Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Start on. Jennifer,

are you able to hear us okay? Robert, are you able

Yes. Oh. Very good.

Very good. Mhmm. Nope. Nope. We need remote to cancel this yet. We have Jeff Cabman, our chair, joining us. He'll be here in a second promoting him in. Meeting started once Jeff gets on. Jeff, can you hear us okay?

Oh, here

he is.

There we are. Okay.

Hold on. Small snail. Can't hear you at all.

You can't hear me?

I can hear you.

Pretty much for the.

I also can hear you. Interesting. It might be a them thing.

It might be. Can you hear me?

The Scarlet Subla, the very top one. Yeah.

Yeah. We can hear them, and I can hear you, Jeff. So they just Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. Can you hear can you hear us okay?

Yep. Can you still hear

us okay?

I can. About that.

We're ready to go anytime you are. Jeff, go ahead.

Can you hear me?

Yes. We can hear you.

Okay. Wonderful. Oh, technology is awesome, isn't it? Alright. We will call the meeting of the Lacey Planning Commission for 03/11/2026 to order. Roll call. Who is missing tonight?

Spencer.

Yeah. So, no Spencer, no Judy, and Tanya is excused. She had a family emergency. So we have six members present.

Wonderful. Okay. I'm gonna ask I know this is a cold call, but Janine, can you read the land acknowledgment,

please? Who's that?

Janine?

Who's Janine? Jennifer.

Jennifer. Sorry.

Sorry. Yes. I can.

Yeah. Yeah. I'm sorry.

I I knew what I was gonna say, and it just didn't come up.

I like the name, Janine. That's that's fine. Yeah. Okay. I'll I'll go ahead and I'll read it now.

We, the city of Lacey, are on the ancestral land of the tribal people of the Treaty of Medicine Creek, including the Nisqually Indian tribe and Squaxin Island tribe. We acknowledge and remember those tribal people not recognized today who are absorbed or relocated into other tribes for survival. We recognize the ancestors and their descendants who are still here. We recognize and respect the tribal people of the Treaty of Medicine Creek as the traditional stewards of this land since time immemorial and their role today in taking care of these lands in perpetuity. We recognize and have the responsibility to call attention to the histories of dispossession, forced removal, and abridge treaty rights that allowed our nation, state, and city to develop as they have today.

We recommend that community members read the Medicine Creek Treaty of 1854.

Thank you. So next, I would be looking for a motion on the agenda.

So move.

I'll second that. Alright.

It's been moved and seconded to approve tonight's agenda. All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Now we'd be looking for a motion on the January.

I'll move to approve the minutes.

Second. K.

It's been moved and seconded to approve the January. All those in favor?

Aye. Perfect.

So is there anybody for public comment?

We did not get anybody that registered for public comment online. We do have one guest who is good, so no public comment at this point.

Thank you. Okay. Are there any commission members reports?

So, chair Gavin, I'd like to start by introducing and maybe go around the table here. We've got a couple new planning commission members.

Yeah. Well, yes, please.

Yeah. So, Aaron, do you wanna start with yourself and introduce yourself to the planning commission?

Yeah. Sure. Yeah. Hi.

Hi, everyone. Online and everyone here in the in the room. My name is Aaron Dumas. I'm, yeah, the newest member of the or one of the and new members of the planning commission. I've lived here in Lacey for about five years now. My Blanc Pacific Northwest resident from Tacoma originally. Currently employed with the Washington State Department of Commerce. My background, I work a lot with build, building energy efficiency, housing, sustainability, some of my areas I volunteered and worked with throughout my life. And, yeah, I really appreciate, the opportunity to join this commission and for opportunity to contribute to, State Lacey's future.

Then we have Alan as well. Alan?

Good day, everybody. My name is Alan Acosta. I've been here since 2006. I was brought here by the military. I retired in 2013. I I owned a couple houses here, one over at Edgewater in Pleasanton. Currently, not a landlord anymore. So I currently live over at Christa Heights. It's right across the highway, right by, the Amazon warehouse place. So I did a lot of, nation building in the army, but I also have some, followed a lot of policy on the state and local level as well.

Just, on ongoing with the trying to look for just some better affordable housing for a lot of folks and and, continue to work with a lot of realtors and builders in in this this locale. So, just love the opportunity to be able to have have a voice, here for the community, for the city of Lacey's future. So

Well, during interviews, both of you proved to be very, very passionate about Lacey and knowledgeable about where we've been and where we're going. So I'm excited to welcome you. Welcome.

Thank you. Yeah. Thank you.

Any other commission reports?

No. Are we doing introductions? Or Sure.

Does everybody wanna introduce themselves?

Yeah. Yeah. Please.

So why don't Kieran will start, and then we'll go to the folks that are online.

Awesome. Hi. I'm Kieran, and I am a Montessori school teacher. So I love to work with, students and be an advocate for children and, of course, our futures in our community. So I think this is a really great opportunity to get to serve on this commission.

Nice. And I'm Jeff Gadman, and I am the current chair of the Planning Commission. I'm also the current county treasurer. And prior to that, I was on the Lacey City Council. So I worked on both sides of the table now, and then it's just it's exciting to be a part of where Lacey is going. Let's go to Robert.

Hi, everyone. Thank you for being here. Sorry. I'm not there in person to greet you. I'm catching a flight to go to visit my mom in Michigan at eleven, so in transition. But I am a a state worker. I work for the secretary of state's office overseeing the combined fund drive, which is the workplace giving program, as well as serving as chair for the American Cancer Society of the South Sound. I have lived here, bought house here in 2018 in Lacey, and so just looked looking to, give back. So I've been on the commission a little over a year now. So really, still getting my feet wet and understanding the ins and outs, and I am our current vice chair. Nice to meet you.

And Jennifer.

Hello. I'm Jennifer. Welcome to you both. I'm a US Air Force veteran, and I am a graduate student at UW Tacoma for community planning in the urban studies program. And I have been a homeowner in Lacey since 2019.

Nice. Thank you. And just for your all your information, I am a relative newcomer. I moved to Lacey in 1968. So okay. Shall we do department report?

Nothing to report from the department.

Okay. And we have no public hearing. So we can go on to new business, stormwater strategic plan, Doug Christiansen. And by the way, I just wanna let you all know. I've told you verbally, but, I've got another meeting tonight, so you've got me until about 07:00. If we go beyond that, I'm gonna pass it off to Robert.

Alright. Give me one second to share the screen and get the presentation going for Doug. So we have Doug Christiansen, our stormwater engineer, joined by Royce Young as well to give you an overview and an introduction into an update to the stormwater strategic plan. So, Doug, go ahead and take

it away. So this is just a left click to advance? Correct. Okay. Well, thank you for having me here tonight.

Haven't been before the planning commission for about five or six years, I guess, since the last time we had a document like this. So I appreciate you letting us have the opportunity to to come here and and give you this introductory briefing to our stormwater strategic plan. With me is Rice Young. She's our stormwater program coordinator. We both work in the water resources division of our public works department here at Lacey.

So we we work on this plan together, and that's what we're gonna give you the introduction to tonight. So what we're doing is updating our, our 2020, what was called the stormwater comprehensive plan. It's pictured there on the right. So we'll have an update, and we're renaming it the stormwater strategic plan just to reduce confusion with the city's overall comprehensive plan. So it's public works, water resources division that's leading this update, the storm water section that we're a part of, and we have teammates, several other teammates in our group helping too.

And Career Environmental Consultants is our consultant to be sure we pull it all together. Why are we doing this? This document is a it's a it's our plan and our guide for Lacey's stormwater utility. We do programs, projects, and activities and events, and this gives us a framework to work with. Also helps us in compliance with state regulatory requirements, which there's quite a few of, and we'll talk about that in a minute.

We address water quality and flooding issues and related things like habitat and and related issues. And this also this document provides information for Lacey residents and stormwater utility rate payers. But we'll talk about tonight. We're gonna start with a quick stormwater one zero one just to be sure we're all understanding what stormwater is all about and because I like talking about it. Then we'll move into our stormwater utility and what we do for stormwater management.

We'll look at regulatory requirements, the stormwater management program, which is actually multiple programs under under an umbrella that's called the stormwater management program. And then we'll all lead into our 2026 stormwater strategic plan, which we will be bringing a draft to you at the next opportunity when it's ready. But that's for a month or more out on that. So we'll start with stormwater one zero one. Well, stormwater, as you might guess, starts with rainfall.

And you're probably familiar with the natural water cycle, but I'll run through it anyway because it's fun. It's rain falls from the sky. Some of that water, in a natural setting at least, it'll it'll soak into the ground. Some of it's intercepted by trees and never makes it to the ground. It nourishes plants, and a a small part of it will run off on the surface, replenish surface water. The part that seeps into the ground replenishes groundwater, which is where our drinking water comes from, of course, and then it evaporates back to the sky to complete the cycle. Here in Lacey, we get a lot of rainfall. Today is an example. We get 50 inches on average. For the last thirty five years, that's been our average.

Right? About 50 just over 50 inches of rain a year. So that's, you know, more than four feet depth of water that we have to deal with. So we get a lot of surface runoff, especially here in a developed city, and that's what we deal with is the storm water. Where should it point that there?

Oh, it's not advancing. There it goes. So why is stormwater an issue? Well, before we develop land just in a natural setting, stormwater doesn't really well, it exists, but it's not a problem. You've got soils that can soak up the rain, and you've got lots of plants.

It it's it's not really an issue until we develop surfaces. You get very little surface runoff in a natural setting. But here we are in a city where you've developed it, and development means adding hard surfaces, impervious surfaces that the water can't get through. So that water hits roofs, pavement, parking lots, sidewalks, all that hard impervious surface, and it runs off. So in the developed city setting, we've got a lot more surface runoff than we did it when the things were in a natural setting.

