[0:14] 90 seconds.

[0:43] just start talking.

[0:48] » Good evening. Like to call to order the

[0:50] July 9th, 2026 meeting of the Bellingham

[0:53] Planning Commission. Heather, would you

[0:55] call the role? Lethre

[0:59] » Here.

[1:00] » Jerry Richmond

[1:01] » Here.

[1:01] » Claire Swingo

[1:02] » Here.

[1:03] » Jed Belaloo

[1:03] » Here.

[1:04] » Mike Estes

[1:05] » Here.

[1:05] » Lisa Marks is excused.

[1:11] » All right, we have no minutes. So

[1:14] tonight on the agenda, we have one item.

[1:17] It's a public hearing to uh look at the

[1:21] lowincome housing development incentive.

[1:23] It's a public hearing. So, starting out

[1:26] the meeting, uh, we'll have a public

[1:28] comment period where you can come

[1:31] forward and talk about things that are

[1:33] unrelated to the agenda item. Uh, so

[1:36] anything that is not related to the, um,

[1:39] public hearing, uh, come on down and

[1:42] share what you have to say. 3 minutes is

[1:45] what we ask you to limit your comments

[1:47] to. Um, so please be mindful of that.

[1:52] All

[2:05] right, having no comments, I guess we'll

[2:07] move on to the main agenda. So, Tara or

[2:10] Kurt, I don't know which of you is

[2:11] running the show, but I guess kick it

[2:14] off to you.

[2:15] » I'll start. We're both running the show.

[2:17] Uh, Tara Sundine, I'm the community and

[2:19] economic development manager for the

[2:21] city. I don't come here very often. I

[2:23] know a couple of you, but it's good to

[2:25] see and meet the the the others of you

[2:27] that I've never met before, Jerry and

[2:30] Claire. Um, so I'm going to start us

[2:33] off, turn it over to Kurt. We don't have

[2:35] a very lengthy presentation. I think

[2:37] this is pretty straightforward. Um,

[2:39] we're bringing forward a proposed

[2:41] amendment to Title 20 that would

[2:43] establish a new lowincome housing

[2:45] development incentive.

[2:48] The purpose of the proposal

[2:50] is to remove unnecessary regulatory

[2:53] barriers that make it more difficult and

[2:57] sometimes and oftentimes more expensive

[2:59] to build housing that serves lowincome

[3:03] households. As you're aware, uh our

[3:06] nonprofit housing developers uh face

[3:10] significant challenges. They face more

[3:12] challenges than our sometimes our

[3:14] private developers. in that um of course

[3:18] both are faced with rising construction

[3:20] costs. Um but our affordable housing

[3:23] developers are also faced with funding

[3:26] um requirements that are complex and

[3:29] also require deep subsidy utilizing

[3:32] public funding.

[3:35] In many cases, these projects rely on

[3:38] that limited public funding and every

[3:40] additional cost or delay can mean fewer

[3:43] affordable homes are built. The proposed

[3:46] incentive is intended to address those

[3:48] challenges by creating a more

[3:50] predictable and streamlined development

[3:52] process for qualifying lowincome housing

[3:56] projects. For eligible developments, the

[3:59] proposal would reduce or eliminate

[4:02] certain zoning and land use requirements

[4:04] and Kurt will provide you with an

[4:06] overview of what those are. This

[4:09] incentive is carefully targeted. This

[4:12] incentive is um only eligible to those

[4:16] developments that the city funds. Um and

[4:21] so what that looks like is they are are

[4:24] permanently affordable housing units. Um

[4:28] I'll describe what we require, what

[4:30] we're proposing to require. Um they need

[4:33] to be funded by the city. That means

[4:35] they've gone through our vetting process

[4:39] um and are approved by the city council.

[4:42] So it means that we are all in on those

[4:44] projects. To give you a sense of the

[4:47] pace of our pipeline, we at most build

[4:52] one large and what what I mean by large

[4:56] in this case is like 60 to 70 unit

[4:59] apartment complex every year. And that's

[5:02] us being at a pretty good pace just to

[5:04] get give you a sense of scale.

[5:07] Um

[5:10] in in exchange for this reduced

[5:12] requirements um as the incentive the

[5:16] project must record a covenant ensuring

[5:18] the housing remains affordable for a

[5:21] period of 50 years. So it's a

[5:23] significant period of time that's being

[5:25] required.

[5:27] Uh ultimately our goal is to improve

[5:29] project feasibility, reduce those

[5:32] development timelines, and increase the

[5:34] supply of housing. Um tonight, uh the

[5:38] planning commission's role is to conduct

[5:40] the hearing, consider our proposed

[5:42] amendments, um and hopefully um if

[5:47] things look okay, u make findings,

[5:50] conclusions, and a recommendation to the

[5:52] city council. With that overview, I'll

[5:54] turn it over to Kurt, who will walk you

[5:57] through the proposed code amendments and

[6:00] offer you two additional amendments that

[6:04] um we are proposing based on feedback

[6:08] from our affordable housing development

[6:10] partners. Kurt,

[6:14] » Great. Thank you, Tara. Um

[6:17] so the why I think Tara just explained

[6:20] why we're here today. Um it's really to

[6:22] try and increase the low-income

[6:23] affordable housing out there. Um

[6:26] secondary, as you may recall, or some of

[6:29] you may recall going through the uh the

[6:31] recent comp plan um process, there's

[6:34] been several state changes, state law

[6:36] changes that require us to um make sure

[6:39] that we are providing housing for all

[6:41] levels of income uh throughout our

[6:43] community. And so we believe that this

[6:45] will also help fulfill some of those

[6:47] statemandated roles as well and some of

[6:49] the things that we've talked about in

[6:50] our comprehensive plan. Uh now just to

[6:54] kind of get into the details um these

[6:57] rules and regulations will be uh able to

[7:00] be used in our urban village zones, our

[7:03] commercial zones and our residential

[7:04] multiszones. Um we are not allowing

[7:07] these largecale buildings to go into our

[7:10] residential single zones. um at least

[7:12] not at the the the size and scale that

[7:15] we are we're kind of targeting these

[7:17] rules for. Um and then you know what

[7:20] what the ordinance really entails is

[7:22] it's just reduced development standards.

[7:25] um and

[7:27] trying to make those processes a little

[7:29] bit smoother so that we can get these

[7:31] houses uh or these housing units built

[7:35] and constructed fastly um and get them

[7:37] through our regulatory process uh

[7:40] quickly um so that we can get those

[7:42] units out there and people in the units.

[7:45] I'm going to kind of walk through um as

[7:49] Tara mentioned, we've got a couple

[7:51] changes uh that we want to sec or that

[7:55] we recommend moving forward. Um one is

[7:58] just the definition of low-income

[8:00] housing and what that meant. Um we we

[8:02] have we were doing some scanning through

[8:05] our code and how we define low-income

[8:08] housing. Um, the city actually defines

[8:10] it a little bit different in about four

[8:14] different spots. Uh, the IRS defines it

[8:16] a little bit differently. The state

[8:18] defines it a little bit differently and

[8:19] HUD defines it a little bit differently.

[8:21] So, we're trying to find the appropriate

[8:24] definition for what we were really

[8:26] targeting at. Um, and so we put our

[8:30] heads together um, and we came up with

[8:32] this a little bit longer one. Um, but we

[8:34] believe that it's the most appropriate

[8:36] definition and we would recommend uh a

[8:39] change to the

[8:42] the draft uh for your consideration. Um,

[8:46] what it really gets at is again we're

[8:49] we're targeting those lowinccome folks

[8:52] um below the 80% of the area medium

[8:56] income.

