[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",5979394,"mediaKeyId","5792452-31ed375d344090d6bc469317f4867aaf","parentId",5792452,"title","Planning commission debates middle‑housing allowance and expansion of inclusionary zoning; staff to analyze incentives and impacts","audioSeconds",2231,"startMs",4970000,"endMs",7201000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5792452-31ed375d344090d6bc469317f4867aaf&start=4970&end=7201","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5792452-31ed375d344090d6bc469317f4867aaf/thumbnail_4970000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/5979394/Bothell/King-County/Washington/Planning-commission-debates-middlehousing-allowance-and-expansion-of-inclusionary-zoning-staff-to-analyze-incentives-and-impacts","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5979394-02d5b95d59f23e03a20bb8df42aca7c7/orig.mp4?Expires=1773671929&Signature=Bizd19V7ti-NcZHeh0rFj5ltYyzcDIGra76GsiVp25-8xvMS1X-pvSQtga7FbVkRhu4xVw4s1BPMZsSnnjllxOfGlezhw~ZKIhsIoZ5kccPpnxt2lAp6SelR9nfWKrYH9BHGF-tglD47Zfw2U6RA-koHTy7IG4XH8L9ogjVUd4xTYQgI0SSyCJjJvPpT63R8i~LinEkU8S67ZFELMGGM2qE~fO0GcSXlmfdQfxo99lbakv847mbCopVbm62Wj311m7688am~yRYfTeUQ6dkCDz8VpB5Uh7s~SG43hCCFGbox77wfaf09t3avLjMjO-Q3uSlOtfXvyeZ3zm4N1Z-0Hw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Bothell City, WA","date","2025-09-18T03:38:48Z","article","City of Bothell staff briefed the Planning Commission on Sept. 17 about proposed middle‑housing code changes and amendments that would expand the city’s inclusionary housing requirements.

Staff described two related proposals: a) a middle‑housing zoning adjustment to make allowances uniform across qualifying residential zones by allowing up to six units on eligible lots (the change mirrors the federal/state tier requirements staff referenced), and b) an expansion of mandatory inclusionary zoning from the current roughly 4% of residentially zoned acreage to a larger footprint (staff said expanding mandatory requirements to downtown, Canyon Park and RM‑3/RM‑4 zones would bring the coverage to about 32% of residentially zoned land).

Planner Ray Sosa and housing staff explained those changes in the context of recent state housing‑related legislation and Bothell’s HB‑driven housing targets. Staff emphasized the city must be intentional to meet state targets that require a substantial share of new housing be affordable at or below 80% area median income (AMI). Staff gave Eastside AMI examples used in outreach: roughly $82,000 for a single-person household and $106,000 for a three-person household at 80% AMI (figures presented by staff for regional context).

To make required affordability feasible for developers, staff proposed a package of incentives divided into two phases: near‑term incentives staff hopes to adopt by year‑end (permit expediting, fee reductions, height increases, impact‑fee adjustments and streamlined processing) and a second‑phase package to be completed next year that could include MFTE (multifamily tax exemption) revisions and other financial tools. Staff noted MFTE would remain voluntary where used, while inclusionary requirements would be mandatory in zones chosen for expansion.

Staff told the commission that deed‑restricted units produced under these programs would be administered regionally by ARCH (the Eastside housing referral and administration collaborative) and that ARCH and the city’s human services staff would help the city reach and place eligible households.

Commissioners gave mixed reactions. Several commissioners welcomed stronger, predictable middle‑housing allowances and expanded affordable‑housing tools but emphasized realism about developer economics:
- Commissioner Westerbeck and others urged incentives be stackable or otherwise sufficient so developers can deliver affordable units without abandoning projects for neighboring jurisdictions.
- Commissioner Gustafson and others warned mandatory inclusionary requirements at very low thresholds (for example, applying to 5–6‑unit developments) may deter small projects and suggested setting a higher unit threshold for mandatory inclusionary requirements or relying on fee alternatives that the city could deploy.
- Commissioners asked staff for data: current counts of existing dedicated affordable units, vacancy rates for those units, the size mix that would meet family needs, and the likely revenue impacts of fee waivers or reductions.