So with that that increase in all that surface runoff can cause us problems, that's what we deal with in what we call stormwater management. So in stormwater management, we're taking developed situations and trying to make it mimic more like natural settings, get that water into the ground. We don't want flooding. We don't want pollution. So that's what stormwater management is all about.

So city of Lacey has a stormwater utility to address stormwater management. I should mention that we actually the city has three, what we call, wet utilities that deal with water. There's the drinking water, which is very highly controlled. It's in reservoirs and pumps and pipes. There's pipes all over the place, under the roof, almost every road. Every house has a pipe coming to it to bring water. It's a very controlled system. There's the second one is the wastewater system or sewer, which takes the dirty water from your drain and gets it away. That's also highly controlled. Lots of pipes gets it out of here.

Stormwater is the wild water. It's not as controlled. The rain falls everywhere in town, so you've got runoff occurring all over the place. So it's it's very challenging to keep all that under control and keep it, from polluting surface waters and to keep flooding from occurring. So our thermal utility was established. Where? Did I advance one too many? Yep. Good. Good.

Okay. Way back in 1985, to deal with all this rainfall that we get, that 50 inches I was talking about, We protect the water quality of our surface waters and our groundwater and prevent flooding and erosion. Those are kind of the main tenets of what our stormwater utility does. We do all kinds of activities to serve the Lacey community. We have an extensive drainage system.

It's not actually all connected to it's not a a whole system like water is. It's but it's a bunch of smaller systems that pick up water in certain areas and take it to where it can be treated and discharged. But it's our our utility operates, maintains, and constructs when necessary that whole system. And the system consists of the streets and the gutters because that's where, you know, a lot of that water is picked up. And then storm drains or catch basins, as we call them, which is the grates you see in the gutter of the road.

And then it goes into pipes and and to facilities for treatment and control of the flow and flood reduction. So we manage all of that. We also do public involvement events, stewardship activities. You may have heard of the stream team that we have here, and and other ish other events that we do. We have a street sweeping program, that goes around with the the big trucks, keeping the all that pollution picking up some of the pollution before it has a chance to wash into the storm drain system.

And we also regulate runoff from developed sites, sites that are under construction and sites once they're developed to be sure that they're not contributing to a water quality or flooding issue? Yeah. The regulatory driver for a lot of what we do is the Western Washington phase two municipal stormwater permit, which I'll just call the permit because it's, it's the permit that that regulates what we do. It's issued by the Department of Ecology, and it applies all over Western Washington. We're just one of about 90 different jurisdictions that are subject to the same basic general permit.

The permit authorizes us, our stormwater system here in Lacey, to discharge collected stormwater, but

we have

to meet a lot of conditions to be able to do that. And they take a a program approach to addressing water quality. The current permit we're working under went into effect in 2024, and it's good for five years. So we're we're in into that that permit term right now. We've been having this permit since 2007.

It's when it was first issued. They every about five to six years, they renew it and add more requirements for us. So it's, it's constantly evolving. So one of the big things a permit requires us to do is to develop and implement an overall stormwater management program. The intent of the is to reduce the discharge of pollutants from our storm system, and it has to have a certain set of component programs, which I'll run through in a minute.

And we have to do certain activities by specified deadlines within the per the five year permit term. So they keep us on our toes, and that's, largely what Bryce does. She's keeps us on top of all these deadlines and these requirements that we have to meet. So these are the primary nine primary component programs for our stormwater management program or SWMP. So the first one is planning.

So we work with the you know, just like our planning department here. We do some coordination on long range plans. Also, the low impact development, if you're familiar with that term. That's that's something that's part of our planning. We do public education and outreach.

We do a lot of that, actually. You'll you'll see our you'll see you'll see us at various city events and notices that go out with, utility bills and just all kinds of things, for education and outreach, public involvement, participation. So we encourage the public to, you know, pay attention to these things like this meeting tonight, to learn about what we do in stormwater and any suggestions that they might have. Storm system mapping and documentation. So we've maintained a map of our of the city and all the utilities in the city, but it's constantly changing.

There's growth. There's there's new facilities. There's pipes that get replaced. I mean, there's all kinds of changes, so it's an ongoing constant thing. Elicit discharge detection and elimination or IDDE, that's, if you've heard the expression only rain down the drain, that's what that's all about. Only rainwater should be going down into the storm system and ending up in our surface waters and groundwater. So the IDDE program, works to prevent, like, spills. Like, if there's an auto accident, you have vehicle fluids on the street. We we clean those up real quick. No one want that to get into the storm system.

Discourage people from dumping soapy water into a storm drain. All those kinds of things. Those are illicit discharges. Controlling runoff. This is implementing our stormwater design manual for development projects. So any redevelopment or new development project, any construction site is subject to stormwater regulations, and that comes under that number six. Number seven, stormwater management for existing developed areas. This is a new program that was at in the 2024 update to our permit. So it's it's basically doing water quality retrofits in areas that don't have any storm facilities. That's the main thrust of it.

Number eight is source control for existing development. That's source control in this context means keeping rain from picking up pollutants where it where the rain falls. Right? Right away, if you can keep the pollutants from getting picked up, it's gonna be that much cleaner when it gets to the end of the pipe. And then operation and maintenance, we have an entire, division of public works, that maintains all the storm facilities that runs the street sweepers and cleans off the catch basins and all that.

So those are our nine main program areas. Oops. Besides those programs, a couple other of the main requirements, TMDLs, those are these are water quality, improvement programs for waters that are known to be impaired. And on Puget Sound, we've got, we've got three of them actually that we address as the city of Lacey addresses. The main one is Henderson Inlet, which is where Woodland Creek, which runs through town.

That's where it discharges. It's a known water quality impairment. So things we do up here in Lacey to improve the water quality in Henderson Inlet would apply to that, the TMDL program. And then there's the Deschutes River and Budd Inlet also that have TMDLs, which are, they're basically established by State Department of Ecology. They go through the Environmental Protection Agency and, get approved and then implemented, and then we at the local level do the implementation of of things to help address those water qualities.

Monitoring and assessment, we, there's an entire program that the the state runs doing monitoring of streams and and other waters in Western Washington, and we contribute as a jurisdiction under the permit. We are required to contribute funding to that. Our share is about $36,000 a year that the city dedicates to that program. And then annual reporting, which every year, we have to report on the previous calendar year's compliance that we did for all these programs that I've been talking about, and it's due at the March. So, Royce and I, right now, we're in the thick of getting our annual reporting together for the city to keep us in compliance.

So these are some of the hot topics that we have for our current permit term. They threw a bunch of stuff at us this time, and I'm not gonna go into too much detail. But, water quality retrofit projects, so that's taking stormwater that you know, it picks up pollutants, and there's there's areas where you might have water that's not being treated. Just historically, it just never was addressed. So we're trying to to retrofit areas to provide some treatment where it's not being done now.

Six PPD quinone is it's a tire wear byproduct. You may have heard it's been in the news lately. It was it was it was found to be the cause of pre scon mortality in coho salmon, and it's now they it's come into our permit, and I'm sure the next permit cycle, it'll it'll be even more so because we're trying to find solutions to this tire product. And in fact, the tire manufacturers would hopefully come up with a way to reformulate their tires and not have this anymore. But so that's a big issue.

Firefighting foam, there's some some aqueous firefighting foams that some fire departments use that have EFOS in them, which is a chemical you don't wanna get into your water system. And so it's a it's a new thing in the permit that we coordinate with the fire districts. PCBs and building materials. So this is where this is where simple storm water is not simple anymore. This is this is, there there was a certain period of time, I think it was 1950 to 1980 or something, when building materials had a lot of these PCBs in them, that are now being found to be everywhere.

And, so to keep to keep from adding another problem, they're having us look at restrictions on things like building washdown. So buildings that may or are known to have PCBs, like in their their siding or their bulk around doors and that sort of thing. You don't wanna be pressure washing that, letting it go down the drain because it's it's adding, you know, to the PCBs. So, anyway, it's another thing they've thrown at us. Enhanced source control, which is our sweeping program we have enhanced.

Increased mapping, including things like tree canopy. Controlling runoff, they've they've made it so that the stormwater manual restrictions and and requirements are gonna apply to smaller sites. Environmental justice and overburdened communities, we're trying to get the public involvement and participation to include those communities that have been traditionally underrepresented and and maybe in areas that are, you know, like, where you have runoff problems or that sort of thing. So we're trying to engage with those communities. And then tree canopy goals and policies.

Our planning department is is working on the urban tree, whatever you call that document. Urban forest management. Urban forest management plan. Yeah. And they've put tree canopy, for stormwater management as part of our permit requirements this time. So now we're looking at, well, there's there's pros and cons to to trees. I mean, they intercept water, but then the leaves plug the drains. So, anyway, we're we're mapping tree canopy and and looking at goals and policies for that. Okay. All that kind of stuff comes into this stormwater strategic plan update that we're going to be bringing you in draft, the first draft when it's ready.

Like I said, coming up, we don't have it ready tonight, but we wanted to give you this heads up. So like I mentioned earlier, it's an update to the 2020 comprehensive stormwater plan that we did. We've been working on it since late fall, and we're working on it through this spring and end of the summer for final completion as our target. We it reaffirms the goals of our stormwater utility, which are things like, you know, protecting water quality and surface waters, protecting groundwater quality. You know?