[8:58] Um and where we wanted to clarify was

[9:01] exactly what um you know getting you

[9:04] that 30% income and where that comes

[9:07] from. Uh

[9:12] the the second place that we wanted to

[9:14] make a change uh the current draft

[9:17] requires private usable open space um at

[9:21] 100 square feet everywhere. And again,

[9:25] this is another one where we were

[9:27] looking through our code. Um, we've got

[9:29] multiple areas in multiple

[9:33] levels of private usable space

[9:35] throughout our code. Um, in some of our

[9:39] multif family zones, it's 250 square

[9:41] feet per unit. In some of the zones,

[9:43] it's 100 square feet per unit. In our

[9:46] most of our urban villages, it's it's

[9:48] zero. Um so what we wanted to do is

[9:52] really kind of focus those larger scale

[9:55] um units again into our urban villages.

[9:59] Um part of our urban villages there are

[10:03] opportunities for um other recreational

[10:06] uh facilities as well. A lot of them are

[10:08] located close to parks and trails and

[10:10] things like that. So um we didn't want

[10:13] to inadvertently overburden

[10:16] um these developments in urban village

[10:19] areas where they already don't have to

[10:21] do that.

[10:24] So those are the the two changes that we

[10:26] are recommending that you um make a

[10:29] motion to amend if you so choose to

[10:32] tonight.

[10:34] Um now to the development standards. Uh

[10:37] these are the kind of the the things

[10:39] that were the meat of it the ordinance

[10:42] tonight. Um height rules and

[10:45] regulations. There are no height limits

[10:48] except within designated view corridors

[10:50] or near historic historic features. Um

[10:53] got a couple graphics that may show that

[10:56] here. U this is the old town area where

[10:59] we is through those planning processes

[11:03] uh we defined certain views that we

[11:05] wanted to preserve. um such as through

[11:08] the Aster corridor towards the museum.

[11:11] Um we wanted to make sure that new

[11:13] buildings didn't overpower the

[11:15] territorial courthouse or um the train

[11:17] station there. Um and then also through

[11:20] our waterfront district urban village,

[11:22] we had specific view corridors that we

[11:26] wanted to make sure we maintained

[11:28] through that development and we didn't

[11:30] want to inadvertently um affect those

[11:35] those designated corridors in either the

[11:37] waterfront district or the oldtown area.

[11:44] uh density and far uh floor area ratio.

[11:48] As you know, most of our residential

[11:50] areas have specific density requirements

[11:52] and density refers to how much land you

[11:54] need per dwelling unit. Uh in a lot of

[11:57] areas such as the downtown um and some

[12:01] of our our commercial areas, there are

[12:02] no density limits uh already. Um, and

[12:06] for this proposed ordinance, we are not

[12:09] suggesting any sort of density or floor

[12:11] area ratio requirement. When it comes to

[12:14] setbacks, we wanted to make sure that

[12:15] the buildings that are being constructed

[12:17] are at least consistent with the other

[12:19] types of larger scaled uh buildings in

[12:22] that area. So, uh, for example,

[12:26] in a residential multiszone, there may

[12:30] be a like a a 10-ft setback off of the

[12:33] the property line. And we wanted to make

[12:35] sure that these buildings were

[12:36] constructed consistently with other

[12:38] large scale buildings there. So setbacks

[12:40] are the same regardless of the type of

[12:43] housing unit you're bu you're building

[12:44] there. Lock coverage um we do not have

[12:48] any sort of lot coverage and lot

[12:49] coverage you may recall is really about

[12:53] how much impervious surface that goes on

[12:56] on the property. Uh we felt that if

[12:58] you're meeting the storm water rules and

[13:01] regulations um and trying to maximize

[13:05] the the the site area for the housing uh

[13:09] we felt no maximum should be in place.

[13:13] Um usable space again we do believe that

[13:16] it it should be appropriate in some

[13:18] places um except for those urban

[13:21] villages. Uh, one unique thing that

[13:23] we've added here, and it's something

[13:25] that we've been talking about for a

[13:27] while, um, is having an alternate

[13:30] alternative in here, uh, when you're

[13:32] located within a quarter mile of a park,

[13:36] uh, you do not have to provide that

[13:38] private usable space. So, our assumption

[13:41] is that folks still have access to that

[13:43] usable space um, if they are within

[13:46] this, you know, walkable distance to a

[13:48] park. Um, parking, uh, as you're very

[13:52] familiar with, uh, there's no

[13:54] requirement. You passed or made a

[13:56] recommendation on that ordinance just

[13:58] recently. Uh, that's going to the city

[14:00] council on Monday night for their

[14:02] review. Uh, so no auto parking required.

[14:05] Um, ADA and electrical vehicle would be

[14:08] required when parking is provided. Uh,

[14:11] that's consistent with the ordinance

[14:13] that you recommended approval for. Um

[14:16] and then also part of that parking

[14:18] ordinance uh was consistent standards

[14:22] across the city on on bike parking. So

[14:25] we are requiring that. Uh landscaping is

[14:29] something that we believe can help uh

[14:31] soften some of these larger buildings,

[14:33] the scale of some of these buildings. Uh

[14:35] and so again, we're keeping that with

[14:37] the underlying zoning. And then design

[14:40] review. Uh we do feel that design review

[14:42] has gotten more streamlined with our

[14:45] interim ordinance. Uh we've taken that

[14:47] the subjectivity out of it and it is

[14:49] very objective. I believe a few meetings

[14:53] back we we talked a little bit about

[14:55] this here. Um and what we are finding

[14:59] from a staff review perspective um and I

[15:02] think you could probably ask developers

[15:04] as well is that our new objective

[15:06] standards are much easier from staff's

[15:09] perspective. they're um the projects are

[15:12] moving through the process a lot quicker

[15:15] than they were before. Um we don't get

[15:16] in that back and forth u again because

[15:18] we've taken that subjectivity out of it.

[15:21] Um so we believe that these buildings

[15:23] should still go through design review.

[15:26] Our community still believes in design

[15:27] review but the objective standards

[15:29] should be in place.

[15:32] Um beyond that these projects would trip

[15:35] SEPA review as well. So, you know,

[15:38] again, the height, the density, um kind

[15:41] of that lot coverage are the ones that

[15:43] we're really trying to alleviate in

[15:45] hopes to maximize the amount of housing

[15:48] that we get there. Um beyond that, the

[15:51] the processes throughout the city are

[15:54] going to remain kind of the same.

[15:58] » Sure. Go ahead.

[15:59] » And yeah, that's all I had.

[16:00] » One more. Uh I just wanted to make a

[16:02] comment on scale. Um, first of all,

[16:06] we're talking about land use um,

[16:08] regulations here. We're not talking

[16:09] about the safety of these structures and

[16:11] building code for those I know you know

[16:13] that commissioners, but just for those

[16:15] that are watching. Um, all of these will

[16:19] still all these developments will still

[16:21] have to to adhere to the building codes.

[16:24] Um,

[16:26] just to talk to you about scale when we

[16:28] talk about height and density and such

[16:31] these developments. Um, and I'm talking

[16:34] the the ones that are the the largest,

[16:36] not this not the single family or the

[16:39] town home developments, but the largest

[16:41] developments. Um, apartments are

[16:45] typically

[16:46] somewhere between four and five stories.

[16:49] It would be very rare for us to see them

[16:51] go to six. We do have architect that

[16:53] will be speaking, but um, right now I'm

[16:57] seeing mostly fourstory construction in

[17:00] that arena. So

[17:03] for for those that are concerned that

[17:05] all of a sudden we're going to open up a

[17:07] 10, you know, the ability to go to 10

[17:09] stories or 15 stories because there's

[17:11] not a height limit is not um something

[17:14] that we should be concerned about. That

[17:17] the cost of going into that realm is far

[17:20] out out of these developers are not

[17:23] capable of finding the resources to put

[17:26] that something like that together. So, I

[17:28] just wanted to make sure that that was

[17:30] on the record. Thank you. Turn it over

[17:32] to you.

