good evening and welcome to the August
28th meeting of the planning policy
commission tonight we are going to
continue our discussion of the comp plan
tonight we're going to talk about
the Human Services element and the
housing element but before that
has everybody read the minutes from the
last meeting
do I have a motion to approve
um
any discussion
all those all those in favor say aye
opposed
need a red light there ah there we go
so RIT is a partnership formed in the
early 90s started with three cities and
now is all 14 cities that are within
East King County
um our job is our board of directors are
the chief Executives of all the
jurisdictions so we are not a separate
legal entity we are instead an entity
that is here to support the work of
cities to work on a wide range of issues
affecting housing and most particularly
more times than not affordable housing
so tonight I'm sort of here as part of
the planning staff and so this is
something I've been working with your
city and a number of others over the
years a couple of contextual points in
terms of thinking of the growth
management act or what we're doing here
tonight
and that is we will be looking at under
the growth management act which is the
originator of the requirements for doing
comprehensive plans there is language in
there related to housing and affordable
housing and so one of those requirements
is that cities should be planning for
all economic segments of the community
they also should be doing a wide range
of densities and types and varieties of
Housing and they should also look at
preserving as well as new housing and so
that's the language it's not very much
that's in the in the growth management
act about housing but it's pretty basic
and pretty encompassing information
requirements the other part that is very
specific about the process is a housing
needs analysis and that's the document
that your attachment a today what the
cities in East King County decided to do
this go round of updating comprehensive
plans was to do a single housing needs
analysis when Arch was formed we drew a
circle and that we the people who are
involved saying housing issues there's a
Citizens task force with a wide range of
people from the community and
professions saying housing markets are
not defined by City boundaries there is
a lot of overlap on how housing
conditions affect one another in an area
and so the our sphere of influence was
was drawn as basically what we thought
was a housing market area so it goes
from the border of King County on the
North down to Issaquah Newcastle Mercer
Island and from Lake Washington out to
the urban growth line so so
that's the context of why we formed Arch
is there's probably a lot of
similarities and this is Mike Stanger
who just walked in um he did a lot of
the work with your staff on both the
needs analysis and on the
um on the comprehensive under plan
policies so the concept was in doing a
needs analysis is there's a lot more
similarity than there are differences
between the jurisdictions so the
document that you had and I'm going to
go through some of the information is
saying let's look at sort of tell the
story of East King County and noting
where there are significant differences
between cities and that's this first
section the second section that you have
in there is related to specifically
Issaquah every one of the jurisdictions
we are writing sort of a subsection say
where do you sort of stand out as being
different and also one of the other
components of that on page 2-4 of the
packet of the needs analysis is sort of
a summary of some of the things you've
done keep in mind that this is an update
and that this city has been working on
the issue of housing for 20 years and so
there's a lot of things you already have
been doing and so in that we tried to
highlight some of the activities the
city has already been undertaking and
then the last section is lots of data so
we take sort of all the charts and we
let you look at your town so you can
compare it to those county-wide averages
or these King County averages so that
you can really see some of the Nuance so
so that is a requirement to do a needs
analysis that is explicit requiring GMA
the way we approach this is meeting the
requirement for everybody and we thought
it was more cost effective and efficient
for us but we also thought it's very
helpful for cities to understand the
broader Community the broader market
area that they're part of
um the then the next layer is there are
county-wide planning policies so that's
where jurisdictions from a county get
together and they establish some broad
county-wide policies that guide the
different elements and so that went
through a pretty major update in the
last go around a year and a half ago and
so part of the statements that are in
there and that's where there's more
specific language is one local
government does have a role in housing
it may not be the direct provider of
housing but things you do influence your
housing markets both indirectly and
directly that there are needs for very
low low and moderate income before we
had low and moderate now we're saying
we're recognizing that there's another
income category that was sort of folded
into one that we realized the
differences and we'll come back to that
in a minute
that we all want to strive to meet a
proportion a chair and the main thing
that sort of came out of this process is
we realized not all the cities are the
same so instead of sort of focusing on
numbers we say focus on understanding
your differences and targeting your
efforts to try to meet proportionate
needs based on local conditions
so that's kind of and then the other
part is watch what you do and respond if
your first go at it doesn't get all the
results you look at go back and look
again understand what happened and try
to go and update your activities and
things and so that's probably where a
lot of the cities are now is because
they have been planning this is an
opportunity to look at this and say
where might we go next are we doing the
right thing should we modify any or
should we move forward and we'll come
back to that as well
so that gives you the basic context of
where you're starting from and now
working on your comprehensive plan now
I'm going to go into some background
data and what I'm going to ask you to do
is when I finish going through the data
I want you to re one ask questions as
we're going along if you want but second
I want you to Talk Amongst yourselves
what were the two or three things when I
go through this information that really
stuck most in your mind that maybe seems
most relevant and you thinking about
addressing housing and especially
affordable housing needs in your
community so that's what I ask you to do
and share after I go through some of
these slides here
first is what do we mean by
affordability in the levels under the
growth under the counterweight planning
policies we Define three levels of
affordability one is defined as thirty
percent of median the second and that's
very low income uh that's the
terminology we use uh in this County low
income is fifty percent of median and
moderate income is 80. so what you can
see in this chart very low income is
still an annual income of eighteen to
twenty six thousand dollars a year okay
so it's not like you're not that's above
minimum wage okay so that's something to
keep in mind ten dollars an hour
translates to about twenty thousand
dollars a year
um low income and that and then we're
showing you rents so for rental units
that means a rent of about 450 to 650 a
month keep those numbers in your head
for a minute when we show you what
average rents are
um low income and you see the figures
are here about 750 for a single person
up to about a Thousand Eleven Hundred a
month is what they can afford incomes of
30 to 43 000 a year moderate income is
48 to 70 almost 70 000 a year depending
on house up size and it means you can
afford twelve hundred to Seventeen
hundred a month and now you're starting
to think about home ownership at that
income level maybe 180 to Mid 200s just
some context to keep in mind as we're
going through here
um now what we've done in the county
away planning policy says what are the
proportion of households in each of
those income categories in the account
when we look at county-wide and the
figure is it's about 12 each and both
the low and the very low and low so
there's twenty four percent of all
households are either very low or low
income and there's nothing new that was
the case 20 years ago that in our region
and in probably most regions you can
probably expect at the incomes the way
we Define them almost 24 for all percent
of all households split evenly will be
very low and low income another 17 18
are in that moderate income range
okay so combined that's just over 40
percent of all households are in these
definition levels that we consider and
focus on when we talk about affordable
housing per se
um and then you can see the ranges for
different income levels okay so that's
the starting point that's what we know
the household income mix is
housing planning is all about trying to
find housing that meets the profile of
your community yes
um does this data take into account
those within those income levels that
are homeless or is it simply those that
are already housed this is the entire
population this is all coming from
Census Data Census Data attempts to be
all-encompassing so it should
theoretically include homeless okay
um so
the thing to keep in mind and then you
know so one layer that you're trying to
address is income and the other layer is
going to be demographics which we go
into and ideally you can create a grid
and you can figure out how many
households there are by income and
seniors and families and everything like
that and that tells you what your
housing needs are okay and that's kind
of what the housing needs analysis tries
to help a community understand is what
is the range of types of needs in your
community
but that was that range of income splits
that's the key of how we try to work in
King County is theoretically every
County should every city in the county
would ideally have housing affordable at
about that income mix
that would generally be what your needs
are okay then we're going to show you
some numbers in a few minutes and that's
going to show you we're not quite there
okay now the first thing we know is well
where is all this demand for housing
coming from
and what we've seen in East King County
is it's coming from primarily your
Workforce
and the starting point that we look at
is when we look at our Workforce and
this is what this slide is trying to
show us we look at our Workforce and we
can guesstimate how many housing units
your Workforce needs there's about 1.3
workers per household okay 1.3 1.4 on
average is how many workers per
household there are in the in in the
area so therefore if you had 140 000
jobs you need a hundred thousand housing
units okay so what this is showing you
is if you were at 1.0 it says you have a
number of housing units equal to the
demand from your Workforce if you're
below which is what we used to all be in
East King County it means you have more
housing units than there is demand from
your Workforce if you go above one it
means there's more demand for housing
from your Workforce than you have
housing units so what this is showing
you is we're only going from present to
future in this one we're saying and we
have several different Geographic areas
because it's not just about one city
it's about how neighboring cities all
add up because if one city had a ton of
jobs but all the sounds right next to it
didn't then that may be fine so what we
try to do is show you here what that
balance looks like when you look at
first your city and then expanding
outward work and so in Issaquah you are
currently at about 1.5 you have a lot
more jobs and demand for housing than
you do housing you're playing the middle
bar is showing you based on your growth
targets what that ratio would be based
on your growth targets and it's a
whopping 2.5 you have the highest jobs
housing ratio I think from a planning
ratio and in the if you look in the
needs analysis we have every city so you
can look but you're basically and we
have references to the page in the
appendix where you can find those
um and so when you add your growth to
what you have today that's what the last
bar is where you would land if you grow
according to your plan targets and as
you can see you go from 1.5 closer to
1.9 now the thing is what we're showing
you is what does probably more
importantly is what's going on in East
King County and you can see in East King
County we're about 1.25 1.3 we used to
be in about a long time ago in like
1980s we were like 0.8 or 0.7 we went
over one at about the early 90s and then
we're now at about 1.251.3
our plans are to be at 1.5 which means
we average out around 1.35 1.4
we are planning ourselves to have a
higher imbalance than we currently have
that's the same
and you can see here how that compares
to other the county as a whole and even
to Seattle and what's interesting here
is in the old days like in the 70s and
80s Seattle was the one that had the big
imbalance because they were the core of
a region okay and what you're seeing is
we now have two areas we have Seattle is
a core and now we have the east side of
the core as well yes so is this we're
planning for more jobs in housing then
is there a reason why we're doing that
I'm just kind of curious well everyone
well I um the county the county as you
can see here is planned to be somewhat
above one because they look at the whole
state and this people in the state tell
each County what to do and say under GMA
you have to plan for this much
employment and they're probably looking
at history in King County as you can see
well it's about Eagle here and so they
say well we're expecting more jobs to
land in King County it's sort of the
projection is that you know the the
forecasters at the state level how that
gets distributed around the county the
focus was more around centers we wanted
the growth to occur in the centers
um rather than where the transit's being
planned for and they didn't Focus as
much on sub-regions and so all the
cities came up with these figures all
