►
From YouTube: Bothell Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 2023
Description
0:00:10 - Call to Order/Roll Call
0:03:30 - Public Comments
0:27:20 - Approval of Minutes
0:28:35 - New Business
0:28:50 - Study Session: Drews Proposal for the Downtown Transition Affordable Housing Overlay
1:31:50 - Study Session: Middle Housing Plan Amendments
2:21:45 - Unfinished Business
2:21:55 - Reports from Staff
2:24:40 - Reports from Members
2:24:50 - Items to Report to Council
A
A
Before
we
move
on
to
the
agenda
items
I'd
like
to
acknowledge
our
hybrid
meeting
format,
the
city
of
Bothell
is
providing
the
option
to
attend
this
meeting,
either
in
person
or
remotely
via
Zoom
for
those
participating
via
Zoom.
The
chat
and
question
functions
are
not
available
for
use
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
open
public
meetings.
Act.
We
have
a
public
comment
agenda
item
at
the
beginning
of
the
meeting.
This
is
the
time
for
any
comments
you
may
have
tonight.
We
won't
be
having
comments
during
the
study
session.
A
So
if
you
have
something
to
say,
please
use
that
time
and
please
limit
those
comments
to
three
minutes.
Public
comment
and
comment
hearing
testimony
will
be
allowed
both
in
person
and
Via
Zoom.
Those
wishing
to
comment
via
Zoom
are
asked
to
submit
an
online
form
by
3
pm.
Today.
People
wishing
to
submit
written
comments
were
also
asked
to
submit
those
comments
by
3
pm.
Email
was
encouraged
as
well
and
will
be
acknowledged.
A
Those
in
attendance
may
also
make
comments
and
have
been
asked
to
indicate
their
desire
to
comment
on
tonight's
sign-in
sheets
and
sign-in
sheets
over
on
the
table
to
the
side.
If
you
wish
to
comment
via
Zoom
when
the
time
comes,
use
the
race
hand
function,
the
Imagine,
Bothell
notice,
City
website
and
tonight's
agenda,
all
provided
information
for
the
public
to
providing
comments.
A
Video
of
this
meeting
will
be
streamed,
live
as
well
as
recorded
and
available
for
later
viewing
on
the
city's
YouTube
channel
call.
A
number
was
provided
on
the
meeting
agenda
for
members
of
the
public
who
wish
to
call
in
by
phone
and
listen
live
to
the
meeting
for
our
phone
in
callers
during
staff
presentations.
The
staff
will
make
every
effort
to
specify
which
materials
they
are
referencing
so
that
everyone
may
follow
along.
At
this
point,
I'd
like
to
acknowledge
the
attendance
of
the
commissioners,
commissioner
Jones.
B
A
A
This
will
help
avoid
the
problem
of
having
two
people
speaking
at
the
same
time.
Identify
yourself
before
you
ask
a
question:
make
a
motion
or
second
emotion
or
participate
in
debate,
and
please
mute
your
microphone
when
not
speaking
so.
The
first
item
on
our
agenda
tonight
is
public
comment.
We
accepted
visitor
comment
in
writing.
A
As
well
as
accepted
sign
up
sheets
for
those
who
wish
to
speak
at
tonight's
meeting,
written
comments
submitted
to
staff
no
late
in
3
pm
today
were
forwarded
to
all
Commissioners
and
are
part
of
the
record,
and
we
did
receive
comments
today.
So
those
comments
are
in
the
record,
so
this
time
again
is
for
all
comments
you
might
have
deputy
director
Winchell,
please
let
us
know
if
there
are
comments
received.
C
D
It's
from
it's
December
3rd
2021,
article
out
of
the
Seattle
Times
written
by
The,
Seattle,
Times,
environment,
reporter
first,
a
circle,
then
the
gas,
the
surface
of
the
water
assume
they
can't
swim.
Then
they
die
for
decades.
Now
scientists
have
known
something
was
killing
beautiful,
adult
coho
salmon
as
soon
as
they
hit
Seattle's
Urban
Waters,
ready
to
spawn
that
escaped
the
orcas.
The
fishermen
traveled
thousands
of
miles
only
to
be
mysteriously
killed
as
soon
as
they
finally
reached
home.
D
D
Saltwater
Park
in
1968
was
a
beautiful
place.
Our
family,
founded
at
eight
years
old
I,
walked
down
that
beach
and
the
bottom
of
my
Levi's
got
wet
with
the
clams
that
sprayed
up
from
the
sand.
There
are
guidax
there
two
years
ago,
at
a
record,
low
tide,
I
went
down
there
and
it's
dead,
no
clams,
no
mussels,
no
tidal
pools
with
an
enemies
that
I
remember-
and
here
we
are
it's
illegal.
D
D
B
B
The
reason
that
I
am
suggesting
the
tree
ordinance
and
the
Heritage
trees
to
the
Bothell
climate
change
and
land
use
element
is
supported
by
the
recent
ipcc,
that
is,
the
nation
United
Nations
intergovernmental
panel
on
climate
change.
Synthesis
report
that
came
out
recently
that
says
that
our
climate
emissions
must
be
slashed
by
50
by
2030..
B
B
E
B
F
F
In
fact,
we're
working
on
a
project
right
here
in
Bothell
and
these
homes
going
nurses,
grocery
store
workers,
sanitary
sanitation
workers
and
the
Very
people
who
keep
our
communities
safe
and
healthy
and
make
sure
that
our
environment,
both
built
and
natural,
is
clean.
And
these
allowing
this
moderate
density
and
residential
neighborhoods
would
allow
for
multi-family
units
that
could
blend
into
neighborhoods
while
decreasing
our
neighborhoods
carbon
footprint
and
also
making
sure
that
we
have
the
housing
that
people
desperately
need
right
now
during
this
housing
crisis,
and
it
is
a
crisis
in
all
sense
of
the
word.
F
So
I
urge
and
I
encourage
you
to
support
these
middle
housing
code
code
amendments
as
well
as
to
consider
other
affordability
tools,
such
as
inclusionary
zoning
and
other
bonuses
to
allow
for
the
kind
of
affordable
housing.
That's
going
to
make
sure
that
everyone
has
a
safe
and
decent
place
to
live.
Thank
you.
G
Yeah
I'm
here
about
the
amend
and
the
zoning
Zone.
My
comment
is
so
please
state
your
name
and
rosalier
plantillier,
okay,
I
move
here
in
battle.
More
than
30
years
ago,
I
saw
how
battle
grew.
Single
family
homes
were
built
lately,
a
university
and
college
also
were
built
in
lately.
Apartment
buildings
are
showing
up
here
and
there
the
day
comes
lots
of
Motor
Vehicles
the
street
of
30
years
ago
at
the
same
street
as
of
today.
G
Nothing
is
not
true
or
riding
except
a
portion
of
the
battle
Northeast
by
the
city
hall.
The
street
can
barely
accommodate
the
volume
of
Motor
Vehicles,
thus
creating
traffic
in
the
morning
example
is
notice.
181,
104th,
Avenue
and
Ross
Road
that
intersect
with
Northeast
185th
Street
parking
is
also
becoming
scarce,
as
some
apartment
dwellers
park
at
the
side
of
the
street,
allowing
five-story
Building
without
adequate
parking
for
their
tenants,
adjacent
to
a
single
room
will
worsen
the
situation.
G
H
H
H
Oh
without
protections
tied
to
topography
as
well
as
voluntary,
affordable
incentives,
Bothell
risks
allowing
downtown
scale,
Building
Development,
directly
adjacent
to
single-family
homes,
walk
around
here.
Look
at
the
apartments
and
imagine
that
in
your
backyard,
do
the
right
thing
protect
established,
single-family
neighborhoods,
while
allowing
development
where
it
makes
sense
in
ways
that
make
sense.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
I
Hello,
my
name
is
Cameron
Hilton
I'm,
also
here
to
provide
feedback
on
the
proposed
code,
amendments
that
are
outlined
in
the
Drew's
proposal.
I
think
that
amendments
to
existing
zoning
or
code
should
be
rare
and
require
exceptional
circumstances
that
provide
exceptional
benefit
to
the
public.
Good
and
I
believe
that
the
Drew's
proposal
meets
this
threshold
and
I
applaud
the
Drew's
family
for
their
work
to
support
the
idd
community
and
put
their
money
where
their
mouth
is.
With.
I
This
I
was
very
impressed
when
I
saw
the
latest
edition
of
The
Proposal
with
the
amount
of
affordable
housing
that
will
be
included.
I'd
specifically
like
to
highlight,
though,
that
in
the
the
packet
today
it
did
say
that
code
amendments
would
be
applied,
area-wide
or
city-wide
or
to
all
of
the
the
the
downtown
transition
District.
So
I
think
it's
important
that
we
get
these.
I
I
You
know
neighbors
concerns
they've
been
great
to
work
with
so
far,
but
I
think
it's
important
that
we
get
this
codified
and
clear
because
again,
the
code
amendments
in
that
that
are
put
forward
will
eventually
be
adopted
in
other
areas
like
the
Carlson
proposal,
where
traffic
and
parking
are
even
more
fraught
and
more
concerning
than
they
are
with
the
Drew's
proposal.
