Okay, good. Yep. Yep, we do. You my computer is crawling now. that we were big pages. Okay, I'll let it think about whatever it's thinking about.

Um, I'll linger on this front page. Uh, this is where you can see all the the dwelling definitions collapsed into just dwelling, which would be allowed in all zones except for LI and HI. Uh, in the light industrial mixed use, that would be limited to within Metro Everett. Um, all of that is consistent with current These are emergency housing shelters, extreme weather shelters, group housing. Uh all of those are intention was not to make any changes, just to map the use permissions to the new zones. Um we just recently redid all of those uses. So if there was a change uh that was not intended and let's take a look at it. I think same for the rest of the residential uses as well. You'll see some reference notes. Um, and on page 13 of chapter 5, which is page 65 of the PDF, you can see this permitted when meeting the requirements. This is number 12. Permitted when meeting the requirements of 190545, that is the neighborhood commercial. In earlier versions, you would have seen a uh superscript NC. And this is how that actually plays

out. Any questions about residential zones? I mentioned so now into the commercial uses. I mentioned that alcohol production is folded into food and beverage. Uh drivethru facilities are restricted in mixeduse centers. Um, the automobile drive-thru facility requirements are in that chapter 13, which is going to come out in book two. Um, we had that in the previous version, the early council draft. So, I think it's about in the same place. I think that's one that we may want to take a look at when 1913 comes out. a couple of uh maybe autofocused uses. Uh we have prohibited and mixeduse centers. For some of these I'm looking at auto fuel sales were prohibited on to or pedestrian streets. Those are most of the streets within mixed use centers. Um, auto fuel sales, for example, are currently allowed in parts of Metro Everett that are not designated to or pedestrian, which is mostly around the periphery or close to uh I-5 um by prohibiting. So, it would would expand the area that it is restricted from Metro Everett and then when we get to mixed use centers, it would also be restricted in those. main reason for that is trying to nurture very pedestrianoriented and uh dense places and um seems like we won't be seeing a lot of new gas stations anyways as we phase out that uh type of fuel over

time. We do need to figure out I think electric vehicle charging stations on that side of things. Um I don't think we've really handled that in this periodic update. We do have an action in the transportation element for an electric vehicle charging plan uh to figure out both in private property and right of way and other uses. Um so that's something we're actively working on right now. Um auto sales and light truck and RV sales and rentals prohibited in the mixeduse um centers. That's a little bit of a change. There were restrictions in many parts of uh the city. I don't think there are any Bzones in mixed use or in Metro Everett at least. So, this may not actually be a change. We consolidated the business and the mixed urban zone uh throughout the city into just mixed urban. So for things that were allowed in one but not the other, we had to make a choice and uh say allowed in the new broader MU zone or not. Keep going. You'll see a handful of the uses that should align with the uses that we talked about with neighborhood commercial. So here it is the uh clinics for example permitted only when meeting the requirements of 190545. That's the neighborhood commercial section. And Commissioner Finch had a a good suggestion to think hard about that one which we continue to do. expanded uh commercial daycare centers and where they are allowed and what uh

use or what review process it would be. So in the single family zones it was a conditional use. In the neighborhood residential zone it is a permitted use. I don't know what reference note one is. Ah neighborhood commercial So permitted in the neighborhood residential zone but only up to 3,000 square feet. So I would read that. That intentional go bigger. I don't have a problem with that. But okay. So I'll note that is something that we'll take a closer look at. Uh, should daycare centers of any size be allowed in the neighborhood residential zone or just limited to the neighborhood commercial framework on corners and up to 3,000 square ft? A lot of feelings on that. Uh when you're doing that, can you look to make sure that we are accommodating or understanding or making sure that what we're doing is not in in direct competition with what the state says because like I'm thinking daycare centers have to have outdoor space. I just I haven't thought about that until the other day. So I don't know if we've been thinking about that either. Sure. Um, but we also should allow daycarees liberally because we don't have any. Yeah, it's a it's one of the major crises right now actually. One of the many. Entirely in agreement. Remove the 3,000 square foot uh just per wherever you can put them, wherever you can fit them. The neighborhood loves them. Great. Put them in. Right.

You'll see lots of new P superscript one in the NR and the UR zones. Those are all of the neighborhood commercial uses. uh commercial storage enclosed in building mini storage. Currently those are allowed in the business zone and by administrative use permit in the mixed urban zone but prohibited on the ground floor on to or pedestrian streets. Um in this draft we have this as um also requiring a minimum this would be a new requirement for mini storage in the mixed urban zones minimum floor area ratio of 2.0 which would mean essentially you would have to be practically three stories or more. Um this is one that we discussed a lot um mini storage love them or hate them. uh they provide an important service to people in transition or especially as we densify in storage in maybe a smaller apartment building. You need something. They also take up a lot of land for very few or no jobs and little or no retail sales tax but they do um are valued fairly highly at least the multi-story ones and so do contribute to the property tax base. So between the service provided and the property tax base those are on the plus column uh no jobs no sales tax no housing on the minus column. Um this is where we landed as a proposal. Would the prohibition uh also impact like loading and unloading zones for those? So I'm thinking uh so the um sorry the prohibition against the ground floor. Right. So, I'm thinking of the uh like stacked ones that are along Aurora down