[17:37] » Thank you. Uh, we'll start out with the

[17:38] public comment on this topic. So, if you

[17:41] have comments that you'd like to share,

[17:43] please come on down and limit those to

[17:45] three minutes. Thanks.

[18:08] I think we're on. Yes.

[18:11] Good evening, uh, Chair Belaloo,

[18:13] commissioners, planning staff, and

[18:15] neighbors. Uh, my name is Pete Day. Uh,

[18:18] I'm a longtime Birchwood neighborhood

[18:19] resident, and I'm currently working with

[18:21] Compass Housing Alliance,

[18:24] which is a regional nonprofit affordable

[18:25] housing developer. Um, and I'm I'm

[18:28] supporting them on feasibility and

[18:30] pre-development of an affordable housing

[18:32] project here in town. I'm speaking in

[18:35] favor of the ordinance before you, and I

[18:37] wanted to offer a few thoughts from a

[18:39] developer perspective.

[18:41] So, first uh developing affordable

[18:44] housing in our region is costly and as

[18:48] um some in this room may know finding

[18:50] funding uh is difficult even in the best

[18:53] of times. Um this ordinance improves

[18:57] efficiency and lowers cost by

[18:59] streamlining process and reducing

[19:02] uncertainty for affordable housing

[19:05] developers like I represent.

[19:09] um it still maintains important

[19:11] safeguards on uh on development.

[19:14] However, uh a tangible example of one

[19:16] way in which this ordinance um can

[19:18] reduce development costs as in the

[19:21] building height allowance. As Terra

[19:22] mentioned, uh it's it's nearly always

[19:25] more economical to add a add an

[19:27] additional story to a building. um

[19:30] rather than building those same 20, 30

[19:32] or 40 homes on a separate parcel,

[19:36] everyone benefits from that efficiency,

[19:38] cost savings, and the additional homes

[19:41] built. Uh secondly, this ordinance uh

[19:44] doesn't cost taxpayers in the city

[19:47] anything. It's essentially an efficiency

[19:50] measure that functions as a nocost lever

[19:52] that the city can use to help address

[19:54] our community's housing needs without

[19:57] requiring unpopular

[19:59] tax levies or putting additional strain

[20:01] on an already stretched city budget.

[20:04] And finally, I want to remind us of who

[20:07] this ordinance ultimately serves on the

[20:10] continuum of housing.

[20:12] Uh it targets city-f funed affordable

[20:14] housing projects which by definition um

[20:17] is targeting folks earning 30 to 80% of

[20:20] area median income or AMI in Bellingham.

[20:24] 80% AMI is just over $95,000 a year uh

[20:29] for a household of four. So, this

[20:32] ordinance aims to serve not only our

[20:34] neighbors who may be exiting

[20:35] houselessness,

[20:36] or is the 30% end of that AMI spectrum,

[20:40] um, but also working families, teachers,

[20:43] first responders, and many in service

[20:44] and caregiving roles in our community

[20:47] who are struggling to afford to live

[20:48] here.

[20:50] For these reasons, I would urge you to

[20:52] recommend approval of this ordinance to

[20:54] our city council. And I want to thank

[20:56] the planning staff, Miss Sundine, and

[20:59] Mr. Navfeld for a balanced proposal. And

[21:01] thank you commissioners for your time

[21:02] and consideration.

[21:16] » Good evening. Um I'm Jeff Mccclure with

[21:19] RMC Architects. Uh

[21:22] um our firm has been involved in many

[21:25] many affordable housing projects. So, I

[21:27] want to talk a little bit about what

[21:29] this particular proposal allows us to

[21:31] do. Um, I want to thank the commission

[21:33] and staff for thinking creatively about

[21:36] affordability in our community. Um, I

[21:41] would say in a word, what this provides

[21:44] is efficiency. And of course, efficiency

[21:47] leads directly to affordability. I guess

[21:49] that's two words, efficiency and

[21:50] affordability. Um but if we have the

[21:53] opportunity through

[21:56] um reductions on restrictions to height

[21:59] and to uh density, we can get obviously

[22:03] more units on the site which helps us

[22:05] defay the cost of site and then also the

[22:09] typical very large cost of the parking

[22:11] deck that that uh supports these

[22:14] buildings. And I'll give you a real

[22:16] world example of this of how this uh by

[22:19] relaxing these requirements helps us

[22:21] deal with more challenging sites. We're

[22:23] working on a project right now where we

[22:26] have a pretty good slope from the front

[22:28] the access street down to uh the back of

[22:31] the site and because of the way we have

[22:33] to measure the 40ft height restriction

[22:36] from the lowest part of the building it

[22:38] restricts us to only three floors of

[22:41] affordable housing above that parking

[22:43] deck because the parking deck daylights.

[22:45] So in this particular case that's 72

[22:47] units. If we are able to add a floor

[22:51] that's 21 extra units. If we're able to

[22:53] add another floor to a five floor, which

[22:56] is what Terara said, which is what is

[22:57] typical that we see in most of these and

[22:59] and is typical in the surrounding

[23:01] buildings were just kind of penalized

[23:03] because of the because of the

[23:05] topography. And all of a sudden, we can

[23:07] be up to 120 units. So, we've increased

[23:10] it uh the number of units uh 30% with

[23:13] one floor, another 30% up to 60% on the

[23:16] same site with the same infrastructure

[23:18] costs. And that goes directly to the

[23:20] unit costs. And so that gives us a real

[23:23] good uh um u through line to

[23:27] affordability on this project. That's a

[23:29] direct impact for those who think that

[23:33] this is going to allow tall buildings

[23:36] throughout the city. I want to draw on

[23:39] what Terara said. Most every multif

[23:41] family project that you see around town

[23:44] has been limited to five stories. And

[23:46] that's a code restriction because above

[23:48] above five stories, we're now out of

[23:50] wood frame construction and we're into

[23:52] more expensive kinds of construction.

[23:54] Concrete, steel, possibly cross-

[23:57] laminated timber, although we haven't

[23:58] seen tall cross laminated timber in in

[24:01] our city. Those just frankly are

[24:04] unaffordable for the demographic that

[24:06] we're serving. You usually see those

[24:08] types of of higher buildings for

[24:10] condominium construction or very

[24:12] high-end apartments. that is not the

[24:15] perform that developers are working with

[24:17] in this particular case. So um and

[24:20] ultimately the trump card is in the

[24:22] design review process. The city because

[24:24] they're funding these projects has the

[24:27] ultimate say on exactly how these will

[24:29] fit into the neighborhoods. Um and I

[24:32] know from experience that they're not

[24:34] they're not going to allow that to

[24:35] happen. So, I think that there's some

[24:37] really good um

[24:41] really good methods for making certain

[24:43] that we have

[24:46] projects that fit well into the

[24:47] neighborhood. Final thing that I will

[24:49] say is the one thing that caught my eye

[24:51] was the 100 square foot uh per

[24:55] accessible open space per unit, which

[24:58] can sometimes be uh would be perceived

[25:01] as being ownorous. I'm all for open

[25:03] space for people to be able to get out,

[25:05] but but as we have sites that are closer

[25:07] closer to the urban core, that may be

[25:10] difficult to achieve when you're dealing

[25:12] with something that's being built

[25:13] directly to the property lines and you

[25:15] have other pedestrian experiences. Um uh

[25:19] an example of where that did work was a

[25:21] project we were involved in, Sandwich

[25:22] Commons, uh right across from U Boomers.

[25:27] Um whereas an irregularly shaped site,

[25:30] three buildings around a courtyard, we

[25:32] were able to, not that that we had that

[25:34] requirement, but we were able to get

[25:36] that uh a rather generous courtyard in

[25:38] there. So that's an example of what 100

[25:41] square ft per unit would yield. Probably

[25:44] more appropriate for a suburban site,

[25:47] not so much for an urban site. Staff has

[25:50] already come in with a with a proposal

[25:52] for in urban villages that that

[25:54] requirement wouldn't be laid upon that.