So
that's
it.
Thank
you.
E
Tremble,
crows
development
over
here
with
369
market
rate
Apartments
right
here
on
the
corner
of
522
and
Bothell
Way,
and
we
have
Bothell
Heights
what
59
townhomes
on
91st
Avenue
Northeast.
We
have
Ross
Road
right
here
with
three-story
91
unit
Apartments,
and
then
we
just
started
102
multi-family
Town
Homes
over
here
by
Safeway
on
Bothell
Way
and
the
76
studio
apartments
for
seniors
on
Bothell
Way.
E
Also,
we
have
one
the
Forest
Ridge
on
191st.
The
sign
just
popped
up
the
proposal
behind
Rite
Aid
with
another
106
units-
and
these
are
just
a
a
few
of
the
ones
I've
seen
within
a
few
mile
radius
of
downtown
Bothell
here
in
in
recent
months,
not
to
mention
those
we
haven't
even
seen
or
know
about
yet.
E
A
All
right
with
that,
we
will
bring
the
public
comment
period
to
a
close.
Thank
you
all
for
speaking,
your
comments
have
been
recorded
on
the
video
and
we've
Commissioners
have
been
listening.
So
thank
you
for
participating
in
the
process.
Next
item
on
our
agenda
is
approval
of
the
minutes
we
have
before
us
the
minutes
of
the
February
15th
meeting.
Is
there
a
motion
to
approve
those
minutes?
A
A
A
A
New
business
this
evening,
all
right,
thank
you
reports
from
staff.
Oh
that's
in
different
order.
I'm
jumping
around
so
that'll
move
us
on
to
the
study
session.
The
first
item
on
the
study
session
is
the
Drew's
proposal
for
downtown
transition.
Affordable
housing,
overlay,
I
believe
senior
planner
Boyd
will
lead
us
through
this.
L
Yes,
thank
you
and
I'm
going
to
start
off
by
noting
that
we
have
been
hearing
this
proposal
together
with
the
Carlson
proposal
at
the
direction
of
city
council
we
are
separating.
Those.
So
tonight
is
the
is
a
continued
study
session,
but
it's
the
first
one
exclusively
on
the
Drew's
proposal,
I'm
going
to
share
my
screen.
A
M
L
L
L
So
the
purpose
tonight
is
to
hold
this
first
separated
study
session
and
to
focus
on
on
the
Drew's
application
to
provide
some
additional
analysis
that
has
been
done
since
the
January
4th
study
session,
which
was
the
last
time
we
heard
this
item.
Another
thing
we
we
did
hear
from
at
least
one
planning,
commissioner,
after
that
meeting,
that
due
to
the
volume
of
public
comment
that
they
wanted
to
not
have
any
comment
during
the
study
session,
so
that
the
commission
had
a
chance
to
have
some
discussion
among
themselves.
L
So
we're
and
I
did
want
to
just
touch
again
on
the
public
notifications,
since
we
initially
had
combined
these
two,
which
are
at
the
North
and
South
ends
of
the
downtown
transition,
affordable,
housing,
overlay
or
Tahoe,
we
did
have
the
applicants
send
a
mail
notice
to
Residents
within
500
feet
of
that
entire
area.
This
is
a
courtesy
notice.
It's
not
actually
required.
L
The
code
requirement
is
that
we
do
notice
boards
and
there
are
no
Sports
on
each
property
and
that
we
notice
public
hearings
through
our
on
our
website
and
and
through
our
Journal
of
record,
which
is
Seattle
Times.
So
we
and
we
will
continue
to
do
that
as
we
move
forward
a
little
bit
of
background.
The
original
proposal
when
we
developed
a
downtown
plan-
and
this
is
a
map
of
the
the
downtown
sub-area-
was
for
the
transitional
zones.
L
During
that
review.
The
Heights
in
in
the
downtown
transition
were
scaled
back
to
three
floors
and
35
feet
with
a
density
limit
of
20
units
per
acre.
The
density
limit
was
removed
for
the
solid
orange
areas
on
the
map
and,
and
it
was
Kept
For,
the
areas
in
Orange
with
white
cross
hatch
and
then
that,
and
that
was
all
done
pre-2018
when
our
housing
strategy
reinforced
a
pre-existing,
comprehensive
plan
policy
which
called
for
whenever
we
increase
capacity,
we
should
be
looking
at
providing
affordability
Provisions.
L
That
was
in
the
the
downtown
transition.
District,
but
since
we've
had
initially
combined
these
two
and
and
focused
on
the
affordable
housing
overlay,
that's
the
area
that
we're
focused
on
for
the
affordable
housing
or
the
voluntary
incentive
it
also.
They
also
proposed
to
that,
for
this
particular
voluntary
incentive
that
the
the
percentage
of
affordable
units
be
50.
L
We've
done
one
other
voluntary
incentive
in
the
sr522
district,
and
that
has
led
to
the
development
of
the
sen
Sama
Apartments,
affordable,
senior
housing
that
one
since
the
applicant
was
proposing
a
entirely
affordable
housing
project.
The
the
percentage
was
set
at
a
hundred
percent,
but
here
the
Drews
are
are
proposing
50
percent
and
and
then
also
proposed
some
conditions
to
go
along
with
that.
L
The
Drew's
application,
as
shown,
is
for
five
Parcels
outlined
in
mostly
in
blue
here,
and
it
would
basically
eliminate
the
the
zoning
boundary
between
those
parcels
and
the
downtown
transition.
Affordable,
housing
overlay
where
the
yellow
X
is,
and
it
would
make
the
transition
to
the
to
the
east
to
the
straight
downtown
transition
zoning,
just
a
transition
from
the
affordable
housing
overlay
to
the
straight
downtown
transition.
L
District
we're
also
looking
at
whether,
while
we're
doing
this
cleaning
up
some
some
boundaries
that
are
don't,
follow,
property
lines
and
and
we'll
need
to
look
into
that
further
before
we
bring
specific
proposals
back
to
you
in
the
public
hearing
the
Drew's
application.
This
is
a
a
very
schematic
plan
that
was
included
in
their
initial
application,
as,
as
folks
have
commented,
and
as
we've
covered
in
previous
study
sessions
is
to
build
housing
that
will
include
housing
for
individuals
with
intellectual
and
development
developmental
disabilities.
L
It
proposes
to
have
a
voluntary
incentive
to
allow
up
to
five
floors
and
the
building
would
be
located
toward
the
East
End
of
the
property.
Due
to
the
topography,
which
is
shown
here
in
the
lighter
gray
lines
they
have
since
developed
that
proposal
and
and
and
the
proposal,
that's
included
in
your
packet-
is
the
same.
That
was
included
in
the
presentation
for
the
January
4th
study
session.
L
So
there's
two
levels
of
parking
one
and
and
this
proper
parcel
is
really
the
only
feasible
access
is
from
96
and
thorsk,
which
is
entirely
within
the
downtown
transition
District.
So
that's
one
reason
why
my
staff
has
felt
that
this
is
a
an
appropriate
rezone
here
to
make
it
match
the
zoning
of
the
other
areas
with
access
from
from
those
streets.
L
The
the
the
ones
on
the
above
the
immediately
above
the
parking
would
have
a
courtyard
and
then
the
ones
above
that
would
would
also
face
that
courtyard,
but
not
have
direct
access.
So
this
would
lend
itself
to
one
or
more
of
these
floors
being
used
by
residents
with
intellectual
and
developmental
disabilities.
L
The
Drew,
as
the
Drews
have
explained
in
their
in
their
narrative
project
proposal.
They
do
want
to
reserve
the
right
to
include
some
market
rate,
housing
and
they're,
not
pursuing
a
development
model
that
is
typical
of
affordable
housing.
They're,
not
they're
they're
wanting
to
retain
some
flexibility
and
use
the
market
rate
units
to
help
support
the
overall
development
and
which
is
a
model
that
that
we
support
the
idea
of
not
segregating
affordable
units
from
from
market
rate
units.
L
It
is
definitely
considered
a
best
practice,
a
few
more
diagrams
for
the
Drew's
proposal.
The
the
the
diagrams
on
the
right
show
a
compliant
proposal
that
would
have
three
floors
above
grade
and
the
on
the
left
show
their
proposed
proposal
and
in
the
center
is
a
diagram
showing
the
what
the
current
retaining
wall
standards
the
the
impact
that
they
would
have
on
this
proposal.
L
This
proposal
still
keeps
the
building
towards
the
the
East
End
of
the
site
and
away
from
the
single-family
homes
to
the
West,
and
these
are
the
revised
massing
diagrams
from
a
number
of
different
viewpoints
that
show
the
relationship
to
the
surrounding
single-family
homes,
in
the
image
the
left
on
the
hill
up
above
and
to
the
town,
homes
and
and
other
development
within
the
downtown
sub
area.
This.
L
One
is
looking
to
the
Northeast.
Let
me
go
back
to
here.
