would it be easier question we are on
the air okay
viewing audience so good evening and
welcome to the October 26 meeting of the
Planning Policy Commission tonight we're
going to have a public hearing on the
proposed amendments to central Issaquah
development and design standards and
it's a criminal code regarding
inclusionary zoning in central Issaquah
at first we have a emotion for accepting
the minutes of the September 28th
meeting do I have a motion so moved to G
look mrs. I can't feel any discussion
any changes
all those in favor say aye hi tonight
we're going to start with a presentation
by Trish our planning policy manager
and then Arthur Sullivan who will talk
about regional coalition for the housing
arch the Trish would you please start
here I go love the pictures right the
housing strategy remember that we worked
so hard on that and you all were the you
let up the meetings with the Human
Services and economic vitality council
adopted that and now we're bringing the
implementation to you all like we
promised you we would before the end of
the year so that's what tonight is all
about is that first step from the nine
strategies and then we're gonna have
Arthur explain the magic behind how did
we get to the affordability that we
picked the choices that we picked better
in the amendment tonight and then the
next steps for this amendment so as I
said remember 2016 we had a moratorium
one of the issues the council raised was
we don't have enough affordable housing
so we did with your health we did the
housing strategy it was approved in
September with nine strategies and the
one we're focused on tonight is strategy
six which you might remember increased
developer provided affordable housing in
Central Issaquah very narrowly focused
and the one that we're starting out with
so the way we're doing that is I broke
this down to try to be as simple as
possible what are we doing we're
increasing the requirement in the urban
core from 10% mid moderate to 12.5 low
moderate or 10% low and we'll explain
how we got those in a little bit and
what else are we doing is we're adding a
requirement in the new vertical
mixed-use overlay that you all worked on
a few weeks ago so we're adding one and
we're also adding a requirement outside
the urban core zone in the mixed use
zone and those that has a choice to of
how the developer can figure that out
and just so you remember this map is
really like the red is the urban core
where we've increased the requirement in
this proposal and the purple is where
we've added the requirement in this
proposal that's the purple is outside
the urban core so I wanted to give you
some context on the areas that we're
targeting if you will for this
affordable housing requirement and the
second map is really Wiggly but the
slashed hatched area down at the south
that's the vertical mix juice overlay
that you just approved recommended
approval of a few weeks ago that's where
we're adding the an affordable housing
requirement so now you know what and you
know where this is beautiful this is the
table in your packet and I wanted to
show how we did it how are we asking for
more well according to the state you
can't ask for more unless you give
something as well otherwise it's frowned
upon as perhaps being illegal we don't
want to do that so what we're doing is
we're changing the base F AR for
residential in the two places where
we're number one adding in the core and
are increasing in the core and adding in
mixed-use and we're also raising the
base height so there this is they're
allowed to go higher and they're allowed
to have more F AR but in exchange for
that we're asking for them to give us
some sort of affordable housing and
we're giving them choices on how they
can provide it so that helps them with
their performant to do what they want to
do there's sort of similar choices that
we're giving them but I'll have our
third walk us through that and then last
slide is just the the much simpler table
with the
the mixed that vertical mix juice
overlay how we're changing that a little
bit we're changing the commercial and
we're changing let actually that's all
we're changing is the commercial but
we're adding the footnote to be clear on
what their requirement is for affordable
housing how did we get these I'm sure
that is the burning question that you
all were asking yourself as you read
this this week and for that I'm turning
it over to Arthur with the first of his
three very informative tables you gotta
take it away I will be over here if you
need me okay evening Commission Arthur
Sullivan program manager arch so we've
been asked we were working with your
staff trying to help you get to the
directive that the council wanted which
is how can we get more explicit
affordability and we really had to look
at it in three different areas for the
centralist quote because of the current
conditions and actions you took last
week for the vertical overlay so the
issue and the challenge whenever we're
working with a city is in order to add
affordability or add a public benefit
requirement there needs to be some
comparable or measurable or sort of
counterbalance on development value or
incentive for the development community
can be things that increase development
capacity it could be things that reduce