Seattle and uh South Mil Creek. Um where they have fairly substantial ground floor loading and unloading. Um and also along uh I want to say uh yeah. Yeah. Um so that's a pretty substantial ground floor use, right? Would that be prohibited then? So, you'd end up with just people like, "Hey, what I can fit in a cart and like push through a door or like can't get my U-Haul, that's a problem." That would essentially you're banning them. Mhm. Just curious. That would be a difficult I don't know. Um, I don't know how you could have mini storage but not be on the ground floor except if there was also like a retail component that would more be like the front of the building while the whole back of the building was available for loading and and maybe storage as well. That's probably how I would interpret that. that as long as the street frontage had um usable use that wasn't mini storage that that would pass muster. I've seen some on the MRSC where they said project row is business but you do the front the lower level would be in the back where it's not visible by the street. Yeah, I think if we prescribe that in the superscript or in the in the note that would be useful to figuring that out without having to call and ask you a question in the future. Yep. I agree. Also, your um on the child care thing, can we make sure and add child care and adult family care? I think those should Yeah, they should hang I think they do in certain places kind of hang out together, but I Yes, I have. You should be able to have your children and your grandparents in the same neighborhood. Yep. I've seen those in in our regulations somewhere. I think it was the parking chapter that I last saw them. So maybe we're part of the way there or maybe we

Yeah. Okay. I think that's it for commercial. Any other questions on those? There anything I missed? And I just want to clarify. So do do we not have a provision for uh EV charging? We no we I we allow we certainly allow the facilities uh if you were to put EV charging as part of any parking lot that is allowed. I think we allow it in the right of way. Um what what I think we have a gap in is a standalone facility which I don't see many of. I think we've had interest in one on Broadway and staff were uh trying to figure out if that is commercial parking or fueling. Um I think the definition of fuel means you have to burn it and use it and it's gone. So that doesn't mean electricity debatably. Uh, so I I I don't remember where we landed on that or I'm not sure if that is still outstanding, but seems like we should probably have a use or something that is separate from parking. If you can put a placeholder or something in there, it'd be nice to think that would be allowed somewhere. Yeah, absolutely. I'd love to see what other cities are doing on that. Right. That would be useful. Yeah. Yeah. because the large facility have a little substation attached to it. So, it's going to be a little bit industrial some ways looking, but and at least and it's a parking lot, too. It's not in beautiful downtown Weed, California, there was an EV charging parking lot. I mean, there they had I was surprised there were 16 EV charging stations in Weed, California. My wonderful three-day visit to Weed.

Car broke down. in a snowstorm. Yeah. Um yes, we'll take a look at that. We're um Yes, we are very pressed for capacity and um but if there's a way to get something in for now, uh yeah, what is it most when there's not a use listed, we find the use that it's most similar to? And I think those two are the obvious candidates. Um but they're not allowed in some places. Commercial parking as a principal use is already restricted on uh in many areas and then proposed for further restrictions. Um I think the easiest is if you just build it into a parking lot that is serving a use. So grocery stores that have them or something like that. No problem. Yeah. Yep. So that we have no problem with. It's just when you have a parcel and the only thing you're doing is charging [Music] industrial Maybe it's these pages and once we get back it past it, it will speed up. Okay. Composting and recycling facilities. This is not a change. It's just relocating it. I think it was captured in the definition for heavy industry, I think. So, we were just separating that out because it maybe wouldn't come to mind or storage yard I think is where it was. So, we were just separating it out so that it wasn't it doesn't come to mind immediately as same as storage yard. But this is not a substantive change. Likewise for freight

terminal storage yard might be one where we pulled back on. In general, we have huge employment targets. We didn't talk about it as much because we have employment land and we already do everything we can to attract jobs. Uh but some of these passive uses that take up sometimes valuable land but don't generate jobs although they're often associated with other work. Yeah. So you see the crossed out composting and recycling facilities. Maybe we did not make any changes here. I guess not light industrial that is worth lingering on. So up here and sorry the headers didn't show up there. Uh light industrial and this column closest to the gray part is the mixed urban zones. is currently a conditional use and prohibited on the ground floor on to or pedestrian streets. So, we have that now as an administrative use, which means not going to the hearing examiner, but a a staff decision with possible conditions. And instead of being prohibited on the ground floor on to or pedestrian streets, it is limited to 5,000 square ft gross floor area in mixeduse centers. otherwise just allowed as an administrative use. What we're thinking here is that um assembly manufacturing light uh by definition

heavy industry generates noxious things light glare sound uh vapors and all of that. So light industrial by its definition is less or not impactful to its neighbors. We frequently run into businesses that we would love to accommodate in the place that they would like to. Whether it's woodworking, furniture manufacturing, uh meat packing, uh or wholesale, mushroom, uh production, farming, not sure what you those were some examples of things where uh we had a difficult time slotting them into Evergreenway or Metro Everett or something. So we were proposing to loosen that up a little bit. One of our slogans as a city is Everett. You can make it work here. You can make it here. You can make it here. Which is a nod to our manufacturing cluster. So in keeping with that spirit was the thought, but that in mixeduse centers at least um they should be pretty small and closer to the cottage industry than a largescale manufacturer. Warehousing is a different use. So, we're conscious that um often a flex industrial building goes back and forth between manufacturing and warehousing. That would be a constraint on building a new building of the types that you see in like Southwest Everett or something that they would only be able to use it to make stuff, not to just warehouse, distribute, and distribute stuff. You could continue to do warehousing and distribution as an accessory use to retail. Let's say you have a kitchen showroom and big uh storage area for the wholesale or retail associated with it. That would continue to be okay, but just a warehouse that takes in stuff and sends stuff out uh without a customer presence would

not anything else around that. How is the 5,000 square foot limit arrived at? I'm just that seems really small for business use in at least in in light industrial to me. Yeah. I mean I work for small retail on occasion and we have 3100 square feet and I could totally see if I'm doing assembly or something similar uh one considerably more space. Mhm. It came from a book. So we didn't just make it up. It came from a book. Uh it was one of the staff who read the book and it was about uh urban manufacturing and supporting an an industrial ecosystem within cities. I can't remember what it was, but it had a breakpoint of the types of things that would be well suited to spaces under 5,000 square ft. This would be within centers. So this is in Metro Everett and around it um and whatever these new centers are. But that's something that we could think about whether um and that would be the limit for the manufacturing space or the light industrial space if you had retail that would be separate. But that's something we could look at on you're thinking that's low. It seems low. I mean maybe if you wanted to review it or I don't know administratively approve it after that or something similar but it seems that's a fairly low limit to me. I don't know about anybody else. So I maybe I'll read the book or I'll ask uh James to to give a little bit more on that. Um every one of these reference notes is modifiable. So that's probably an important context here. If it is prohibited, there is nothing that staff can do. That is not it is a variance through the hearing examiner only. But everything that's a reference note in the special regulations that is modifiable with the criteria of would result in equal or better performance does not unnecessarily impact neighbors and that sort of