The
the
image
on
the
left
is
looking
to
the
Northwest.
The
image
on
the
right
is
looking
from
the
north
to
the
south
west,
and
this
image
is,
is
from
the
from
the
south
west,
looking
to
the
Northeast.
So
what
you're,
seeing
here
in
the
in
the
background
is
the
pop
development,
the
apartment
building
and
then
in
between
are
the
field
house
Town,
Homes
and
in
the
foreground.
L
Well,
the
far
foreground
to
the
left
is
a
single-family
house
on
the
hill
above
next
to
the
property
is
the
Park
Royal
Apartments,
which
was
King
County,
Housing,
Authority
building
and
next
to
that
are
the
landing
Townhomes
across
the
street
36..
So
this
is
36th
here
and
thorst
street
here
the
Drew
is
also
from
January
1st.
They
submitted
a
parking
study.
L
I'll
touch
on
this
a
little
bit
more
later,
but
their
their
studies
showed
that,
given
the
needs
of
the
development
to
provide
some
parking
for
the
the
market
rate
units,
as
well
as
for
staff
and
and
visitors,
that
the
the
lowest
parking
ratio
they
could
could
support,
would
is
about
0.34
spaces
per
unit.
A
lot
of
the
the
population
that
the
idd
population
are
not
likely
to
have
cars
for
this
proposal.
L
These
are
some
images
that
the
Drews
provided
on
the
left,
showing
some
of
the
downtown
developments
retaining
walls,
and
these
were
developments
that
were
done
before
before
the
current.
Retaining
wall
regulations
were
adopted
and
on.
The
right
is
a
a
project
that
they've
shown
as
a
Lake
City
Apartment
project
that
they've
shown
as
an
example
of
the
kind
of
units
that
they'd
like
to
provide
in
their
development.
L
A
little
more
on
the
retaining
wall
of
regulations
on
the
left
is
what
is
straight
out
of
our
code,
which
shows
the
stepped
retaining
wall
that's
required
now.
These
were
done
largely
because
of
the
impact
on
adjacent
properties.
So
all
of
the
illustrations
in
the
code,
including
this
one,
basically
are
for
outward
facing
retaining
walls
in
cases
with
inward
facing
retaining
Wells.
We
actually
have
a
loud,
some
other
Solutions
engineered
Solutions.
L
This
is
the
Ross
Road
apartments
that
has
a
a
heavily
engineered,
retaining
wall
right
on
the
property
line
and
then
a
raised
planter
to
provide
the
10
foot
wide.
The
required
10
foot,
wide
landscape
buffer
planting
area
for
that
and
then
on
the
ground
level
of
the
lower
level.
Apartments
is
access
for
fire
and
and
the
the
retaining
walls
are
held
back
far
enough,
so
that
firefighters
could
get
ladder
access
to
the
upper
units.
That's
the
type
of
of
modification
that
we
are
proposing
to
to
include
in
these
amendments.
L
Should
it
only
be
applied
in
in
conjunction
with
voluntary
incentives?
And,
alternatively,
should
the
criteria
for
deviations
in
the
public
interest,
which
is
in
the
current
code,
be
better
defined
so
that
it's
it's
clear
that
that
this
can
be
done
and
and
to
provide
some
criteria
for
that?
The
previous
feedback
we've
gotten
from
from
the
Planning
Commission,
is
that
there
was
interest
in
in
making
these
changes
and
applying
them.
L
Another
request
is
for
modifications
in
the
special
setbacks
adjacent
to
residential,
only
zones.
So
there's
a
25
foot
required
setback
from
property
line
to
the
building
of
which
10
feet
of
that
has
to
be
a
type
2
landscape,
buffer
and
then
there's
also
an
upper
level
setback
that
that
currently
doesn't
apply
in
in
downtown
transition.
L
Since
the
height
limit
is
three
floors,
but
if
we
allow
additional
floors,
this
upper
level
setback
of
50
of
65
feet
from
that
special
setback
line
would
apply,
and
so
again
the
the
idea
here
is
that
we
would
allow
that
in
cases
where
the
demography
basically
establishes
this
very
similar
height
limit.
Therefore,
if,
if
you've
got
a
development,
where
the
finish
grade
is
20
feet
below
the
finish
grade
of
of
the
adjacent
residential,
only
zoning,
then
you
would
get
the
same
height
with
a
20-foot
taller
building.
L
There
is
also
the
the
prospect
of
increasing
the
requirement
just
for
this
rezone
area,
and
the
downtown
plan
does
have
some
precedence
for
smaller
area
requirements,
and
so
that's
something
that
could
be
analyzed
with
the
planet.
With
the
commission's
support,
the
main
focus
has
been
on
the
voluntary
incentive,
as
we've
said,
allowing
up
to
five
floors
and
55
feet
for
projects
that
have
as
as
proposed
50
percent
of
the
units
affordable.
L
L
So
the
question
for
the
Planning
Commission
tonight
is
is:
do
you
support
that
this
approach
of
the
the
basic
approach
of
voluntary
incentives,
and
would
you
like
us
to
also
look
at
a
say
this
project
doesn't
go
forward
and
some
somebody
and
the
project
is
sold,
and
somebody
comes
in
with
with
code
compliant
project
with
the
upzone
from
r9600
to
to
DT
should
should
the
affordable.
There
be
a
special
affordability
requirement
that
accompanies
the
voluntary
incentive.
L
And
then,
as
I
said,
the
the
parking
study
that
the
applicant
has
done
shows
that
the
existing
parking
reductions
for
senior
and
special
needs
housing
which
would
apply
to
this
Zone,
already
allow
for
a
reduction
of
parking
to
0.3
per
unit
with
a
parking
study.
So
we
don't
think
that
there's
a
need
for
any
additional
parking
amendments.
With
this.
L
We
will
be
looking
to
bring
based
on
your
input,
bring
back
code
amendments
in
a
public
hearing
if
you,
if
you
feel
at
the
end
of
tonight's
discussion,
that
you're
ready
to
go
to
public
hearing
I,
have
left
time
here
for
the
applicant
to
make
a
statement
to
you
and
then
move
into
commission
deliberations.
So,
for
starters,
any
clarifying
questions.
A
N
O
I
can't
remember
if
this
came
up
last
time,
I'm
curious
if
the
Drews
have
surely
probably
had
a
Geotech
report
done
for
this
site
by
now,
and
if
the
cities
has
looked
at
that
and
feels
that
the
the
reports
shown
that
the
hillside's
stable
enough
for
what's
proposed
so
far,
I
know
it
hasn't
gone
through
full
plan
review.
So
you
can't
comment
on
that.
But
I'd
just
be
curious.
If,
if
the
sites
I've
worked
on
steep
slopes,
they
can
be
real
fraud,
so
I'm
just
curious.
L
The
applicant
has
shared
with
us
an
email
exchange
with
the
Geotech
that
did
a
kind
of
preliminary
analysis
and
I
think
that
was
included
in
the
January
4th
packet.
I
didn't
include
it
in
in
tonight's
packet,
but
certainly
will
be
included
in
the
in
the
when
we
bring
it
to
public
hearing
with
the
full
public
comments.
M
O
I
have
gone
on
the
record
before
saying
this,
but
I
think
adjusting
the
code
city-wide
for
interior
facing
retaining
walls
is
absolutely
fine,
they're
going
to
be
engineered
anyway,
and
they
really
only
affect
the
the
person
developing
the
property.
So
since
they'll
be
fully
reviewed
and
engineered
they're
fine,
they
don't
really
affect
other
people,
so
I
I
know
we
discussed
this
before
and
I
think
there
was
some
consensus
around
that.
So
I
just
want
to
reiterate
my
like
saying
that
that's
fine,
you
could
do
that
city-wide.
O
A
A
L
O
With
the
above
so
like
the
ridge
we've
got
over
here,
okay,
so
we
would
have
a
different
rule
elsewhere
in
the
DT
Zone,
so
there'd
have
to
be
sort
of
some,
some
very
specific
language
about
residential
single
family
only
being
couldn't
be
next
to
it
have
to
be
above
it.
So
we'd
have
to
get
some
more
detailed
about
that,
because
I
might
understand.
Okay,
just
want
to
understand
that
completely
thanks.
P
L
Yeah
sight
lines
were
shown
in
the
in
the
agenda,
build
both
for
this
meeting
in
January
4th
as
as
one
potential
criteria,
but
the
one
that
we're
more
focused
on
right
now
is
the
topography
that
if
a
building
is
sitting
two
stories
below
the
adjacent
residential,
only
zoning,
then
five
stories
is
equivalent
to
three
stories
on
a
on
a
flat
site.
So.
L
L
A
J
L
So
the
code
defines
or
basis
height
limits
on
average
finish
grade,
and
that
is
determined
by
averaging
the
corners
of
the
structure
for
the
the
IBC.
We
made
a
change
of
a
few
years
back,
at
least
in
downtown,
to
have
the
height
measurement
in
the
zoning
code,
match
the
height
measurement
and
the
building
codes
that
applicants
didn't
have
to
do
it.