the cities get together and say who's
willing to take how much and so it's a
the process within the county-wide
planning policy where all the cities in
the county and the Seattle get together
and say who's going to take how much
growth in the plan for how much
one other thing too is when we did the
central plan
is why we put so much housing in it
try to help our balance of jobs and
housing house and that's why there's in
the Eis versions the two options we
chose the one that had more housing job
balance than the more jobs even though
jobs are really nice for the economics
but we realized we were already a little
out of balance with housing
I don't think I ever would have guessed
that just by like
just my gut I probably wouldn't have
guessed that number I'm just kind of
interesting right but again like I said
it's important to look at especially on
this figure the whole market area and
that's why it's when we started seeing
these figures 15 10 years ago we've made
it something we've really tried to point
out the cities because a lot of cities
go well we're high but someone it'll
work somewhere else
and who was driving last night
or wasn't driving last night moving last
night okay
um
now so you have jobs
the next question is what's the income
of your jobs
so what this is showing you is
yeah there's some pretty nice paying
jobs in East King County but there's a
whole lot of other jobs that fall in
this 50 percent and 80 income range
okay which is natural since that's what
incomes are there's a lot of jobs that
mirror that so we tried to give you
examples
of jobs that fall in those income ranges
retail Medical
office support
a wide range of types of jobs government
official you know police officers
teachers people who work for school
districts besides the teachers
and that sort of demonstrated in this
slide
somebody from one of the local
affordable housing developments whose
rents you have to have incomes below
anywhere from 30 percent or 50 or 60
percent of median so that's the highest
income you can have to live there
and here is a sort of a profile of
people living in that building and where
their jobs are
okay and this is an East King County
development
and this is a survey they did of all the
people when they moved in where they're
working or those who work not everyone
works but most of the people do work who
live in the building there are some
people on disabilities but other people
work gives you a sense of the range of
types of jobs they have and where they
work
and this other slide here also is trying
to show you similar things at different
income levels and 15 an hour translates
to thirty thousand dollars a year or
fifty percent of median and
um forty thousand twenty dollars an hour
is 40 000 a year which depending on
household size is anywhere just below 50
percent to around 60 70 percent of
median so this gives you just an idea of
the range of we have many people in our
community who are earning these salaries
that are low in mod that are part of our
our economy
related to that
um we made we had a conversation with
the um
what's the committee this the economic
Vitality committee
and they did a survey what was that two
years ago now
and this is the result of the survey one
of the top concerns of employers in this
community is retaining and recruiting
employment because of housing costs
so that's kind of the primary driver of
demand in terms of income the secondary
or not secondary but the other angle is
what's your demographics what's the
profile of people in your community the
households
what we're seeing is in East King County
cities are becoming more and more
similar and they're becoming more and
more similar to county-wide averages 24
five years ago when I first showed up
here higher proportion of families
now the mix of households is very
comparable on household sizes to
county-wide averages age profile is very
similar as a whole
um and we're also starting to see that
we're not seeing as big a shifts as we
saw from like 70 to 80 to 90 in terms of
getting closer to that average it's kind
of like we got there and we're seeing
the area looking more mature communities
where the communities have been built
people are there and you've always been
sort of that way you're one of the older
communities on the east side so you've
always kind of had some of that profile
so your population mix is more similar
your household types is more similar
home ownership rate is more similar
interestingly
Issaquah used to have a very low home
ownership rate
in the mid 40s
about 30 years ago this is actually a
city that used to have a lot of
multi-family proportionately
and a lot of rental households more so
than almost any other community is King
County and in the last 20 years 25 years
you're now to a point where your
homeownership rates are about 66 percent
which is right on Mark with county-wide
averages
um you also have a little bit more cost
burden households and stuff so I'm going
to go through a few slides to show you
some of that but what we're really
seeing is East King County is becoming
more more and more like the rest of the
county more diverse more kinds of mix of
households so what you have
is you have
64 percent of households are one or two
person households
okay
um and that's either living alone or
married with no children at home
okay so the vast you know for the
majority of households are one and two
person households what does that mean
for housing it may mean should we
encourage A diversity of forms of
housing to accommodate this diversity of
household sizes okay
um seniors
um in general your senior population is
similar to the rest of the county but
one thing
that is noticeable is you have a fair
number of seniors over the age of 75.
and then maybe because you have a number
of housing facilities with services that
can take care of seniors who are over 75
or any senior who have needs or services
um we've also seen things like seniors
who rent are more likely to be what we
call Cost burden and I'll come back to
that in a minute
um and as I said use you from a city of
your size and there's information on
this and the housing needs analysis you
have a relatively high amount of senior
focused housing in your community
so kossberg
this is sort of where everything comes
together
so how much do people have to pay to
live in their housing and so we we have
two terms that we use cost burden which
means you pay more than 30 percent of
your income for housing sort of a
National Standard if you pay more than
30 percent you're probably potentially
starting to struggle with meeting other
needs the other is severely cost
burdened that means you're paying over
half of your income for housing
um what we're seeing is we're going to
show you some figures that for renters
almost half the renters who are cost
burdened are severely cost burdened and
about a third of homeowners who are cost
burdened or severely cost burdened okay
so what does that look like
and it's getting what we're showing you
in this slide is it's getting a little
bit higher that the number of households
who are cost burden is increasing both
county-wide and in East King County
and you can see that the proportion of
households who are severely cost
burdened is also going up both in East
King County and in King County and
you're right there at the East King
County levels if not even a little bit
higher a little bit higher okay
um one of the things I watched happen in
Issaquah
is you used to be a town of relatively
affordable rents you're now a town of
some of the highest rent levels in East
King County which means you have some of
the highest rent levels period
okay
the other thing that we've tried to show
here is cost burden
is much higher proportions of households
who are lower and very low income
so you can see here over 80 percent of
households in the 10 to 20 000 income
range are cost burden and it drops down
very much as you go as your income goes
up so that cost burden is is focused
more on the very low and low income
households the other is for renters in
particular
but both ends but especially for renters
that the households who are cost per in
their young younger or older
okay that's where you see higher
proportions of those who are cost
burdened not necessarily totally
surprising but just that's what the data
tells us
you mentioned homelessness earlier we
are trying to address homelessness it's
a phenomenon that is not just in the
central cities we do one-night counts
around here we have service agencies
who've been serving homeless for decades
in the East King County area
and the homeless they're serving are
coming from our communities they're not
coming from somewhere else in fact if
anything
you see more of people from other parts
of the county who have to go to Seattle
because there's nowhere else to get
Services okay so
um so that's something we've seen we've
opened up several winter shelters the
last few years Emergency Shelters and
those are full and they're primarily
people who are from our communities in
East King County in East King County we
probably have more families who are
homeless than on the average for the
county as a whole and as you can see
that's last bullet this is from a few
years ago about 17 percent of homeless
single adults are from the East side
from that's basically the place that
sort of takes all the calls they kind of
ask where it was your last place of
residence and things like that yes
um now working with archer working uh
regionally has there been any impact I'm
looking specifically at the second to
the last bullet point in terms of uh
homelessness women in women with
children has there been any uh
statistics or surveys done in I believe
about the last six months to a year on
the
um count on the Seattle jobs assistance
ordinance and the impact on homelessness
in that population
the job assistance ordinance it was the
one put forth by um
I cannot remember the name of the
organization but it was regarding use of
criminal background information
in Seattle jobs jobs within the city of
Seattle I don't know
we'd have to follow up and see if we can
find that out but I know the people who
might know so we can ask okay
okay and was that the question was there
really yeah yeah it was something and
then a follow-up to that is has there
been analysis as as to whether that's
holding true within East King County
specifically as far as that bullet point
about the domestic violence yes and
homelessness
we have a group
um oh darn it lifewire
every non-profit out there has changed
their name in the last 10 years as I
have to formally Eastside domestic
violence who runs several homeless
programs in East King County in fact we
funded their first one through Arch like
20 years ago so we know they have been
dealing with homeless families who are
experiencing it so I don't know if it's
half but we are seeing that the issue of
domestic violence and linkage to
homelessness for for families and women
with children is definitely true here
so unfortunately they've been more than
busy enough
there is hope
so what's our housing Supply look like
I've alluded to this to some extent
county-wide average rents are affordable
in the moderate income range and I'm
going to show you something I think in a
minute that's a little bit of a scary
Trend that I hope is a short-term one
and rents in East King County
are higher in general than rents in the
rest of the county so Renton East King
County are typically higher
um we've seen
rents over time seem to go up and down
with median income
but in the last two years at least we
have seen a much higher increase in
rents than income and I don't know if I
have
the slide I'm looking for
um maybe the next one but what this
slide is trying to show us is
how many housing units are there that
are affordable at 50 percent of median
rental units
of your Total Rental Supply are
affordable at 50 of media
and you can see here
the blue is how many units and the green
bar is what percent of units so as you
can see we have a much lower percentage
now might say well how many renters are
low income anyway so do some simple math
in your head
I just told you that over 60 percent of
households are homeowners
that means about 36 percent of
households are renters
hey Rick that's simple
now I just told you that
what percent of households are low in
moderate income
42 percent 43.
now I'm not trying to say renters are
always a lower income range and owners
are but it gives you a pretty good idea
that the vast majority of renters are
going to be low income and moderate
income
okay I mean that's there's nothing wrong
with that that's just the natural curve
I mean if 40 of all households are low
and moderate
and just given what it takes to own a
home
a very high proportion of renters are
incomes at 50 because remember 24 and
that 42 are low income
so do a little simple math in your head
and the point I'm trying to make is a
whole lot of the renders are earning low
income or moderate income
need to go out and take over the rentals
which will allow the people who own them
to raise the rents well darn it I didn't
put that graph where's that graph in the
chart in the table
the one that shows changes in rent over
time
and home prices I'm trying to remember
where a certain chart is
and basically
the point that is at 835 I believe
thank you
that's it and I think we have a graph
though in the main body of the report
but actually so you can visually see
what it looks like
um
and I want
whoever can see it because okay so if
you go to page 118
you can there's several little charts
which is paid 22 of your packet
I think is it which is the right numbers
to use the one in the lower corner are
the ones in the middle uh whichever one
because once it's 19 of 85 and the other
says 22 of 88 so if you go to the lower
corner space 22 and that'll be page 26
in the revised packets oh that's right
we have the old package sorry
so I don't know
you say again which page you're on I'm
going to let someone who has the current
package say the page number the one that
you should have I'm off a couple it
sounds like
and that's
it's the one that has these all these
little you're on the right one so yeah
it's page 1988 1-18 of the actual needs
analysis
1-18
of the needs analysis so it's about page
20.