thing. Um I'm also thinking administrative use permit probably appropriate because this is not an industrial zone. Um but that's a little bit of process to go through too. That might be a little bit much for a a truly small business. Um, then down to public institutional, I don't think we had any major changes [Music] there. Neighborhood commercial Sorry about this. Okay, there we go. So, you see the park and ride park and rides are prohibited in mixeduse centers except as accessory use or by development agreement with the city council. that as language uh for transit centers and that would what we would expect from the Sound Transit light rail uh parking garage. Think there's anything else here. Do we need to make a for the schools? It's it's all blank for the new stuff. Yeah. Yeah. Those should be accommodated in the uh residential zones as they currently are. Thank you. That was a mistake. Yes, we would probably put that in as administrative use for the neighborhood residential zone, which can have conditions, but

it's not a a hearing examiner decision. We'll have to talk among staff or if there's any thoughts on whether that should go to the hearing examiner or not. Don't expect many new schools. More often it's uh remodels. Thank you for catching that. We took out transit and bicycle facilities on the very bottom of this page because those are uh in the right of way and so they're not really subject to the zoning code. We couldn't figure out why they were in here to begin with. We don't have a use for street lights, for example. We did keep the off street facility. So there were two uses for transit facilities. One for just bus stops and bike racks and another one for transit stations where routes converge. We clarify that that's off streetet facilities, but the right of way we operate as we normally do. Okay. At the bottom here, adaptive reuse of non-residential buildings. You can see that's where we pulled it out of the use matrix and into a section of chapter 5. We added a prohibition on adult use businesses within mixeduse centers. Same for agriculture, greenhouse or nursery. expecting that those would tend to be large facilities. Is Mullebach's going to open in Everett? I don't know. It would be not in Metro Everett, though. It'd have to go elsewhere.

Well, wants them to open. I'm remembering that this commission had asked to re uh find and replace marijuana to cannabis, and we have not caught that yet. So, I'll put that on my list. Okay, I think that is it. Okay, that's it for that chapter. This is going too. I don't know if I can continue to do this. Uh, a quick question on miscellaneous uses. Uh, was the drop for clubs and lodges out of R2 entirely in NR and UR intentional? from a conditional to just a blank. I don't think so. I see that all the way up this this area. So, I guess that assembly, community center, and clubs or lodges. Uh, do we have that in neighborhood commercial? No. So, maybe it was intentional. Are we thinking clubs and lodges could be added to the neighborhood commercial or just allowed? I mean, like if if it's a a small establishment, if you're still limited to 3,000 square feet, a neighborhood resident or, you know, the neighborhood commercial, I would not see why that would be a prohibited use. It's essentially a an office space or party, you know, small party space. So, is that what that is? Can be. We we used to have a a thing called the Cascade Club here in Everett and there's like other clubs like in Seattle um like the rainer clubs. Yeah. Yeah. I don't see

the Els Lodges, the uh we have a what's it called? Fleet Reserve. Uh VFW. Yeah. Those types of things. A VFW. That that would count, right? Yep. Yep. So I guess how we set up the neighborhood commercial framework was that it was for the residents very near and it seems like those types of uses would be more likely to draw from a wider area and so would be more appropriate in a actual commercial zone but that's that is what what got us there. The Fleet Club is in a neighborhood business zone now, but I think it and I think it's on Madison, and I think that's going to an MU zone anyway. I'm trying to think of where there was one that was staying residential when we were looking at all of the neighborhood commercial districts, and that's the only one I can think of there. There is one near that club. It's kind of tucked back off of Madison. H gosh, the name of it is escaping me. But it it is like a little lodge. I I'm not even sure if it's actively in use, but I could see it being used as that. Does anyone know the building I'm talking about it? Oh, it's like the Oh, God. I'm You know what? I will find the name of it and I will send it to you because it's very near It's very near the the one on Madison and and Beverly, but it's kind of tucked a couple blocks back uh into the neighborhood slightly. You talking about one next to like the little league the clubhouse there that's next to the ball fields. I mean would that apply? It's not in it's not next to ball fields. I'll I'll find it and it almost looks like it was a church at some point but it is not operating at as a church. My understanding is it is a lodge and you can rent it uh like you could at any you know from any type of club space. You can rent for events and whatnot. Um I'll find it. I'll I'll send it to

you. We have no reason to guess. We have definitions here. Private club or lodge means an association of persons organized for some common purpose including fraternal organizations but not including groups organized primarily to render a service which is customarily carried on as a business. I went by a hookah lounge the other day and it said private club accepting new members and I assume that's around the smoking law. Um yeah it probably cost you a dollar, right? So that would be excluded in this case. we should think a little bit about and maybe this something that uh chair and staff can talk about of how we want to organize the recommendations of this body. I we're taking all of this feedback and for the most part we're just incorporating it at some point. You may want to have a a letter or in your formal recommendation to the council is hopefully yes, we're on the right track and maybe but and then here are some things. um that's a multiaceted kind of piece of communication uh to put together with this group. So maybe that's something we can think about and this could be that type of thing. Council, we especially like these things. We are concerned about these but don't have an answer and these we have very specific things where we have uh differ from staff's opinion on things. We want to make sure you have that voice. I think that would be particularly useful from some of our commissioners that have particular expertises where you may pick up some technical pieces that those of us who are not uh holders of that expertise might not catch. Um so keeping those things in mind, I think those would be extra useful to communicate in writing to the council. Great. Um we're at 8 o'clock and at a breakpoint with the chapter. I'm seeing