[25:56] I think that's a good solution for what

[25:58] we're talking about. So anyway, thank

[26:00] you for your consideration, full support

[26:02] of the ordinance in front of you.

[26:21] My name is Mary Lou White. Um, I live in

[26:23] the Birchwood neighborhood and I want to

[26:26] give you the perspective of a resident

[26:28] that's lived here for 38 years and

[26:30] living in a neighborhood that's one of

[26:32] the lower income neighborhoods in

[26:34] Bellingham, Washington. Um this proposal

[26:38] valiates planning goes for RCW26.7A020

[26:45] specifically with regard to number 10

[26:47] protecting and enhancing the environment

[26:49] because there can be cumulative effects

[26:51] based off of the larger um imperous

[26:56] areas created by this and the reduction

[26:58] in overview of um environmental

[27:02] regulations.

[27:03] uh citizen pre precipit participation

[27:07] number 11 same RCW

[27:10] um with regard to ensuring coordination

[27:12] between communities and jurisdictions

[27:15] um our neighborhood for sure the

[27:17] neighborhood there was no talk about

[27:19] this with the neighborhood um

[27:21] association

[27:23] and it's very hard um I know you guys

[27:26] post on a notice site but unless you're

[27:28] looking at the notice site you don't get

[27:29] these I received this notice on June 2nd

[27:33] just before July or July 2nd just before

[27:37] um the holiday and then had to work all

[27:39] week. I actually had to um take off

[27:42] today to write any comments.

[27:45] Public facilities and services. This is

[27:48] the most important part. I think we have

[27:50] an aging infrastructure and Bellingham

[27:53] has not right at this current moment a

[27:57] plan for replacing our storm water. Yes,

[28:00] in 20 years over a 20-year period, but

[28:02] with regard to the specific impacts of

[28:06] this ordinance and how the surges may

[28:08] happen on these infrastructures, they

[28:11] don't have a plan. And that violates

[28:14] that means that you can't do an a

[28:16] citywide ordinance um under the uh uh

[28:22] growth management act. Um climate change

[28:25] and resiliency, again, less open space.

[28:28] um to foster resiliency, less um native

[28:33] vegetation.

[28:34] Um it allows for cumulative significant

[28:37] environmental impacts which I mentioned.

[28:39] Um

[28:41] and uh BTC 16 requires environmental

[28:44] mitigation for development without

[28:46] passing this cost on to local community.

[28:49] And somebody mentioned taxes, but if you

[28:52] look at the development um benefits

[28:56] already the for infill they're getting

[29:00] um breaks already with regard to utility

[29:03] up to 80% with regard to funding that

[29:06] they get from capital investors also um

[29:10] from local citizens who are when you

[29:14] look at it paying a higher part part of

[29:16] the tax because they're investment is

[29:19] not pro probably part of the $1 million

[29:23] which are exempt from funds from their

[29:26] um retirement or whatever they have

[29:28] invested in. Um they're paying for taxes

[29:31] with regard to new infrastructure

[29:33] already. We know that. But when you put

[29:35] you compound that with these other

[29:37] projects, they're going to be paying

[29:40] additional um taxes on that

[29:42] infrastructure. And they're also the

[29:44] ones that take the hit when there's

[29:46] going to be packwater sewage, which has

[29:48] happened in the letter streets. It's

[29:50] happened in Birchwood. I believe it

[29:51] happened on Meridian. It happened in

[29:53] Birch Bay. And so I'm just saying let's

[29:57] get the infrastructure put in place

[30:00] before we build these large buildings or

[30:02] reduce the regulations we have for these

[30:04] large um buildings. And the other thing

[30:06] I really want to address before I run

[30:08] out of time and I have many things and

[30:10] you can look at what I wrote um is the

[30:12] hazards with regard to the LA the old

[30:16] mining which the city has consistently

[30:21] overlooked partly because the uh tetrate

[30:24] reports are inaccurate and if you go to

[30:26] the um actual report you'll find that

[30:30] the initial um gentleman who did the

[30:33] mining report said that he has no

[30:36] confidence in the information he he

[30:39] supplied to the city and that um the

[30:43] city needed to do a couple of things to

[30:45] build in that confidence. So I also

[30:48] recommend that if this were to go

[30:50] forward that there anywhere there that

[30:52] there's building these large buildings

[30:54] on top of a mining area which is

[30:57] substantial throughout um Bellingham not

[31:00] just in the Birchwood neighborhood. um

[31:04] but that there has to be some kind of

[31:07] very good geological assessment and that

[31:11] should go deep enough to find out if

[31:13] there's voids because those voids can

[31:15] hold gases. um you're putting dense,

[31:19] heavy housing on areas that aren't that

[31:23] have subsidance already that potentially

[31:26] can. And if you look in the report, it

[31:28] will tell you some areas that are more

[31:30] likely than other areas to have that

[31:32] subsidance. Um but if you make a

[31:34] broadwide ordinance that doesn't address

[31:38] these factors, you're putting people at

[31:41] risk. not only the the current residents

[31:43] or adjacent residents, but the residents

[31:46] in the buildings that will be living in

[31:48] those buildings. Um, and that's that's

[31:52] not acceptable. I just think it needs to

[31:55] we really need to concentrate on our

[31:57] infrastructure in Bellingham before we

[31:59] reduce the um impacts for additional

[32:03] development. That's pretty much it.

[32:06] » Thanks.

[32:06] » Can I leave these with you?

[32:18] Anybody on Zoom?

[32:34] » No Zoom comments. Okay, I guess we'll

[32:36] move on to our discussion of this topic

[32:39] and just uh have a conversation about

[32:42] our thoughts on it. Um, anybody itching

[32:45] to start?

[32:48] Feel like this is your baby Rose.

[32:51] » Well,

[32:53] um, yeah, thanks uh, so much for putting

[32:56] the work together to to take this

[32:58] initiative forward. Um, I think mostly

[33:02] it's like about time

[33:05] Um and and really glad to see that um

[33:08] the city, you know, uh when when we

[33:11] think about the the investment that the

[33:13] city's making that our communities are

[33:15] making in in the home fund um to help

[33:18] these projects move forward. Um what we

[33:21] don't want to see is that the projects

[33:22] are harder and more expensive. Um so

[33:25] this really makes an efficient use of

[33:27] not just the land um but the resources

[33:30] that um our taxpayers are putting into

[33:32] it. So um

[33:34] I don't have anything specific that

[33:36] wasn't already mentioned um in terms of

[33:38] like things that I I think we should u

[33:41] modify or change. Um the my only request

[33:45] is that we start thinking now about how

[33:47] what kind of incentives can we put

[33:49] towards the MFTTE projects that are not

[33:52] 100% affordable, but how do we take

[33:55] those those other incentives that we

[33:57] have and and make sure that they start

[33:59] getting utilized more.

[34:08] definitely agree with the modifications

[34:11] to the open space uh usable open space.

[34:13] We were just chatting about that before

[34:15] uh we started this meeting and so that

[34:17] makes a lot of sense. It's good to not

[34:20] be more restrictive than the underlying

[34:22] zoning on things like that. Um, in

[34:25] particular, I was wondering about, um,

[34:28] since we're basically going away from

[34:31] residential single zoning. Um, is it

[34:34] correct that basically

[34:36] most of the city is going to allow this

[34:39] type of development because really just

[34:41] the Watcom Lake watershed is going to be

[34:43] limited to uh, traditional single family

[34:47] zoning.

[34:48] » Yeah. I was just wondering how this maps

[34:50] to the new residential low, medium, high

[34:53] that's coming soon.