their costs such as reducing parking
requirements things along those lines so
there's this balancing act and this is
something we've helped cities do for
years and years and a number of cities
so in Redmond they have provisions
throughout their city they didn't see
anything either for about five or six
years and then because often your plans
are done it before the markets there I
mean it's not
common with the cities we've worked on
but we've also seen in the last couple
years a number of projects and cities
that have programs that you're looking
at tonight in which the development
community is producing Sammamish they
did their town centre plan a good five
plus years ago there are now a number of
projects using there's Redmond Kirkland
Bellevue in the bell red area and a few
other areas in East King County so we're
trying to use a very similar approach
here but here we had to start so it's
always what do you have in place now so
we gave you three charts in your packet
because the way you need to look at it
is starting from what you have and it's
a little bit different in each place so
the first chart we have here this is for
the urban core and we put all three on
one page but we put them up here one at
a time and they're all laid out the same
and I'm just going to try to walk you
through sort of what is in here in the
process that was being proposed here and
then open it up to questions you may
have both in terms of understanding how
the numbers are done but then also then
talking about the specific areas and
does that feel like the right thing or
how come one area is different than
another so what we basically did in this
chart so this is the area in your
central district while you already had a
requirement in the urban core for 10
percent of the old base plus if you
wanted to go above the base 20 percent
of that increase and in the base the
affordability was ten percent of the
base and that was it
70 percent of median I'm just gonna use
percents of median because otherwise I'm
gonna trip over the terminology we came
up with and I don't know I'm just gonna
use that and then if you want to go
above the base and this is what's in the
first column the base 2012 it's showing
you your base fer was one point seven
and what we're doing in this project
what we're doing this chart showing you
a hypothetical project and we're showing
you how it changes in different
scenarios and what it looks like how
it's different in those different
scenarios and so the first one is what
you have in place currently and we're
saying you have a base fer of 1.7 and in
our demonstration project that we had it
was one acre and we looked at the number
of units and your base height that you
right now is 48 feet and the total
number of units that you could build
under the base FA are for this example
project assuming a size of 944 square
feet is about 69 units and an acre and
in that project if you built it what
we're showing you down below is what
kind of affordability would be provided
in that in that building so on your
current rules that building is right at
its base if they are and you'd have 69
units and 6.9 or seven would be
affordable and what we have is a
different row for different
affordability levels because as you see
as we go through this you're going to be
landing in different places because of
the circumstances so right now that
would be at the moderate level mid
moderate level which is 70 percent am on
so that's your current rules okay so now
what we say is well what if that the
next two columns are well what if
somebody went above that under your
current code provisions what would it
look like so we did one example where
the project uses a 3.0 F AR and then the
second one is we did a project that went
to the maximum f AR that's allowed which
is 5.0 and we took the same site and all
we did was you just use a different f AR
and what we're showing you there is for
that 3.0 FA our example 1.7 if it's your
base and 1.3 of that 3.0 is your bonus
so doing the math on that you still get
that same 6.9 units you'd have to do for
heading to the base affordable at 70%
then what you would have is you would
have that bonus FA are of 1.3 that's
going to translate to about a hundred
and twenty more units and therefore ten
of those or no that's the total units I
sort of hit that but you're adding about
50 more units than that extra FA are and
that extra 50 units 20 percent of them
or 10 as it shows in this chart would
need to be affordable at 50 percent of
median so in that example of that
project you'd have 120 total units and I
just sort of going down there so you can
see how the charts organized ten of
those would be affordable at 50 percent
of ami seven of those would be
affordable at 70 percent or a total of
seventeen
units or 14% of the total project would
be at some level of affordability okay
so that's how your current standards are
so that's an area in which you have a
requirement and that's what's in place
so what we challenged ourselves to look
in the core area is how might you get
more affordability because it was sort
of like we'd like to see more
affordability so I'm gonna skip the next
blue it's the same example it's just a
different scenario but the purpose we
did this for is so that you can see in