Laura uh over there and uh listening. Uh might we jump to chapter 17 to talk through port compatibility and then we can come back and see how much energy we have to get through chapters uh six, eight, and nine. Those are the the last major ones for Okay, we'll plan on 17. We'll plan on 17. Get there. I heard freight corridor. So, chapter 17. While my computer is thinking, thank you. What I was trying to open and it may get there is this bookmark thing up on the top uh will take you to chapters. There's also hyperlinks from the front um from the front page. Okay. Page 166. Okay. Airport, Port and Navy compatibility. We have a specific amendment request. uh you remember from two years ago maybe now uh from the Rucker Hill neighborhood to remove the port compatibility overlay from code. Um we also had a specific amendment request from the port of Everett to add uh West Marine View

Drive 41st Rucker and Pacific not in that order as a freight compatibility overlay with similar uh provisions to the port compatibility overlay. Um, we met with representatives from the neighborhood that had made that specific amendment request as well as port staff over the last year and slowly worked towards what I hope is a negotiated settlement of the port compatibility overlay. There are a variety of changes to deemphasize the uh compatibility overlay in this chapter 1917. the visibility of it while maintaining the core uh functionality of it. So that is the nature of the changes that we have in here. Um am waiting for word from both the port and the neighborhood that this is good to go. Um I think we had initial indications that we were on the right track. Um but had to hit print on this version before we finished those conversations. So I sent that to both parties um for their review. Some of those changes are uh just to separate things. I think in some sections the port and the navy compatibility areas were were combined into one section. So we've separated all of those out into its uh into their own sections. Ah, it was those big pages cuz now it's just going. So from the uh port and naval compatibility area, we would so there used to be one map that showed both and we proposed to delete this section and instead of mapping the area, we have a text description which

winds up being almost exactly what the map area was and that is parcels within 800 ft of a port of Everett marine terminal property as Well, we do have the freight and uh here we have in B I had forgotten that we had that in there. Uh we have the freight compatibility area which is parcels adjacent to West Marine View Drive, Pacific, Rucker, and 41st. uh staff had indicated that we weren't quite convinced of the necessity of this, but I think I had written it in here just so that we had it ready for the decision to go either way. So, consider it in there and subject to removal if if we don't want it or subject to leaving it in there if we do. Uh these are all clarifications. Uh this part here is clarifying that any the city shall consider comments by the port of Everett and where authorized under this title may apply such conditions. So clarifying that the conditions are limited to those that are available to the city to condition a development on this notice of uh that we give to developers who over 10,000 square ft within the port compatibility area is removed from code but will be maintained at least initially in this form in uh in department rules. Uh, so the the notice will still be provided, but it won't be sitting on Everett Municipal Code. If it's not in code, how do we ensure

it's being that it's done? I guess that's if you're not saying you must do provide this, how do we ensure it's being provided? I guess um it's it's difficult to ensure that it's being done. And I think the port um participates and keeps an eye on development within this the compatibility area. Um this is not a communication that is made public already whether it's in code or not. So I guess you have to trust staff that that we are doing this. The language if the department were to change it would need would require input from the managers of the port before doing so. So we could not unilaterally change the the the text and we don't have any intention of changing the text. The requirement to provide written notice and at least the general that there are potential impacts to the property that is defined in code. So you would have to give notice. It would have to talk about the impacts and that any change to this would need uh concurrence of the port or input from the port. Commissioners, do we have anyone who has connections to the neighborhoods? I mean, we had, if you, some of you were here, we had quite a showing from some neighborhood uh folks who had strong feelings. Do we have anyone who has connections to the neighborhood group who's been attending who can offer any updates from the perspective of the people in the neighborhood? I live in the neighborhood. I have not attended any meetings or have any visibility as to what the discussions have been like, but I it sounds like there has been an ongoing and robust conversation. I I question the 800 ft just because of potential expansion. So instead of a map that is static that

must be revisited, now we've got something that is more dynamic. Um, so I can see some unintended consequences of uh noting a a distance rather than a specific area. I'm still struggling with what exactly the goal here is. And um there are a number of um real estate projects on port land that I'm not sure um and maybe they do, but I'm not sure they would not otherwise receive comments from the port if they run privately on land. I just don't know. For example, I mean, one thing we hear a lot is noise um that the recommendation from the port might be to um ensure that double pane windows are installed and a new multif family project. I don't know if that's the case on the existing multif family projects that are on property that the port previously sold um but have since been developed. Um I'm not sure it talks about you know potential um uh adverse impacts on port operations which we definitely want to avoid. But what does potential mean? Is it the idea of or is it the the high likelihood of and who makes that determination? um if we're talking about moving a component of a turbine once a year, do we need an overlay? Um or is it just one moment of um you know potential disruption and you're living in Everett and you're near port and you know that's going to happen from time to time. Um, so I'm I'm having a hard time balancing what's needed to make sure we have a vibrant port with what's needed to make sure that we have a growing and thriving economically viable projects in downtown Everett.