of the packet
so people have that
so I can't what you're seeing there and
what isn't on here is 2014 and 2014 I
saw something I've never seen in 30
years
the average rent in East King County
are at 80 of media
if you look back at the history you can
see that top light bar is 80 what you
can afford for rent at 80 percent of
median the second bar is what average
rents have been in East King County
we just got the 2014 data it's hit the
bar I've never seen that in 20 years
and I've never seen an average rent
that's like at 80 percent of median
other than like maybe the Silicon Valley
um so what's making that happen is it
people coming into the rental market who
used to be in the ownership Market is
that job growth is it there was no
housing growth being built for three
years because you can see it also drops
pretty quick in some periods when you
look back over time
but I've never seen it let itself get
that high and I don't know what that
means I don't know if it's going to drop
a lot more or there's just so much more
employment over here they can you can do
it
then we have our job growth they can you
know so is it the job growth or people
entering the rent I don't know what's
the proportion it's all of those things
at least I think it's all of those
things
okay
um now
let's see let's skip the page so then
what's our housing Supply look like and
how are we doing towards meeting our
goals the main thing is the cities are
able to and have been meeting their
goals for overall housing growth that's
the main and that you have enough land
planned to
um
meet your future planning growth goals
so everybody all the jurisdictions
theoretically have enough capacity
um the other is yeah we saw a drop in
home ownership rates for the last three
years but we're still above 60 percent
which is historically a rate that's when
we're generally pretty healthy economy
where we've been at
um
now what is different than when I first
showed up here
1990 is many of the cities like
yourselves are planning much of your
future housing growth for your centers
so you're not alone there
Bellevue over 80 percent of their
capacity is in their centers their mixed
use centers primarily downtown in Bel
Red Redmond is also at almost 80 percent
of their growth is planned for scent
downtown breadman and Overlake
but many jurisdictions you're in there
as well you're right up there Your
Capacity is in your centers so you're
all planning and very similar now a lot
of that's pretty positive in a lot of
ways it could be very positive
but it also is something to be cognizant
of for a couple reasons
or things that we've thought about when
we when we look at this first
it's a mixed use of some of them haven't
had housing will the housing really
happen
they've made more historically
commercial or office so is housing going
to work
the second is that housing as
multi-family housing is more expensive
to build than the garden style stuff we
were building 20 years ago
it's more sophisticated buildings fire
sprinkler systems structured parking
they're more elaborate buildings that
have a more expensive envelope to create
so how does that affect affordability
third is this is where we want all of
our growth to go
so it doesn't mean just singles which is
what everybody talked about 20 years ago
is that these are going to stay vibrant
communities long term they probably need
to address a wide range of your housing
needs for families singles all kinds of
households if they're going to continue
to be vibrant so how do you make sure
these neighborhoods are such that the
market wants to provide that housing and
build it so there's a real challenge
here is you're not reserving this land
for housing long term
you're creating an opportunity and
you're hoping that you get a balance in
these areas but there's no guarantee
through your zoning that you will get
that balance
okay
and we're not saying that's good or bad
we're just putting that out there for
everyone to keep in mind because a lot
of these centers have very little if any
housing right now
Bel Red I think there's a hundred units
okay and they're planning for there to
be 5 000.
okay now we are seeing a new building
there now this year getting built so
that's you know okay looks like it might
start happening
um
affordable housing that's my last point
before we get into your policy stuff how
are we doing on affordability
we've met about 66 percent of our goal
and I'm going to have a chart in a
second appendix s has some detail for
you issaquah's had been meeting about 62
percent when we had all the cities
together and we had all their goals for
affordability up it's about 66 and it's
basically your goal is 24 of your growth
an amount equal to 24 of your growth you
would like to see be affordable to low
income
and
17 18 of your growth you'd like to see
affordable to moderate income that was
sort of the old approach the new
approach is to say look at all your
total housing Supply and if you're not
to those percentages you should be
trying to get as close to them as you
can
but these numbers here are based on
saying based on your growth projections
if you had 20 an amount equal to 24
percent
then you would have you got 66 percent
of the way there
um and you I mean I'm sorry for the this
is moderate income that's your eight
that's your 80 so that's you got 66
percent of the way there for the
moderate goal
for low income for less than a quarter
of the goal for low you know at one
level that's not bad it's not nothing so
that's good but it's a quarter of what
the need is based on your growth
and that's what this chart which is in
your appendix is showing you and the
thing that I just want to point out here
is to reach low income we use when we
work with cities or cities are using a
variety of ways to try to create housing
affordable to all income levels and in
particular low and moderate and that is
first the market
if you plan right the market you know
ideally the market would take care of
all our needs that's how we like to do
things in this country for housing we
like the market to do it okay or
everything we can to have the private
Market meet the needs and so the first
step is what do cities allow I mean you
used to hear in the 70s 80s even even
recently HUD would go after National
Housing Department go after cities
because they'd only zone for
single-family housing okay and so how
are you going to have affordability if
everything's single-family this region
hasn't been guilty of that for a very
very long time well over 50 percent of
your capacity has been multi-family for
a very long time and that's the first
step to having affordability so you've
actually managed through the market to
create housing that's affordable
technically at moderate income now
remember I said Market rents are about
80 or less most of these units in new
construction and the thing to understand
is new construction rents are pretty
Common Sense higher than average rents
it's just the nature of the beast
but you still manage to get almost 2 800
units built through the market that met
the test of being affordable to moderate
income most of them were small
apartments one bedroom Studios that were
rental very few ownership and how do we
know this we survey every new
multi-family building built since 1995
in East King County when they open up
and we say what are your rents or what's
your sale price and so we've been
tallying that forever the second
approach is using incentives
something that gets the market to still
do it without direct subsidy so that's
your MPD your master plan communities
that said Builder we're going to let you
change a hillside into a developed
community in exchange for some
percentage of those units must meet an
affordability test so that's a major
land use incentive more and more cities
in East King County are doing that you
did that with several other developments
now the central Issaquah plan requires
in one area
incentivizes other areas say more
density
affordability for a portion of those
units accessory dwelling units allowing
mother-in-law apartments and units in
single-family homes are considered by
definition affordable to moderate did
you have a question yeah I do looking at
exhibit S1
um you know it looks like we're we're
failing and and having the market bring
about affordable housing
for for low income for Issaquah yes
um
what what are Kirkland and Bothell doing
that we're not because it seems like the
market has been um
okay what is Bible done yeah waffles in
the right part it's in an area where
rents are lower
okay they don't have
they're they're it's interesting they're
North County
their housing costs their jobs housing
balance is a little more in line I don't
know what all the factors are but
they're sort of on an edge of the
housing market area that in general
rents are a little bit more affordable
yeah so I guess my question would be
more towards Kirkland where the average
uh rate is more in line with ekc
um in that the rents tend to be higher
in Kirkland uh more in line with
Issaquah and they've got 43 units
created by the market okay so the 43 in
that one
it's a college
that built housing for students
so that's why that 43 happened there
okay
right so those are anomalies that they
were both student healthy so is there
anything that could be done to bring the
market about right so you're that was
the point I was just that was my next
step which is to get to low income we've
always seen now some of these units have
land use incentives but land use
incentives alone have very rarely
allowed us to get to 50 immediate now
Kirkland is trying something right now
and we'll see in the next few years if
it works
um it was my last slide before we get to
the policies is about range of
strategies and approaches Kirkland has
attempted to say we're going to give you
this we're going to give you this we're
going to give you this and we hope that
when we do those three things instead of
asking for units at 70 or 80 percent of
median we're going to tell you we want
them at 50 immediate
so that's when we're designing programs
you can sort of go oh hmm we used to
give you for every unit
extra we gave you we won in the
affordable unit at 80 in Media
Sammamish said
we'll give you two because we want them
at 70 percent of media
okay Kirkland has said we're going to
give you two and a half and we're going
to give you a property tax exemption so
we're going to add that all up and
that'll get us some units at 50 percent
of median so you can take all of these
tools and put an economic value on them
and how you decide to marry them
together and what percent you can either
ask for more units that are at a higher
rent level or fewer units at a lower
rent level okay so that's part of the
secret of how Kirkland managed to and
that number we hope will go go up some
more because they had one building I got
one building that's going to give us
like three or four units at 50 percent
of media we're hoping in the future
there'll be some more
but most of the time it's still hard to
get all the way to 50. it's more likely
with the land use incentives and working
with the market that you might get to 60
or 70 to get all the way to 50 of
medians pretty darn hard and right now
just looking at M1 the affordable
housing stock the 22 10 numbers it looks
like we've got a surplus in available
housing at 81 to 100 percent of Ami and
pretty stable on the 51 to 80 percent
the moderate income yes so
remember that chart I showed you
that showed what proportions of
households are paying
um actually where's the chart that has
the X on it
so showing people paying less than 20
percent
101.
no I took it out of the slideshow
because I only had so many slides
uh I don't think I did
while we're measuring people who are you
know I showed you that slide that showed
you lower income people 80 or cost
burden um
we have one slide that we've used I'm
sure it's underneath analysis the X okay
where we showed how many What proportion
of households pay less than 20 percent
of their income for housing okay now
I've lived here for 24 years
don't even begin to ask me what
percentage of my income am I now paying
for my house that I bought in 1990 and
I've never moved
okay it's not 30 it's not 20 that as
incomes go up a much higher proportion
of households pay less than 20 percent
of their income on housing so what's
happening there is
yeah you have housing that's equal there
so one the people are lower income are
having to flip and pay those units and
they're why they're cost burden right so
you it's not like all of a sudden those
people make more so they're cost burden
and then you have some people who are
paying a lot less than 30 of their
income in those units so that's kind of
how when you put the two over on top of
one another is yeah you've got to quote
a surplus at a hundred but you got a lot
of people in the one the 120 who are
electing to get that rent at 100 a
meeting who could afford more but hey
what the heck why not and then you have
all those people with lower income they
don't have any other choice so they're
paying 30 to 50 or more percent of their
income to be in that unit
okay so the stress on the system is much
more on the lower half of the income
than the higher half because the higher
half benefits by paying less than 30
percent of their income
that's sort of how it plays out
okay so that leads to kind of
the last well no before I get into sort
of the next steps is well let me do one
more and I'll come back to this one
so which cities have at their disposal
and this is the comment is the
comprehensive plan
is a community guiding document it's not
a land use guiding document it's a
community guiding document so when
you're looking at the policies that we
have here we can be looking at a variety
of things we're worried about the
overall supply of housing not just for
lower income but for all the income
levels you have you're worried about
having a mixture of housing that
profiles the needs in your community the
demographic profiles but you're also
able to look at Tools in addition to
land use yes that's a major tool that
cities have at their disposal but
there's others you have a budget you
have fun in resources you have the
ability to provide land use incentives
or property tax exemption so this
document is not just trying to drive
purely land use issues and stuff is
trying to say what are the full range of
tools that cities have available to
itself to address the full range and to
do it in a way
that you're going to be happy with the
community when the when it's done
okay so that's what a housing element is
about is trying to create a housing
stock that makes can helps your
community still remain vibrant and sound
and whatever else you care about okay so
just keep that in mind so with that I'd
like to
go back
and ask you
what things
from this part of the conversation most
stuck in your brains as we go forward
and start talking about policies
well I think for me it's definitely the
uh leveraging the over leveraging that's
happening on the lower income
markets and trying to
find housing
and then I think definitely the
um
what we can do to incentivize as much as
we can housing
added below 50 percent of Ami
my question is is when you incentivize
where is it coming from
I mean what what does incentivize mean
to the cities
um the master plan communities those
were developments that
when they 30 years ago they were
hillsides that were allowing one per
five acre and the city said
we'll work with you we'll let you build
much higher density but we want you to
put it in one spot and then preserve
open space so we don't have a whole
Hillside with
one home every acre or every half acre
will let you concentrate it have more
units but have it concentrated but the
net was much more housing could be built
in that area the city said we want
schools we want a number of things but
one of the things we want is some
affordability in those developments so
in exchange for allowing a builder to
build more the starting point for any
Builder is what am I paying for land
if you gave them a piece of land you say
I'll give you more you're basically
giving them free land
so what's the value of that free land
it's not totally free but what's the
value of that and how can we get some
public benefit out of giving you that
tool okay I used to work for a company
before I came to the public sector we'd
go to cities we say you give us a rezone
and we're different than the private
world
when you trash that rezone my boss used
to say you rang the cash register the
difference with us
is we're going to give the money back to
you
when you created that extra land value
we're going to give it back to you in
the form of affordability that's a main
incentive for cities especially here
because of high land costs
right so that's a very positive or
potentially strong incentive your city
has waived impact fees some for new
development that for the affordable
units part of the theory behind that is
there may be more units our fees are
based on a certain amount of money being
raised we're still getting the same
amount of Revenue or whatnot but so
waving some fees for affordable units
portion or all another is a tool that
couple cities have used is offering to
relax and not pay property taxes on the
Improvement value continue to pay
property taxes on the land but for 10
years or 12 years or eight years you
don't pay property taxes on the new
building
in exchange for affordability
so yeah there's a trade-off in looking
at all of those different kinds of
options as quote incentives so those are
the range of ones two of them have some
potential fiscal trade-off conversation
the first one isn't necessarily a fiscal
trade-off issue it's a
we're not going to just free zone like
we used to do and not ask for some
public benefit and as a result of that
okay so those are examples
so those are I mean
just looking at these numbers from 1993
to 2012
the low income from land use incentives
for the whole East King County looks
like it was only 10.