Staff reported next steps: continued outreach and technical work with developers and a consultant to model pro forma impacts and incentive sizing; a near‑term package of incentives aimed for adoption by year‑end; and a broader housing action‑plan engagement process next year to address unit mix, outreach to underrepresented groups, and implementation details. No formal vote was taken at the Sept. 17 meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of Bothell Planning Commission Meeting - Sept 17th, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","City of Bothell staff briefed the Planning Commission on Sept. 17 about proposed middle‑housing code changes to allow up to six units on qualifying lots and a parallel proposal to expand mandatory inclusionary zoning to more of the city to meet state affordability targets.","taxTitle","Bothell, King County, Washington","taxId",53919,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},5979400,"Planning commission reviews proposed critical area ordinance updates, including 100-foot riparian minimum and vegetative buffer standards",1750,3144000,4894000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5792452-31ed375d344090d6bc469317f4867aaf&start=3144&end=4894","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5792452-31ed375d344090d6bc469317f4867aaf/thumbnail_3144000.jpg","/articles/5979400/Bothell/King-County/Washington/Planning-commission-reviews-proposed-critical-area-ordinance-updates-including-100-foot-riparian-minimum-and-vegetative-buffer-standards","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5979400-492e0ff7e311f57f9ce3a72de5c8709a/orig.mp4?Expires=1773671929&Signature=lxTt3UDAbV9cgb8MjlTkkoLBAxrXjvwtTZwXR4W5xLtl3HxciMvMrzRDR4eX8~TuNhO2Oe8vnT6WUBgPAQAzvJDHV3tFZMptdDUvkoLBEgvcFiSv97-hat~a0QvYzai8x70ScVGU8ls0sNs7kbSUD-CQKLn9oOmkE4-HOz-b0GVcMWMwkGq17l-xlGsl9rG9-bP1UsZOCitup1XoneDAwi0VIV7NPY9FkG7XjaqAvfdSK4Rn-3QCFpOWhX8S7Pyz-sJScspi9vzrx6jqQMLuGuUeAP4fzVgPADtk9tFjC3jB-3QSUGYY0S0HZen~6CuOhOe5yZvgOBsN2W9-V0fSFQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City of Bothell staff presented proposed updates to the Critical Areas Ordinance at the Planning Commission study session Sept. 17, outlining a preferred approach that sets a 100‑foot minimum riparian management zone (RMZ) for streams, adds vegetative buffer standards, and recommends raising local SEPA exemption thresholds.

Planner Ray Sosa (carrying the item while colleague Jacqueline Sampson joined remotely) described the proposal as a mandatory CAO update drawing on the city’s best-available-science report and the state agencies’ recommendations. The staff recommendation sets a 100‑foot minimum buffer for all stream types to assure basic water-quality protections; staff explained this reflects Department of Fish and Wildlife minimums while offering predictability for applicants.

Sosa said the Fish and Wildlife and Department of Ecology analyses also describe an alternate approach tied to site-potential tree height, which can produce widely varying buffer distances (examples discussed ranged from roughly 90 feet up to more than 200 feet depending on soils and species). Staff recommended the fixed 100-foot floor because the site-potential approach would create sharp, parcel-level variation that would be difficult for applicants and staff to apply consistently.

Other proposed changes reviewed by staff include:
- Adding vegetative buffer standards and carrying those standards across wetland and stream buffers to incentivize native plantings, invasive species removal, restoration and maintenance.
- Deleting a variance section because existing code contains other flexibility tools (buffer averaging, reasonable use exceptions).
- Adding explicit nonconforming-structure standards so property owners understand what maintenance, repair or limited additions are allowed in a buffer.
- Retaining a predictability-first approach while offering incentives (for example, reduced buffer width where a high-quality vegetative buffer is provided).

Commissioners and staff discussed who would bear the cost of any soils/standards analysis if site-potential tree height were used: staff said property owners would be responsible for any site-specific soils or geotechnical work required to claim a smaller or larger site-specific buffer. Commissioner Westerbeck and others supported a simple, predictable 100‑foot minimum to reduce administrative cost and uncertainty; Commissioner Lever asked staff to clarify the developer/owner cost implications.

Staff also proposed raising the city’s SEPA threshold exemptions to levels similar to nearby jurisdictions (the packet referred to the jurisdictional “blue line” example used by Redmond), which would reduce SEPA review for larger projects that can meet the city’s built-in mitigation standards. Staff noted SEPA-exempt projects would still be publicly noticed and subject to city standards and appeals.

Staff told commissioners they will return with written comments from Department of Fish and Wildlife and Ecology and with finalized draft code language for Commission review; they expect to forward an ordinance to City Council in late 2025 for adoption. No formal action or vote was taken by the commission at the Sept. 17 meeting.