those bin and the existing code how many
affordable units you would get in some
different scenarios so now what we did
is we said let's try to find a way to
increase the amount of required
affordable housing well we have to find
a way to give some extra density now in
none of the proposals you're seeing it
we're not increasing your upper end
all's we're doing is playing with the
base and we're saying if we increase the
base then that gives you some room to
say that you're giving as extra
development capacity into the base and
we're gonna work with that look at the
value of that looking at land values and
translate that into how much
affordability could you ask for that and
try to have the return be relatively
reasonable like they kind of equal each
other out so the first example we looked
at is we looked at a base fer of 3.0
you're currently at 1.7 and I believe
that's even lower than what you just
approved for the you know the vertical
mixed use zone but it's a good increase
and what we looked at there is if that
project were built and then what we did
is we said let's look at it sort of the
same way of the some percentage of that
base must be affordable and doing the
math we gave two different scenarios
that we looked at one was we said let's
look at greater affordability you know
that was we couldn't tell if that was
part of the messaging is we have such
great needs it would be nice to see some
units at a greater affordability level
so we picked 60% of mariya median income
and we said what would happen if you did
and we just did different percentages
and we came up with when we did twelve
and a half percent of the units at sixty
percent of median and required that you
can see in this example the same size
site that project would still have
that's that same 300 we had before so
it's very comparable to the first column
under the existing scenario but we're
saying that's now base so you have to do
12 and a half percent of the units in
that base of 120 so you'll get 15 units
at sixty percent of median income and
therefore you now have and that would
compare to you to gotten a couple more
under your current provisions but those
would have been mixed between units at
fifty and seventy now you're getting all
of those units at sixty percent of
median income when we run the numbers in
terms of how a developer in terms of the
give and the take for them this is
resulting in the return slightly better
and when you go mandatory it's good to
they're a little bit on the side of the
developer because it's mandatory that in
this scenario the economics work
slightly better for the Builder than in
the scenario the 3.0 you know the first
blue column okay so the return it's a
little bit better for the Builder it's
not great every by any means but it is a
little bit better and so that's the
reason how we got to that point is we
just kept range we change affordability
levels we change the percentages and we
looked at the returns for the extra
increase in the base and that's how we
got to what you see there now we saw
that and we saw twelve and a half
percent we also thought you know Trish
made the comment it's nice sometimes to
give build builders look at deals
differently here and there and maybe it
might be nice to give them an
alternative way to meet an affordability
requirement that might meet some
interest they have and what motivated
the second column the 10% at 50 was
we've often heard from builders it's
harder for us to have more units that
are a4 that are affordable we'd rather
have less units affordable and make them
more affordable so for example in
Redmond they have a requirement that 10%
of units must be affordable at 80% of
median and then they have an alternative
formula says if you want to give us you
at fifty percent of median you can do
five percent and over the years about
one out of five builders picks that
second choice okay they just do and I
can't explain the reasons why they do
they all have different reasons for
doing so so we thought well let's try to
have a scenario where you don't have to
do more than ten percent because one
thing we've heard from a lot of builders
is keep the number down and we're most
comfortable if you're at 10 percent and
below so there isn't a magic here other
than that's what I've heard some times
over the years and so we tried to do it
and go alright if we wanted to have 10%
of the units what percentage of for
affordability has about the same return
as in that first and a 12 percent twelve
and a half percent at sixty and that's
where we got the 10% at 50% of ami so
that's just meant to sort of we thought
the idea of give them a choice and then
here's the second choice so the exercise
here is you can play with the percentage
of affordability and the ami but there's
some formulas behind this that are
looking at how much land value versus
how much rents are being reduced and
what is the cost of the capitalized
value of lost right okay so that's what
we came up with for urban core outside
the overlay area and I'll explain so
questions about the format and or this
specific area need some help on your
calculus here okay so looking at the
base for 2012 hunts he's 69 units with
the base F AR of 1.7 correct if we move
the far2 3 and now allow 120 units to
grant built in place of that 69 correct