so I mean why don't we just where are
you getting that figure from let me go
back S1 from S1
exhibit S1 affordable housing created
where's the 10th
oh yeah oh for land use you're right
that's what I'm saying it's very hard to
get land use incentives all the way down
so why don't just increase the
incentives what's what's saying but what
I'm is and that's what I'm saying
Kirkland is one of the few and a lot of
times because
a lot of the city said getting them at
80 that's good that I mean when we first
started doing it it was like that's hey
it's different that's good we're
starting to say yeah but now let's look
at the real you know we're getting all
this data and we're going hmm let's try
to maybe get to 70 or 60 if we can and
that's a city choice
so when did Kirkland start their program
about right about when the recession
started foreign
so sometimes that's and that's I think
I'm sort of glad you asked that
downtown Redmond made a provision that
all new development in downtown Redmond
must have 10 affordable but it was at 80
it's an 80 immediate okay and they made
that in 1996 95 or 96.
nothing happened for 10 years now
sometimes people say oh you you blew it
you killed the market because you had
this affordability requirement which is
what often cities here you're trying to
create a new form of housing so if you
make this through affordability we're
not going to be able to build it's going
to ruin the economics of deals everybody
driven the downtown Redmond recently
right it's happening it's not stopping
stuff part of the times it's because and
I'm saying this is I've seen many cities
make plans for urban centers that are 10
years ahead of the market no matter what
the some agree it takes time sometimes
for things to get to where you need to
go now what Redmond did is they said
okay we get it Pioneers will Define
affordability a little looser for the
first two projects
to sort of say for the guys who are
willing to jump in first we'll make it a
little bit easier for you
and then but they don't but Kirkland and
a flip side when their downtown was
being free to you know replanned
they went oh my gosh the developer's
saying if we put an affordability
requirement
they'll not have anything happen so they
wrote their rules a little bit
differently and now it's going
gangbusters in downtown Kirkland there's
no affordability
and they have no ability to go back
later and say wait a minute we should
have asked for some affordability
because of the way zoning works it would
now be considered the taking to go back
and say we gave you something back in
the mid 90s and geez we didn't get how
hot this Market would get so we want to
go back now and ask for some
affordability because we changed types
both cities did the same thing increased
Heights
one said ah it's going to Kill Devil the
first the first guys are going to get
killed so we're not going to do it the
second one said okay that might be true
we'll just make it easier for them but
then it'll automatically kick in
and that works legally to do that
and have you seen aside from you know
the program that Kirkland's trying
anything outside of East King County
Seattle or South King
um or even anything that's been
happening within your purview Nationwide
if you've seen it you see a lot more of
this stuff in California which is
happened to be where I came from
um Seattle what they've done that's why
I mentioned the layering approach
Seattle has a very
very vibrant
property tax exemption program
and they're starting to do land use
incentive programs but I'm not sure I've
been reading all their materials I don't
think they've thought to layer them
together
so the affordability requirements are 65
to 85 percent of median for the
multi-family tax exemption and there are
80 percent of median for the land use
and I don't think they ever I haven't
seen it and I've read all the reports
and I'm trying to find out from did they
ever think they go but what if there's a
place that's using both tools at the
same time
did is are you going to account for that
somehow and saying well wait a minute
you you in this neighborhood your
multi-family tax extension you got to be
down another five ten percent of media
because you're already getting something
else
so I haven't seen it
um and but you have I have seen it more
in California where they will set
um requirements for land use incentives
or requirements for new developments as
low as 50
I'm not quite sure how they do that
because it takes other subsidies to make
that happen and and I think I could go
into a lot more and explain why I think
they did it but they're sort of trying
to make some Partnerships happen to use
some financing that was available and so
they said we don't care if our
incentives don't provide enough value
because there's something over there
that we just want people to use so we're
going to set our requirements at a level
that requires you to almost go use that
other resource are there any programs
within King County HUD that maybe
provides
I don't know Grant programs not the
right word but something outside of
Section 8 they could that could be an
additional layer in these well we've
that's
that's here
um the cities have one of the unique
things the cities have done is a Housing
Trust Fund where they share resources
and in the report there's information on
that the resources from the cities that
help fund these almost well about 3 000
units
about 15 or less of the money for those
developments came from cities
another equal amount came from the
County Housing fund another equal amount
came from a state housing fund and the
other 45 to 60 percent came from private
sources or some federal loan programs so
we're using our resources to bring in
people who are able to bring in all
those other resources otherwise this
unit count for the dollars we put in
would be a quarter of that number
okay and my only my only thought there
was you know for taking all those
resources federal state county and
whatever private programs exist and then
combining them with these incentives we
may be able to leverage those dollars to
make them go further
that is something we're trying to talk
about with communities as new
communities look at these kind of
programs is can we use this to try to
trigger some other sources that are out
there to be layered with your right land
use incentives or other incentives so
it's exactly the great point and it's
something we're trying to figure out how
to do more of
no
um
I don't think any of the affordable
housing can be built without incentives
and they have to be specific and and
pretty darn good
um I don't particularly think it's a
whole lot of the value to build a big
complex and have two or three affordable
housing units in there you know you need
more than that in order to to get to
that 24 percent
what concerns me is you get the Builder
gets the incentive and he builds the
house but because
he has the low in the affordable housing
units that he raises the rent or the
price of the other units which makes
medium to low-income housing more
expensive okay so are there restrictions
on on that when you see
I'm kind of glad you brought that up
because it's one of my major pet peeves
put on your common sense hats and ask is
that really true I don't know it did
okay so I'm going to give you some
stories to maybe help you see and decide
whether or not you think that's true
because you will hear that I've heard it
for 30 years I'm a former developer so
one of my stories is I had a project
we were working on a lot of community
opposition we had half market rate half
affordable all ownership even there's
just some affordable condos and some
single-family homes and neighbors
weren't happy because it was big and
they didn't want the traffic Etc
so we got delayed we had got all ready
to get all our approvals we had all our
budgets figured out
and so we knew what we had to sell the
homes for for the project to work
it was a long time ago so maybe two
hundred thousand dollars for home
and because of who we were something
happened and we agreed to something that
caused the one-year delay in our start
of construction of the project to go
through more neighborhood process we
didn't have to but we agreed to
our costs went up during that year 5000
a unit
the market went up 20 000 a unit did we
sell the homes for 205 000 or 220 000.