L
Two
different
ways
and
reviewers
didn't
have
to
review
it
two
different
ways
so
and
then
we
would
likely
apply
the
same
thing
to
an
adjacent
site
is
where
could
a
building
be
not
not
just
where
existing
buildings
are?
But
where
could
a
building
be
placed
relative
to
this
project
and
and
then
what
what
the
difference
in
height
would
be
and
on
existing
zones
we
would
probably
just
go
with
the
base
it
on
existing
grade.
Most
single-family
homes
finish
grade
is
relatively
close
to
existing
grade.
K
Sarah
Gustafson
here
I
wanted
to
bring
in
a
clarification
that
perhaps
some
of
our
community
members
here
would
like
to
ask
I
heard
concern
that
drew
some
generated.
Amendments
would
affect
the
Carlson
site.
My
understanding
is
that
this
change
would
not
impact
the
current
Carlson
regulations,
because
the
Topography
is
different.
Is
that
the
case?
Can
we.
M
M
A
M
L
So,
basically,
looking
again
weather
Planning
Commission
basically
supports
the
the
approach
that's
being
proposed,
of
a
voluntary
incentive
with
a
a
50
of
the
units
affordable
and
whether,
as
a
fallback,
if
we
and
I
think
we're
going
to
do
this
anyway.
I
think
we
have
to
do
this
as
a
due
diligence,
but
whether
planning
commissions
thought
about
kind
of
a
special
requirement
for
this
site,
given
that
it's
being
rezoned
from
our
9600
to
DT.
A
M
L
K
L
K
L
A
And
to
clarify
the
the
process
at
this
point,
this
is
a
study
session.
The
purpose
of
the
study
session
is
for
the
Commissioners
to
ask
questions
of
staff
so
that
the
proposal
is
further
developed.
There
isn't
the
expectation
that
all
the
questions
would
be
answered,
but
that
we
would
get
questions
on
the
table.
The
Next
Step
would
be
a
public
hearing
at
which
point
public
comment
would
be
invited,
and
then
the
commission
would
vote
on
whether
to
further
that
proposal
onto
Council.
O
I
just
really
want
to
quickly
follow
on
commissioner
Goff
system's
information.
This
is
just
informational.
You
can
quickly
find
the
Ami
charts
if
you
Google
for
King
County,
Seattle,
HUD
and
Arch,
a
regional
Coalition
for
housing.
They
all
have
charts
that
are
usually
within
the
last
year
or
so
so
you
can
find
those
really
quickly
if
you're
curious,
because
we
know
we
throw
that
around
a
lot.
So
that's
just
a
some
some
quick
information,
because
I
looked
them
up
all
the
time.
L
One
thing
I
will
say
is
that
we
do
not
think
that
a
requirement
of
50
of
the
units
to
be
affordable
is
something
that
that
many
developers
will
do.
That
was
part
of
the
discussion
with
the
voluntary
incentives
in
the
sr522.
Is
that
that
it's
really
certainly
at
100?
That's
only
going
to
be
a
straight,
affordable,
housing
project.
That's
fully
funding
itself
through
through
grant
funding
subsidized
housing.
P
L
They
have
been
looking
at
this
and
and
they
think
the
feedback
I've
gotten
is
that
we're
kind
of
we're
in
the
ballpark
and
but
we
would
propose
to
bring
those
back
at
the
May
3rd
meeting,
whether
whether
that's
a
continued
study
session
or
whether
you
feel
that
that
you're
ready
for
a
public
hearing
at
that
time
same
thing.
With
the
actual
code
language,
we
would
bring
back
proposed
code,
language.
A
O
Right
lots
of
comments
tonight
I
want
to
clarify.
Also
this
is
the
voluntary
incentive,
but
allowing
up
to
five
floors
and
54
feet
of
height.
That
seems
like
that
would
be
again
topography
based.
Are
we
going
to
be
looking
at
other
areas
of
the
downtown,
affordable,
housing
overlay?
That
would
be
say
four
floors
or
something
like
that
instead
or
keep
it
at
the
three
floors?
L
O
No
I
understand
that
part
but
the
floor.
We
might
say
oh
you're,
on
a
flat
side,
so
you
can
only
go
four.
You
know
a
reversion
back
to
the
yellow
the
original
proposal,
for
example,
maybe
a
four
floors
and
54
feet
or
45
feet,
or
something
like
that.
Yeah
versus
the
five
on
a
slope
just
wanted
to
kind
of
tease
that
out
and.
L
That's
one
reason
we
originally
combined
these
so
that
we
could
talk
about
all
both
of
the
the
options
but
and
I
did
have
a
conversation
with
with
the
druze
they
they
don't
they're,
not
interested
in
in
just
the
getting
the
fourth
floor,
with
a
a
requirement
for
the
project
that
they
want
to.
Do.
They
feel
that
the
voluntary
incentive
is
the
way
to
go
so
we're
gonna.
O
L
A
A
Q
So,
thank
you,
Commissioners
and,
and
residents
of
Bothell.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
David
and
Connie
Drews
and
I
want
to
start
off
a
little
bit
by
talking
about
the
motivation
for
why
we
are
looking
to
build
this
particular
project.
So
we
have
a
wonderful
23
year
old,
young
daughter,
very
happy
outgoing
and
does
have
an
intellectual
disability,
and
so
in
looking
around
at
the
options
that
are
out
there,
there's
just
not
very
good
options,
and
so
we
set
out
initially
to
actually
just
build
a
house
but
based
on
some
circumstances.
Q
We
ended
up
acquiring
the
Lots
next
door
to
the
original
lot
that
we
we
had
under
contract,
and
so
so
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
we're
trying
to
do
something
that
benefits
the
community.
So
we've
grown
up
in
this
area
with
other
members
of
the
idd
community
and
we
see
the
struggles
that
they
have
in
finding
housing,
affordable
housing
for
for
their
kids
and
and
their
young
adults.
So
what
we're
looking
to
do
is
we're
looking
to
solve
a
problem
not
just
for
ourselves
but
also
for
others
in
the
community.
Q
That
is
why
we're
seeking
to
be
able
to
have
50
market
rate
in
order
to
help
support
some
of
the
50
percent
that
is,
am
I
restricted.
So
again,
I
would
say
our
motivation
is
very
different
than
just
so.
You
know
I'm,
not
a
I'm,
not
a
professional
developer,
and
our
motivation
is
to
do
something
that
would
help
the
community
and
help
a
significant
amount
of
people,
and
just
one
stat
that
I
want
to
bring
up
is
in
the
2010
the
decade
of
2010.
Q
Q
Q
Q
Another
concern
that
has
been
expressed
is
the
affordable
housing
and
would
that
bring
more
crime
or
bring
down
the
the
property
values
and
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
this
is
next
to
an
existing
King
County
Housing
Authority
building.
So
it's
already
there
that
that
building
is
already
there
number
one
number
two:
the
parents
of
idd,
the
parents
and
family
of
idd
individuals.
The
number
one
thing
that
they
say
that
they
are
concerned
about
is
safety.
Q
R
Think
he
said
it
all,
but
I
mean
I.
Think
one
of
the
things
I
would
point
out
too,
is
that
Bothell
is
a
place
for
everyone
and
just
like
the
gentleman
shared
earlier
about
all
these
apartments
that
are
going
up
right
and
left
it's
true.
They
are
but
they're
all
kind
of
the
same.
None
of
them
are
doing
what
we're
doing
you
know
so
we're
making
a
lot
more
spaces.
R
For
you
know
single
double
income
career
people,
students,
you
know
so
that's
different
and
then
the
other
piece
is
when
we
talked
about
having
market
rate
Apartments
mixed
in
with
having
a
place
for
individuals
with
disabilities.
Is
we
really
want
to
develop
community?
And
that
is
a
driving
force
for
us?
It's
not
just
to
put
up
a
an
apartment,
building
and
stick
people
in
it.
R
We
want
community-
and
that
is
a
big,
huge
piece,
and
so
we
want
to
have
the
market
rate
individuals
in
community
with
individuals
with
disabilities,
because
that's
life
I
mean
as
our
culture
is
changing.
I
mean
people
like
I,
don't
know
one
out
of
how
many
people
have
somebody
in
their
family
or
related
to
them.
R
That
might
fit
that
category
right
and
next
thing
you
know
they're
going
to
be
your
courtesy
clerk
at
the
at
the
grocery
store
they're
going
to
be
working
next
to
you
in
the
office,
I
mean
it's
like
well,
they
need
to
be
living
among
their
peers
and
people
too
right,
and
so
that's
just
a
big.
It's
a
huge
hole
and,
like
Dave
said
it's
it's
for
us.
It's
about
making
the
numbers
work,
to
see
the
vision
to
the
end
and
I
understand
that
we're
I
mean
we're,
not
political
people.
R
K
Sarah
Gustafson
here,
first
of
all,
extremely
excited
about
this
and
lots
of
gratitude
for
your
family
and
thanks
for
specifying
that
the
rent
at
the
affordable
level
would
be
11
32
a
month
and
that's
just
for
one
micro
apartment
right,
okay
and
then
the
market
rate
rent
would
be.