There's a a bunch of goals like that. Planning and guiding our programs and projects, ensuring that we're we stay in compliance with the permit requirements that the state imposes, addressing water quality and flooding issues that are known about or that we've heard complaints about. And then there's there's concerns related to water quality and flooding that go along with that too. And then provide information and transparency to anyone who's paying a utility bill in Lacey, and they have the line that says stormwater. That's for the stormwater utility funding.

So that's that's a part of the reason we do this is so that those ratepayers can see what those funds are going to. So this is a planning document. So I've got some excerpts from our 2020 plan. So this is not these are not the current one we're working on, but these are what we had in 2020 just to show you kinda what the certain sections of this plan will look like. We try to make it colorful and reader friendly.

It'll live on the Lacey website, so, you know, you can click through it. We try to try to make it look good, but to provide information, of course. So we have a section on long term goals, land use trends in Lacey, the evolving regulations. Like I mentioned, they it's a constant constantly changing. Climate change resilience is, of course, a part of it because climate change can affect rainfall and the personnel and resources to for the utility so that we can do all the things we need to be doing.

And then capital project program, which is, like, rehabilitating old stormwater facilities so they're more functional, building new ones where needed, that sort of thing. So that's our capital project plan, which is part of this also. So we do quite a bit of outreach, to get people informed about all this stuff. Listed there some of the some of the ways that we do our outreach. We have an open house workshop coming up in April.

We have a survey that's, asked for people's opinions on things that's posted out there. It's active right now. Just, we try to just have a variety of ways to reach people. And what that screenshot is is kind of showing we can we can keep track from the online response, how many people are clicking to look at things that are posted so we can kinda get a feel for what forms of outreach work better and which ones don't and which ones maybe we should focus on more and how many people are hearing about these things. Oops.

Okay. So where are we at with this? So we're currently trying

to

get a draft plan together. It needs to go through internal review. So we've got the pieces, what we call a gap analysis, looking at all the requirements for this current permit term through 2029 and and what we need to do to address, you know, how how we can address that, where the gaps are that we're we're we're not maybe fully addressing something and need to need to somehow, you know, be sure we address everything. And we're developing our capital improvement program or CIP projects that we would line out. Like I said, that's that's, like, for water quality treatment, flood prevention, and rehabilitating old facilities, adding treatment to untreated flows in certain parts of town, those sorts of things go into our capital program.

So this is our projected schedule. So tonight, we're doing this first briefing just to kinda get you oriented that this is coming. On April 6, in this room, we're planning an open house, kind of a stormwater workshop to talk about the plan and and an opportunity for people to ask questions and kinda see what it's about. In early April, we should have a draft of our stormwater strategic plan for internal review, and then we'll get comments from that internal review. And then in the May, June period, we'll have a draft ready for public review.

And we'll come back for a briefing to you when we have that draft plan. We can go through the actual document. And then probably sometime in July, we'd come in again for a public hearing and then try to get it again with our annual comprehensive plan updates that the city does once a year. So that's all I got. And a lot of bottom line message is that the stormwater management is getting complicated.

There's a lot to it. We have a whole team that that works on on dealing with the stormwater, trying to address water quality. And, anyway, this plan is intended to keep us on top of it, keep us compliant with state requirements, and address issues that we know about that are out there. So that's all I got. And if anybody has any questions or comments, I'm happy to Stop sharing. It just hit stop share at the top of

the screen. You're done. I'm ready to get it to.

Doug, thank you so much. Thank you and your team for being here. I know it's kinda after hours for you. The storm water is a big environmental issue, and, you know, I think we're lucky to live in a state that recognizes that. Some of the things they require are not always comfortable or easy, but I think in the long run, it's gonna make lives better for our grandchildren and great grandchildren. So with that, does anybody on the commission have any questions for Doug?

We have Judith here in the room with a question.

Okay. Thank

you. Once a year, HOA communities need to complete the August, inspection, And there's a couple ways to go about that. Right? Hire a professional, ask the city for some support, maybe some well informed board members or community volunteers might participate in that. Can you give a hint?

We've heard that there might be some sort of a training academy or some sort of an idea to educate board members on anticipating some of the deficiencies in their community because the reparations can be expensive if they let it go too long. And you really do wanna maintain it rather than wait for something to go wrong. Mhmm. Could you talk about maybe any plans for the future on, on a training academy for board members?

Would you like to speak to that?

Yeah. So previously at the HOA Academy that they held every year, we gave a presentation on that. And this year, we switched to a workshop where we did it here, and then we did a mock inspection at some ponds outside here. So that was free instead of having to pay for the training academy, the HOA training academy, which we intend to do those workshops every year so that you can do that. Any one of us is more than willing to come out and train you.

But as the state level, we are in the process of developing with King County, a qualified stormwater inspector, which will be free, that you will be able to go a board member will be able to go online and take these courses for free and get a little certificate that you would then turn into the city that would let us know that you're certified. Because in the permit, they changed it so that you have to be a qualified person to do these inspections. And so we've been just going out and training the the HOA board member, but they change so often that I've I've been to one particular neighborhood, like, four times to train their new board member. So we have many different ways for that, and we encourage the HOAs to reach out to us. And we will walk you through your whole storm system.

We will help you fill out the form and teach you how to do all of that. But we will do have those free workshops that we're offering every year. It's just a matter of trying to get it out to the HOAs and getting people to actually show up Sure. Is the the big thing. I think we had nine people this year, which is great for the first one. I was really happy with that. But then, we're in the process of actually making one where the department will of ecology will approve this training, and then you will be able to go do that training and get a little certificate. And then you just will renew that certificate every three years. So you're gonna go there. You're gonna watch videos on what is an infiltration infiltration pond, what is a wet pond, how do you inspect it, what are the things that you need to be looking for, what do you know, what is good, what is bad, what needs to be

taken care riprap, all the things. Absolutely. That is very exciting.

Yes. So it's it's in the process right now. We're developing the videos at this point. I'm one of the people that's on it as far as the city of Lacey goes. I'm involved in a lot of things throughout the state. So you'll see the city of Lacey represented quite often. And so we're just getting it developed, so I would expect it probably won't be ready until either the end of the year or next year because we have to create the videos, and it has to go through ecology approval, and and that takes time. The and they take a long time to approve stuff, but it's coming.

Fantastic.

But if you have HOA people coming and asking, all you have to do is reach out. Myself, Brandon, any of us are qualified to go out and do an inspection with you guys. Terrific. Thanks. Yep.

Great. Any more questions?

Looks like you have a couple hands up on Zoom, both Jennifer and Robert.

Okay. I can't see that, so I'm gonna rely on your eyes.

Alright. We'll start with Jennifer.

Hello. Yeah. First of all, Judith, I really like that question. Thanks for that because I the information we got just now is really good. My question is regarding number eight of your hot topics. Just coming from an equity planning standpoint, what kind of public involvement and participation are you looking for in regards to the overburdened communities?

Go ahead.

So in this process, we've reached out to the Thurston County economic development council to get information of where these communities exist. And then the city also created a map for that, and then you have the, health department Washington State Health Department map. So we were planning on on comparing all three so we can make sure we can hit these communities. And then, with the training that we've had, the way to get those communities involved is that you need to go to those communities. You need to offer things like whether it be food or having a babysitter or something in order for them to show up.

They're not gonna show up at city hall. They're not gonna show up at the library. You have to go to where they are. So first is finding out where they are and then reaching out to their churches or whatever they have to try to get the space so that we could talk to them. And then sometimes it may include a translator as well. So that is some stuff that's going into our plan where it it's it's we have to provide opportunities and to take our level of service to the beyond the required to the recommended. We need to be able to offer them something so that they will actually participate. Otherwise, they will not participate in these things.

Great. Thank you. Great question.

Thank you. Okay. Robert.

Hi. Thank you for being here. Appreciate the insight, and looking forward to the the draft presentation. One of my questions was just just a clarification to kinda make sure that this is kind of in tandem with interagency agreements when it comes to city to city or city to county when it when it comes to storm water, and it's just my unfamiliarity with the process. If it's similar to other public utilities where there's some level of agreement when it comes to getting ready for this comprehensive plan that we'll be working in tandem with our with our community partners, because I know that things like annexations are on the table in the next, several years kind of popping up, which would coincide with with this strategic plan.

So just kind of making sure that I'm on the right, point, and I understand, how it's positioned.

Right. Yeah. The annexations definitely affect our all of our utilities. So, our plan the land use section of our plan will speak to that somewhat. And so far as other jurisdictions, Thurman, Thurston County, and City Of Olympia are all subject to the same permit. It's a general permit. So we all have these these these same kind of things that we're looking at. We work together. We have meetings together, and we we we work together for the common goals that we have.

I might add a little bit to what Doug has as well, which is stormwater is somewhat unique in that our utility generally doesn't extend into the urban growth area, like it does for things like water and sewer. So if for water and sewer, you know, we provide those services right now within our UGA. For stormwater, we really operate within our municipal boundaries. But as those municipal boundaries expand, which they will, as you mentioned, through annexation, then we need to be aware of what the condition and the liabilities and those kinds of things of the stormwater systems are in the in those areas that we annex because we do take on that responsibility after it's in our jurisdiction. And so there needs to be some coordination with the county and other agencies as we, you know, propose and and process annexation so we're generally aware of what the condition of those facilities are, so that we're not taking on huge liabilities, huge issues on, you know, deficient stormwater systems.

So it's a little unique because, you know, in this case, it's a for example, that's usually a stormwater system that's operated by the county. And upon annexation, we take it over versus, like I said, water and sewer where we're already supplying that utility. So annexation really doesn't change that.

Thank you.

Well and I know, Robert, to help you too, the county commissioners are having conversations where they're wanting to, more than ever, closely work with the cities that are you know, that they're the county land unincorporated is adjacent to so that there is a smoother handoff.