before 220 because people would pay it
people who are buying or renting don't
give it they don't care what your costs
were why do you think so many Builders
went under the last five years when the
market went down they couldn't say my
very first job was in in this industry
was in 1974 mowing lawns for a local
realtor Builder who had two
single-family homes in my neighborhood
had been sitting on for nine months in
1974. the oil embargo period and he
finally goes as helped mow the lawn and
he says I gotta unload these things I'm
going to lose 20 000 a unit but I got to
unload them because I can't hold them
anymore so I'm just going to get what I
can get and move on in life
Builders take the risk of trying to
figure out what the market will be at
when they're done and work backwards to
decide how much they will pay for land
if they get it wrong they can't just
tell consumers you pay me more
you don't influence the final price
point based on your actual costs you
will get whatever the market will pay
you whether or not it's more than your
cost or less than your costs
now supply and demand can have effects
so if a city cuts Supply like crazy and
there's a lot of job growth that will it
potentially affect that thing but just
because we're saying you have affordable
units in your building doesn't mean you
can transfer that quote cost okay on to
the consumers of the rest of the
building
doesn't work that way
never has and I don't think it ever will
sorry I've been hearing Builders say
that for 25 years and I finally decided
I'm gonna let's in the last five years I
think has proven this because it's not
about raising it they had to lower their
pricing
because that's what the consumers would
do and they didn't keep their product
off the market they rented for what they
could get
and that's why it's such a risky
business I'm not saying it's not hard
I'm not saying City should be incredibly
understanding and understand the
economics and designing these kind of
programs because they take a huge amount
of risk
okay that's why they want fairly decent
profit margin they've got to because
they don't always get what they predict
right right now the guys who started
building two years ago
they're pretty happy
but the guys who are building right now
I'm not so sure where they'll be at in
two years with the rental market
they don't know for sure
anybody else
do you have more
we were ready to talk policies I guess I
think we're ready
thank you so much for another
outstanding presentation
and hopefully you all
learns a lot
Trish are you going there oh Mike oh I
think it's Mike we're just here now to
be a resource for you guys
okay
okay then but we're still here
you don't have a microphone there though
favorite
isn't quite how I planned it but okay
perfect
so we're doing the housing element first
yes we are
hang on
oh
foreign
okay we have the housing element and the
Human Services element
what are you doing
um
so
and I
I'm assuming that you all have read this
and I don't want to go through every
piece of it so for example the
introduction
so so I would just make one General
observation so how this is organized how
you've organized it is and it sort of
gets at the point I was making earlier
you can see that one section is just
basically on neighborhood characters so
that's the quality of the housing in
your community and they and this is
pretty similar to whatever not exactly
what other cities have done but it's
pretty common to see cities say we want
to deal with our quality and our
neighborhoods and so that's what the
first section is then you get into
Supply and affordability in another
section
then you get into a section that deals
with special needs households who need
something different than just housing in
order to manage so it's usually persons
with disabilities and persons who are
homeless maybe and persons seniors who
need assistance so that's a very common
thing to break out again it sort of
comes out of that needs analysis it's
pretty logical to have that and then
there is policies you have one on safety
that's sort of a unique one for you I
think it was driven by you have some
floodplains and things like that in your
community in steep slopes and then
Regional your part I've heard a lot of
the comments maybe about you're part of
a region and some of the work in the
area of housing is done through Regional
conversations and Regional cooperation
you mentioned the funding right we're
putting up funds but so is King County
in the state so especially around the
funding area there's a lot of everybody
working together stuff and learning from
each other and watching what's happening
on the regional level so those are the
basic sections
um and and sort of how they're kind of
organized so is that sort of is a
precursor to you going through it can I
just ask a quick question sure
um I know the
economic Vitality put together you the
uh human resource
Human Services element who put together
the housing element is it all put
together did it was it was a group
effort it was the four of us
yes
many phone conversations
it's back and forth so so I know
on emails yes so is the four of us so
this is a group effort right now right
and so one of the filters especially
Mike puts on that we we put on is that
the people who review housing Elements
which is psrc and the state they've put
out a lot of like guidelines of what you
should address and so we go through all
of them and we go okay are all the boxes
getting checked off so that's one of the
tasks we bring in that process as well
as
I've been working in this town almost as
long as you have right I've been working
on stuff in Issaquah for 20 plus years
so we're trying to balance making sure
you cover your bases but do it in a way
that's reflective of your community
okay so we have our uh introduction and
mention our continued work with Arch
then
move on and then we move on to the
vision Vision preserve and enhance
neighborhoods while improving housing
opportunities for the city's diverse
population and local Workforce
so I'm just going to kind of go through
some of these things highlight them and
see if you have any comments or thoughts
changes and we'll do what we did with
the land use element and transportation
elements and just kind of talk through
it in here and make changes I think
it'll be easier tonight
okay
all right so we said this that this is
set up just like the other ones so it
starts with uh you have goals and
policies start with the growth
management act their goals then
discussions if necessary and then the
policies
so Arthur already went through the
growth management act requirements that
we have in here in his presentation
so Neighborhood Housing and neighborhood
character
achieve a variety of neighborhoods
housing types and densities throughout
the city
okay
can I throw in something absolutely one
piece that we realized we left out of
this section is monitoring we have a
monitoring policy for affordable housing
but we don't have a monitoring policy
for all of our housing that fell out
when we put it in the affordable housing
so that one will get added into the
first goal goal a and the monitoring
will be of all of them housing stock
housing types number of housing units
rentals and sales that would be the type
of that would be the information
included right
and the monitoring
you know so that that will be added it's
not here
so number one is to maintain that
maintain the distinct characteristics of
the existing neighborhoods
and ensure compatibility with infill
so how do you take the Central Area plan
and completely redevelop that and keep
the character well it's existing
neighborhoods so I mean there's not
really an existing housing neighborhood
in there those are retail thing it's
going to be a completely different thing
but if you're going to build in say next
to
developments up on squawk Mountain
that would be where you have existing
residential neighborhoods where you want
to maintain the character but Central
Central is across kind of a blank slate
I mean things are going to be torn down
and rebuilt it's a different a different
environment
but that's why for Old Town for the
neighborhoods of Old Town we have design
standards and bulk kind of Standards so
that we try and keep the character at
least the scale and the they don't all
have to look the same
but they have to they should try to be
we're trying to get them to be in the
same Balkan scale and that kind of thing
I understand that but you know some of
the
the areas consider themselves
neighborhoods that are already in there
it's just you know you're going to rip
them all down and build something
different they just but the first
central part too there are standards
that people have decided you know kind
of decided what they wanted it to look
like so we developed standards for
Central Issaquah and that's what it will
become
is is a question because it's something
like what you say came up in some other
cities is especially in the area where
change is planned and they said sort of
coming well and so we actually tweaked
the language sum to sort of acknowledge
that some areas change as planned and
there's a balancing act between that and
you're not going to use this policy to
say to something oh see you can't allow
this new development because it's not
going to keep the character and so we
did a little bit of tweaking of the
language to make it clear that area is
planned for growth
will grow and the thing is that will be
compatible it isn't you know it's not
incompatible doesn't mean the same kind
of thing so I don't know if that's
something that's in here that's
specifically called out in here like
what you just said I'm not sure what I'm
saying is we had this conversation in
another city and I remember we ended up
tweaking the language in that other City
to so that I'm just trying to see if
that's the concern you have yeah and if
so then maybe we can look at the
language and see if we can tweak that so
that because I've read this like 12
times and I didn't see right now right
yeah it's not in here and that's
something that should be we'll if you'd
like we can take as we call out the
older plots knowing that that's usually
the place that people want to be
consistent and compatible with the scale
that's why the older plants are
mentioned first
but not that the new the new stuff like
Central Issaquah has to look like
anything that's out there already okay
we can let me show you like itself
people can find what we did for that I
can't remember which city it was but I
just remember we had that conversation
yeah remember we're doing this with
about 10 or 12 cities this summer
because somebody's going to come back
and say it says you have to keep this
and and you know know right yeah right
okay so we'll see if we can find
something
okay
how did the urban out of the urban
Villages crank into this
how do the villages crank into this yeah
the villages are under there well
I mean
I mean they have their own development
agreements so they have their own
regulations but they still have to
comply with the vision of the city which
is the comprehensive plan
I don't see them mentioned anywhere in
here of The Villages themselves
a couple years ago the council tried to
told us in our amendments to try not to
call them out so much because they
wanted us to be all one city and they
and so we try not to call them out
unless it's a specific
something that's attributable to them or
that's different about them and so we
don't say the city and the urban
villages
because we used to say that quite often
when they were new and so maybe that's
why you're not seeing them we're trying
to um
sort of mush everything together when we
talk about housing or jobs or whatever
it is is there something that you wanted
to see them well in a separate way
when you start picking out Old Town
overdale squawk Mountain well those are
the the
Island's been there a long time now
they're not new
so I don't know I I okay
seems like we're almost
my opinion we're eliminating them from
consideration I
I don't know
so in other words the comment almost is
well if we're willing to call us clock
nape mountain is a neighborhood why
can't we call out some of the other MPD
areas as well
then they'll be like the rest of the
city
what is the character of Squirtle
of overdale lots of trees lots of open
space around the houses
it's a professional assistance
okay
okay speed bumps yeah
and you know to Echo that concern we
talk about neighborhoods specifically
but maybe if under the Paul the main
heading of the policy itself we added
the word neighborhoods and Villages
under policy A1
um that may put a little emphasis on the
villages themselves and allow us to
maybe even eliminate bullet point a if
we're making sure that the village
characteristics are maintained
who said that Justin did you say that
yeah that was me Justin sorry
okay because there's so many policies
I'm going to say
policies A2 through A5 I guess I'm
provide access from every neighborhood
to the adjacent Trail systems and
Facilities Parks and Recreation
facilities
promote housing different housing types
lots and sizes row houses
Lots on smaller than six thousand square
feet
encourage plan developments which would
be the urban villages
to integrate different housing types and
densities within these areas
encourage housing in mixed use areas
that support pedestrian activity and
densities that support Transit and
reduce single occupancy vehicle trips
promote various
positive attributes of mixed use housing
such as focal places plazas pedestrian
and bike paths access to Transit
allow building I'm just stop me let me
go back allow Building height loss and
lot size flexibility
and add new higher density housing that
should be located within walking
distance of of commercial centers
transportation services
and Commercial
between commercial and lowered into
single family housing so
thoughts comments on those so I I just
working with
several clients who want a one floor
condo unit
there are a lot of one floor condo units
but why do you want on one floor
so you don't have to go upstairs
so all most of the ones in in Issaquah
are either town homes or if they are one
story they have outdoor outside steps so
it eliminates a huge part of the people
especially the older citizens and so it
would be nice to somehow encourage
I don't know how to do that or where to
put it but you know when you're looking
at
at building and and and you know we have
what's the one calcari is great because
it has an elevator
it's still outside units but it has the
elevator most of the other ones don't so
that's something you'd really need to
look at in your so that could be
something here because it's a form of
housing
um if the motivation feels like if it
falls under special needs it could also
I think we have a policy about trying to
do things to make housing
to a point where Aging in place Etc
works better for people so it could be
it so it could it could be anywhere it
could be just you know the people who
are in charge of development or whatever
to really look at that that problem and
I think it is a problem okay
um
are you is that something that you think
belongs in this section versus I'm
trying to figure out which subsection we
should address that pick one I don't
know I just okay if it could be adjusted
in there somewhere it would be really
great
I just have two comments um one buy all
of these encouraging policies
are we discouraging
single-family housing developments in
Issaquah is is that