What
are
we
thinking
about.
Q
R
Q
With
an
affordable
developer,
that
I
was
speaking
with,
he
said
a
lot
of
times
what
people
are
looking
for
is
they're
not
looking
for
amenities
they're,
not
looking
for
parking
they're,
not
they're,
not
looking
for
workout
facilities
in
the
building,
they're
they're,
basing
their
decision
on
what
is
the
price
of
the
building.
And
if
you
look
at
a
lot
of
the
new
buildings
that
are
going
up
in
this.
M
R
It's
not
it's
not
something,
that's
for
everybody,
but
it
is
something
that's
needed
for
some
people
and
I
also
want
to
reiterate
too
for
us,
considering
that
we
have
a
daughter
that
we
envision
living
there
and
we
think
about
the
population
in
general,
just
because
it's
affordable
we're
not
wanting
it
to
be
this.
You
know
cut
Corners
type
of
place,
it's
going
to
be
a
nice
living
space
for
all
people,.
L
Well,
one
one
comment:
as
I
said:
one
comment
was
that
there
wasn't
time
for
any
discussion
among
the
commission.
So
if
there
were,
if
there
are,
is
any
further
deliberation
you
want
to
do
now.
I
think
I've,
gotten
pretty
good.
Just
from
the
clarifying
question,
pretty
good
idea
of
of
Direction
from
the
Planning
Commission,
but
I
did
want
to
give
you
the
chance
to
have
some
further
discussion.
J
Occurred
thanks
not
to
beat
a
dead
horse,
but
for
retaining
walls,
I
again
I'm
in
strong
support
of
Citywide
modifications.
It's
been
a
long
time
thing
that
I've
talked
about
a
lot
and
one
of
the
things
that
I
Envision
in
a
more
city-wide
code
to
be
flexible,
while
also
still
protecting
life
and
property,
is
some
sort
of
connection
to
make
sure
that
larger
retaining
walls
are
engineered,
or
you
know,
approved
by
some
engineering
processes.
O
I've
been
on
the
record
saying
this
before,
but
the
the
upper
level
65-foot
setback
I
still
feel
this
probably
excessive
and
I
really
appreciate
that
that
the
staff
originally
did
that
with
the
typical
floor
plates
in
mind
for
double
loaded
corridors
and
in
five
or
one
type
buildings,
but
as
we
can
see
with
the
with
the
view
diagrams,
it's
probably
much
much
65
feet
is
probably
excessive.
I.
O
Imagine
we
could
give
people
what
they
were,
hoping
for
minimized
sight
lines
out
of
adjacent
zones
with
something
more
like
a
25
foot
setback
or
30
foot
setback
instead
of
a
65.
A
lot
of
sites
aren't
even
65
feet.
Deep
I
know
this
came
up
before
when
we
were
discussing
the
the
four
fourth
story:
overlay
upped
in
the
was
it
north
of
downtown
anyway.
O
A
And
I'll
make
a
comment
I've
made
before
as
well
as
we
look
at
parking
reductions,
it
really
points
out
the
need
for
parking
enforcement
in
Bothell
parking
regulations
are
routinely
ignored
in
in
the
city,
and
it's
pretty
well
known
that
they're
not
enforced,
so
it
one
reason
I
think
there
are
problems
with
street
parking.
Is
people
choose
not
to
use
the
parking
in
the
buildings
and
pay
for
that
and
park
for
free
on
the
street,
using
a
public
resource
for
private
benefit,
so
parking
enforcement
has
to
be
faced
sooner
or
later.
N
A
J
A
K
Sarah
Gustafson
here,
I
I,
feel
like
we
put
this
in
findings
quite
a
bit,
and
perhaps
we
might
want
to
send
a
message
to
council.
Put
a
banner
yes
later
on
in
the
agenda.
There's
a
point
where
we
can
talk
about
what
messages
we'd
like
to
send
to
council,
and
perhaps
it
might
be
time
to
escalate
it
to
that
point
with,
of
course
understanding
that
it
should
go
through
the
diversity,
equity
and
inclusion
process
as
well
sure.
O
Respect
all
right,
I'm
piggybacking
on
that,
but
it's
sort
of
beating
a
dead
horse.
We've
we've
talked
about
this
before,
but
there's
a
750
page
book
called
The
High
Cost
of
free
parking
by
Donald,
Shupe
who's,
an
Emeritus
professor
at
UCLA,
and
he
actually
is
very,
very
good
at
summarizing
his
his
entire
book
into
a
few
points
and
one
of
those
key
points
is
you
really
should
not
have
parking
minimums,
but
in
order
for
that
to
work,
you
have
to
manage
parking.
O
If
you
don't
have
that
it
is
a
free-for-all
and
it
does
become
what
we
have
right
now
in
downtown
Bothell.
So
unless
people
feel
like
there's
going
to
be
enforcement,
it
really
is
the
wild
west.
But
if
there
is
enforcement,
then
people
will
will
create
Lots
or
they'll
they'll
create
the
amount
of
parking
that
they
think
their
project
needs
or
a
project
like
this
that
for
which
it's
a
burden,
doesn't
need
it
because
people
are
going
to
mostly
take
transit
or
bus.
O
A
A
L
A
And
I
don't
see
any
indication
of
commissioner
Andrew
said
she
wishes
to
weigh
in
on
this.
So
with
that
I
think
we
can
bring
this
one
to
close
and
if
you're
ready,
May
3rd
I
think
we
are
seeing
as
we've
been
talking
for
about
an
hour
and
a
half
suggests,
maybe
a
10
minute
break
all
right.
So
I
see
a
731
on
my
clock
here:
7
41
reconvene.
A
L
Thank
you,
and
this
is
the
initial
study
session
on
the
middle
housing,
comprehensive
plan.
Amendments
I,
think
you're.
All
aware
that
the
Planning
Commission
has
made
recommendations
on
on
the
code
amendments
and
we're
now
tackling
the
comprehensive
plan
amendments
I'm
going
to
share
my
screen
again
here.
L
L
Okay,
there
we
go
so
I'll
be
presenting,
but
I
also
want
to
acknowledge
that
we
are
working
on
these
code
amendments
with
the
help
of
our
Consultants
from
otac
and
Jesse.
London
is
joining
us
tonight
and
is
available
for
questions
as
we
go
forward.
So,
first
of
all,
I
want
to
give
a
little
background
and
context.
L
The
the
diagram
on
the
upper
left
shows
that,
and
the
diagram
on
the
at
the
lower
left
basically
shows
the
income
levels
that
metal
housing
will
will
provide.
So
it's
not
certainly
it's
not
the
the
whole
answer
to
affordable
housing,
truly
affordable
units
that
are
in
the
the
lower
ranges
from
zero
to
fifty
percent
are
going
to
be
in
in
affordable
housing
developments
and
most
likely
in
the
form
of
Apartments
the
middle
housing
code.
L
Amendments
that
we're
talking
about
also
include
revisions
to
our
regulations
for
accessory
dwelling
units,
so
excessive
welding
units
are
likely
to
serve
in
that
50
to
80
percent
of
area.
Meeting
income
middle
housing
absent
any
any
requirements
will
likely
be
in
the
80
to
120
percent,
whereas
sync
new
single-family
construction
is
going
to
be
serve,
households
earning
120
percent
and
above
of
area
median
median
income.
L
So
that's
the
the
context.
The
background
is
that
corner
lot
duplexes
were
permitted
in
2019,
with
support
from
the
First
Commerce
Grant
we've
we've
received
for
for
housing,
developing
housing
strategies
both
when
those
were
adopted.
Well,
when
Planning
Commission
made
its
recommendation
and
when
Council
adopted
both
bodies
indicate
a
desire
to
add
other
metal
housing
options
that
we
tackled
with
the
second
Commerce
Grant
and
and
from
the
beginning,
we've
been
working
with
otac
on
these.
L
These
amendments,
and
that
has
funded
the
work
most
of
the
work
to
date
on
middle.
How
on
the
middle
housing
code
amendments
Planning,
Commission,
made
its
recommendation
to
council
last
October
Council
has
had
two
or
three
Pub
study
sessions,
and
then
they
determined
that
their
May
7th
study
session
that
the
the
timeline
of
of
having
Council
adopt
those
by
the
the
end
of
March
wasn't
doable.
L
L
So
the
those
ongoing
actions
supported
by
the
grant
are
more
robust
public
engagement.
We
are
working
to
put
out
a
city-wide
mailer
to
inform
people
of
of
these
code
amendments.
We
are
looking
to
do
a
community
Forum
in
early
May
and
with
that
Forum
launch
another
survey
to
get
further
public
feedback,
we're
working
on
a
racial
equity
and
anti-displacement
Report.
L
So
the
the
goal
of
tonight's
of
the
comp
plan
work
is
to
enhance
the
comp
plan's
tolerance
for
the
code,
amendments
four
plexes
on
all
existing
single-family,
Lots,
Cottage
and
and
Courtyard
housing
on
larger
Lots
in
existing
single-family
zones,
bonus
units
and
new
plats
that
can
be
met
with
metal
housing
and
removing
barriers.