Any other questions here in the room?

Can I just add them?

Yep. Go ahead, Rose.

I would just say that out of all of the utilities, when annexations occur, storm waters often hit the hardest because we have to break those systems up up to today's standards. And oftentimes, that that hits us hard in the pocketbook with those annexations. And because it's like you said, it could be one pipe. Take Carpenter Road. Right? It's one pipe. It all flows one direction. One side of the road belongs to the county. That's their responsibility to maintain. The other side of the road is ours responsibility to maintain. It's the dividing lines, like, right in the middle of the pipe. It's not the same as a water utility where it it flows between the two jurisdictions.

So are they keeping their half of the pipe clean?

That's that's a good question.

Alright. Well, thank you all again. Appreciate your time tonight, and we look forward to updates that you bring us in the future.

Thank you for letting us come in and talk about it. Thank you. Nice meeting you.

Thank you. Have a good night.

Not speaker, babe. No. You wouldn't. Thank you. Oh, it won't let us out.

Okay. Jennifer's here to talk about infill housing.

Yeah. But I'm so

happy you have to leave early.

So just looking at the timing now, just to not make this awkward so I'm not leaving in the middle of Jennifer's presentation. I'm gonna go ahead and let her get started and then let Robert and Ryan coordinate who has questions and such. So I appreciate you all, and I wish I was there in person. It it is much easier. I hate technology. I I there are times I really hate technology. But anyway, I appreciate you all. Thank you all, and I will see you at the next meeting.

Thanks, Jeff. So, yeah, we have, Jennifer Adams. Do you wanna share the screen and get your presentation going?

You got it.

Okay. I'm not good at this all. You all know that by now. So how do I get there?

Go down to the share button.

Thread. Okay. Down to share?

Yep. K.

And then here's the lower left hand corner.

Okay. Oh, is this on?

Hit that. Okay. And then hit the share button. Okay. Perfect. And then hit the full screen.

Perfect. Let's see. Where's the full screen, Ryan? Sorry. You can Right. Right. The Zoom. Yes, ma'am.

There you go. Stephanie.

Got it? Here we can. Yep. There

it goes.

So we have Jennifer Adams here tonight. Jennifer, for those that haven't met Jennifer yet, Jennifer is our housing coordinator. Unlike the previous presentation where we're kind of that is very much at the start of the process with the stormwater comp plan or stormwater I shouldn't say comp plan comp planning or stormwater strategic plan, We are, I'll say mid mid to late into the process on, our infill housing re regulations related to, missing middle housing and accessory dwelling units. And so Jennifer will provide some background and some context, hopefully, for some of the new members. Feel free to ask questions if you do have any questions, and present some kind of the first draft tonight of some code updates that the planning commission has been involved in. So with that, turn it

over to Jennifer.

Excellent. Thanks so much, Ryan, for the setup. I just wanna take a moment and just welcome, Alan, and Aaron. It's really nice to have you here. I think we're all very excited for some new perspectives and some really great energy. So thank you for being part of this. And as Ryan was mentioning, if you feel it all like you're being thrown in the deep end this evening with housing, middle housing, we have lots of life rafts. We've had to use them frequently throughout the office. So don't worry. You're not alone.

And I will give you just a little bit of context. However, tonight's meeting was really aimed more at really looking at the first introduction of some draft language for you. So with that said, I do wanna invite both of you after the meeting or or anytime in in future days to come. If you'd like some further resources or context, I'm happy to load you up with anything that would be helpful for you to to get a little bit caught up about where we're going with housing legislation. So with that said, let's see if I can manage the two screens.

Like I said, it's not my my greatest strength ever. But, anyway, let's go ahead and and take a look. So, tonight is just an opportunity again for us to introduce, the draft trap the draft chapter. We are currently referring to this, proposed chapter as the infill residential development chapter. So as kind of these key legislative reminders for Alan and and for Aaron, there were two well, there's been multiple housing pieces of legislation in the last number of years.

Two very significant pieces of legislation, however, sort of driving some changes across the housing landscape in the state of Washington have been the middle housing bill. You may have heard that term. And then also some updates to the ADU codes or provisions in the state that most jurisdictions have had now for for some time. So we'll start with the house bill house bill eleven ten, the middle housing legislation. So, again, adopted by the state.

And on a on a very high scale, this bill requires cities to allow, a wider range of housing types within traditionally, what we might think of as single family neighborhoods. So that's the way that a lot of zoning has been set up, historically. And so the concept of the middle, like I like to refer to it sometimes, is that this captures housing types that fall somewhere between a single family home and then a large apartment complex. So sort of every other sort of multifamily sort of housing type in, you know, be besides those two or in the middle. And then the goal the one of the overarching goals is to support incremental increases in housing choice and then capacity.

And all and then also really looking at how do we use our land in the most efficient way. So house bill one ten also had a requirement for cities. Number one, we have to formally adopt this legislation through an ordinance, which we are gearing up to do. But the the state identified nine types of of those sort of middle varieties of housing that have all been put into this bucket, under this middle housing sort of title. And so each jurisdiction does have a charge to formally adopt six of sort of those nine types.

And just as a little bit of context and then reminder for for most of the commission here tonight, we did sorry with the on and off of glasses. Sometimes it's nice to see you when I do this. You're just a big blur. But over a year ago, about a year and a half ago, we did run a survey that got a really great response. This was regarding, you know, housing types that folks in existing neighborhoods would be most likely to be receptive to.

And we got great response on that survey along with feedback here from the commission that was very thoughtful. And so that helped us as staff to sort of lean into what six of those nine housing types would we be most likely to propose moving forward in our draft. So just quickly for those, duplex, triplex, fourplex, stacked flats, townhouses, and cottage housing. So the only two new ones there for Lacey would be the stacked flats and the fourplex. So duplexes, triplexes, cottage, and townhomes, we have we already have in our legacy code or our existing codes.

So we already have pathways for developing those housing forms. So that was just kind of a a reminder or new for the first time. So then house bill thirteen thirty seven, this was the bill that that expands allowances for the ADU ADU provisions. So some of the main tenants of that bill were to increase the square footage or the habitable space. And then additionally, that allowance where it's been historically one per lot, and let me preface that as well with accessory to a single family home.

It it is historically how the ADUs have been brought into the zoning codes. Now the state has increased that to cities must allow a minimum of at least two. So or, you know, you can certainly do more. So those are some of the mandates there that are guiding some of these decisions. So while these bills not not super surprising.

Bless the legislators. I know it's hard work, but both these bills were written very independently of each other. So they haven't done a great job of talking to each other, but that's been a puzzle piece for jurisdictions to sort of sit in the think tank and and sort of figure out together, which is what we're we're trying to do. I do wanna say, though, that some of the high high level themes across both of these bills, include, again, expanding housing choices within existing neighborhoods, and then creating, more opportunities, with less barriers for sort of what we might consider these small scale developments. And that incremental how housing growth support and then also streamline streamlining regulations that goes on the planning side as well.

Right? So making things as easy as possible for developers and then as easy as possible for the planners who review and work with the developers and make these projects actually come to life. So thanks for listening to all of that. Let's let's just move on forward here. But before I get too far into the details within this proposed chapter, I do want to just briefly talk about how we arrived at where we are at today with this one chapter that we're proposing. So initially, at the beginning of this process Do need

to advance this?

Yes. I do. Thanks, Ryan. So sorry. I I warned everybody. No. Thank you. I appreciate it. So so at the beginning of this process, Steph was really kind of, you know, marrying the the legislative sort of intent, I guess, you would say, and working with both both bills independently and scratching our heads a little bit. So we knew that middle housing was something new for the city of Lacey.

So we, therefore, were working on developing a a stand alone chapter, right, that would be pulled into our existing zoning zoning title. And then at the same time, because we already had an ADU code, we were just working to, you know, update the existing code sort of in place in our code. But as we started to you know, as we continued, and we've really have been collaborating across departments for multiple months now pretty frequently. And sort of as we continued, we started to really say, you know, there's a lot of overlap here between these bills that don't talk well to each other. And so we started to to think about, you know, if we have these in different locations, it could get a bit cumbersome or confusing.

And then we're also duplicating standards in different places in our code. And so we sort of come back to how does a code need to function well, you know, for for our city. And so that became important. And so, ultimately, as staff, we decided to take pivot, and we decided to, see how we could consolidate all of this information and create, one, one chapter, where most of this would be regulated through. So that is how we have arrived where we are today with that.

Alright. So just a couple of the the main tenants or the key features, that you're gonna find in the way that we have set up this chapter, are things like well, for one, it integrates both the middle housing and the ADU provisions. So, again, pulling those all into a streamlined framework. And then it treats it really aims to treat housing types consistently. I'm gonna introduce in the next slide, a unit is a unit.

This is a term we've been using again, you know, as staff that sort of cemented some of what this means to us, and I hope that it does the same thing for you as well. And then these bills also or excuse me, the the proposed chapter also seeks to simplify density calculations and code administration that we talked about a bit. And then overall providing flexibility for property owners and, you know, at the same time supporting these incremental housing capacity changes or at least that is the hope. And then allows additional units in exchange for affordability. So we're gonna talk about that tonight as well.

So let's just talk a little bit more about this concept of a unit as a unit. So historically, as I may have mentioned already, many zoning codes have sort of favored single family housing. That's what we've seen for many decades now. And so by and large, what the state is really doing is sort of a zoning reform, if you will. And so this is all sort of part of that process.