and if we move to an f AR 5 its 212
correct so looking at this what your
proposal is we are going to go from 69
units which is what we're at today
mm-hmm and we're your proposals to go
with 3 so that's going to turn into 120
so on that one acre lot would be a
120 units heights of 60 feet yes we did
propose in there you saw to a comment
higher fer there's a higher base height
that's being proposed as well correct
but they hit that we would have to have
this is where the bonus is coming that
confuse me a little bit okay I know it's
it's I do this for a living so get it to
a point where it makes sense we tried to
keep it a little bit straightforward but
I know it's still a lot of numbers so
the bonus part 50% 20% bonus at 50% of
affordable housing so that would be 50%
of the King County justice median and
adjusted ami way too right yeah is that
mine household income or is that
individual income ami is for a family of
four and then you have math to figure
out different so when I'm doing this
math my prototype project if you really
want to get into the guts of it what we
do is we look at prototypical projects
out in the community and we have a
mixture of one-bedroom studios and two
bedrooms and we look at what the markets
at and because the affordable rent for a
one-bedroom is different than a
two-bedroom and market rents are
different so we're looking at the
prototype building that has a mixture so
the ami to 96 you know the ami is for a
family of four
there's formulas to adjust it for
families of three and two and one and
then that translates into different
rents for studios in ones and twos and
threes and then we compare those rents
to the market rents for studios ones and
twos and threes there's a lot of pro
formas behind this okay so looking at an
individual not a family of four yes
individual yes it would still be at the
50% ami which would actually put there
their rent and lower them the average
rent lower than the average introductory
rent for King County
wouldn't that be a backfire because now
we would be putting one person into one
unit as opposed to if it was more
expensive that person would have to then
have maybe a roommate or stack living
where they have other family members
live with some parents or something that
sort so now you're putting two people
into each unit isn't that actually know
what we're doing is in our math we are
assuming we are assuming like three
people in a two-bedroom unit on average
and it doesn't matter you know when we
the unit's rented I mean we will just
assume it's a three person household
when it's a one-bedroom we assume it's a
one-and-a-half person household when
it's a Studio we assume it's a
one-person household and so the rent
level is different at so at 50 what I've
been looking for is my handy dandy truck
that I know we give to you guys all the
time and I don't seem to see it for
myself at the moment but numbers maybe
it's in this folder
one night I don't have it with me so I
can give you hard numbers that are used
and I'm gonna have to do it sort of off
the top of my head I believe the reason
why I bring this up is because it sounds
like the business model that was being
proposed is actually going to be less
dense less dense less dense actually I
interested me enough the argument we've
I've heard in some cities and I I'm
gonna have two answers for you one
answer is no if anything it's going to
want builders to do smaller units
because when you do this analysis
the gap between typical market rents and
a rent affordable at 60% of median
income in a studio is maybe $300 a month
the gap between a two-bedroom unit and a
two-bedroom Union affordable did you say
60% median what did I say what if this
is the same percentage of median income
is going to be $500 a unit that's why we
have to do this hard analysis and stuff
builders it costs them more they lose
more rent what when you're at the same
affordability level they lose more rent
on the two-bedroom units than they do
the studio's sure so what you're saying
is by creating substandard units well we
didn't even substandard units no I'm
sorry not substandard units but when you
create less desirable units you can Oh
what do you mean less desirable because
explain a little bit more so if you have
if an average studio of 800 square feet
friends for $1,200 right 500 square feet
and rents for $1,200 but it won't be 800
will be 500 okay so we'll go out to 500
square feet so you have a 500 square
foot apartment and you rent it for
$1,200 and what your this formula is
saying that the developer could then
come in with a 320 unit or 320 square
foot apartment and charge a thousand
dollars so one of the questions that we
got from a commissioner is how do we
assure the affordability of maintained
as buildings over time and they're sold
etc well the standard of living just I'm
getting to your point I'm trying to get
to your point and if you look at the
draft language in here you will see a
reference to a covenant that must be
when you get to Section 8 to the section
that relates to affordable housing that
you have a linkage to in your notes it
will say in there that the project must
sign a covenant in a form acceptable to
the city that will be recorded against
the property and that will address
issues such as unit mix and long term