Additional
barriers
for
accessory
dwelling
units,
including
allowing
two
adus
per
single
family
unit
and
allowing
a
single
lady
Adu
on
a
middle
housing
parcel.
L
The
approach
is
to
remove
and
replace
exclusionary
language
that
that
exists
in
our
comprehensive
plan.
So
a
couple
of
examples
here
are
from
the
the
vision
statement.
A
lot
of
these
amendments
are
focused
on
the
the
use
of
single-family
zoning,
especially
exclusive
single-family
zoning
in
the
city
and
and
switching
the
focus
to
residential
zoning
and
how
and
housing
choices
within
the
residential
zoning.
L
And
I'm
the
purpose
of
tonight's
meeting
isn't
to
get
into
into
the
wordsmithing,
but
just
to
give
you
an
idea
of
the
the
direction
that
we're
going
with
these.
Another
approach
is,
and
this
is
one
that
we
could
use
some
feedback
from
the
commission.
The
RCW,
the
Washington
code
basically
includes
a
definition
for
moderate
density
housing,
which
includes
what
we've
been
talking
about
for
Middle
housing,
so,
rather
than
using
the
term
middle
housing
in
the
comp
plan.
L
L
Another
part
of
the
the
code
amendments
were
allowing
a
lot
averaging
and
a
lot
reductions
throughout,
rather
than
currently
they're
only
allowed
in
our
9600
zoning.
So,
and
the
comprehensive
plan
currently
has
some
fairly
specific
language
about
lot
sizes
and
so
we're
proposing
to
to
change
the
reference
to
minimum
to
average
and
also
recognize
that
that
that
reductions
as
well
as
averaging,
are
allowed
more
broadly
now
or
with
the
recommendation.
L
One
was
kind
of
this
tweaking
the
the
existing
code
language
for
each
of
these
sub-areas,
but
another
option
and
I
think
the
one
that
the
staff
is
is
leaning
towards,
as
a
recommendation
would
come
up
with
kind
of
a
new
template
for
for
all
of
the
sub
areas.
That
would
read
something
like
the
plan
for
the
sub-area
provides
for
maintaining
existing
development
patterns,
while
allowing
new
fill
infill
and
Redevelopment
compatible
with
the
scale
of
the
existing
residential
neighborhood.
L
L
P
Just
going
to
position
the
city
to
move
forward
so
quickly,
once
some
of
the
other
decisions
are
made,
so
just
compliments.
I
had
one
question
and
I
I
totally
understand
and
appreciate
the
removal
of
the
exclusive
language
right
and
trying
to
to
change
the
overall
tone
and
framing
for
the
plan.
I
noticed,
though,
that
there
really
isn't
a
mention
of
environmental
sustainability
or
environmental
goals
as
being
part
of
the
the
vision,
the
overall
considerations
in
the
prior
language.
P
P
But
by
doing
so
it
reads,
while
adding
housing
choices
for
all
economic
segments
of
the
community.
Through
public,
Investments
and
physical
improvements
intended
to
enhance
neighborhood
identity
and
through
public
policy
decisions
intended
to
facilitate
a
range
of
new
housing
types
and
infill
development
compatible
within
existing
neighborhoods
I'm
wondering
if
in
the
visions,
statements
or
those
overarching
statements,
if
there
needs
to
be
more
than
just
existing
neighborhoods,
but
something
related
to
environmental,
sustain
sustainability.
So
I'm
just
asking
that
in
general,
because,
yes,
the
changes
are
needed
to
allow
for
Middle
housing.
C
And
so
then
there
will
be
further
conversations
with
the
community
Planning
Commission
and
city
council
about
not
just
the
vision,
but
the
overall
plan
we'll
be
working
on
a
climate
change
element
and
things
like
that
and
so
I
think
those
are
good
comments,
but
maybe
more
appropriate
in
the
overall
comprehensive
Plan
update
than
just
this.
Not
that
we're
missing
the
opportunity
to
add
it
in,
but
in
the
context
of
the
overall
plan
that
might,
it
might
make
more
sense
to
make
some
of
those
additions
at
that
time
versus
making
additions
Beyond
just
the
middle
housing.
A
N
You
yeah
I
would
really
want
to
support
that
I.
The
idea
that
we
do
I
think
throughout
our
comprehensive
plan.
We
want
to
State
how
we're
focusing
on
racial
equity
and
essentially
creating
a
healthy
City
for
people
and
our
planet
and
I.
Don't
think
that
there's
any
harm
in
restating
that
in
every
section
of
the
comprehensive
plan,
if
we
can
talk
about
maintaining
character,
we
can
talk
about
maintaining
our
environment.
N
L
One
thing
that
does
occur
to
me
that
was
sparked
by
commissioner
Jones's
statement
is
that
one
thing
in
the
the
proposed
middle
housing
code
amendments
are
the
flexible
setbacks
if,
where,
where
used,
to
preserve
existing
trees
or
create
other
natural
features,
water
rain
Gardens
that
sort
of
thing.
So
we
can
look
at
adding
a
policy
statement
in
here
related
to
that
I
think
that
would
be.
That
would
be
appropriate.
O
I
appreciate
it
and
I
liked
the
the
idea
of
rewriting
the
I
guess
sort
of
the
Preamble
or
the
intro
for
the
each
sub-area
plan
that
you
that
you
sort
of
briefly
spoke
a
sampled
there
for
us.
Dave
I,
like
that
sort
of
fresh
rewrite,
with
a
with
a
new
sort
of
approach.
So
anyway,
check
check
me
in
that
column.
I
think
I
think
reevaluating
that
and
trying
it
out
as
we
go
to
the
public
might
be
worthwhile.
N
Thank
you.
I
also
have
a
question
regarding
our
racial
Equity
report.
That's
being
done,
I
really
appreciate
that
they're
going
through
and
identifying
you
know
removing
language
and
identifying,
maybe
some
vulnerable
areas,
but
are
are
we
also
having
someone
in
charge,
or
maybe
you
have
a
resource
in
charge
of
Outreach
to
those
populations
that
have
been
identified
as
vulnerable
and
when
is
that
going
to
be
included?
Also
in
that
racial
Equity
report
for
eliciting
the
concerns
from
those
people
most
affected.
L
So
I'm
not
entirely
sure
if
it'll
be
included
in
the
racial
Equity
report,
but
the
the
consultant
otac
does
have
a
a
lead
for
their
racial
Equity
work
and
and
all
of
the
work
that
we're
doing,
including
the
Outreach
is,
is
being
discussed
with
with
that
team.
So
we
are
getting
that
that
input.
The
other
thing
that's
happening
with
the
Commerce
Grant
20
000
of
that
money
is
going
towards
Outreach
to
community-based
organizations
that
represent
and
are
helping
us
do
Outreach
to
underrepresented
communities.
N
J
Yeah
well
we're
on
this
topic.
I
did
want
to
bring
up
the
work
that
had
previously
been
done.
You
dub
about
identifying
cultural
anchors
in
Canyon
Park
for
the
Canyon,
Park,
sub-area,
work
and
I
know.
There's
been
some
like
staff
turnover
at
the
city
since
then,
but
that
was
a
really
valuable
experience
and
just
listening
and
learning
about
you
know:
Outreach
work
to
communities
that
have
not
traditionally
been
outreached
to
could
be
a
useful
approach
in
this
situation
too.
A
C
I
I'll
add
two,
so
the
right
racial
Equity
report
is
almost
like
the
first
step
in
some
of
this
too,
because
it's
looking
at
the
entire
comprehensive
plan,
and
so
it's
going
to
provide
us
with
more
information
of
additional
places.
We
may
need
to
dig
further
and
so
again
because
we
have
these
two
projects
going
on.
At
the
same
time,
we're
working
with
our
consultant
team
on
the
comprehensive
plan
they're
doing
some
early
Outreach
and
we're
going
to
be
doing
focus
groups
and
things
like
that.
C
So
we're
hoping
that
this
report
will
help
us
as
we
enter
further
into
the
comprehensive
plan
of
looking
for
more
amendments
and
changes
not
just
related
to
housing
but
related
to
the
the
comprehensive
plan
as
a
whole.
So
it's
a
first
step
and
there
may
not
be
as
much
engagement
on
the
front
end,
but
we're
really
hoping
it
helps
us
with
our
engagement
for
the
comp
plan,
not
just
those
focus
groups,
but
through
our
engagement
efforts
with
the
overall
community
and
then
we're
also
looking
at
ways.
L
Just
adding
to
that
a
bit
so
otak
in
their
racial
Equity,
lead
consultant
will
be
providing
the
racial
equity
and
anti-displacement
report,
and
then
our
our
comp
plan,
Consultants
Burke,
will
be
taking
that
and
and
taking
it
the
next
step.
So
that's
another
thing
to
keep
in
mind
as
you
review
that
work
but
otak
is,
is
actually
taking
a
comprehensive
look
at
it
for
the
state
guidelines
for
this
work.