what we're saying here
um no I think that's part of the all and
the having all sorts of types and kinds
for all different folks and families
yeah but if you read through these uh
they're all encouraging dense housing
multi-family structures
town homes
but the very dense housing the very
first policy that we talked about A1 and
talks about maintaining the distinct
characteristics of the existing
neighborhood of the existing
neighborhoods which have right the
existing neighborhoods what what about
new single family neighborhoods okay
I don't see that anywhere here in in the
housing element well if you if you look
at policy A3 promoting a variety of
housing types and lot sizes including
smaller single-family homes on small
lots and multi-family so it's
encouraging single-family homes as part
of that I believe
we'll never see another neighborhood
like South Cove we'll never see another
neighborhood
um
so I guess the question is when you look
at your overall need is that a good or a
bad thing
in other words you have a lot of you
have single family net so when you take
this is about your increment of what you
will have in the future and I'm not sure
what the answer is but some may say
that's I mean given how much land we do
or don't have
and I don't know if the issue is
ownership or rental and you know because
one of the things we saw is that even
though the in East King County the
amount of new housing was over 50
percent was multi-family we saw
ownership rates go from like 60 to 65
percent
which implies and I don't know what you
know it's varied from cities but almost
half the quote attached housing that's
being built is owner occupied housing
now so I'm not sure what the dynamic is
about saying we need single found more
single family if you have a lot of
single family you're trying to make you
know what's the balance you want when
you add it all together in the end so I
would think in asking that question
don't look at just oh my growth but look
at what you have
and say what would we have in the end
when we have up all the different uses
and is that a good mix in the end
I don't think she's looking at condos
being single family homes just right no
I know right so I've heard different
reasons why people say they want
single-family homes sometimes like
because we want to keep ownership going
and say well that's a change
you may want it from a land use point of
view then I'd be saying you saw the
graphic that we showed you that showed
the cross-section of household types I
live on a cul-de-sac in Redmond that the
single family and four of the eight of
us have no kids at home and do I need my
three if I could be in that neighborhood
in a smaller unit or in even a town I
probably love that okay so that's I
think the question what I said in the
very beginning
yes in the 60s and the 70s single-family
homes was the Prime minute what we
thought was the right form of Housing
and the question now is looking 30 years
down the road when you add everything
you have today plus what's in the plans
what's the right mix and I'm not saying
maybe you still need more single family
but some communities in the suburbs are
saying we need primarily to be other
forms of housing so we have a balance in
the end
and well if you look at the latest
statistics when a house single family
house goes up for sale in a neighborhood
they end up having bidding wars over
that house right doesn't that tell us
something
sure what does that tell us
an inventory
that there's a lack of houses for sale
for people who want single-family homes
that's what it says to me anyway
and I'm not sure you wouldn't hear some
other stories for other profile but
you're right but also what are the
prices of those homes too
increasingly I mean that's that's the
balancing act you need to sort of look
at
and so that's what you as a community
with all the things all this information
so I'm not saying right or wrong it may
be a statement word that is good to
emphasize
um
so I'm just saying think about add
existing plus new and see what your
total looks like
so I I haven't seen in the this is kind
of changing changing the subject I
didn't see in the policy here of con
kind of connection connecting the houses
to Street frontages
I think that's important I know there's
some there's a street I drive down in
Issaquah that um it's a multi-family
building and it has absolutely no
Frontage no connection to the street
that it's on and you kind of have to get
around to the entrance and it just it
just doesn't seem right to me so I don't
see a policy in here that would suggest
connecting the building to the street
that's more of a design standard for
Builders but we could put it but I think
it's I think as a policy when it comes
to achieving a variety of neighborhoods
just encouraging connectivity of housing
to the streets
you're talking specifically about
vehicular access no because there
there's a two that talks about
connecting every neighborhood with
trails to parks and talk about like that
street yeah yeah yeah around so when you
walk out your door I think there should
you should have some connection to the
street well there's a eight higher
density housing now this doesn't address
single family but higher density housing
should be walkable to Commercial Center
Services
you're talking about specific building
designs yeah I mean like the old town
all those buildings front a street right
and they have an alley in the back and I
yeah
kind of
so
I have a proposed solution up there but
promote various positive attributes of
mixed-use housing such as focal places
private or public connections to the
street pedestrian and bike paths yes
access to Transit and public Outdoors
try and clarify that how's that look
yeah yeah just somewhere I mean it's not
I just think something that I think will
this the neighborhoods that we really
like and what really make Issaquah
Issaquah are those
neighborhoods that connect that have
buildings that connect to the street
flying by the seat of our pants right
here we'll make it prettier later okay
all right
are we good with those
um
I think this is where we ended
new
nope
ensure that the city's programs
regulations and Landis practices provide
equal access for people of recognized
protected classes
encourage Energy Efficiency and other
sustainability sustainability measures
and support and encourage Innovative and
creating creative Housing Solutions to
meet issaquah's needs for affordability
and diversity for a variety of household
sizes income types and ages going back
to 810 sustainability
um
I'd maybe want to see a sustainability
and conservation measures so making sure
that we're upcycling recycling in the
process where we are as opposed to just
looking at energy and other
sustainability issues
okay
anything else on those three
okay
last two in this section Provo promote
the development of accessory dwelling
units within new and existing
single-family developments and explore
opportunities to promote adus
and encourage individual homeowners to
reinvest in their homes by providing
information and referrals to other
appropriate agencies such as the King
County home repair program
moving on
all right
you're right Joan it's much quieter
um housing Supply and affordability
realize livable ownership and Rental
opportunity
opportunities
throughout the city for households of
all income levels through the promotion
and preservation of affordable housing
Arthur went over these numbers with Hugh
in the discussion
so it
comes out to the city would be aiming
for 12 percent of the very low income 12
percent low income and 16 percent of
moderate income are used to be 17 and 29
29 and 17 percent so it just changed it
up a little bit right and just to sort
of clarify a little bit here because
where there was a change in the Conway
policies is that's what you're trying to
get to
and it's sort of like
and the reason we took this approach is
now understanding how the whole County
works is there are some areas like in
South King County where housing is a lot
more affordable where they were saying
we already have a percentage of housing
probably have close to 20 25 affordable
to low income so as we grow why do we
have to do even more we've already got a
lot our issue isn't about creating more
it's about taking good care of all that
we have a lot of low-income people and
they're in very poor condition housing
so maybe for us it's about preserving
what we have and making it more
affordable like get it down to 30
percent of median not about just take a
growth number and automatically say
that's how much new we have to do and so
it was a recognition that whereas in
East King County our percentages in all
the cities are much below that and it
sort of was a way and this is where I
made the comment about tailoring your
efforts to your circumstances so in
South County their emphasis might be not
about growing the supply but making
what's their better condition more
affordable to the incomes and focusing
more in that philosophy where with us
it's about trying to grow The Pie as
well you know so we should look at like
new opportunities as in addition to
preservation preservation is a good
approach we can use too but we need to
think given the context of what our
communities currently are at so that's
so this is sort of saying based on what
your numbers look like compared to this
it gives you an idea of the kind of
strategies you should pursue to try to
get closer to that number but you're not
going to be oh you're you didn't get
your 5 000 units so you're wrong it's
did you use all the tools in your power
to try to get to that given your
constraints in your community
okay economic or otherwise so did you
ever discuss putting timetables on any
you know reaching a certain level so
that uh you know the city is actually
working and striving to reach those
goals so like
so the idea is that like at least every
five years you update your data we'll
actually get on a very regular basis
what's your overall so that's where
we'll do and if you look at the needs
analysis we'll be doing two levels of
work we have for a long time and we will
continue one is what's the overall
affordability of housing in your
community
okay so that's the first test and then
the second is we'll keep doing those
what's the affordability of the new
market what incentives have you used
what is your what have you done with
funding land donate whatever you're
doing so that we can document for the
cities it's kind of like now there's a
list of strategies and you're going to
see that you have one now a strategy
plan and if you're a city that says
we're just not going to do that we're
not going to allow accessory dwelling
units we don't like them
forget state law for me we don't like
them
and and you have numbers like your
cities numbers
then somebody might come in you can say
wait a minute
you're not even closer why aren't you
allowing accessible give us a reason why
you're not doing something
because if you did accessory dwelling
units you'd be creating more
affordability opportunities so when we
get to the strategy plan which we'll
talk about later
that's where you take these ideas and
what you've learned from your needs
assessment and say okay what things
should we attempt to do
and it may not get you exactly to your
number because but you'll say we should
look at this strategy really hard and we
better have a reason not to use it
because of where our numbers are at
so is this strategy plan you're talking
about in addition to this or is it
something that you put together every
year
or five years whatever there we go
the the big the big problem I have with
this is the words promote encourage
cooperate right it's like
what is that mean to promote I mean what
is the city going to do actually to do
that
and that's where I'm saying that for the
strategy plan comes into play and your
actions come into play The Dilemma that
we have in this country and dealing with
housing is very little of it is built by
you
so you've been asked to plan for it and
try to make it happen but you don't
create it and you don't own it you don't
operate it you don't right you don't
Finance it or you do a little bit I mean
we solve some of that and we would you
know so there are and so we have
generally a market driven housing market
economy and there's a lot of
complexities what if interest rates
change you can't affect it right we had
interest rates I mentioned 74. interest
rates went through the roof because we
had an oil issue going on in this
country so that's what we mean and so
what we've always told cities for years
and this is why we say the strategy plan
is very important because this is where
you can list these are all the things we
could do
and you start saying okay we tried all
these things
and if you've tried them and they
haven't worked then you go back and you
say Why didn't it work did we design it
wrong did we put too many constraints or
is it the market conditions just made it
impossible to work
the one city I've seen who was brought
forth into the courts
under GMA
that was sort of the test the courts
used
was
they looked at their numbers but they
weren't concerned with the absolute
numbers they looked at the numbers
relative to their goals and then they
said what have you been doing to try to
make your numbers better
have you used all the different
strategies a city like yours could be
expected to use and so what we're
telling cities is
almost all of our members you better
look at the full list
and you better have reasons to or not to
use them and if you don't that's
potentially fine
but have a reason why you say that tool
is inappropriate so if someone ever
comes and challenges you and says you're
not at your percentage and they use the
growth management act then you're in a
position to say well here's all and
that's what this city did who was
brought to the courts here's all the
things we tried to do and the court said
okay you're really giving it as you know
do more but okay you're at least
defensible
so this is where trying to layer my
experience of how GMA actually plays
itself out
against this here so this is more
guidance on helping steer your ship and
how aggressive and how broad strategies
you need to make so I have two quick
things one is that um the one of the
council's 2015 goals was for us to do an
annual monitoring report for affordable
housing so that will happen annually as
part of this another thing is way back
in the beginning when we started talking
about the comprehensive plan and we
talked about we started with the landing
settlement we went over goals policies
and implementation goal is I want to
lose weight policies are change diet
plan exercise more and the
implementation piece of that is get down
to the really specific things like
you're saying the action items not just
encourage or promote but the action
items that can be changed more regularly
in your strategic plan so with each of
these elements we you may notice at the
bottom there's implementation and that's
that's the more that's the how you're
actually going to do it if they don't
think that they have to meet this in
three years right it's not going to be
done in three years because that's the
way government works things come up this
happens things aren't put together in
the right way right that's all I'm
getting at okay okay
um and and we're hoping actually because
we said there's this process that we're
creating you know evaluate create
monitor react
okay that wasn't in the old county-wide