How do we open up more opportunities than what we've seen in the past? So while that approach, I just wanna say, you know, we're not here to say that approach is wrong by any means. It's just what has been, But it has been a bit limiting. So when we look at this concept of a unit is a unit approach, this is gonna focus more on the number of total units on each residential lot, and it's gonna focus less on the type of housing that we are imposing regulations on. So when when we do sort of think about and apply this unit as a unit, what we end up with is kind of this mix and match opportunity for housing types.

We also feel that our proposal this evening, and as we walk through it, I'll point this out a little bit more, really actually does achieve not only compliance, but we've taken some additional steps where we do feel as staff that what we're proposing kind of even goes above and beyond some of what the state has mandated. So I, you know, for one, find it encouraging. Maybe you will too. Let's move on and take a look at the density framework. So this is kind of what I think of as some of the meat and potatoes of how this chapter how this chapter is laid out and and how it works.

So this framework establishes a maximum number of dwelling units that can be located on a single lot like I was just talking about. If if you don't know, you you probably already do. But if you don't, currently, when Lacey needs to calculate density, those calculations are set up as units per acre of land. This middle housing structure introduces this new concept of we are now talking about units per lot. So a little bit different there.

Now I will say this does not change what is already existing. So we're not revamping the entire calculating of density system across our code. This is just gonna work alongside of it in addition to and really just be how this chapter works. So if a developer ends up using this chapter, that's the way that we're gonna be counting units. So in general, where we have landed as staff for a proposal is that each lot that's eligible for middle housing or additional ADUs can be allowed up to four dwelling units per lot.

However, you will note that with the fourth unit, that does trigger some additional provisions. And that what that triggers is an affordability requirement. So we propose that as a as an exchange. That actually let me back up just slightly. That actually is a mandate through the middle housing legislation that the fourth unit is allowed with affordability requirements.

You are going to see a little bit later on that we're gonna extend that just a little bit. So effectively, the framework also allows three market rate units per lot. Right? So that fourth is allowed with with some afford affordability. The housing types that would be permitted under this chapter would include single family homes, middle housing varieties, so those six of nine that we talked about, and then ADUs.

So this does change the way that we look at ADUs a little bit. We're gonna also have a a bigger discussion about that here in just a couple of slides to come. So under this unit is a unit sort of mix and match approach on a lot. Maybe a project would contain, say, a single family home and a duplex and maybe an ADU. Right? So that would get you to four units. Or maybe a project could contain a triplex and an ADU. That would certainly get you to four units. Or what about four cottage style units? Right?

So any of those would be opportunities in the absence of a single family dwelling. So that is something that utilizing this chapter would really change. Right? So a single family dwelling would not be a requirement to preexist on a lot to add these other housing types. Alright.

Let's move on. So you you might be wondering, well, gosh. Where where are these all gonna go? And so the chapter does identify sort of the primary areas where these could be allowed, and that would be the low density residential zone, the moderate density, and then also our Lacey historical neighborhood. Now that doesn't mean that the these, you know, may not be eligible in other zones as well.

So we do have some language that sort of captures that within the proposed chapter, and we would work with those as they come. Okay. Alright. So the development standard section of the proposed code, this is where, you know, this that we nice we were able to take some of those overlaps between the two bills and sort of fit them all under this development section of the code. So a key principle in this draft is that, again, the housing types are treated consistently.

Excuse me. That is under the development guidelines of this code. So things like setbacks, building height, lot coverage would continue to be regulated by the zoning district in which project falls. So I think that that's kind of important. So rather than the city coming up with other development standards, which technically would be tricky with how the laws are set up, What we are proposing here is that we mostly defer to the standards, development standards, that are already established for each zone.

Okay? And you may have more questions about that as we move on. And then as mentioned earlier, staff found that many development standards for both middle housing and ADUs overlap. So the infill chapter works nicely to consolidate those into into this one location and helps reduce that duplication across the code. And then finally, housing developed under this framework would still follow the applicable design review standards.

So you will notice if you had a chance to go through that draft, there are not design standards located within that draft. So that that would also be something that we would defer to the standards that are already set up. And so examples of that are, those four housing types that we already allow. So the duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, and cottage housing already have design standards. So, really, what we're gonna be doing in this chapter is just pointing back to those. So we're pointing to development standards of the underlying zone, and then we're pointing to design standards already established. So if hopefully, that that is tracking for most of you.

And,

also, you know, just to say, this isn't isn't an overlay, but, again, just wanna re reiterate that this is a chapter that's gonna work alongside of our existing development guidelines already.

And then oh, that's cut off

just a slight bit at the bottom. I apologize about that. This slide's just kind of helpful. If you're visual like I am, taking a glance here at this bottom section that's slightly cut off, You know, this is just for me, this is an easy indicator of, you know, what what's the big idea here? What's the difference between our existing or our legacy code versus what we're proposing in this infill development chapter. And looking at this, one can really say, you know, this is this is kind of a density thing. Right? How are we what path do we wanna follow if our objective is to help sort of increase some of the density on on lots? And, again, our existing code that we've talked about already allows, of course. Now this is per lot.

You could have a single family home, or you could have a duplex, or you could have a triplex, etcetera. This infill chapter, again, we approach that up to three market rate per lot, so that drastically increases what is allowed. And then four units with that affordability clause. And then we're also bringing in this sort of optional pathway. Now do we anticipate it being used?

Perhaps not right away. But we do believe it's a really good idea to have a pathway in place for possibly a nonprofit, right, or, you know, somebody who might wanna just give our city lots of affordable homes. So having it in the code, I we we feel as a department is is important to do. What you'll notice there is this would allow six units only when every unit is affordable. There's also not I didn't note that here.

I think it's in the draft, under the table possibly. We haven't really outlined a pathway for five units. Right? So it's you can have four with one affordable. You can also really grab two more units if your entire project is affordable.

Also, for Erin and Alan, in previous meetings, we did come back with some information after meeting with stakeholders. And so when we met with stakeholders, we did get kind of a lot of good insights about when we are asking for affordability for a public benefit, you know, how difficult is that to achieve? And the answer was extremely, difficult. And so when tonight, I'm talking about affordability units where staff has landed, with that input from stakeholders, is at the 80 AMI and then holds there. So, you know, six units offering 80% AMI or under the four units with that one affordable, that would be the requirement is 80% AMI for fifty years.

So, that would be a recorded covenant for fifty years.

So at this point, I think, Jennifer's got a few more slides. Before we get too far, we're gonna go into accessory dwelling units. I just wanna take a pause and see if there's any questions at this point, on any of specifically, we've talked a lot about middle housing. We have talked a little bit about accessory dwelling units in terms of, yes, they count as a unit. But I just wanted to touch bases with anybody whether online or here in the room. If there are any questions at this point on any of that.

Sorry. I I do have a lot of other questions, but just to just to get my get my head in the right spot. The four units per lot, is that in the house bill as, like, the minimum

Yes.

That we can to

to It is. Yeah. And that's a good question. And so there were three tiers, for cities, and it was based largely on population. So where Lacey fell was right in the middle as a tier two city, which exactly, Aaron, was the requirement for tier two cities to allow four units when that fourth unit is affordable. Larger cities, it was, you know, up to six, and so forth. Yeah. Great question. Yeah. Thank

you. Do have anything else?

I mean, I can I can wait? I I'm up to here about the ages. I mean, yeah, there's some other Yeah. Definitely a lot a lot rolling around.

Okay. Yeah. Yeah. That's great, Aaron. Thank you so much. Just couple more slides here, and then and then we'll address questions and just have a larger discussion if that works for everybody. So, you know, regarding ADUs. So this has been you know, staff has spent a lot of time sort of considering how how to approach this with ADUs. Again, going back to these bills just, oh gosh, a little clunky with each other. And it's been it has not been without challenges to sort of try to figure this out.

And so giving some historical context here, ADUs have always been treated as accessory dwelling unit as the title suggests. Right? Accessory to something. So accessory to the primary dwelling on the lot, which, again, has historically been a single family home. So, really, in essence, ADUs have have performed or offered kind of a true sort of bonus density.

In other words, if you're a property owner or you're a lot owner with your single family home, it kind of has become a buy right, you know, opportunity for you to include an ADU when, of course, you know, all of the other development, guidelines align and all of that. But what is changing around ADUs really is kind of the entire dialogue. I I wanna think about how I wanna talk to this. And, Ryan, you can jump in anytime you'd like. So the state still calls these accessory dwelling units.

However, they are not mandating that they attached to or accessory to, a single family dwelling. And then when you consider the middle housing bill, so that different bill, that bill allows middle housing to take the place of a primary dwelling, I. E, a single family home. Right? So we're starting to see, you know, some sort of intermixing of these bills and, you know, how how do we sort of how do we harmonize these, and then how do we work with what's happening with ADUs? Because if they're no longer accessory, then then what are they? So where we've kind of landed as we were talking about the unit is a unit approach is, well, they're another housing type.

I joke with our staff that the new definition of ADU is not accessory dwelling unit. It's additional dwelling unit. Additional dwelling unit. Now

now the interesting thing that we I talked just slight a slight bit about pointing to design standards for these types of housing. One of the things about the ADU bill or the updates in 1337, there are a few mandates there. And one of those, again, was that square footage. And so staff is proposing that we land at the minimum, the minimum maximum. That gets confusing in my brain.

But that we land at a thousand square feet of habitable space, so that wouldn't include garages, etcetera. So habitable space, that brings us up from 850 maximum in our existing code to a thousand. So even though these will be a unit as a unit mix and match, you know, type, This one still does have that square footage requirement attached to it.

And that that thousand square feet comes from a mandate from the state in this part of the bill?

Yes. Exactly.

Oh, I'm just a little

bit confused. I thought before it was 50% of the the primary home.