J
I
have
a
couple
of
things
that
comments
that
I
had
put
together:
I
Echo,
commissioner
westerbeck,
with
support
for
your
rewrite
of
the
residential
nature.
Section
I
think
that
yeah
there's
there's
something
to
be
said
about
making
tweaks
to
a
document.
That's
existed
since,
like
the
40s,
but
sometimes
a
refresh
is
needed
and
I
think
this
is
one
of
those
times
that
it's
not
really
a
rewrite
is
just
a
kind
of
reframing
for
context
around
language,
so
I
really
support
option.
J
Two
I
liked
I
liked
that
a
lot
I'm
wondering
about
how
that
language
made
unintentionally
disincentivize
future
work
that
may
come
to
the
commission,
such
as
affordable
commercial
space
or
corner
stores
in
certain
areas
of
the
city
and
so
I.
Don't
necessarily
think
that
corner
stores
are
going
to
be
everywhere
in
Bothell,
but
if
that
comes
forward
in
the
future,
I
wouldn't
want
it
to
be
basically
restricted
because
of
an
inadvertent.
J
L
Well,
I
definitely
did
that.
We
did
have
a
discussion
about.
Is
there
any
functional
difference
and
the
the
functional
difference
is
that
in
our
5400a
you
could
do
town
homes
with
more
than
four
units
that
weren't
Courtyard
housing
that
that's
about
it.
So
you
you
could,
for
example,
it's
not
r5400
a,
but
the
landing
development
I
believe
has
some
blocks
of
up
to
five
townhomes
in
a
row
that
wouldn't
be
a
allowed
per
the
recommended
changes
in
our
5400a.
L
O
I'll
jump
in
because
I
want
to
add
to
what
you
said
about
commercial
I
had
thought
a
lot
about
this
too,
when
I
was
reading
through
the
packet
and
I
had
a
note
that
in
some
plans,
I've
seen
words
something
like
low
impact
mixed
uses
and
it's
more
of
the
traditional
neighborhood
that
we
had
pre-pre-euclidean
zoning.
You
know
where
we
had.
O
You
know
houses
in
one
place
in
the
stores
another
where
things
were
mixed,
but
only
you
know
that
low
impact
is
important
because
it
means
someone
can
have
a
hair
salon,
a
coffee
shop
but
they're
not
going
to
have
a
rendering
plant
they're
not
going
to
have
a
nightclub.
You
know
smoke
noise,
light
the
things
that
really
bother
people
are
not
allowed,
but
you
can
have
low
impact
businesses
and
we
see
that
already.
You
know
in
home-based
businesses
and
stuff,
so
we
kind
of
have
that,
but
this
would
I
think
crack
the
door
open
too.
O
It's
okay
to
have
that
corner
store,
or
you
know
what
I
just
have
a
parking
lot
for
it.
But
if
you
want
to-
or
you
want
to
like
Yonder
cider
in
Seattle,
you
know
they
were
allowed
to.
Finally,
after
much,
you
know
movement
politically
to
have
their
their
shop
in
their
in
their
Streetside
garage.
So
anyway,
I
would
love
to
crack
the
door
open
in
bothells
neighborhoods.
For
consideration
of
that,
it
doesn't
have
to
be.
O
L
O
C
I
could
suggest
that
we
include
a
finding
along
that
so
that
it's
it's
not
in
this
and
getting
outside
of
the
middle
housing
scope,
but
reminds
us
that
we
did
talk
about
maybe
some
more
uses
and
then
that
way,
as
we
have
Community
conversations
and
all
of
that
through
the
comp
plan,
we
can
vet
that
idea
a
little
bit
further.
Yeah.
O
Yeah
sort
of
recording
it
in
some
way
and
then,
like
you,
said,
testing
out
with
the
public
and
so
forth
and
I
think
it's
great
because
I
think
you
know
over
time.
That's
how
that
would
be
a
natural
evolution
of
the
city
of
Bothell.
I
know:
there's
been
some
discussion
about
that
in
past
Planning,
Commission
meetings.
A
And
this
is
the
second
reference
to
a
finding
and
I'd
remind
everyone.
Well,
the
findings
are
an
important
way
for
the
commission
to
communicate
to
first
of
all,
memorialize
the
discussion
and
then
communicate
it
to
the
council
to
make
a
standalone
statement
that
this
is
important
to
us
and
want
to
be
sure
that
it's
not
lost.
So
we
we
have
added
things
for
the
class
course
of
discussion
and
findings.
J
I'll
jump
in
with
my
last
thing,
which
is
about
language
sensitivity
in
mailers,
and
surveys
and
I
want
to
be
cognizant
of
different
connotations.
When
people
receive
a
mailer
from
the
city,
there's
a
certain
level
of
like
action
that
you
know
some
people
might,
you
know
really
want
to
take
when
they
get
an
official
looking
thing
and
the
language
that
we
use
on
mailer's
shouldn't
be
overly.
J
It
shouldn't
be
overly
exciting.
I
guess
so.
I
know
that
this
topic,
like
already
I,
have
been
I'm
guilty
of
extending
the
topic
to
like
affordable
commercial
space.
So
it's
easy
for
the
scope
to
kind
of
creep
right,
and
so
when
we
send
something
out
to
50
000
people
I
want
to
make
sure
that
the
language
is
really
carefully
thought
out
and
make
sure
that
it
it's
going
to
get
the
type
of
responses
that
are
going
to
be
helpful
for
putting
together.
C
Finalizing
the
language
on
the
mailer
now
so
I'll
give
you
all
a
little
bit
of
a
description
on
it.
So
we
found
out
that
Public
Works
is
also
looking
at
doing
a
mailer
at
a
very
similar
time,
and
we've
had
some
conversations
about
two
mailers
or
one,
and
so
we
really
felt
like
one
mailer
may
be
the
most
effective
because
they
will
look
very
similar
and
someone
may
say:
blue
postcard
from
Bothell.
C
Well.
We're
planning
on
doing
I
believe
translation
on
the
information
in
Spanish
and
I.
Think
Mandarin
I'd
have
to
clarify
that.
But
we
want
to
make
sure
that
it
translates
like
for
like
and
is,
is
simple
for
folks
to
understand
so
that
you
know
you
only
get
so
much
space
and
so
trying
to
get
the
right
amount
of
information
without
there
being
too
much.
J
Appreciate
that
thanks,
yeah
I,
yeah
I,
just
especially
some
of
the
previous
surveys
that
have
been
put
out
either
for
bike
plan
or
for
Middle
housing
I've
thought
that
the
connotation
of
some
of
the
words
might
have
inspired
different
feedback
depending
on
you
know
what
the
prioritized
audiences
and
so
I'm
just
wanting
to
bring
that
up,
and
thank
you
for
your
work
and
I
would
love
to
see
a
teaser.
If
you
have
that
in
the
future,.
A
P
I
would
so
I
very
much
appreciate
what
commissioner
kurd
said
at
the
same
time,
I
would
just
caution
that
any
time
the
public
shows
interest
in
what's
happening
within
the
city.
That's
a
good
thing,
and
even
if
some
of
that
commentary
perhaps
is
outside
what
we
think
the
narrow
bounds
are.
It's
probably
still
good
for
us,
representing
the
city
and
for
other
City
officials
to
hear
it
so
I
would.
Communication
is
tough,
so
I,
don't
envy
you,
but
it's
so
hard
to
get
people
to
participate.
P
L
And
I
just
want
to
recognize
that
this
Outreach
work
is
being
coordinated
and
led
by
our
community
engagement,
specialist
Sarah
Frost
she's,
not
with
us
here
tonight,
but
and
she's
working
with
our
whole
Communications
team
at
the
city
to
to
work
on
this.
So
it
isn't
just
planners
working
on
this
foreign.
A
A
Looking
and
I
know
you
don't
want
a
word
Smith,
but
I
can't
help
myself
to
a
certain
extent,
when
you
look
at
the
vision
statement
and
then
look
at
what
your
template
for
the
sub-area
plants
is
in
the
sub-area
plan,
you
talk
about
allowing
new,
infill
and
development
compatible
with
the
skill
of
existing
residential
neighborhood,
and
you
you
don't
on
number
seven
in
the
vision
statement.
You
don't
have
the
words
the
scale
of
I
think
talking
about
the
scale
of
these
developments
is
important
to
to
really
put
context
on
it.
A
A
K
Hi
Sarah
Gustafson
here
before
we
wrap
up
the
missing
middle
discussion,
I'd
like
to
bring
forward
a
few
questions
that
I
keep
on
hearing
from
a
lot
of
our
community
members,
so
that
I
can
be
better
able
to
communicate
and
the
first
question
I
have
is
about
runoff
and
the
impact
on
our
amount
of
pervious
and
impervious
services
in
Bothell,
I.
Think
a
lot
of
people,
as
we
heard
tonight,
are
concerned
that
there's
going
to
be
more
runoff
into
our
streams
with
middle
housing.