[34:54] » Exactly. Coming soon. I think that's the

[34:56] that's the key word, right? There's a

[34:58] lot of debate that's going to happen in

[34:59] the next year about what our residential

[35:01] zones look like. Um and we will we've

[35:04] been started starting that work and um

[35:06] we'll be coming here with to you very

[35:09] soon on that. So, um, our thoughts on

[35:12] this is that we didn't want to wait for

[35:14] that process. Um, because it's likely

[35:17] going to take this entire year before we

[35:19] get through all of that. Um, maybe even

[35:21] into next year before we have our new

[35:23] residential zoning. And so, we didn't

[35:26] want to preclude any potential units or

[35:29] uh, developments that may be in the

[35:31] plans or may be working this year. Uh,

[35:33] so we felt that let's get this done now.

[35:36] Um, because as Rose mentioned, it is

[35:38] time. it's about time for us to do it.

[35:41] Um, and as we go through the the

[35:45] residential zoning, there will probably

[35:47] be discussions about density, how many

[35:50] units, um, what the scale is, maybe even

[35:53] height increases. Uh, then not far along

[35:56] behind that, we've got our, um, transit

[35:59] corridors that we're going to be looking

[36:00] at as well. So, um, we figured we need

[36:05] to get this done now. let's move it

[36:06] forward and if anything comes out of the

[36:09] residential reszone or not reszone but

[36:12] update we can incorporate this into that

[36:15] as well.

[36:16] » Would it be fair to guess that like this

[36:19] ordinance is applying to RM that might

[36:21] map to medium and high in the future and

[36:23] not to low

[36:24] » Possible? Yes. Yeah.

[36:30] given extra density in areas that may

[36:32] not be as dense um potential for that. I

[36:36] would assume that some of these you know

[36:38] what are residential single

[36:41] are there planned residential single

[36:43] areas that would potentially become

[36:45] residential medium or are multifamily

[36:48] medium districts or is that kind of I

[36:50] know we're kind of pushing forward into

[36:52] the crystal ball but is that is that an

[36:55] anticipated thing? I'm I'm more curious

[36:57] about how this might apply to single

[37:00] family districts once we make the zoning

[37:02] change.

[37:03] » Well, I think, you know, as you

[37:05] mentioned and as state law and our local

[37:08] ordinances have come into effect, we

[37:10] don't have residential single zoning

[37:11] anymore. Um or single unit zoning

[37:14] anymore. Um now that you can do four to

[37:16] six units on every single lot, um that

[37:19] that scale and that thought process is

[37:21] just no longer there. Um so we will

[37:24] continue to evaluate what the

[37:25] appropriate zoning uh thresholds or

[37:28] levels are in that that low, medium, and

[37:29] high um wershed. We've been kicking the

[37:32] idea around with um you know something a

[37:36] little bit different as well in there.

[37:37] Um we know that the the transition

[37:40] between the residential medium and the

[37:44] some of the residential single zones um

[37:47] they're almost compressing and so it

[37:50] it's too early to really get into the

[37:52] weeds on that. Um but we've got a year

[37:55] ahead of us to do it. So

[37:59] I make a an a comment. Um, I will I

[38:04] would think that most of our nonprofit

[38:07] housing development projects won't

[38:09] necessarily benefit from this because

[38:12] they're already choosing with our urging

[38:16] of going into our urban villages. Um,

[38:20] our pipeline projects right now that are

[38:22] being built in Oldtown and nearby on

[38:25] Unity Street. This won't do anything for

[38:28] them. But what this will do is those

[38:31] projects like Jeff mentioned where the

[38:34] the way we measure height on that slope.

[38:37] I mean, that's really what we're talking

[38:39] about. When we

[38:42] help our nonprofit developers purchase

[38:45] land, we're looking for places that make

[38:47] sense. We're looking for places that

[38:49] already have transit or in urban areas.

[38:51] So, I just wanted to I want to throw

[38:54] that out there that I don't want you to

[38:56] expect that every project all of a

[38:58] sudden is going to be changed by this

[39:00] this ordinance. Um the we've been the

[39:05] parking thing came along recently. We've

[39:07] been talking about that, Kurt and I,

[39:09] like we wish brought this to you like

[39:12] five years ago because those developers

[39:14] are constantly

[39:16] running up against that uh requirement.

[39:19] And then also um commercial requirements

[39:22] for these nonprofit housing developers

[39:25] that is more problematic for them than

[39:28] almost anything else. So that's that's

[39:31] kind of more I know we're talking about

[39:33] a lot of height today, but I don't think

[39:36] that's going to be the the big gift

[39:38] necessarily.

[39:43] Um and and I know that that this is not

[39:46] what we're talking about, but the um

[39:49] demonstration ordinance or the um

[39:51] innovative affordable home ownership

[39:53] ordinance when we start thinking about

[39:56] um our

[39:58] formerly residential single zones. um

[40:02] that ordinance has made a really big

[40:04] difference in projects for the land

[40:07] trust and um knowing with all these

[40:10] changes like what are the things that we

[40:11] can do um one to help get to those six

[40:15] units where they make sense um and then

[40:17] also um making sure that um with all

[40:21] kinds of new rules that those get

[40:23] updated maybe in parallel with um so

[40:26] that it's not a five years later we

[40:28] start thinking about that Um

[40:33] » Yeah, when we first started talking

[40:34] about this, um we had we had a lot of

[40:37] discussion about the uh innovative

[40:40] affordable housing um demonstration

[40:41] ordinance uh and how this would fit in

[40:45] with that. And um I I think we came to

[40:47] the conclusion is let's keep that in the

[40:50] residential single zones for now, right?

[40:52] And with the increase going from because

[40:56] what that the in innovative ordinance

[40:58] allows is essentially a 50% density

[41:01] increase um on the site um if you go

[41:04] through a certain review process. It

[41:06] also allows more flexibility and

[41:08] development rules as well. Um and that

[41:11] was really

[41:13] um created for ownership projects,

[41:16] single family ownership projects. Um

[41:18] where this is really shifted kind of

[41:20] that larger scale development. we just

[41:22] had that gap, right? And so that's why

[41:24] we said let's leave the demonstration

[41:26] ordinance there in place. Um if there's

[41:30] if the the four to six doesn't already

[41:33] help on that site, there's always that

[41:34] to fall back on. And as we're going

[41:38] through our code um update, um we will

[41:41] be looking at other places that we can

[41:43] modify and change the code, make it

[41:45] better. That's that's the goal, right?

[41:51] I'm quiet, but I just want to let you

[41:53] know that I like the work that has been

[41:55] done. Um,

[41:58] it's there's a lot of thoughtful um

[42:01] wording in here. Uh,

[42:05] I'd like to thank Jeff for his comments.

[42:08] Um,

[42:10] I feel like explaining kind of what the

[42:13] handcuffs are uh for developers.

[42:16] Um when people hear height they think oh

[42:19] my god you know there's going to be all

[42:21] of uh these big gross buildings and um

[42:25] also Tara your your definition of um

[42:29] what typically is built and uh within

[42:32] the the price parameters develop

[42:34] developers have um I don't think it's a

[42:38] huge concern. I think the fact that the

[42:41] uh this is geared towards city

[42:43] partnerships and the city um by allowing

[42:48] all of the new language but still

[42:49] setting up guard rails uh with the view

[42:52] corridors uh has um people's best

[42:55] interests at heart. So, uh in summary,

[42:59] yeah, I'm I'm for it all. Thank you.

[43:03] » I think it's it's interesting. A lot of

[43:04] people don't know when we talk about

[43:06] height um our downtown core hasn't had

[43:09] height limits um for decades like and we

[43:12] don't have any tall buildings down

[43:14] there. Um we also have a lot of people

[43:16] don't realize this but many of our

[43:18] commercial planned areas do not have

[43:20] height limits. Um some of our

[43:22] residential multi-planned areas do not

[43:25] have height limits and we don't see

[43:27] largecale buildings and it really does

[43:29] come down to the economics of of

[43:31] development, right? Um and so

[43:35] Yeah, I I I think that there are other

[43:36] factors that that are going to limit

[43:38] limit height.