Right.

But now so even if it's a 3,000 square foot home, the ADU is gonna be capped at 1,000.

A thousand. That's the that's the staff proposal at this point. Yes. Correct. So we had previously our code or currently, I guess. Currently, maybe not because we're we're preempted. But, our code was 850 square feet, or no more than half of the main unit. So if you had a 1,200 square foot main unit, you could only have a 600 square foot ADU. So it's proportional. Right.

Yes. So and and it was really in trying to keep with the primary dwelling being the, you know, the one that's larger and the excess one one being smaller. Now with this, the state's coming along and saying, well, you can't go any smaller than a thousand square feet. So we're we're basically saying, you know, our our largest, you know, minimum square footage is is a thousand square feet. You could always build build one smaller, but the biggest one we're proposing at this point would be a thousand square feet.

So no more 50%. You know, it's it's conceivable if you had a large house. I mean and and under these provisions, you can build multiple ADUs. So, you know, rather than maybe having a 3,000 square foot house and a 1,500 square foot ADU, maybe you would you know, could have a couple of ADUs. You know, if you wanted to go a little bit larger, we do offer a cottage. What's the what's the square footage for a cottage? 1,400 square feet?

I think it's 12.

Okay. 1,200 square feet.

It might be 14. I'm sorry.

Oh gosh.

So there's just so many options that, at this point, we're just gonna try to keep it as simple as possible and just go with a thousand square foot is the is, you know, no larger than that. Because there are so many options to be able to do other things on that lot that it doesn't make sense just to do a really big accessory dwelling unit. One of the

things I did also wanna point out just kinda came to mind for me is that one of the things Lacey's done really well and kind of ahead of ahead of its time was to introduce the preapproved plans for ADUs. And so even though we are proposing that, you know, this sort of ADUs are changing a bit, you know, we would still at least I feel we would still anticipate seeing these as a popular, housing choice. And a part of that may have to do with, you know, the ability to utilize those preapproved plans. So, you know, those will still be in existence to my knowledge.

We're actually adding two, to add a, two separate plans that are a thousand square foot plans. Awesome. We're adding to the portfolio a couple additional Yeah. Designs.

Excellent. So I think for that reason, they'll continue to to gain some traction.

Just a comment because we just heard from Doug talking about all things water. Mhmm. It it it this seems so complicated with the underground sewer wastewater lines and drinking water lines and all that that's underneath the surface to marry up to the existing structure and then the new units. Sounds like a lot.

It is. And, you know, there there will be future amendments that will have to be done within our public work standards as far as how utility connections are handled with with these. So, you know, in in the past, especially around accessory dwelling units, we would have allowed a if it was a standalone ADU in a backyard, you could have stubbed in a line off of the main house. And anymore, now that you could potentially do multiple accessory dwelling units, you could sub potentially subdivide them off sometime in the future into their own lots, have separate ownership. I think it makes the most sense to require those to have their own utility connections.

And so we're we're not quite there yet on the development of those standards, but we will be. But, yeah, you're right. It's it creates a lot of complexity as far as, you know, requiring, you know, each individual structure to have its own water meter and and service line and and sewer lateral that goes out to the main and the street and all those things. So there's a lot of moving parts as a part of it that is is you know, no doubt. The other thing is, you know, related to storm water is, you know, just keep in mind that we do have what are called, like, maximum development coverage requirements.

Like, you can only cover so much of the lot in either rooftop or impervious surface. Yeah. Those things are not changing as a result of this. So while you may, in theory, be able to do four or maybe up to six units on a lot, you're still gonna be restricted to the amount of a lot that you can cover in either rooftop or impervious surface. So you couldn't just build out to the nth degree.

There's still I think most of our coverage requirements are somewhere in the neighborhood of about 50%. So you think about, like, a standard single family lot being covered in about 50% impervious surface, you would still have to abide by that in the scenario. So that's going to limit the amount of units that could be constructed on a lot. Obviously, the bigger the lot, the big the more able they would be able to to handle these Right. Additional structures.

But we're not proposing that at this point that we change any of those underlying standards to increase that. So so while there's a lot of allowance for these things, it may be other factors, things like utilities or previous service coverage or other things that actually, you know, that we're actually kind of not changing as a part of this that actually, you know, will change the feasibility of a project depending on that.

Well and then adding an address with the federal standards. And then a lot of the communities have cluster mailboxes assigned, so there's gonna have to be a new set of cluster numbers to go to those addresses.

Yeah. And there's there's you know, emergency services, something else to think about too is, like, you know, if if you start building you know, how are these things addressed? How can emergency response find you know, if there's a a fire or a medical emergency, how can they find something that maybe isn't readily avail or visible from From the street. From the street. Mhmm. You know, and how are they kind of addressed? It's all something that is, you know, definitely important that we wanna think about as we move forward.

And then just one one more thing. Yeah. I think you hit almost everything. Just one more thing to consider as well is that, homeowner homeowners associations, many of them simply don't allow additional, dwellings to be built. And so that in and of itself is something that, for already established HOAs, which I don't have a number, but I'm aware there's many in Lacey, You know, this maybe wouldn't be allowed anyway within certain neighborhoods.

Now moving forward, the state has said, you know, new developments. That option's not gonna really be allowed anymore. So in other words, middle housing and so forth will have to be allowed within, you know, new developments as they arise.

Looks like Morell Meadows has very small lots that would almost prohibit it just because of the space. Yeah. Oh, a lot newest development I'm thinking about as well.

Yeah. A lot of our, you know, newer development that's been probably in the last twenty and thirty years, you know, 4,000, 5,000 square foot lots, there's not gonna be the the room to be able to do the Mhmm. Much of this. And there chances are, as Jennifer mentioned, there'll be, HOA covenants that will preclude them anyways. So I think, Jennifer, you have one slot

I have additional. Yeah. Just just one just one more, and next steps and a few photos, and then, and then we can Yeah. And then I'll I'll I'll wrap this up. So, really kind of as part of this ADU discussion, sort of a question came about some so we've talked about, you know, not creating new standards.

We've talked about deferring to the standards of the underlying zone for all of these housing types or treating them with consistency. However, in some of our zoning chapters, I know for sure in the low density as well as the Lacey historical neighborhood, there's an additional allowance or provision for ADU rear setbacks where that can be moved down to five feet as opposed to 15 feet for, say, a single family home. So that's an extra allowance. And so I think one of the questions we'd we'd really love some input this evening is, you know, should should we keep that? Right?

So should we maintain that that five foot additional allowance for the ADUs as has always been in place, or do we need to be more consistent and just eliminate that and make the setbacks the same for all the housing types, you know, within the underlying zone? So that was something we wanted to pose to you this evening. We can go into that now, or I can run through the rest of this real quick, and then we could come back to it. Why don't I just Let's let's do that. So just know that in the background next steps for staff are we definitely wanna educate me on how to operate the slide number one?

But there's no budget, so we're not gonna do that soon. Alright. So just so you know, where we're at now. So we presented you with some draft language, you know, some things regarding to regarding parking and definitions that are gonna be needed to support this chapter. But there's a lot more.

So at the end, when we have one ordinance, there's gonna be a lot more that needs to be pulled into this to make sure that all of our chapters are aligning and limit sort of those areas that could be loopholes or that just might be inconsistent where our planners are going, wait a minute. This this doesn't work. So in the background, that's what's going on right now sort of as a gap analysis or whatever you wanna call that about what else needs to change within different chapters of the the Lacey Municipal Code in order to make this all work well together. So we're working on that as staff, you know, just looking at code cleanup and so forth and then preparing a more comprehensive draft. And so the next time we come to you, we fully expect to have that comprehensive draft.

And then we can start talking about, you know, a public hearing and and getting this moved on to our city council. And the last bit, Judith, I promised you that I would provide a few photos. Pictures. Yes. A few photos of what you know? Because it's you know, without looking, I mean, when I first heard the term, I mean, I didn't really know. Like, what does this really mean? Is it a thing of itself? Right? Is middle housing just a type of housing? And so these will give some examples. Now there's only one local example, and that's this one here. So this one is and maybe you've seen it, but this is Golf Club Road.

Yeah. 14th Avenue.

14th Avenue. So kinda near the Fred Meyer and to the south, a bit of the Fred Meyer. So this is one that Habitat or, excuse me, Housing Authority manages. And it was just very nicely done. There's some other units behind it as well.

But this just shows you kind of a nice local example of what we would consider. This to me looks like it is a triplex. So this is, you know, something when you're thinking about middle housing, it could look something like this and maybe fit very well into an established neighborhood. And then some others are generally these were slides provided sort of in a lot of the resources put out through MRSC or Department of Commerce. And so these are definitely in the Puget Sound, but not specific to Lacey.

This one here points to this is likely, you know, an ADU in the back here, or, you know, it could be a cottage or, you know, some other smaller housing form. Same here. And then another example of I am assuming these are sort of cottage style homes. There's probably some over here that are facing these as well. And then Department of Commerce just, you know, here, an example of a a stacked duplex or stacked flat, in this case, a duplex, a side by side duplex.

I mean, these are pretty standard. Right? We've all seen we've all seen things that look like this, and then a nice cottage style development here. This one here is could be a three or three or a four unit. One of the things in many of these, at least these two here, you know, notice these are older homes, and that's a whole another conversation, has to do with creating regulations that will reduce barriers to conversions of homes.

So that might be one way that some of these concepts come to life is if somebody has a large home and they decide to chunk that up on the interior to create more units. So that will also be a pathway towards creating, you know, extra units. That is all I had for you this evening. Happy to open it up for questions, discussions, and the like. Yep. Absolutely. And thank you for getting through that with me.