affordability and monitoring etc one of
the issues that's in there says about
the size of the affordable units first
it says they
we have a similar unit mix as the
overall building so if a builder does
have two bedrooms and half one bedrooms
then the affordable units will have to
be have two bedrooms and half one
bedrooms in general it says they shall
be of similar condition and where they
must be entry-level market kindig
quality for your community and in terms
of size that will say they generally
need to be a similar size they may be up
to ten they may be smaller but that must
be approved by the city and we have seen
builders but we don't let them build 500
square foot of market rate studios and
300 square foot affordable they might
build 450 square foot or 400 square foot
maybe but they don't have carte blanche
to do whatever they want for the
affordable unit so that's why my land to
make that comment so go on with your
question okay so also with that if you
have a smaller affordable unit huh
smaller square feet and you have two
occupants in it wouldn't that almost be
over occupied that's up to each property
owner the rent will still be the same to
the owner you don't base the rent on the
number of people in a unit the rent is
always staying for a studio it's always
the same for one better than always the
same for two bedroom it doesn't matter
how many people so then that becomes a
fair housing issue and it's up to the
manager if they want to limit the number
of people in the unit to follow the fair
housing practices in order to do so okay
and that's for any housing
I mean they might charge different rents
for different out but we you know but if
you want to limit occupancy or put more
or less people in or less people in that
you have to follow certain rules
other questions next one okay so the
next chart B oh do I have to move the
chart here yep okay B now it's the area
outside the urban core here you have the
same basic base but you have no
affordability requirement up to the base
and this is part of what was why the
first project that you got downtown as I
recall was outside the core and it
stayed within the base and therefore it
had no affordability so this is part of
what's triggering a lot of this
conversation is so how do we get some
affordability here the dilemma is you've
already given one point seven with no
requirement so you can't go back and say
one point seven we want something for
that okay so what we did here is we went
to a my example I gave you is it two
point five because this is outside the
core and we thought that not going quite
with all the six apps or chatting we
thought that outside the core we
shouldn't look at it you know you just
did up to five for the vertical
mixed-use and we thought for the core
you go up like four outside the core we
thought don't push it so much so we went
to two point five okay and so we gave
you in the base example under the
current code a two point five example so
in that case you've got one point seven
of base F AR and point eight of bonus
that they are so that means what you're
getting is 20% of that point 8 f AR
which translates to from this project of
97 units because of the FA are five
point five percent of the units would be
affordable at the 50% level and
so that's what you would get under the
existing ordinance so and one way of
thinking about it is you probably
shouldn't have that bigger differences
between the existing system it's just
we're moving the base and we're trying
to make the base requirement sort of
almost comparable that's why we always
give you that first example is because
that lets you mirror what you would have
today and how much your economic
analysis justified so and what we're
sort of trying to say is economics have
been changing market rates are a lot
higher now so the gaps are bigger for
the builders that's one reason we're
saying it might look a little bit less
is because you know we're still using
pretty much similar formulas but we're
also acknowledging that the market has
changed and so the gaps are much much
bigger now than three four years ago or
five years ago when we first did this so
here we said what could we possibly get
and we wanted to get the percentage a
little bit higher and we also know that
in the conversations we've had in the
past couple months with the council over
some other properties the idea of
different affordability levels seemed to
be of interest in recognizing different
levels of need and therefore we said
let's try seven and a half percent at
70% of AMI
okay so you still you're getting a
little bit more okay and it's a little
bit higher affordability so and that's
where our math came out so you would get
seven units so you actually get more
units but they would be a little less
affordable so that's what that example
is then demand again the same kind of
math is in the previous chart it's just
we're starting with zero and all were
adding we're not adding as much to the
base we're only adding point seven where
in the other area we added one point two
or something so that's how the math
works out in this example where the
economics are a little bit better for
the Builder and we wanted to get the
percentage a little bit higher and it's
still in an area of need okay this is