[43:48] » Um I guess I'm wondering why this is

[43:50] restricted to the or 100% of the the

[43:54] units. I know it references um

[43:57] affordability language for the from the

[43:59] single family um one which is over 51%

[44:03] of units and such. So I'm wondering just

[44:05] the impetus and how 100% of the units

[44:07] was was decided on.

[44:10] » We decided to start with something that

[44:13] was straightforward and limited

[44:17] and that was to the the projects that we

[44:20] fund. So, some of those guard rails

[44:22] starting out um and that's why the city

[44:28] funds 100 100% of the units are at 80 or

[44:33] and below. Now, sometimes we and 80 is

[44:36] on the high side honestly, but um that's

[44:40] why we started there.

[44:53] If I could, um I I do um wanted to just

[44:56] take a minute to respond to Miss

[44:58] Wright's comments. Um if this is an

[45:00] appropriate time for that. Um I think a

[45:02] lot of the comments definitely we heard

[45:04] heard heard what she said. Um we've been

[45:07] having a little bit of conversation over

[45:09] email uh the last couple of days on

[45:12] this. Um some of the concerns that she

[45:14] expressed um are really project specific

[45:17] or project level types of concerns. The

[45:20] all of these projects will go through

[45:22] SEPA review. Um if they're in or near

[45:25] critical areas, they go through a

[45:26] critical area review. Um the mine

[45:29] hazards that she spoke clearly of in

[45:31] order to build out in um the Birwood

[45:34] neighborhood or any other we actually

[45:35] have a couple different places in town

[45:37] that have mine coal mines or mines. um

[45:41] they all have to go through an adopted

[45:43] critical areas review, right? So,

[45:45] they're they're going through it. We're

[45:46] having professional geologists study

[45:48] these sites, biologists are studying

[45:50] these sites. So, um we do believe that

[45:52] the existing site development rules and

[45:54] regulations are in place to protect

[45:57] them. Those those don't aren't being

[45:59] changed here. Um if there is a site

[46:02] where a water man is not big enough then

[46:05] the development rules will require it to

[46:08] enlarge that water man. Um so we've got

[46:11] those existing rules and regulations

[46:13] that help protect some of those sight

[46:15] specific type concerns. Um

[46:21] uh one of the other comments that was

[46:23] raised was just this the storm water and

[46:25] you're covering up with impervious

[46:26] surfaces. uh our the code does reference

[46:29] uh it does it says no lock coverage but

[46:31] it does reference that you do have to

[46:32] comply with stormwater rules and

[46:34] regulations. So again those are

[46:36] statemandated um uh requirements and

[46:40] they have to meet every development has

[46:42] to meet those requirements. Um, and

[46:44] then, um, there were some other notes

[46:47] about consistency with the comprehensive

[46:49] plan. And I did want to direct your

[46:53] attention to,

[46:56] it's page 15 of the packet. Um, number

[47:00] five, part of the one of the things when

[47:02] we do these rules and regulations, we

[47:03] have to make sure that it is consistent.

[47:05] These rules and regulations are

[47:06] consistent with our the Bellingham plan

[47:09] and that they implement it. And so

[47:11] there's, you know, six goals there that

[47:14] it does support this. Um, the first one

[47:16] I think is the most telling. Remove

[47:18] barriers to housing creation and

[47:20] preservation by periodically reviewing

[47:23] existing and proposed development

[47:24] regulations and policies for potential

[47:26] impacts on city-wide housing capacity,

[47:28] development patterns, affordability, and

[47:30] diversity. So I mean, right there, we

[47:32] put that one right up in front, right?

[47:34] So this is something that we are

[47:37] implementing this. we are removing

[47:39] barriers to help housing. Um so it's a

[47:42] it's completely consistent with um our

[47:46] our comprehensive plan. Um so just

[47:48] wanted to um acknowledge the the

[47:52] concerns expressed. Um I do believe that

[47:54] our existing review processes through

[47:56] CEN or critical areas will help and

[47:58] other development regulations will help

[48:00] mitigate any of the potential issues

[48:02] that may arise.

[48:14] Well, I think that I could argue that

[48:16] there's a lot more um goals within the

[48:19] comprehensive plan that support this

[48:21] policy in addition to the ones that are

[48:23] listed. Um and and I would I would put

[48:26] climate goals in there as well just

[48:28] because um increasing density is is good

[48:31] climate policy

[48:35] and

[48:37] small cities take note.

[48:40] Um city of Bellingham is really setting

[48:43] um a high bar for how to support

[48:45] affordable housing. um trying to do

[48:47] projects in throughout Wakom County,

[48:49] which is important that um Bellingham

[48:52] doesn't become the only repository for

[48:54] affordable housing. Um but it's really

[48:56] difficult when you don't have system

[48:58] development charges like those fees

[49:00] waved when you don't have these kinds of

[49:03] um incentives and um so I hope um

[49:08] everybody's watching out there in Wacom

[49:10] County role.

[49:12] We started with uh the two proposed

[49:15] changes to this packet and one of them

[49:17] was the definition um of affordable

[49:20] housing and that's not in this packet,

[49:22] right? I mean, that was something that

[49:23] you just brought up. So, I'm wondering

[49:25] if there's anything that we might need

[49:26] to discuss um to kind of formalize or

[49:28] see if we agree with that. Um,

[49:33] I don't think it seemed too

[49:34] controversial, but

[49:36] » Yeah, if you make a motion or act on

[49:40] one, we would want you to um consider

[49:44] the um ordinance amended with these two

[49:48] changes that we've proposed. One is this

[49:51] definition

[49:52] » And it is complicated. You can tell by

[49:54] » Right.

[49:55] » And I'll we should let you do you want a

[49:58] moment to read it? Well, I feel like

[50:00] that, you know, it's like I this is not

[50:02] my area of very technical world here.

[50:05] » It seems like we're trying to comply

[50:06] with there are different definitions out

[50:08] there and to include the ownership

[50:10] component.

[50:11] » Yes, we ownership

[50:15] is handled differently than rental

[50:18] housing. and rental housing. And the

[50:21] simplest way I can describe it is um

[50:25] first of all, we're trying to line this

[50:27] up with other funders because we're not

[50:29] the only one. So rental housing, the

[50:33] rent is tied to the

[50:36] space. So, when that developer is

[50:39] building that unit and it's two-bedroom,

[50:42] there's an assumed rent that is going to

[50:44] be collected for that um that unit. We

[50:49] do have Pete Day here if he he needs to

[50:52] to to write me. Um and it doesn't follow

[50:55] the household as a hership model does.

[51:00] It follows the unit. And so our

[51:02] definition there was misaligned because

[51:05] it was following the h the household's

[51:09] income and expenses, not an an

[51:13] assumption. So, if you've if you've got

[51:14] a 60 unit apartment building, when you

[51:17] go into that financing scenario and you

[51:20] go line up all of these different

[51:22] funding sources, you're saying this many

[51:24] units are going to be affordable to 30%

[51:28] AMI and this many units, these ones are

[51:30] 60%. You don't know who the households

[51:33] are at that time. So, you fix the rent

[51:36] and that creates predictability of

[51:39] revenue for the developer. So if you

[51:43] earn 25%

[51:45] you that rent doesn't change you're

[51:48] paying something that would have been

[51:50] affordable to 30. It's complicated but

[51:53] this is why we've had to these our

[51:55] housing developers caught this as they

[51:57] were reviewing it and found misalignment

[52:00] with other requirements in the industry.

[52:07] I I would move that we amend the

[52:11] proposed recommendation to include these

[52:14] changes to the definition of low-inccome

[52:16] housing. I'm not going to read all that.

[52:18] » Second.

[52:20] » All in favor?

[52:22] » I.