I was curious. I know, the plans for the city are absolutely beautiful. And I know in my neighborhood, we have, like, third of an acre lots. So we have the space where the houses, from you know, built in the fifties were taken off of septic tanks and onto sewer, so you don't need that big floodplain anymore. But then it comes a big question of the expense of of actually building the ADU where it costs more to build the ADU than it did to buy your initial home.

And so some of those things that are are, you know, pushing back on our ability to have that infill of of those different housing types. But, I mean, if there is a way to make those units affordable, it it seems like that would be an absolutely amazing way for people to generate income maybe into retirement or to make use of these these big lots that might otherwise be be underutilized.

Yeah. And that brings up a good point, which is, you know, there's there's more to getting more housing built than just making changes to our code. And that's, you know, things like construction costs and, you know, getting a loan and those kinds of things that that are out of out of the control of the city. And so, you know, I like to tell people that we do every everything short of swinging a hammer for somebody here in Lacey. So, you know, if you want to build an accessory dwelling unit, we've got, you know, the preapproved plans at our front counter.

So, you know, you can get those at no cost to yourself so you don't have to hire an architect or a designer. You know, you're out the door with a permit in hand in probably less than a week for around a thousand dollars. So you can't beat that. Right? So then from the city's end, I mean, that's that's about as good as you could possibly do. Now you get into, like, okay. You go to a contractor. You go, you know, try to get a loan, then all of a sudden, it's like the reality sets in of what these things are gonna cost. And so I I agree. And and it's one of those things that, you know, people are concerned when they hear about changes in regulation like this.

Like, their neighborhood's gonna change overnight. It's there's still limitations, and those a lot of those limitations are beyond, you know, the city's scope and get it gets into things like, you know, financial considerations and and other things. So yeah.

And, you know, just

a little extra context. Some time ago, like, when we first started middle housing, like, two it's been about over two years now because we went through a grant process and, you know, some public outreach for quite some time and all of that. But where was it going with that?

I don't remember.

You don't remember. You don't remember where I was going with that? Well, gosh. Darn it. Not neither do I. Oh, I do. I'm sorry. We initially just took a kind of a a high level. I worked with our GIS technician here at the city, and we kind of did a general search of lots that were 10,000 square feet or larger and that were within two hundred square feet of sewer. Of that search, we turned up only 3,000 lots in the city of Lacey.

So to begin with, it's not, you know, a a a mass amount of lots. It's it's a handful of lots. And then as Ryan was indicating, certainly, so many other things would have to align as well. We just have to make sure that as a city, we don't intentionally, or unintentionally write code that directly prohibits these things from being built, if that makes sense. So we just wanna be cautious about how we approach things.

We also, of course, have tree considerations to think about. That's something that's really important to Lacey residents, and we have, you know, pretty, strong regulations around our tree policies in Lacey. So there's a lot more to come, a lot more collaboration. And, you know, when we do, reach, you know, adopting an ordinance for this, you know, there may be some future amendments here and there that need to occur because once we start to put this into planning practice, you know, that's when things might do this a little bit even with the best intentions, you know, having drafted them. So I think that's just gonna be par for the course as we, you know, try to roll out something that's new to everybody.

So, yeah, one of the things we set out to do tonight was to ask the question, I think, at the end of the presentation around the setback. And so this would be a good opportunity. There may be other questions, and we'll definitely get to those here in a second. But I just wanted to kinda get your general thoughts. What what a little bit of history on this is when we did our preapproved accessory dwelling unit programs, we looked at the the lots that that would qualify.

And in order to accommodate more accessory dwelling units, we expanded that rear setback to allow up to five feet for an accessory dwelling unit a a detached accessory dwelling unit to to try to spur more development and get more kind of buildable lot area to allow more accessory dwelling units. Now that we're expanding to allowing up to four and maybe even six, in some cases, units, staff was a little hesitant to keep moving forward with that five foot setback, because of the amount of development that could be essentially five feet from somebody's back fence. Right? And that it could have, issues with privacy and those kinds of things. And so wanted to get some feedback tonight because a lot of what we're talking about are things that are requirements, and there's not a lot of leeway that we have.

But the setback issue is one that we have a 100% control over as a city. And so just kinda wanted to get some general thoughts from you all as far as where you where you wanna see a a rear setback. Dave, should we revert back to that 15 feet that we originally had, which is consistent with, you know, all the other types of development? If you were to build a new home, it has to be at least 15 feet away from that that rear property line, or are you comfortable in going as close as five feet? I think our recommendation probably at this point is to look at changing it to more like a 15 foot, especially with the amount of development that you can have under this scenario that is a lot different than things were a year or two ago.

Any thoughts, period?

I think first.

Go ahead go ahead and jump first.

Yeah. Just a question. Would existing ADUs or, like, you know, buildings on parcels be grandfathered in? You you're not asking, like, for people to change anything.

Oh. Right. Nope. So they would be allowed to continue as is? Yeah. In fact, in the state law, there's actually some allowance to be able to convert nonconforming structures into things like accessory dwelling units. So that's not an issue from that.

Then, yes, I agree with the 15.

K. Great.

Mean, picturing the lots that that I've seen in the, older communities or neighborhoods in in our community. And I'm thinking if it's a single story with a lower roofline, it's not gonna be so obtrusive. But when you're looking at ADUs, I believe some of the newer models are two stories. And I think that's when it's gonna become an issue of having someone looming over your proper deal line looking at your private space. So I think it really is.

I don't know if there could be two different standards, one for a lower roofline and one for

a higher roofline. We could yeah.

We we could limit the setback based on the number of stories for sure.

Yeah. My my question would actually start when I was curious. Like Yeah. Like, would there be exceptions? Like, say and and it's 15, like, from any any side of the lot line, like, regardless Rear yacht. Oh, the rear. Okay.

Five the the the pines that are on the sides. The side is already five feet. So that we're not proposing that to change. Okay. That's been consistent, Lacey, for as long as I can ever remember. The the rear has been what has changed.

Okay. And then, yeah, my yeah. So it's like, okay. If the rear if there's someone behind the rear, then, yeah. And then also, yeah, I guess another question. Is it five or 15, or is there somewhere in the middle that could, like could be ten, eight, you know,

something like something we have full discretion over. So that

is Yeah.

So, I mean, I I know that's hard to write into code, but, yeah, maybe you want some sort of nuance that's like, okay. Yeah. In this situation, like, it's a two story house. There's someone right there behind you. Yeah. In that case, maybe put it back. But, you know, there's no one behind you where they have a massive lot in their way or on the other side of it. You know, maybe in that case, then allow up to the five or somewhere in between. Or, so, yeah, those kind of my thoughts. Like, okay. Yeah. There's some there's some nuance to it of how the units will design, how the lots are laid out, and is there flexibility to kind of be somewhere in between of those two numbers?

And another curiosity, if we're looking at the current lot splitting, so as we're developing units on properties with the potential to split the lots, would those 15 foot have to be built into where the lot splitting could potentially occur?

So Not exactly. So when we're talking about future subdividing, chances are, that would be through what's called, like, a unit lot subdivision process, which basically would establish a lot that would just be the perimeter of the unit. You would have kind of a master lot or a a parent parcel that would have to meet the the setback requirements. So we would look at it as a collective whole and not a a lot by lot basis, if that makes sense.

So Mhmm. The way Yeah. I mean, that's how I understand it now. I don't know. I I can speak to the unit lot subdivision, but I know there's also, lot splitting, which, may have some different

Which is creating a brand new lot, which then would have to meet today's standards.

So Okay. But Ryan's correct that under under the unit lot subdivision that, yes, you are correct. That will be coming. And in fact, we will have to implement that and pull that in by sometime in 2027. So that is coming.

And Ryan is correct that if you, you know, simplify that as, you know, the the main lot is the parent and then the four units on that lot, if somebody fully developed that with the infill chapter, become the child lots. And once those are split out, if one of the child lots wanted to do something that would compromise the regulations of the entire property, it might not be possible. Right? So in other words, those development standards remain for the whole even though they may have independent owners at that point, if that makes sense. Okay.

I would support the 15 foot boundary in the back because I think the comments about privacy make sense. I think also aesthetically, a 15 foot difference of space allows for more use of it, vegetable garden and putting in flowers, making it seem more like a home than a box, you know, stuck in a corner. Yeah. So it could it could allow the personalization, just some, you know, more like a home and maybe even a safety issue. If you think about fire that could go a distance from one unit to another, maybe that extra 10 feet.

I don't know what the actual risk is, but just, logically, it seems like an extra 10 feet of a fire or an ember jumping from a building to another might be a good reason to keep the 15.

Good point. Also a great point.

I know.

Just that along right there, Abi, when I vote for the 15. Initially, I would think it's for me, I was thinking, yeah, if I would we'd have a little bit more use, for it. But, my concern, if somebody was moving in a building across the the lot to be able to look over my privacy fence. Mhmm. So I I I live in a older neighborhood. It was built in 1997. We're right against a green belt, and then there's a commercial, area lot, warehouse, and all that stuff. But, the trees have done a pretty good job of dead detonating the noise. Mhmm. So but, other other than that, that would be my concern.

Is there somebody able to Sure. Look over the fence? Because, like, my mother in law's got priced out of her her rental. So I'm, like, thinking, trying to figure out. I live in a ranch, so, okay, what we can do. I do have some extra space Yeah. In the backyard. So what what can we can we do?