These things get too expensive. Yeah, I think the main uh purpose of this is awareness and communication. It is creating a dedicated channel between the managers of the port and a developer to make sure that there is uh that they're going into it cleareyed uh if there was a risk that that they didn't understand the implications of of uh putting housing for example in a particular spot and that there would guarantee the opportunity for such a conversation whereas otherwise it's possible that you just go straight to building permits and there's a a gap in understanding there. Um there is the opportunity for the port to request conditions. Um I don't know whether the city has the authority under title 19 to condition a project to require certain window types. Um but that would be the kind of things that if it was compelling that could be worked in there. All of this towards the goal. And in the comprehensive plan side, we have the proposed uh revised marine port element which lays out the policy framework around it and does have some policies around uh maintaining a port compatibility area to provide uses allowed in the nearby underlying zones while protecting the port of Everett and reducing the potential for land use conflicts. So I think at its root all of this is about reducing the potential for land use conflicts and there are a couple others. Um city and the port should work together to identify transition areas where additional noise attenuation may be required. Uh there's effort to establish a transition area where limitations on new residential construction. So there are some things that we have not uh done. We've talked about the parcels at the west end of Hwitt for example. A lot

of these were established in the port marine port element 2018 something like that. Um so that that we're continuing to implement some of those policies and refine them as we go. And to be clear, I think this concept of a communication loop is very important um given the uh less than congress nature of uses potentially. Um the requirement to um require conditions being met on a private development in this location versus another location. I do struggle with um because it could increase construction costs. Um if a developer built a building that um for example didn't comply with the elevated conditions but were just a market rate building like anywhere else um if that building didn't perform as well um they would probably uh have increased vacancy and so I think there's a motivation there to do the right thing especially if they have the communication from the port and there's a feedback loop there. Um but it it should be recognized that you know the port is also developing office space and potentially residential uh and retail on their own land. And so there is a if Ishmael Muhammad were here he would say you know there's there's no way you can you you can bet against them because they have unlimited money like he did with the park district. So I think about that. I think about the um the communication is very important, but I can see the potential for an overreach if um conditions can be forced on private property owners. I'd like to second that. I keep thinking about two different things. So, one, what is the administrative burden of doing all this? I think communication agreed. Having a communication channel, recommendations, hey, have you thought about this? That's really important. But

forcing somebody's hand, that leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Um, and foul play. I mean, nobody's going to intentionally come up to this and and try to manipulate it, but there could be a day where somebody's trying to build something or prevent something from being built and now cherrypicking everything they can to stop a development that otherwise would have been approved because it adhered to all the other regular uh rules that we would apply to that lot. So anyways, I don't like thinking about things that are going to have a huge administrative burden for a developer or the port. That's inefficient and we want to promote building at the end of the day, right? Coming back to is what we're doing going to allow for building and then I the room for manipulation to stop something that somebody just doesn't want or doesn't like. Um I don't I don't want that. So it has to be in the middle open lanes of communication. clear suggestions, whatever. But um yeah, I I don't have a good way to finish that, but I don't love it is what I'll say. I I tend to see things through a couple the liability lens. And we can only protect people from their own choices to a certain degree. And I think about other cities where literally housing is built right next to trains. And people choose it. they choose to live there and people can make the choices that they want to make, but we want to protect our entities from liability from someone who makes a choice and then decides, "Oh, I don't like this. I'm going to try to sue people because I don't like what's happening when I chose to be in this area." So, I mean, I I I'm always thinking about how how can we protect uh every everyone? I mean, these resources, these public resources, these belong to the people. How do we protect the people from folks who want to have uh buyer's remorse for a decision that they make

without doing exactly as uh the commissioners have described and handcuffing our developers who we really need to be working in partnership with. Um and I I think it is a it is a struggle. It's it's a tough equation to balance. Um but I think we should not balance it uh in a way that reduces opportunities for development. There's been a couple different subtopics of this port compatibility issue that we've talked about over time. And just to make sure we're on the same page of where we're at now, the proposed zoning map uh that is part of this package uh has the west end of Huitt as hard to see on this map, but it's whatever allows does allow residential. So there is um we have not remember that conversation around restricting and prohibiting residential on those parcels and we have not included that in this draft. Um we do have a port compatibility area now and these amendments uh as I said in the beginning seek to kind of deemphasize it a little bit or or reduce the uh the visibility of it while maintaining the functional aspects of it. And then there was the freight compatibility overlay portion uh which uh staff had not been compelled that that the impacts that we do understand the impacts and the uh the need for the working port uh and and that it is going to generate noise and it is going to generate uh vapors and things sometimes. but that we weren't quite as compelled that the the freight route to the port would stand out the freight aspect of it above the fact that it's just a large arterial and there are lots of engines going back and forth all day long. Um we do have it in this draft. Um uh but I think staff may

recommend not including that. So that's where we're at with all three of these. Uh one was not included what the port had been interested in. one is hopefully a negotiated uh kind of settlement that deemphasizes but leaves the functional aspects in and then another one that uh staff would recommend not including. We do have um Laura here to speak with maybe some more uh clear information on some of these than I am giving and then I want to make sure that uh I'll get in touch with uh representatives from the neighborhood as well to make sure that they have the ability to come visit uh at the next meeting as well so we can hear their perspective. But I don't know if we wanted to because it's part of this topic and that Laura is here if we want to give the opportunity for public comment now if you would like. Yeah, I I think that's a good idea. Yeah, thank you. Okay. Uh Laura Gurley port staff, thank you for the robust conversation. Um I definitely appreciate all the input. I know it is a tough topic. Um, I I think we need to just be clear about the different pieces we're talking about. Like Euro and I the other day went through and and Alisanne was on the phone too. The different there's the piece at the end of Huitt that we we had originally asked about restricting residential that is that's not in this right now. So that's we can talk about that if you want to, but that's not the port compatibility area at this point. Um the changes that have been made like changing the map um or to not be a map but instead be an 800 foot measurement basically came out of the fact that the residents did not want a map and we had to figure out some way to explain the area that we were talking