[52:23] » Any opposed?

[52:26] » It carries. Um I think probably the next

[52:30] uh modification to the open space. Um

[52:34] that one seemed usable open space.

[52:39] My my only question I was wondering if

[52:41] there's an alternative that says

[52:42] something like you know the requires 100

[52:46] square feet or the underlying zonings

[52:49] requirement whichever is less. you know

[52:52] in the future if we do some other change

[52:55] like

[52:57] that today's that it's the equivalent

[52:58] but you know do like carving out just

[53:01] urban village isn't as flexible as

[53:03] saying you know the lesser of this

[53:06] requirement or the underlying zoning is

[53:08] that helpful or

[53:11] » I can tell you why I argued for this

[53:14] argued we didn't really argue but we um

[53:19] some of our urban villages have that

[53:22] open space requirement in the transition

[53:24] zones.

[53:26] » And so

[53:29] we felt like anything that is that close

[53:31] to our core regard our urban villages

[53:34] should just be exempt from the open

[53:36] space. Mike, does that make sense?

[53:39] » I was wondering about RTS.

[53:41] » Yeah.

[53:42] » I mean, this is this is fine. But I

[53:47] think one of the things that we have

[53:49] noticed um obviously our codes change

[53:52] over the years um and they've gone

[53:54] through different revision cycles and

[53:55] that was part of the problem when I put

[53:57] together a list of what open space

[54:00] requirements were. It was so different

[54:04] um in so many different places and

[54:07] within the last year we have really been

[54:09] talking about open space and and private

[54:12] or I not open space but private usable

[54:14] space and and we through the

[54:16] comprehensive plan planning process um

[54:19] it's acknowledged that it is it's

[54:21] important we need to have these places

[54:23] um for people um especially as you start

[54:26] to get more dense u so

[54:29] we at this point we believe that the 100

[54:31] square feet is appropriate for all juris

[54:34] jurisdictions. Our codes just haven't

[54:36] been changed to catch up with that. And

[54:39] so I I think if if we were to fall back

[54:43] on the underlying zoning, um I'm I think

[54:47] that's going in the opposite direction

[54:49] and where we think we want to go with

[54:51] it. Um I think this this hundred the

[54:55] last the last code change that we made

[54:56] was 100 square feet. So,

[55:01] » So I think what you're saying right now

[55:03] is that this code will be ahead of any

[55:06] revisions that we make to other things

[55:07] and that then we're not trying to fix

[55:10] this code later.

[55:12] » Yeah, it's it's ahead of three quarters

[55:15] of them and consistent with the last

[55:17] quarter that we just did. So,

[55:21] we're getting closer. We're getting

[55:23] closer to 100%. Well, and then have you

[55:25] mapped out with parks kind of like in

[55:28] where these, you know, multif family

[55:30] districts are like does are there a lot

[55:33] of areas that would

[55:36] not have to meet the open usable open

[55:38] space requirement just because of that

[55:40] proximity?

[55:42] » Um, not yet. I what we have at a very

[55:45] high level um in relationship to this

[55:47] proposal, no. But what we've talked

[55:48] about is um if we start to make changes

[55:52] and allow that alternative to not have

[55:55] to provide it on site when you're close

[55:57] to other um

[56:00] parks or trails. We've we've taken that

[56:02] at a citywide perspective and said, you

[56:05] know, what would this look like if we

[56:06] didn't require it within a quarter mile?

[56:09] Um, and so we've mapped kind of the

[56:11] quarter mile areas of the parks

[56:14] throughout our city, but we didn't do it

[56:16] in context with this ordinance. We've

[56:19] did it in the context of that bigger

[56:21] discussion of when do we need private

[56:24] usable space and when not do we need it

[56:26] or could not need it.

[56:33] Well, I guess so.

[56:36] If a developer chooses to use this

[56:39] ordinance, then they have to use all of

[56:42] it.

[56:45] » That's correct.

[56:46] » Okay.

[56:46] » Yeah,

[56:51] » Good point. They don't have to go for

[56:53] this. They can just use the underlying

[56:56] situation. If there was

[56:57] » Yes,

[56:58] » For example, if there was no uh private

[57:01] usable space requirement in some area

[57:05] and

[57:07] you know they could choose what

[57:09] direction to go.

[57:10] » Correct.

[57:19] » Any further discussion on this item? I

[57:21] think uh

[57:24] » I guess I'm very supportive. Obviously,

[57:27] increasing height intensity lowers costs

[57:29] and streamlining all this helps it to be

[57:31] more affordable because it's outrageous

[57:33] that affordable housing costs more to

[57:36] develop than other housing. Um I think

[57:38] my I think I've been quiet partially and

[57:42] because as you said in support but also

[57:44] wondering kind of the extension um of

[57:47] this I understand now the the 100% was

[57:50] to keep it in line with um with what the

[57:53] city funds um so that was helpful

[57:55] clarification but just you know thinking

[57:57] about how this could extend going

[58:00] forward um with other properties that

[58:03] put in an affordability covenant or the

[58:05] underlying land easements or otherwise

[58:08] uh commit to long-term affordability and

[58:11] and having a a higher income cap um than

[58:15] the 80% AMI or or things like that. And

[58:18] just thinking about the 85 or 95, I'm

[58:22] forgetting what the four person um I

[58:24] think it was 95,000.

[58:27] Um, and just thinking about 30% of that

[58:32] or thinking about what a a house would

[58:35] cost to be only 30% of that depending on

[58:39] mortgage and principal, what 250 350,000

[58:42] off the top of my head. And thinking

[58:44] about that gap um that exists for

[58:49] people still making like up to 150

[58:51] 200,000. And so I'm very supportive of

[58:55] this and just like already thinking, you

[58:57] know, what does this mean for how we

[58:59] could further use this to develop, you

[59:03] know, affordable properties when there

[59:05] is that that gap?

[59:07] » I think it is something that potentially

[59:09] we should look at next is the

[59:12] multifamily tax exemption program. It

[59:14] might be a way. The state doesn't

[59:16] require those projects

[59:20] to have affordable units for a very long

[59:22] period of time. It's 12 years. I'm

[59:26] talking 50 here. So maybe there is um a

[59:30] bigger incentive that we might have to

[59:33] work with that would entice one of those

[59:36] projects to have longer affordability

[59:38] period than than what the state

[59:42] requires. So, we'll take that your

[59:45] comments into account and bring that

[59:46] back to our our leadership team.

[59:50] We figured you would want more maybe

[59:53] then but sometimes we've learned this. I

[59:56] have Rose has definitely learned this.

[59:58] You have to take that step and maybe

[1:00:01] take the next step. So, that's where

[1:00:04] we're at.

[1:00:05] I think the the last question, this is

[1:00:07] in line with the other question that I

[1:00:10] had previously, which is just looking

[1:00:12] forward to when we don't have single

[1:00:14] family residential, and I'm just

[1:00:17] wondering more about the density and

[1:00:19] floor area ratio side of that and how

[1:00:21] you might see that that gets implemented

[1:00:23] into the zoning uh once we make that

[1:00:26] change.

[1:00:29] Yeah, we've um as a part of this process

[1:00:32] uh we've been looking at our urban vill

[1:00:34] areas and our urban village areas is

[1:00:36] where those floor area ratios really

[1:00:39] come out and play, right? Um when we

[1:00:41] first started doing urban villages,

[1:00:42] flurry area ratio was an appropriate

[1:00:44] tool. Um

[1:00:46] as we do continuous process improvement,

[1:00:49] we learn things change. Um we are re we

[1:00:53] are reconsidering whether floor area is

[1:00:55] the appropriate mechanism. Um I think

[1:00:58] we've we've had this conversation here

[1:01:00] before um in front of you um about floor

[1:01:04] ratios and um

[1:01:07] we've we've updated some of our urban

[1:01:09] ver plans over the years and like the

[1:01:12] key things that we've updated when we do

[1:01:14] update it increase floor area ratios. Um

[1:01:17] so we know that what we've established

[1:01:19] probably aren't appropriate. Uh we know

[1:01:20] that we've got to go back at some point.