Another thing that comes to mind for me, thinking about the legislation, if we did, you know, stick to the 15 feet or go revert back to the 15 feet for all of these housing types, It gives us a measurable objective standard, that in and of itself helps with that sort of privacy issue. Where we run into some challenges is, some current language that we have that, you know, we will be repealing. And this is specific to ADUs, but we do find a lot of other subjective language kind of throughout the code. The bills just really don't allow you to have these sort of subjective clauses or subjective terms or language, in your code. And so that's something that we're gonna continue seeing all jurisdictions starting to to gravitate away from.

And so it's harder for us to say, you know, you need to encourage use these windows to encourage privacy or etcetera. You know? I'm sort of just spitballing here a little bit. But, where it's much easier when we have a measurable standard that is clearly objective, you know, set forth.

So makes a really good point. And, like, in our current code, especially, we've got a lot of language that says shall consider. And it really does that's very subjective and doesn't really mean anything. So for example, like, if we had a a five foot setback to a rear yard and we said, well, you and and the code says, for window placement, you need to consider privacy, which is acceptable. And usually, what that means is we, at the front counter, kinda, guess, negotiate with whoever's building the ADU. Hey. You're really close to your neighbors. Would you mind, like, switching the windows and, like, make them so it doesn't look in their backyard? And that's how we are able to kinda navigate that. Right?

Versus now the state's saying, nope. That has to be a hard and fast standard. You can't just tell people that, you know, they need to consider privacy issues. It needs to be, like, are windows allowed or not? And so by by going back to the 15 feet, it it basically you know?

Because we're gonna have to do it, and it'll be when Jennifer returns in a couple weeks, she's gonna do a code scrub that's gonna get rid of all of that subjective language that we can no longer apply because the state's saying, you know, we need to treat everybody the same, and you have to have really a black and white standard and not this kind of squishy language that we do now. And so, that's maybe another consideration with the 15 feet is that we're actually eliminating some some tools in our toolbox a little bit for when we're having those discussions at the counter that we may be able to work with people and kinda negotiate some things. The state's saying, you gotta get rid of that. You gotta go with some hard and fast requirements and treat everybody the same.

As as you were saying that just now, I'm picturing because, for for me, I had a development of two giant duplexes that came over my little house, and they stole my sunshine literally. Oh. And I'm thinking that 15 feet versus five feet, that's a lot of sunshine. And so having, that's kind of putting some thoughts into to my mind. But I was also thinking about the very last thing at at the packet with the suggested minimum parking standards.

And I'm curious about, like, if we for each unit, if each one of those units has a parking spot, you know, where do those go that are off street parkings as well? And I don't know if that's something, or how that integrates with that and thinking about those setbacks and also thinking about how do you develop, those potential areas to build infill.

Yeah. And and the state is, like, they're controlling kind of everything else right now. They're also controlling parking and basically saying there's only so so much that a city can control in terms of parking. And so, for most of our housing units we talked about tonight, we cannot require more than one parking stall. And so, you know, basically, that's the way our code's written to, you know, have the allowance for one parking spot for each unit.

But if there's gonna be additional residents or if they're gonna have additional cars, that's going to be probably in a street right away somewhere, you know, on the the edge of the street unless a developer can always provide more, but the state or the state saying the cities can't require

more. Mhmm.

That makes any sense. Developer always has the option to put in as many parking stalls essentially as they

would like.

But it doesn't make them any money.

Well, yeah. I mean Expensive. Yeah. It it can be more expensive, but then they also need to consider the needs of their own tenants. Right? So if a tenant's gonna maybe not rent something, because it's like, well, this is enough parking for me. I've got, you know, a wife and two teenagers. We got three cars. You know? It's like, well but where where else are they gonna look? Well, they're gonna look okay. Well, I could just park it on the shoulder. Right? And so and that's something that, as a city, we can't necessarily control, you know, the parking if there's a shoulder as long as it's not a safety issue or, you know, that that kind of thing. There's not much we can limit in terms of parking.

So and, you know, stay tuned because I think if you look at our calendar coming up here in the next couple weeks, we'll have an update on other parking codes related to multifamily development, some other development types that the state's saying you can't limit parking or, you know, you can't require more parking. You have to allow less. And so more to come on

that. Mhmm.

Anything else?

I have a request if it's possible after the meeting sometime before our next meeting. I remember and you you were talking about that GIS exercise where you did a satellite view of where these are even possible. Yes. Could you send us that all, the committee Sure. That map again so we can be reminded where this is even eligible. Sure. Yep. Okay. Sure. Thanks.

Anything Yeah. I I had a quick question. I guess this kinda ties into some of what we've been talking about already. And just looking back at some of the last two meetings, but, like, the affordability requirements and, like, the bonus allowances for those. So in the in the draft code, like, right, affordability is based on the 8% AMI.

And then so I guess, does that kind of then require that that some sort of housing developer, like the housing authority so that they're tracking that? Like, someone that's using, like, low income housing tax credit or, you know, like, say I you know, one of us, you know, comes into a bunch of money, says, hey. I'm gonna build up build up my lot, but I wanna do those four units. How do like, then does the does that person have to then file that affordability covenant to say, like, yes. Something this is gonna be an affordable unit, and then, like, how's what's the compliance going forward monitoring that? But, yes, you are

Yeah. Exactly. Affordable. Well, Erin, you're you're bringing, excellent questions, which we really do appreciate, and there are things we're talking about as well. So the draft code indicates that, you know, the provisions of the affordability being that fifty year covenant. There I think there's some language in there. I don't have it in front of me. I apologize. But some language around, you know, a covenant of the or some kind of a document to be recorded that's approved by the city. So, the short answer is yes.

It would, it would be something that falls to the developer. What we maybe haven't worked out quite yet is whose responsibility responsibility it would be to track that. Let's say that before fifty years, the property sells and somebody wants to do something different there. We wanna make sure that there's still gonna be a public benefit within that fifty year time frame. And so I think we probably still have some things that we would need to work through over time.

But it is a great question because I know some of the programs such as the MFTE program, there are some instances there with, like, the twenty year. We don't need to go to in the weeds on that that do then require that somebody like the housing authority is the one who is actually managing, all of that. In this case, no. We're not there yet.

Yeah. You know, that's where kind of the state regulations. It's like the, you know, the the legislature has really good intentions and wants to get more affordable housing, but doesn't necessarily think, okay. What's the what's the, you know, manpower needs that's going to be, like, looking at these kinda, like, one off developments that put in one unit or two units of affordable housing here and there? There's probably not gonna be a a lot of oversight other than at the permit stage. So in order to get a permit, you're gonna have to file that covenant, bring it in, make sure it's been filed. Long term, we're gonna have to kinda figure out how we handle these little kind of one off, you know, little units to make sure that the affordability requirements being met. That probably will be some terms, I would imagine, in that covenant that that is recorded that says how that would happen. Sure. Yeah.

Okay. And that will be also, by the way, I think there's language that that would have to be submitted, you know, when a developer's working with the the current planning team, with their project. That all would have to be, taken care of prior to the issuance of a building permit. So there would be some slight some some overview in that sense.

And and then another, I guess, yeah, affordability affordability question. So, yeah, so the bonus is up to six, and then this is bay and that's that would be is it all six of them being affordable?

Right. So that that is what our proposal is is that, you know, if if you wanna get six units, we're happy to allow that if it's a fully affordable project at that 80% AMI.

Okay. The idea for that is that we have non profit housing providers that may wanna take advantage of, you know, a full, you know, all six units being affordable. Maybe Habitat for Humanity or Homes First or somebody like that that would wanna take advantage of that, and we don't wanna limit them. Mhmm. If if that's the case, you know, they could do a triplexes or, you know, whatever combination of six units to get there. Would the lot be able to handle it? You know, that gets into other

Yeah. Yeah.

Six six units, in my mind, would be extremely aggressive and and quite unlikely unless it was a sizable piece of property.

Yeah. Yeah. And, I mean, keeping that that unlikeliness in mind, I mean and and I if if there was, a habitat for humanity, they might be are already under, like, the requirements of, like, transit oriented development and ESDS, like, for housing trust fund money. But, I mean, are there any other considerations that we look at affordability, like transportation costs, utility bills? Like, you know, like, say, you're know, these houses is like, okay. There's more density. We're closer to services. Like, is would there be any consideration for bonuses like that? Because those are something that's measurable. Whereas, like, you know, certainly, that income factor could be harder.

But and, obviously, yeah, we don't have to and there's a parking discussion coming later. So, but, yeah, there are other considerations as as what could be, like, affordable or other things for bonuses that, could potentially add the potential.

Certainly. And I and, you know, that may be part of you know, I talked, briefly about, you know, we may anticipate that once we launch this, that, in the coming years or months, that we do have to come back and do some amendments. But I also think that, consistent with, I don't know whether to call it, you know, lacy lacy style or there's there is value to waiting a bit, to see what happens, before we, you know, roll out a large incentive plan, if you will. So I I think that it's something that could be absolutely on the table for future consideration. But I think at this point, you know, we wanna start start down here and kinda watch and see see what the see how the market responds.

Yeah. We'll we'll monitor monitor this. I think

Yeah.

Know, one of the things like, we keep an eye on how many accessory dwelling units are built per year and stuff like that. And I'll I mean, we're talking about lots you can do for ADUs. Some some years, I don't think we get four ADUs across the whole city. So keep that in

mind. Anything

else? So as Jennifer mentioned, we'll be back in two weeks with some additional updates specifically related to some design code requirements. So if you think of anything else between now and then, well, it sounds like we'll we've got a map that we can also provide you. So let us know. Otherwise, yeah, we'll see you in a couple weeks. We're we're without a chair, without a vice chair. So at this point, I'll just adjourn the meeting, and we'll see you in two weeks.

Thank you, everyone. Appreciate your time.