about and that was kind of what we landed on based on roughly where the lines were drawn before. Um, and that thus far as Euro's been the go-between with the neighborhood. So, you know, we haven't met directly with them. Euro's kind of made edits and then brought it to each of us. Just so for to be clear on that. Um, they seem to have been accepting of eliminating the map and having some other way to describe the area. Um, so we we've definitely uh been flexible with them. Um, and I I really do implore you to really read the language because there's nothing in here that says that the port can restrict. There's nothing in here that says the port can require anyone to do anything. If we make a recommendation, it goes to staff. And I think York even added language that if we recommend something that's allowable under the code somewhere for staff to choose to implement and make it a mitigation measure that's required in their permit then it's still at the staff's discretion. It is the port. We're not the city. We don't issue your permits. We don't we can't say hey guy up the street you have to do this. Um, so really just dig into the the actual language that's in here. Um, it is we're just trying to emphasize the fact that we're trying to prevent problems in the future. You know, just, hey guys, I know you looked at Google Earth, you realize there's a port here, but do you really know what that means? Um, you know, it might be 3:00 in the morning and we have a ship in there unloading tanks from the military which are very loud, you know. Um, and we just want someone who might

be building something to be aware of that so they can choose if they want to beef up your insulation, your windows, whatever it might be. Um, I just want to emphasize that because same thing with our request to expand this kind of idea down the freight corridors. Again, we're not asking to require anyone to do anything. It's a it's a matter of education. If you're going to build something, we just want you to know that you might at some point, if we do finally, hopefully get more than one wind turbine a year. Um, have more heavy duty traffic moving at 3:00 in the morning with police lights flashing and cherry, you know, bucket trucks moving street lights or wires or whatever. Um, that could very much wake you up if your window faces the roadway. Um, so it's all we're really trying to do is is educate people to make projects better. I think um, Chair Chatters, you had brought up the um, awareness of the situation in Seattle with the city of Seattle. They had worked with the Port of Seattle on um, kind of an industrial port um, transition kind of preservation area. Um, and unfortunately the city has not fully held up what they agreed to and now they're in an appeal situation that's probably going to lead to a lawsuit and it's not looking pretty. Um, but we don't want to go there with you guys. We we just don't we're trying to, you know, prevent an environmental justice situation maybe where you end up with a building that didn't do anything and residents get tired of having noise or light or whatever and it has high turnover, you

know, of tenants. Um, and maybe that's not the best situation for that that developer to be in and we don't want to be the cause of that. But that's why we are trying to educate people um to prevent a situation where there's a lot of complaints flying around. Somebody wants to sue someone else and it just you know we're we're trying to grow. That is our our business model. It's our mission as a special purpose district, as an economic development driver in the region. And by growth, I don't mean buying properties adjacent to us, but I mean our business lines and our tenants and whatnot. Um, so the likelihood of there being more traffic and more heavy duty traffic on the freight corridors is pretty high. Um, because that's what we're going after. That's the kind of stuff we're that we're really aiming for. So, um, again, just really imploring you to to look at the nuances of the language. the any decisions of any requirements are at the city's discretion. We we have no um uh what would that be? A judicial uh jurisdiction. We have no jurisdiction um to do anything like that. Um, and then I was also just, uh, Commissioner Finch, you had brought up some of the ports developments like our residential and office and whatnot. I think the residential is a private development though, isn't it? It is, but it's also on our the other part of our waterfront. This only is relative to the seapport. It surrounds the seapport, not like the marinas and whatnot. This area doesn't expand down to there. Um if if we were to build residential or something immediately adjacent to our

terminal, we would absolutely be thinking about stuff like this. We did sell um the former Kimberly Clark parking lot property that's on the east side of West Marine View Drive where the flyover bridge used to be when it was the factory. Um, and we do have in that purchase and sale agreement a I'm not sure if it's on the title or just in the purchase and sale agreement considerations for them to think about and do when they build something. So again, they're right over top the port. They're going to see it, hear it. We're just trying to um keep everybody happy in the long run. Yeah. I mean, I and I think advisory and considerations are great. um that's the kind of communication that I think will result in minimizing complaints um and administrative burden and increasing compatibility. So I I understand that and I also understand that you can't compel a developer or property owner to do anything. But the way the language does read is that um the city will consider comments provided by the port and the city um where necessary and authorized under title 19 can apply such conditions of approval. So you're not compelling the property owner. The city can do that though based on your comments and it does create somewhat of an uneven playing field potentially. Um two other comments. One is the um the gross floor area. The way I read this, if a property is 9,500 square feet of gross floor area, if there's a 600 foot addition, then all of a sudden the this comes into play. That's the way I read this language. Um, one suggestion might be that if there's a a new development or an addition of 10,000 new square feet that

it would come into play. I don't think a minor expansion should make these conditions come into play. So, that's one thing to consider. The other comment I I wanted to make unrelated to this language is you mentioned environmental justice and it it's something that I think about a lot especially in terms of the Port of Everett. I've never heard anybody from Mil Creek ever complain about the noise at the Port of Everett. From Mil Creek. Exactly. The Port of Everett serves much broader area than downtown Everett or Ever Proper. Um and so when we talk about um environmental justice, I I think the citizens of Everett um they bear a lot of the burden of the negative externalities associated with the port. Um so I just thought it was an interesting comment you made about environmental justice. noted. Um, yeah, I was just thinking about, you know, when someone builds a building next to a railroad, just like what Commissioner Chatters brought up, you can look at it as a microcosm or as a big thing, but noted. With regard to the 10,000 square foot, I I thought that that that was uh the intention was to not trigger that piece for an existing structure. So, is there language that needs to be added to clarify that an addition of a couple hundred square feet to an existing structure is not going to trigger that? Is it it was my that was my understanding of the intention of that? And is that correct, Commissioner? Originally, one of the complaints was oops, if I'm doing a remodel to my home. That's right. I add additional square footage shouldn't have to go through this. That totally makes sense. I do. We had that conversation. So if we need to tweak the language a bit to reflect that better. So you just in that you just take away the or area. I mean that's what it is, right?

