Council advances comprehensive plan and opens inclusionary-zoning study; majority backs mixed-use focus and feasibility study

The Woodinville City Council on March 11 passed the first reading of the 2024 comprehensive plan update and launched a more detailed evaluation of inclusionary zoning, a regulatory tool that would require permanent affordable units within new residential development.

Planning staff opened the public hearing for Ordinance 781 and summarized changes since February, including added language to address environmental justice and technical updates to transportation and capital-facilities chapters. Robert Grumbaugh (planning staff) explained the Growth Management Act periodic-review requirement and noted the staff recommendation to incorporate clarifying language from state guidance. “The reason why we’re doing this is that there is a requirement…to do a periodic review,” he said.

Public testimony reflected a broad range of views. Troy Anderson, a resident and business owner, told council the plan balances growth and preservation and urged adoption. Several other speakers, including Alex Campbell and Lisonbee Farmer, pressed the council to adopt mandatory citywide affordability standards instead of concentrating affordable capacity in the GB/EMU rezone. Rick Chatterton, chamber chair, urged the council to protect small businesses and offered relocation-assistance and pop-up-space ideas.

The council amended the Eastrail mixed-use (EMU) rezone to exclude two parcels (B and C2) after a motion was made and seconded; staff confirmed removing those parcels would keep the plan compliant with housing-capacity targets. The motion passed in roll-call vote.

Council then recessed the hearing and moved into a study session on inclusionary zoning. Planning staff defined inclusionary zoning consistent with the comprehensive plan: a regulatory requirement that "permanent" affordable units remain income-restricted for at least 50 years. Staff reviewed examples from other cities and warned of legal considerations: inclusionary requirements must avoid a regulatory scheme that would amount to an unlawful taking of private property without compensation.

Council discussion produced three recurring directions: (1) prioritize inclusionary zoning in mixed-use zones (CBD, TB and EMU), (2) examine whether and how residential zones might be included but proceed cautiously, and (3) commission a consultant feasibility study to test economic impacts, thresholds, and in-lieu fee calculations before adopting mandatory percentage targets. Several council members emphasized pairing minimum requirements with incentives — "carrots and sticks" — such as density bonuses or multifamily tax exemptions to make projects financially feasible.

What’s next: Staff will develop a scope and cost estimate for a feasibility study and brief the Planning Commission; the council signaled it expects Planning Commission analysis and a subsequent ordinance drafting process before any mandatory standard would be adopted.

Quotations from the meeting are attributed to speakers who spoke on the record. The council did not adopt a final inclusionary percentage at this meeting; instead it provided policy direction to staff and Planning Commission.