[1:01:23] Um

[1:01:24] and that's definitely on the forefront

[1:01:26] of our our minds.

[1:01:30] » We were just talking with sorry City of

[1:01:33] Bend yesterday and and um they wanted to

[1:01:36] learn how it's funny having a call from

[1:01:39] the city of Bend wanting to learn how

[1:01:41] how we've done things right here. Um but

[1:01:45] we

[1:01:46] we said to them, you know, some of these

[1:01:49] urban villages were planned 20 years

[1:01:51] ago. They were planned when our

[1:01:54] community was scared of a four-story

[1:01:59] building. Um so times are really

[1:02:01] different. I think we you would see us

[1:02:05] do it differently today. So, we do want

[1:02:07] to go back through and and and look at

[1:02:10] those codes and go, did we because we

[1:02:13] were we were trying to um all of those

[1:02:16] what if scary scenarios out there, maybe

[1:02:19] we created more barrier than we need to.

[1:02:22] So, we we are recognizing we'd like to

[1:02:25] to simplify the the urban village

[1:02:27] regulations as well.

[1:02:31] » A question for you. Are all of the

[1:02:33] lowincome projects that the city's

[1:02:35] currently working on rental units?

[1:02:39] » We have um

[1:02:42] well, Habitat for Humanity does

[1:02:44] currently I think they I can't recall

[1:02:47] Rosewood would know. We do work with um

[1:02:50] home ownership as well. Coulson

[1:02:52] Community Land Trust is our primary

[1:02:55] partner in the city. Habitat does a

[1:02:57] little bit work of work here, but mostly

[1:03:00] outside of the city. Um, but the the

[1:03:03] large production is with the rental

[1:03:06] units. And I think part of the issue

[1:03:08] with the home ownership model, Claire

[1:03:12] spoke to a little bit, the gap is really

[1:03:15] big between

[1:03:17] what what we can subsidize

[1:03:21] at 80% AMI and how affordability is more

[1:03:25] like what 200 AMI to afford a home. So

[1:03:29] that gap is really big. Otherwise, I

[1:03:31] think we'd see um something I'd like to

[1:03:34] see changed is allow us to go up on that

[1:03:38] AMI to like 120. I think then we could

[1:03:41] see a little quicker production. Does

[1:03:44] that

[1:03:46] » No, that answers the question. If you

[1:03:48] were going to put a percentage on it,

[1:03:49] what would it be?

[1:03:51] » 95

[1:03:52] » Probably.

[1:03:53] » Okay.

[1:03:59] When you just said if we were allowed to

[1:04:01] go from 80 up to a higher percentage,

[1:04:04] what do you mean allowed by like state

[1:04:06] regulations?

[1:04:07] » State of Washington.

[1:04:08] » State of Washington regulations.

[1:04:09] » Um, yeah, that's the that's what I would

[1:04:13] be looking for. Yeah. I do want to

[1:04:15] comment though, like remember the rental

[1:04:18] product is serving

[1:04:22] our most vulnerable community members.

[1:04:25] um that we we need that too. As much

[1:04:29] production of 30 and 40 and 50 as needed

[1:04:33] because we remember half or below the

[1:04:37] 100 level. So um it's desperately

[1:04:40] needed. We we could we could probably

[1:04:44] quadruple our our supply and still not

[1:04:47] have enough for those incomes.

[1:04:56] I think I'd like to go ahead and move

[1:04:58] forward with a motion to um adopt the

[1:05:01] recommended change to uh the

[1:05:05] um private usable open space

[1:05:07] requirement.

[1:05:10] » I'll second.

[1:05:11] » All in favor?

[1:05:13] » I I Any opposed?

[1:05:23] Yeah, that's it. Yeah,

[1:05:27] » That's what we did, right?

[1:05:28] » Yeah.

[1:05:29] » Um I have one other clarifying question.

[1:05:33] Um parking and design review are key

[1:05:36] parts of what we're on the bullet

[1:05:39] points. Um the parking is hardcoded as

[1:05:42] saying there will not be parking

[1:05:44] requirements for these. So depending on

[1:05:47] what happens with the interim ordinance,

[1:05:48] this says no parking requirements. The

[1:05:51] same is not true for design review.

[1:05:54] So

[1:05:56] if like we're this is still subject to

[1:05:59] like what happens with the interim

[1:06:00] ordinance on design review or does the

[1:06:02] state changes cover that here?

[1:06:05] » The state changes they really do because

[1:06:08] what they've said is cities can no

[1:06:10] longer have subjective design standards.

[1:06:12] We can only have objective design

[1:06:14] standards. So, um, we've gotten out of

[1:06:17] the game of, um, subjectivity.

[1:06:21] Uh, and so, anything that comes forward,

[1:06:24] uh, we are working in an interim

[1:06:25] ordinance, design review ordinance right

[1:06:27] now that employs objective design

[1:06:30] standards. We believe we've been letting

[1:06:33] them go through letting some of these

[1:06:34] projects go through make learning over

[1:06:36] the last you know six months what's

[1:06:38] working what's not working and they seem

[1:06:40] to be working well from both the

[1:06:42] developer side um as well as the staff

[1:06:45] side. So um

[1:06:48] they're I guess the the process is only

[1:06:53] going to get easier I think because of

[1:06:55] the state and what we're realizing

[1:06:58] having the objective standards. So do

[1:07:00] you think the range of outcomes that we

[1:07:03] will see in the next near near future

[1:07:06] from our interim design changes will be

[1:07:09] beneficial to this? We don't need to

[1:07:11] » Become a streamlining process. Um and it

[1:07:14] if you if you go back to what the

[1:07:16] interim rules did, the interim rules, we

[1:07:19] went through and had just updated our

[1:07:21] urban village uh design review standards

[1:07:24] and a lot of our other design review

[1:07:25] standards. And so what we did is we we

[1:07:28] just converted a lot of those newly

[1:07:31] adopted standards from subjective

[1:07:33] standards to objective standards and

[1:07:35] made them easier to follow. Um so

[1:07:40] yeah, I I I think what's going to end up

[1:07:42] happening is we'll probably continue to,

[1:07:45] you know, just see how these rules work.

[1:07:48] Um if they if we find any issues or

[1:07:51] concerns, we'll look at tweaking them.

[1:07:53] But the interim ordinance appears to be

[1:07:55] working well for everybody. Um, and from

[1:07:58] what we've seen on plan views, um, we

[1:08:02] don't believe we're losing quality, um,

[1:08:06] design quality in these projects.

[1:08:10] » Thank you.

[1:08:27] Sounds like we probably are getting

[1:08:29] close. Everybody, anyone want to make a

[1:08:31] motion?

[1:08:33] So, we've got two modifications that

[1:08:36] we've accepted. But any

[1:08:38] » We'll make a motion to adopt the

[1:08:43] uh what are we calling it? the

[1:08:46] low-income housing development incentive

[1:08:49] » Ordinance with the um adopted changes

[1:08:52] from earlier.

[1:08:56] » Second.

[1:08:57] » Second it. All right. All in favor?

[1:09:01] » I. Any opposed?

[1:09:05] Okay. Well, thanks.

[1:09:09] » Yeah. So, do we have any uh any more

[1:09:11] news for upcoming? Um,

[1:09:14] we have a meeting next week. Is that

[1:09:16] correct?

[1:09:17] » Look to to our our great

[1:09:20] » Since you were able to finish this item,

[1:09:23] you have the month of July off.

[1:09:30] » All right. Well, meeting journ. Thanks a

[1:09:32] lot.

[1:09:37] Heat. Heat.

Planning Commission

Agenda

Transcript