Well, I think that goes back to if you have something that's 9500 already and you're adding only 600, it's bumping you into the 10,000 and that's not what our intention is. So Yeah. So in in normal words that would be what are we looking for? New construction. Oh, we're just concerned with new construction, right? Not not existing. Yeah. Perfect. And I think there was all Sorry, I'm going through all the things that I heard and trying to inventory in my head. Um, one of the questions I think Commissioner Welsh that you brought up was how do we keep track of the language in the notice that the city gives and we we when we established the PC this chapter as it is today before the changes, we went back and forth for a long time with the city to agree to the language and we we were very um insistent that it be in the code for exactly the reasons and there's know, everybody knows what you're going to get when you get handed that piece of paper, handout, whatever it's going to be. Um, but again, as long as there is a in the code, something that says you will be made aware of, we're okay with working with city staff. That was my concern. Kind of like you talked about the parking lot that any new development has that same, it's almost like getting, you know, you're an HO, you buy a house in an HOA. I legally have to receive my HOA documents. Same way if you're gonna have this big externality, which I'll agree, even though we're being recorded here, common sense says the port's there, there's going to be an impact by the port. I'm staring at the port, but we all know that when people are buying things and sometimes they

look for that legal loophole. So, I just want to make sure that we've got, you know, I don't know, maybe if if city make sure as they've we've gone through our legal and make sure that we're all I just want to make sure we're all legally together on this that there's no wiggle room that everybody understands and it's all out there what you're buying or what you're building. And that's all I was concerned with. Once you if you take it out of the code, is it still legally required to be advised even though you can see it just so it's that that we just have it all buttoned up? Yeah, I guess I would kind of look at it as for a permit application, the city might have a handout like you're going to build a barn. The city hands you a handout that says kind of these are the steps. I don't know that. And forgive me if I'm speaking out of turn. I totally want to hear from you guys. I'm kind of thinking of it as the same kind of thing. In the code, it says you're going to get a piece of paper and then the piece of paper we do together and whether or not it leads needs legal review for justformational purposes, I don't know. Yeah. I just want That's kind of what I'm thinking. Yeah. I just want to make sure because nowadays everybody kind of looks at the port more in that retail area. They forget about the the southern area where the real what is a shipyard is a shipyard, you know, where where the hard hats are. Yep. So, I just want to make sure that we're not forgetting that when that gets built down that way. Yeah. Just I want the port to succeed. I want it to be I want it to generate jobs. I want to generate revenue for the city, but at the same time, we also need to make sure that everybody understands what's about to what happens when you build right next to a shipyard. Sure. appreciate that. And I guess I'll just in closing, unless anyone has other uh topics they wanted to specifically talk to the port

about, um relative to the freight, you know, expanding this area across the freight, I believe you all got a letter that we had provided with some examples and I don't know if you were able to view the videos that we submitted or anything. Um again, it's forformational purposes. if we were to have this expanded upon and there's a lot of multif family that's coming in on Rucker and that's one of our main freight routes. So again it is the purpose is really just to make sure that a developer knows their people are probably going to get woken up might be once a year it might be 27 times a year we don't know um in the middle of the night. So, and we haven't talked about is it, you know, any parcel immediately facing Rucker or is it, you know, the whole block. Um, I don't think we got into that level of detail. I don't remember. Um, how do you guys choose the routes then that you take out because to get to basically going to five your what what decides that route for you? uh turning radiuses, grades, the the long time ago the freight route used to actually be whenever it av was the end of 529, but it's such a steep hill that once you have long things, they bottom out. You can't do it. So, we had to kind of figure out a different way to go. and that with between working with the city and the state um you know the Petertown regional council the freight mobility what's FIMS stand for um can't remember what the S is um all the regional groups that analyze like how transportation and freight move um we collectively kind of came to the an agreement of what should be the focus based on grade and over time we've

actually in the transportation improvement plan. I've been working with the city and the state, you know, lobbying for funding and everything else to make improvements to make the freight route better and more um appropriate for freight like having you know yeah turning radiuses. There was the I think uh Pacific and Rucker was the most recent pretty visible one that people are probably familiar with where they kind of shaved a little bit off because you have to make such a wide turn and that way we didn't have to shut down the entire intersection to turn a big piece of um freight. So it's a process and there's a lot of people involved. Yeah. Anything else while I'm here? Mine's a little bit more towards your but it's about this. Okay. Okay. So, I just want to think about this. Um, I'm a builder. I come, I submit my application. It's in the it's in the area. You tell me, hey, by the way, this is within the port compatibility area. And then you tell the port, we have somebody who wants to build in the port compatibility area. And then what happens next? Then the port tells staff well port reaches out to the developer and has the opportunity to talk directly to them which is probably the most effective part of this entire operation. Sense and then the port also can formally suggest a mitigation measure which then staff would consider and they suggest it to you to staff. Yeah. And then good faith that they already had communications with the developer. Right. and then we just move on from there. So the bulk of the responsibility actually does lie with staff at the end of the day, right? You're I think we can assume that the

port is going to talk to the developer and do most of that, but in writing it sounds like it really does come through you and it's your responsibility to make sure that they're getting this and they're getting that. Okay. Yeah. The administrative responsibility of getting that done is definitely with staff. I think the most best chance of success probably comes from the conversation between the port staff and the applicant. Of course. Yeah. Because we are limited um on what I I I just I don't I don't I suspect that I cannot require a building to have triple pain windows that there's not a basis in code for that. So, it's going to be having to convince them that it is for the good of the development to do that. There may be some other things that we have a connection to. What? Yeah. And I get that. I mean, I understand that. I get that. I don't question that at all. I think it's a good idea to have a a formal channel of communication for these things. Um, but it it it does it based on what I'm reading, correct me if I'm wrong, it really does sit on your desk to make sure that the communication is had. What happens if you drop the ball? I mean, is it just like a too bad, so sad, you know, we just kind of move on? We've had Yes, that's exactly what I want to know is like who now who who's at fault? We've had examples of both already, both situations where I don't remember the property, but Dennis Osborne, one of the city planners, had a permit application on his desk. He shot me an email, gave me the developer's information. I went on ETracket, your permit system, to look at the plans, see what the heck it was, see if we had any concerns. I shot an email to the developer and was like, "Hey, do you want to talk? Let's talk." Never heard a thing. Let Dennis know that. And that was the end of that. if they don't want