planning policies
and we had goals we had very black and
white goals the last 20 years
right we're hoping that by defining the
process you were expected to use and
what you're supposed to do that
absolutely right that's the hope
and so yeah that um Arthur called today
and said where's the plant where's the
policy that says you're going to have a
strategy plan I said it's in there and
you said it's not and I said but it is
we went back and forth we left it out so
that's another one that's going to go
back in here yeah
so
um okay
I need to move through this kind of
quickly sort of I don't want to skip
anything though
uh B1 develop plans and strategies to
address issaquah's proportionate amount
of the county-wide need
B2 promote affordable housing throughout
the community
three encourage adaptive reuse of
suitable buildings and repair and
Rehabilitation of existing affordable
units
any thoughts comments on those three
okay
next three
cooperate with non-profit organizations
and Regional efforts to get more
affordable housing monitor strategy
and develop strategies yes monitor which
we've talked about and consider the
impacts
that changes to land use development
capacity will have on the city's overall
ability
to achieve a jobs housing balance
are we good
okay
goal C encourage the development of
affordable housing through incentives
and by removing regulatory barriers
which is something Arthur talked about
in his presentation
consider acquiring affordable housing
when evaluating rezones
offer a variety of incentives
under C2 I do have some suggested edits
there okay we talk about lot coverages
fees density parking building Dimensions
but I'd like to see added in their tax
incentives and then also a possibility
of subsidization using external funds or
Regional funds which I get to under C5
as well use local and then increase that
to Regional and national resources to
make sure that we're capturing all the
available monies available to us
to do that
so C2 and C5
so yeah under C5 would be local Regional
and national resources sorry yeah
okay
okay
all right
um
allow affordable housing sites to be
receiving sites for transfer development
rights
to assist with the development of
additional uses
that would support affordable housing we
just talked about the using local and
Regional and national resources to
leverage other Public Funding and
private funding
C6 give priority to affordable housing
on Surplus public purpose city-owned
land
if it is suitable for housing
um
ensure that affordable housing achieved
through public incentives or assistance
remains affordable for the longest term
possible currently pardon me what does
that mean longest term positive there
are covenants that are attached to
affordable housing units and I think the
longest they can go is 50 years no no
but ownership is a little different than
um rental so the reason we don't just
say 75 years or life of the building
rental we've gone life of the building
often but ownership we've had to
sometimes go 30 or 50 years because of
the financing world okay
um
maintain an adequate supply of
appropriately zoned land to accommodate
the projected housing needs and existing
housing needs
inch
ensure that regulations and processing
requirements are reasonable and make
sure that you're efficient what does
reasonable mean make sure that you're uh
that there's no
excessive unnecessary waiting for an
applicant
that everything that you're doing you're
doing
efficiently and doing what needs to be
done without taking more time than is
necessary but affordable housing when
they come into the city they act they
get priority review
their projects too
so that
I guess it's a I guess it's a definition
thing it seems too fuzzy to me I'm not
sure what that means reasonable to me
as a developer
may not be reasonable to the
neighborhood
that the development's going into
what would you like to say yeah I I
don't know I
did you like her description of what it
meant
I would almost say it may be a better
um
wording would be efficient and
streamlined
um so it kind of emphasizes that cutting
the red tape
and efficiencies I I know the same
problem you know one of the big problems
we have in law is reasonable is whatever
13 people think it is that's right and
I'm not sure substituting you know
efficient
I don't I don't know
I think that would at least give a
pointer though if that's what we're
looking at as far as what what we're
aiming for with reasonableness
I think the only way to get rid of
ambiguity like on you know like
reasonable says is you have to you have
to give it some measurable constraint
and I don't know if Carl if that's what
you're looking for but I don't think in
this type of document we can say within
three months within six months or
whatever I go on the land use code right
and the state and the state does say the
state does have requirements and we
actually
try to not beat those but
do better than that so is that maybe a
thing to do is that regulations and
permit processing meter exceed the state
requirements related to time timeliness
Etc you know something that references
that state law okay
certainly specific
I don't like more efficient
you don't like efficient well it's just
me whatever I was just throwing them out
streamline meat seeds
I don't know if I got an answer I just
didn't like the term reasonable
this is I think is better okay
okay special needs housing
achieve a cheat were we done there
sorry
the other one
special needs housing achieve housing
opportunities for residents with
disabilities or other special housing
needs
I'm going to skip over the discussion
allows you could put the one level
condos or one level as an example maybe
I put it up above too okay just for
regular housing but we could we could
put it there or here the one level that
you were talking about in the
accessibility right goodness bears
um allow small scale group homes foster
care facilities and other special needs
housing in all areas of the city
consider incentives to developers who
volunteer to designate a portion of new
housing or mixed-use developments as
special needs housing
support a range of housing options and
services to move homeless persons and
families to long-term Financial
Independence
support Regional efforts to prevent
homelessness and support housing options
programs and services that allow seniors
to stay in their homes or neighborhoods
promote awareness of Universal Design
improvements that increase housing
accessibility and that's something that
came out of Human Services discussion
as well
thoughts
you're waiting and we're not you're not
you're usually much more talkative I'm
not used to this
okay
all right housing safety
and then Arthur was right he mentioned
this one was it's kind of unique but
it's because of all of our flooding and
making sure that we can protect the
existing housing that's there and
control any new housing that might go
near the area so how does that new 300
and some unit complex where Lombardi's
was
effect I mean that's the flood plain it
is and they're I think the design
standard is permitted the design
standards per minute
there are things that they have that
yeah they're requirements that they have
to have
that would I mean I wasn't that involved
in the project but that you know right
but the waters go under it's like it's
like right on Issaquah Creek the same
idea that the water would go in the
parking structure versus the homes
yeah I know it's just yeah yeah
okay
yeah
it's okay if the car gets a little water
but
so prohibit new housing within the
floodway protect property and
inhabitants of housing that exists
within the hundred year flood plain and
Implement implement or support programs
to move existing homes out of unsafe
areas
okay
Regional resources cooperate with other
jurisdictions to address our Region's
housing needs
uh that's what the first one says work
to increase the base of both public and
private dollars on a regional level
which is something that we do through
Arch
cooperate with King County and other
providers to achieve a geographic
balance
support housing legislation at the
county state and federal levels that
promote goals and policies of the
housing element and work with King
County and other jurisdictions to
establish GMA targets for jobs and
housing that seeks to create a jobs
housing balance
the only change that I'd like to see is
to policy F2
making sure that we're not closing off
the option for local dollars as well so
making it available on a local and
Regional level
and under F2
all right
that is it the housing element
thank you all
so just describe the strategy plan oh
yeah go ahead so the idea is it's sort
of a evolution of Act of action this is
your broad map you know document
then hopefully within a year you know
when you're done with all the complaint
and stuff we come back with a strategy
plan and the idea is is to looking at
these policies what kind of strategies
could you work on over the next three to
five years that would actually start
making implementing the policies and the
idea is is that you prioritize them so
you don't necessarily say these are the
three we're going to do you have the
whole list you say these are the top
priorities here's medium and here's low
and you start working and you've done a
lot of things already as I said in the
past but you go through that exercise
and that gives us then the city kind of
a road map of what are the specific
things we want to work on and then
you'll and then that will go won't be in
comp plan but you have a policy that is
from the comp plan and it will be
something most cities have the
commission help create it but then it
also goes to council for ratification
and it becomes kind of the city's work
program for doing then now specific
areas of activity
okay so that's sort of how this keeps
moving forward it helps starts
translating to some real some real
activities
any questions for Arthur or Mike
oh we have them
all right thank you
I want all this done tomorrow
also there were two letters that I
forwarded to you all I've sent emails
from
um supporting Arch
and the work that they do and the work
that we do with Arch
um did everybody get a hold of those
um
thank you art
thank you
so I haven't done this this way before
but this will be great Human Services we
had a lot of help with this element from
the Human Services Commission of which
bill is a member so this will be similar
to what we did last week with the
cultural plan that Joan helped us with
because she's on the Arts commission so
Bill will help us translate the intent
of the Human Services Commission when
they helped us with this I think I was
there
at least two or three times the
beginning of the year with different
drafts and getting comments and um
they're a super group we've had them
just to start out Human Services isn't a
required element from growth management
but Issaquah felt very strongly that we
needed a human services element to pull
in all those special pieces of the
community that help our Human Services
whether it be for food Child Care
affordable housing
helping those that are ethnically
diverse you know second language issues
so that's where this came in and I think
we've had this element since okay since
1997.
so we were one of the first I think if
not the first in the state to have this
element
so the vision is we strive to be
sustainable and healthy Community where
every person is important and we're
meeting basic human needs is a shared
responsibility between individuals in
the community
any comments on that
the basic human needs is the first goal
create a community in which all members
have the ability to meet their basic
physical economic and social needs and
the opportunity to enhance their quality
of life
um this mentions Arch although
um in the latest draft that went to
Human Services element
turn on track changes
yeah right and that's what I'm trying to
do in this because I pulled this over
before track changes
on
oh there it is
um this came I think yesterday I got
this from David that you had changed
this and so we didn't have this in the
draft the reason that they wanted this
out is because
um we haven't worked with habitat I
think for a while I know there's a new
one though up in the highlands and of
course there's one right here on Front
Street
um but is the rest of the commission
okay with that with removing the
reference to Habitat
anything else you wanted to say about
that bill or about the most recent
ly
you're right
right
it does say Human Services
organization so it covers everything
right
the policies there's only the one
although it has a list with it support
and facilitate the community's basic
human needs for food clothing shelter
primary health and dental care and
protection from abuse and neglect
including but not limited to the
following actions
existing programs Regional Housing
Organization with Section 8 looks like
our font is bigger on that one because
that's important
programs for Primary Health Care
parenting classes and emerging emergency
and transitional shelters for the
homeless which we also had another
policy for shelters because the Human
Services thought that was a an important
addition yeah in any going back to both
the goal and the policy itself I'm
seeing physical in there a couple times
and and Primary Health but I would like
to see mental health broken out into
both of those is that's a huge area of
Human Services needs and I think it it's
worth
separating out
okay
and where would you would we put it in
the bottoms
um I think it it would need to be
included I think Primary Health slash
mental health slash Dental Care
and then maybe a separate bullet point f
I'm directly talking about
mental health component I don't know how
that would look though
okay
good one that is good
actually I will do like Kristen says and
put your name there
so we can remember exactly the context
of of our notes anyone else on this one
this first one
okay
B is supportive sustainable and healthy
community in which each individual has
access to Community Resources and
services
there's just a few policies in this one
address the needs of people with
disabilities
Housing Services and transportation
support job training programs encourage
a stable job base
through our land use planning support
affordable and quality care facilities
for working families and for seniors and
other individuals with disabilities
work with the Human Services Commission
and others to promote increased
awareness of local needs for Human
Services
and promote Healthy Lifestyles through
positive opportunities for physical
activity healthy eating and healthy
behaviors
any comments on on those
so if you go back to B2
one of the pro you know it says job
training but the the thing that I see
missing in this
is language
it says they're going to support people
who cannot understand the language in
their language
but
I think there is a need to in order for
them to get a good job they need to
learn English they need to to be
they need to know it and so I think that
should be somehow in there in the job
training okay language support a
language I don't know if you call it out
there or call it out in because then
later following section we talk about
um I'm not sure how far down but we
talked about
language English as a second language
that there's
a goal eye there's a specific goli
related to non-english speakers so it
may be a good policy under there
okay so I'll see I'll see
I'll add it here because this is where
we heard Jones comment