Throughout the discussion staff, commissioners and the public distinguished between discussion points (the options and tradeoffs), direction for further work (staff to obtain agency comments and prepare final draft code), and formal decisions (none at this meeting).","City of Bothell staff briefed the Planning Commission Sept. 17 on proposed updates to the Critical Areas Ordinance, including a recommended 100‑foot minimum riparian management zone and new vegetative buffer standards, and requested feedback before returning the draft to City Council.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},5979404,"Bothell planning commission reviews draft climate action plan, urges adoption with implementation details",2409,669000,3078000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5792452-31ed375d344090d6bc469317f4867aaf&start=669&end=3078","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5792452-31ed375d344090d6bc469317f4867aaf/thumbnail_669000.jpg","/articles/5979404/Bothell/King-County/Washington/Bothell-planning-commission-reviews-draft-climate-action-plan-urges-adoption-with-implementation-details","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5979404-5b7c7afac695382a68fd21c7a9b55193/orig.mp4?Expires=1773671929&Signature=XIhdDb7lSIEB9DFeKmEmoLPMpiOt98jYJpu6dcLD51k6zO~l~lZd8NqFqWefCYX7hDYxYWmh9BIG8i-q9yOwmv4h5Hfms9NKpgQgGKXMgyuTWGFE4UdfdXKR331tghbeCRUsdde1Nq5GiEqgCAkgdzy9ztVTtn8DciWnO3mWf~YirdbcjMXxo9DYqOGE20Nmbd9uMKtHgvbEKEJTG8BHLhXweP5fmrEkZgZBp2DhMX6MHeAmCAz4h2yCst~6B0FaVxRFyz3vQ8w-pE55npz~yidiAI3aH~9GZZW4P5j7jwHyoDAgxnvzDCKxEOpZtLNRT50UnF7wwPPEDfeaIlCdyg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The City of Bothell Planning Commission reviewed the draft Climate Action Plan update during a Sept. 17 study session, hearing staff presentations on public outreach, draft strategies, and next steps and expressing general support for recommending adoption to the City Council.

The commission was presented with an implementation-focused draft, public engagement results, and suggested edits. Planner Cameron Colvin summarized the yearlong project, saying the work included a city operations greenhouse gas inventory, two community workshops on transportation and buildings, two public surveys, and a month-long public comment period on a hosted review platform. Colvin said transportation is the largest local emissions source, followed by the built environment, and that state and federal policies will get the city some of the way toward targets but local actions are still needed.

The commission’s discussion focused on clarity and implementation rather than the plan’s goals. Commissioners praised the document’s layout and outreach, asked for clearer crosswalks to other city work (parking, transportation, housing), and pressed staff to provide more detail about funding, staffing and outreach to underrepresented groups. Commissioner Jones recommended adding Celsius/Fahrenheit conversions where both units are referenced; Commissioner Lever suggested addressing EV charging in the upcoming parking plan; Commissioner Gustafson asked for a brief note explaining recent declines in industrial-sector emissions; and Commissioner Oliver asked the presentation to note that the project stayed within its grant budget and identify remaining implementation funds.

Colvin told the commission the public comment period ran July 28–Aug. 31 on the Conveo platform, producing 1,302 total page views, 48 comments and 11 distinct commenters. Colvin said public feedback emphasized local context and potential barriers to implementation (for example, limitations of walking/biking for some trips and affordability overlaps). Staff added clarifying language in response, included locally submitted success stories (for example, a school-run clothing bank that partners with Northwest Center), and did targeted outreach to employers, the chamber, faith-based organizations, PTSAs and other community groups. The city’s DEI coordinator, Gabby, helped connect staff to community organizations and provided general demographic insight from those contacts.

Staff described incentives requested by businesses and organizations: clearer information on available funding, streamlined permitting for green initiatives, technical assistance, and targeted infrastructure investments (tree planting, heat-island reduction, expanded EV charging). Colvin said the city will use ARPA funds and other local resources to support implementation where possible, and that a Civic Spark fellow will start in October to advance EV charger analysis and gap mapping.

The planning commission did not take a formal vote but collectively signaled support for adoption after staff addresses the requested clarifications. Colvin said staff will refine findings, conclusions and recommendations and return to the commission on Oct. 1 to finalize and then brief the City Council before a mid‑November adoption hearing. Staff also noted outreach opportunities at the city’s upcoming Sustain-a-mania event.

Staff and commissioners repeatedly distinguished between discussion items (open questions about clarity, outreach and sequencing), direction to staff (prepare clarifying edits, funding/implementation lists, and follow-up analysis), and formal action (no adoption vote at this meeting).","City staff reviewed a revised draft climate action plan, summarized extensive public outreach, and the planning commission offered largely positive feedback while asking staff to clarify implementation, funding, equity outreach, and adaptation measures before sending a recommendation to city council for adoption.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning commission debates middle‑housing allowance and expansion of inclusionary zoning; staff to analyze incentives and impacts

Planning commission reviews proposed critical area ordinance updates, including 100-foot riparian minimum and vegetative buffer standards

Bothell planning commission reviews draft climate action plan, urges adoption with implementation details