to entertain, you know, any kind of input from the port, it was one email that Dennis had to send and then read the one that I sent him back. But then there also have been other times where I saw after the fact that there was a permit application in the PCA that I wasn't notified about and that's when I get on phone, I'm like, "Hey guys, what's going on?" But you know I mean right we have worked together for so long and so many years that is it inconvenient for us or for you sometimes. Um, but I think it's all in I would say in good faith, right? That's what I keep coming back to mostly. But I know in the future, you know, who knows, cities and ports can get sideways 20 years from now, staff changes, whatever. Um, that's always a possibility with anything. But the intent, and I think having it in the code of what the intent is, is communication, not overburdening anybody or requiring anybody to do anything. as far as a developer goes, right? Or anybody because I don't want anybody have to do more work. That's inefficient. So, okay. Are there timelines associated with the um with the communication or is there It's not written in here. It it should be as soon as possible. Um and we are working we just overhauled our permit tracking system over the past couple of years and um I'm trying to get the GIS geographic information system capabilities so that we can automate some of that. But right now it is rely on staff to notice it and so sometimes that gets dropped. There are other um we work with sound transit along the route to let them know of development applications just so that they can consider if there's anything that they need to do about that. That's another one that's a little bit too manual for my liking. But um we're

working on connecting all those systems. Okay. Well, right. Part of the reason why I ask is because um I think to the extent that we can remove ambiguity about this process, I think that's a good thing for a developer or private property owner. The other question I had was um the language in the notice has been struck. I assume that was at someone's specific request. Yeah, that was part of the neighborhoods. Um, they felt that it was a a mark on their neighborhood and that realtors would notice it and things like that. So, they just wanted to make it a little bit less in your face. So, rather than knowing what the language will look like now, they don't. Is that Am I getting that right? Yeah. Yeah. They're probably less worried about the communications between the developer, the city, and the port with what is on the web and searchable and visible and all of that is what I gather. Right. I told it in the Senate meetings maybe. Any additional questions for Miss Gurley commissioners? Is there so is does the port have a program of mitigating the the noise? I mean, again, this my concern is kind of it just feels like it's setting it up. So it's it's fairness and if you're being a good neighbor then it's fine but when you're not you know it's a get out of jail free kind of card situation right so we told you you signed that you know so what holds the port through this accountable to these people in this group that you're doing everything to mitigate those noises so the least disruptions happen is there is that something you do so many many years ago I think there might have been two homes that we actually it went through court and we

ended up um paying for windows. Um we we don't have a program that does that that we don't want to be in a precedent situation to do that to an entire neighborhood. Um and we won't um but we do have a 24-hour call-in line to the extent that if someone calls in is like, you know, one of your lights is out of whack. it's shining in my bedroom window. We will get our maintenance crew out there to adjust the light. Um there are definitely certain things um if a ship comes in at 3:00 a.m. and it's got to unload at 3:00 a.m. in order to be out and on its way by 6, we have to do that. But the things that we can do, we can have it come in and birth forward instead of uh stern in. If you park stern in, the exhaust is facing the neighborhood and then you get the sound of the generators, the engines and whatnot. So, we can actually make that boat turn around and park in the other direction to try to mitigate the noise and we have done that. So, those are just kind of examples of things that we have done. Um but it's about communication um with the we have policies on site for no um truck idling, you know, when we have a lineup of semis waiting to come into the port again exhaust and noise. Um so we we try to do what we can do to help mitigate. Um but do we have something in writing that says absolutely every ship that comes in is going to pull in stern first? No. So, I don't know if that exactly addresses what your question is, but Well, it sounds honest. I just feel like you're you're sending this out to them and the rules are pretty clear what your expectations of you're wanting them

to understand what they're getting into. I think it'd be really nice for you to have a policy that you guys have to mitigate, to support, and be a good neighbor back to them. So, yeah, I think you should have that writing. Oh, I can bring that back and I think they deserve it. I think this whole mark and I think their concern was the value loss in their property and quality of life. So I think that's a minimum of something you should do. I can absolutely bring that back to my team. Sure. Thank you. Go. I I know the language is is stricken. Um but my and I am not a lawyer but my understanding is that this the state law the statutes kind of favor um the port and the city and to speak to what Commissioner Ballard was well raising this issue. It would be good to have language about that and whatever is provided to the public to help them understand that the language in the law does say the city needs to work with the poor to to keep this business running. Uh and that they that may have externalities that are unattractive to folks who are considering doing something buying, selling, building in that area. Um and so it is hard it is hard to kind of accept, oh, we don't know what that's going to look like. Um because the public is not the one just your general lay person who's trying to to deal with their property. They are not the ones who the law seems to favor from my perspective in this equation of who has to do what uh and who gets to have their priorities recognized as a priority. Um so yeah I hear what you're saying Commissioner Ballard. Well I also think I mean we heard from that group which is a very specific group but I mean I think this has effects of other people. they just I don't think they had the wherewithal to actually come in and make that argument as that specific group did. So I think

there's probably more people affected that that would be helpful for. I I also respectfully remind the commission that a lot of the um perceived impacts of the PCA were incorrect. There's no reason to industrial of your residential property and things like that. So just thank you, Miss Gurley. We we appreciate you being here. Yeah, you bet. Thank you for hearing us out and con, you know, taking everything into consideration. And thank you, Eric and Alisan, for your hard work. Okay, only seven chapters to go. Um, are we calling it for the evening? It is, uh, nearly 900 p.m. Um, we we technically could try to squeak out a little more, but commissioners, that was a pretty significant conversation. Um, we have not completed our agenda, but I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. Motion. Okay.