L
M
L
L
M
L
With
that,
we've
introduced
some
slight
additions
of
impervious
surface,
but
again
it's
really
limited
to
situations
where
you're
converting
an
existing
structure
to
to
metal
housing.
So
for
the
most
part,
the
the
impact
is
the
same
and
then
our
our
code,
protections
for
drainage
are,
are
much
stronger
than
they
used
to
be.
Okay,.
A
L
K
L
That
has
also
been
this
topic
of
discussion
with
our
utilities
folks
and
we
will
be
doing
a
fee
study
this
year.
So
the
discussion
so
far
has
been
that,
particularly
in
King
County
King
County
allows
for
a
reduced
impact
fee
for
smaller
units
like
adus
and
and
middle
housing.
So
that's
they're
looking
to
apply
that
for
Middle
housing,
which
will
provide
somewhat
of
an
incentive,
or
at
least
less
of
a
disincentive,
but
that'll
all
be
coming
out
of
that.
The
fee
study.
K
Thank
you
and
then
my
last
question
might
be
beyond
the
scope
of
planning
department.
I
know
that
a
lot
of
folks
are
concerned
about
property
taxes
going
up
if
a
home
in
their
neighborhood
is
sold
for
a
high
price
and
then
converted
to
Middle
housing.
My
understanding
is
that
this
any
increase
in
property
tax
due
to
a
one-off
sale
would
be
similar
to
an
increase
for
any
other
sale
of
a
home
in
the
neighborhood.
L
N
Hi,
thank
you.
I
was
just
wondering
if
Dave,
if,
when
you
get
a
chance
to
meet
with
the
people
in
utilities-
and
you
guys
come
up
with
some
findings,
if
we
could
get
a
report
on
that
or
just
get
a
look
at
what
you
guys,
what
utilities
have
determined
regarding
storm
water
or
those,
as
you
guys,
are
having
discussions
so
that
we
can
take
that
back
to
people
talk
to
us
about
it.
L
Yeah
I
was
just
going
to
point
out.
I
did
stop
sharing
again
so
that
reminder
of
the
others
that
are
are
with
us
here,
commissioner,
Anders
and
and
also
Jesse
London
from
otac.
If,
if
it,
if
you
have
anything,
you
want
to
add
to
the
discussion
or
if,
if
there
are
any
questions
for
for
our
consultant.
A
A
C
C
My
report
tonight
will
be
very
brief
because
I'm
still
catching
up
out
of
being
out
of
the
office,
we
have
scheduled
a
middle
housing
Tour
on
April
13th,
which
I
guess
is
next
week,
it's
a
after
hours,
so
we're
hoping
to
take
advantage
of
it
being
Sunny
a
little
bit
later
and
do
something
after
work.
Dave
is
the
time
for
that
five
yeah.
L
Five
to
seven,
we
had
one
request:
somebody
who's
wanted
to
do
a
tour,
but
couldn't
do
it
on
weekends,
so
we
decided
to
try
a
weeknight
and
they've
been
I.
Think
they've
been
quite
successful
so
far,
so
we're
gonna
see
how
that
one
goes
and
and
decide
whether
to
continue
doing
them
and
one
thing
we
we
added
at
the
request
of
council
member
McNeil,
a
foray
into
a
single-family
Street
and
to
a
recent,
relatively
recent
Adu
Edition
and
just
by
serendipity.
C
And
then
we
have
several
presentations
coming
up
to
city
council
regarding
the
comp
plan,
middle
housing,
transfer
of
development
rates.
We
look
frazzled
next
time.
You
see
us,
we
have
a
lot
coming
up
and
then
again
just
that
we're
working
on
that
mailer
for
Middle
housing
and
once
it's
finalized,
we
can
share
it
with
you
all
and
I
think
the
biggest
thing.
C
It's
just
to
tell
your
neighbors
and
your
friends
and
people.
You
know
to
keep
their
eyes
open
for
it
and
then,
if
you
all
want
to
share
the
information
on
it
with
whatever
networks
you
have,
you
know,
mailer
is
one
way
to
reach
people,
but
not
the
best
way
to
reach
everyone,
and
so
we're
going
to
be
posting
things.
You
know,
of
course,
on
social
media
and
our
email
lists,
and
all
of
that,
but
Word
of
Mouth
from
folks
is
always
helpful
too.
So
that's
my
report
for
tonight.
C
A
P
C
I
think
we'd
probably
want
to
follow
up
with
exactly
why
we
don't
have
parking
enforcement,
I
will
say,
I
think
one
thing
that's
maybe
worth
looking
at
and
some
conversations
that
came
up
I
believe
when
city
council
is
working
on
their
strategic
plan.
Is
it
something
that's
also
on
their
radar,
so
it
would
be.
My
brain
is
foggy,
but
might
be
worthwhile
to
see
how
that
lands
in
their
strategy
as
well.
L
I
can
say:
I
worked
on
a
parking
spend
on
parking
study
that
was
a
result
of
some
of
the
first
mixed-use
development
in
downtown
that
did
create
that
conflict
between
residents
that
didn't
want
to
pay
the
fee
and
the
the
commercial
businesses
that
were
counting
on
the
street
parking
that
so
we
did
have
some
fairly
involved.
Discussions
about
parking
for
enforcement
and
bottom
line
was
that
it
never
pays
for
itself
and
or
if
you
try
to
make
it
pay
for
it
itself.
L
L
A
Well,
I've
certainly
heard
interest
in
when
we
move
the
the
Drew's
proposal.
We
are
addressing
parking
there
and
I
think
it
would
be
appropriate
to
have
a
finding
around
parking
in
that
proposal
at
the
very
least
so
that'd
be
one
way
to
service
it.
I
can
and
I
think
each
time
we
talk
about
parking,
it
can
be
a
finding
we
put
in.
N
You
know
I
think
at
that
point,
I'm
a
little
worried
that
if
we
just
put
it
like
one
finding
it's
going
to
get
overlooked,
I
I
think
it's
really
I
think
we
just
go
to
council
while
they're
looking
at
I
mean
this
is
the
perfect
time
to
do
it
or
it's
strategic
plan.
We're
talking
about
mental
housing
parking
is
on
the
tip
of
everybody's
tongue.
N
Every
time
we
come
together
as
a
group,
it
I
don't
think,
there's
a
bad
time
to
bring
up
parking
because
it
is
on
constituents
Minds
it's
in
the
Forefront
of
their
minds,
regardless
of
the
changes
we're
making.
That's
always
what
we
can
be
talking
about,
parks
and
they'll
be
like,
but
what
about
the
parking
to
the
parks
and
so
I
think
we
need
I.
Think
I
would
be
in
support
of
drafting
a
letter
to
council
and
just
presenting
it
and
being
like
the
Planning
Commission
is
noting
the
importance
of
parking
to.
M
A
Well,
we've
we've
addressed,
that
is
to
form
an
ad
hoc
committee
and
have
less
than
a
quorum
of
the
commission,
get
together
draft
a
letter,
bring
it
back
to
the
commission,
which
we
would
then
review,
comment
and
then
transmit
to
the
council.
So
if
there
is
interest
in
that,
we
could
certainly
entertain
a
motion
to
form
an
ad
hoc
committee
to
draft
a
letter
on
parking.
N
I
feel
like
I
kind
of,
did,
make
the
motion,
but
let
me
do
it
officially.
A
motion
to
create
a
letter
to
present
to
council
and
I
I
would
volunteer
to
be
on
the
heart
of
that
ad
hoc
committee,
but
I'm
a
little
afraid
that
me
and
Sarah
are
going
to
phone
up
form
our
own
little
like
sub
committee.
If
we're
always
the
two
doing
the
letters,
so
it
shouldn't
be
us
too.
A
A
K
A
A
O
C
Staff
had
put
it
in
the
packet,
but
it
seems
that
that
reports
from
commissions
has
evolved
more
to
reports
from
council
members
on
their
commission
assignments,
and
so
I'm
mostly
saying
this
to
commit
myself
to
remember,
to
do
it
but
to
make
sure
that
we
give
you
all
Direction
on
when
that
should
be
presented
to
city
council
I,
think
it
may
need
to
be
presented
during
a
public
comment
period
versus
staff,
conveying
it
to
the
city
clerk.
For
that.
O
The
the
points
we're
trying
to
make
are
that
we
feel
there's
a
need
for
parking
enforcement
or
parking
Management
in
downtown
Bothell,
and
that's
the
repeated
finding
of
the
Planning
Commission
that
there
should
be
some
sort
of
structure
for
that
developed
in
time
by
the
city
of
Bothell.
Is
that
the
idea
please
chime
in
if
I've
got
that
wrong?
Mr
Jones
I.
B
O
P
O
P
A
O
K
Sarah
Gustafson
here
I
have
an
item
which
I,
don't
believe,
is
as
high
priority
as,
for
example,
the
Dei
issues,
but
the
conventional
wisdom
that
parking
enforcement
does
not
pay
for
itself.
Well,
that
doesn't
look
at
the
Grand
scope
of
what
a
vibrant
downtown
could
bring
in,
and
commissioner
westerbeck
is
one
of
the
best.