s
older adults to agent I'm in the wrong
thing
see
f
g h i there it is
well that doesn't that doesn't answer my
question it doesn't discuss jobs
specifically
and and yeah you're right it also does
say it in Gold C and I actually had a
note under goal C
um f where we're talking about for
special populations and non-english
speaking populations I had it down as as
something that would read facilitate
Communications and access to those
non-speaking
um
in our population but maybe it would be
facilitate Communications access and
training or language training language
training
and see
policy C2 and it would be a new bullet
point F oh I haven't written down there
twice so either way and could you say it
again it would be facilitate
Communications access and language
training to our non-english speaking
population
oh I can't type as fast as Kristen
facilitate communication and language
access and language training oh
training to our non
-native English speaking population
okay good one
anything else on this one this is good
okay
so actually we just anything else on B
before we completely jump to C
okay we're jumping
C is maintain and enhanced quality of
life for all issquare residents by
supporting programs that enhance
personal and community living for
special populations older adults people
with disabilities and non-english
speaking populations
actually that hs3 is there because
that's what it replaced in the existing
document
and as we all know quality of life is
difficult to Define but that doesn't
stop anybody from talking about quality
of life so we try to Define it you know
Loosely of course because it it doesn't
really have a definition but these are
the pieces that in human services We
Believe add to your someone's quality of
life are there other pieces that anyone
would want to see added here or
described in a different way
okay jumping to D
um public transportation and one thing
that um and Bill can speak to this as
well is is human this Human Service
Commission talked about a lot of the
elements that are in the comp plan that
you need Transportation you need housing
you need your land uses to allow for
special needs housing
um and and so they wanted to mention all
the pieces that connect knowing though
that they're fully they're fully
described in those elements but they
didn't want to be silent on them and so
that's why there's a little bit of
repetition in the Human Services element
as it calls out other pieces that are
needed for for a good Human Service
provision and one of them is public
transportation expand and encourage
local and Regional public transportation
systems
um and we talk a little bit about that
there
access to public transportation for
employment health care and Human
Services
support Transportation programs that
provide financial assistance for elderly
low income and other populations and
increase Mobility for seniors and
individuals with disability all good
things all pieces that we're working on
as Metro starts to cut Services we're
scrambling to make sure that we're still
covered as much as we can be
um are there other items that we missed
or that you'd want to say in a different
way
okay
affordable housing which we talked about
already tonight again this is one of
those overlaps that the commission Human
Service Commission didn't want to be
silent on so that's very short there's
not even a policy it's just the goal
ensure that affordable housing targets
established in the housing element and
Central Issaquah plan are being achieved
and again the centralist club plan is
where our next growth targets are set to
be met that are 2006 to
2031 are focused in the central Issaquah
area
comments on that one
shelters
is the next goal support the location of
permanent and Emergency Shelters for men
for women and children and for teens
throughout the region to address local
and Regional homelessness
as Arthur said
um
I know he came to speak to the Human
Services Commission about the region
trying to locate permanent shelters they
don't have locations yet they're they're
talking to all the jurisdictions about
the issues with homelessness and and
permanent shelters so this is one that
Human Services felt strongly that we
wanted this policy in there I think it's
a good one
any additions to this one
okay just the one the one policy
okay financial goals always a big one in
all of the elements
creating a sustainable funding mechanism
for Human Services this is the one
policy I think that is the most
different from our existing plan and
that it calls out that we need some kind
of a sustainable mechanism to continue
to fund our Human Services we talked to
a couple of different jurisdictions on
how they fund things every year some
jurisdictions would go by taxes some
would go by the economy so that in the
last few years they didn't have hardly
any funding for Human Services which you
know is pretty bad way to do it although
in the glory years you have a lot to
spend and so we went with bellevue's
mechanism which is policy G1 consider a
per capita funding goal for the annual
Human Service funding and incorporate
funding methodology as part of our
financial policies per capita is because
you always have pretty much the same
amount of people as you did the year
before so your funding is stable and is
not the Peaks and valleys of you know
interest rates or anything like that
that could be cyclical
and so we're hoping that Council will
will like the Bellevue way of doing this
are there any comments on this on
funding we talk about the Community
Development block grant funds that we
use for needed Community projects we've
been lucky to get those
um every year how is it done now
I mean how is the money provided now is
it a at the end of the financial cycle
the council says how much should go in
and sometimes it's they try to go per
capita but I remember was it last year
you all the whole com Human Services
Commission came back into the Council
budget sessions and said
you we need some more you know because
you have there's all sorts of groups
that we fund through the Human Services
Grant programs and the council that was
one of the things they cut at the very
end of the budget cycle was
um gosh and and then you guys were great
yeah so it was basically it's kind of
the whim of the council really I mean is
the way it's been so we're trying to get
some some stable base like it was it was
it started at like you know eight
dollars a per citizen or something like
that but it would but they had nothing
to guide themselves they'd start there
and if budget was tight they they cut
that one year in trying to match this
budget the budget went up and down and
up and down and we're trying to you know
build something and it got really kind
of crazy so that's where we kind of get
it to to be stable if there's a small
increase in population you'd you kind of
have some small increases with that
answer
that that was that was a good session
though because what is it every year you
get or is it every two years you get the
applications from right we just went to
a two-year cycle so okay and then how
many applications do you usually get
we're reviewing them right now we have
58 applications for various grants of
some type or another that are getting
reviewed and and then evaluate them for
and score them and decide how much of
their requests they're going to get and
how how much money do we have 288
000 this year to give out in those
grants and the requests are for 435
000 I believe
so you know that's that's probably no
but there's some of those that you know
aren't at good quality application
anyway so there's some of those right
yeah that would fall out as well but
certainly a lot of work that you all do
to rate them all and I know I was happy
to get into your meetings before you
started having to look through them all
because that's that's quite a lot of
meetings at work so I'm glad you do that
we're doing that right now
um any other comments on the funding the
funding goal
Aging in place is H support the ability
of older adults to age in place and
continue to live in the community
um
that's has anybody ever looked into what
the um
biggest barrier is to
people staying in their homes at a
certain age
um yes there's actually several part of
it is transportation getting them to the
doctor is to have some kind of a
transportation service other other thing
is meals
to have they're either like Meals on
Wheels or something like that where they
don't have to actually do the whole
nutrition all by themselves that they
have some help with that the other is
sometimes it's just daily someone to
check on them to make sure that they're
taking their medication that they're you
know doing okay that they nobody you
know they haven't fallen or you know
something like that but it's it's sort
of a collection of services that you
might have the transportation but if you
don't have the meals or if you've got
the nurses that can check in on you you
don't have the you know it's sort of a
net if you will that um
and some of them we have in the city and
some of them we just I think need to
hopefully beef up a little bit so that
the seniors are still able to because I
think it adds so much to the quality of
their life to be where they're used to
being and that whole Comfort piece and
so um Studies have shown that they're a
lot happier and they stay a lot
healthier if they're able to stay in
their home that they're used to and and
one of the things I see you know when we
talk about the policy it meets half the
goal so it meets them living in place
but it doesn't really
I'd like to see an addition of a policy
um
encouraging
continued integration into the community
Through you know social and interaction
so to make sure that we're not just
leaving our seniors sitting in their
home and delivering them meals right and
that's so the beauty of our senior
center is we get seniors from all over
because we have you know such a neat
senior and such an active senior
population that uses the senior center
that's a good one
anything else for this one
okay
eliminate service barriers for diverse
populations and non-english speaking
populations in the community
we can try to cross the job training
piece on this one as well are there
other pieces though that we forgot with
just the yeah I've actually got a lot to
say on this one
um and this stems from a very recent as
in the Judgment was just granted
Friday
on a case out of Yakima on the Voting
Rights Act and in that case it involved
the growing Hispanic population within
the city but the facts of the case are
equally applicable to any incoming
minority population
um so what I'm I'm not seeing within the
plan is kind of monitoring of those
aspects that would come into play in
those kind of cases so things like we
say supporting accessibility to services
but we don't talk about
identifying and monitoring needs access
to Services access to amenities
and other factors that would come in
under this case and the only reason it
brings a large concern for me is at the
legislature right now is a state Voting
Rights Act which provides a very short
time frame for people to be to have to
come up with a decision on redistricting
based on these factors
before they're sued and rack up lots of
attorneys fees I think the attorney's
fees in the Yakima case are going to be
upwards of a million dollars
and they spent you know several hundred
thousand dollars finding the case
um so
you know it's things like identifying
the populations identifying gaps and
services
making sure we're analyzing voting
districts but but it we just basically
say take a look at Montez V City of
Yakima and and look through that because
we want to make sure that we have those
things in place up front so that when
this law is coming down we don't get
kind of Blindsided 15 years down the
road if we have a you know if our Latino
population grows or
um
non-native English speaking
Asian population grows
I'll ask you to send me the link of the
of the decision if you could I actually
have a copy that I've already read so I
can actually hand that off well there
you go
there's a few copies of decisions with
them
I will share it with you all
and I think
um also you know just when you start
seeing websites that now you can
translate in the um you know I think the
city wants to go that way that that it's
just a lot more in different languages
so that it's a lot easier for people to
figure out what's going on but but
that's certainly a good one is just to
identify the gaps because I'm sure we're
we're way far away from that yeah and I
know one of the things they were even
looking at in the Yakima case were
things as
um parks in the Latino districts versus
parks in the white District so if we're
not monitoring those things and making
sure that our various populations are
taken care of in respect to all of our
services and amenities then we could get
caught off guard
good good one
anything else for for this one
utility assistance Safeguard easily
accessible utility assistance programs
for low-income households
this is a good one this is an important
one that we are part of now
um
anything to add to this one it's support
and Implement utility assistance for low
income including financial assistance
weatherization and conservation programs
any additions to this one
okay and then the last what is usually
the last in all the elements is is
regional the regional approach to issues
that we have because it Human Service
issues don't stop at City boundaries
and so this talks about all the
different groups that we work with and
how we all work together and
um not only do we provide services
regionally but we want to be sure that
the facilities are cited so that the
local service is as accessible and that
we have enough of everything to go
around for all the people that need it
um
talk about Partnerships with school
districts and colleges as well as
Partnerships with businesses and making
sure that if there's anything at the
legislative
level that we're promoting that as much
can happen at the state level as well
any additions to to those to the
regional approach
okay
and again the implementation on this one
will be similar to what we talked about
with the others in that it'll be a
separate document that's like the work
plan that actually has the things that
the programs and plans or programs and
um
to actually check off you know that we
did this program we did this action we
funded this that wouldn't be in the comp
plan but it would actually be that that
work plan that's the action kinds of
things
any other comments or any other comments
from Bill since you helped Usher this
through at Human Services Commission
yeah it looks good and added comments
are great
good
anything else for tonight
okay in two weeks what are we doing in
two weeks is it land use land use
the final wow the final review final
review of the maps and
graphs and tables and numbers
and we have discussions we have some
work to do next week to get that ready
and I think that's the only one that
night right because we're not doing the
sustainability elements transportation
is on the 25th okay we were going to do
the sustainability uh
um
indicators but that got bumped to
October because they're almost done with
those well good job guys you did another
super super job with your review and
your comments
I think we're done if you guys are done
we are done
um and the meeting will officially close
at 8 50.
P.M
thank you Phil Hawks
Kristen you just saved your edits and
then we