the area you used to be in the core
right that's what your core used to be
it was at 70% so this would give you the
same type of affordability level that
you have in the core area today and then
again that sort of option is what if
somebody wanted to do less and so we
came up with well five percent it's 60
percent of median income were
South to about the same mass as the
seven and a half percent at seventy
percent okay to the Builder so that's
why the numbers are lower and the
affordability is different is because
less of an increase and starting with
your base at zero okay so then that's
second questions on this area all right
third area is your vertical mixed use
which you just looked at so there you
increase the base far2 5.0 so we looked
at that math and we also you're in the
core I mean no it's outside before it's
in the core I'm sorry it's in the core
so we start with that 10% so you can see
in that column there we were saying we
didn't do the math right at 5.0 I mean
we did do one example all the way up to
five oh but we figured that's a pretty
high F a are compared to most of the
buildings we're seeing built these days
in other cities that especially with the
height that we were talking about well
you're good to go up to 85 it just feels
like the economics today are still in
buildings that we're seeing like in
belle red and places like that
downtown Redmond we figured that sort of
you're comfortable and their FA RS are
not above three and a half in fact
they're usually below three and a half
so didn't want to do too big a building
figuring what is a typical building
going to look like so we did an example
here using a 3.5 f AR and when we do the
math there and we said okay there's an
interest to get more than 10% seems to
be some of the interest and also looking
at different levels of needs so what we
basically did is right now you're
provisions are 10% of the base has to be
at 70 and then a certain portion 20% of
your bonus is at 50% so you can see in a
current example of a 2.7 FA are you
would have 10% of the units at 50% of
media this is under your existing rules
if someone built in that area to the
court and 5% about at
50% of at 70% of media what we did if we
basically switched those two numbers
around we said 10% at at 70% of media
and 5% at 50% of media of the total
project okay so it's not measured as an
increment it's sort of your new baseline
and that's up to the base now one thing
to keep in mind in all of these you
still have your from base to max we're
not changing any of that so the bonus
program is still the same
so for all of these areas between your
you know you're like in the outside the
core the outside the court of the
maximum fer is I mean I'm sorry the poor
outside of here it's five but our base
is three so there's still that three to
five we've left in place the existing
rule that if somebody wanted to do above
three outside the core or any in the
core outside the vertical mixes area
they would have to do 20% of that at 50
percent of median so you still have that
in place haven't touched that it's just
we've changed the base so that you have
situations in all areas now of your city
in the CIP area of the city where there
is a mandate to do affordability and
that mandate is different in each area
because of the shifts that you're making
in your base so here it's higher than
the rest of the core because you went up
higher with the base then we're
proposing in the rest of the core and so
the math worked out differently and so
we got to a point where it looked like
asking for 5% of the unit's at 50 and
10% at 70 again made the economics a
little bit better
but got you a higher percentage than the
10% you're getting now and it's getting
you a mixture of affordability you're
getting also some units at 50 where
right now you're only getting units at
70 so it felt like sort of exchange then
with that same principle I made on the
first one oh it's at 15 what would it
take to get it to 10% and what we're
finding is right now it's 10% at 70
right in your existing base we're saying
they'll turn it for a builder is if you
only one do 10%
the higher new base fer we think we can
make the argument they should be at 50%
okay so you have again choice for the
Builder you do the 15% with different
affordability where you do all at 50%
and bring it down to fit bring it down
to 50% for all of them ok question yes
what other options are this is the city
giving to builders what eliminate are
lowering permitting fees whatever to
enable them to do this and have you ever
done a study on by putting 10 to 15%
lower incomes in there what it does to
increase the cost of the other units
thank you for asking both of those
especially the second one so for the
first one the city has policy for
waiving impact fees and permit fees
right so this city weighs a lot of the
listed in somewhere it's obvious and in
fact what we have done is if you were to
read through all of 1821 you will see in
there there is a statement that says for
you know we say look at your
neighborhood plan but that's going to
send you to 1821 85 hey look at this
section of the minutes of the code
because you might be eligible for fee
waivers so it's right in there to let
them know we can't say universally
because the rules are a little bit
different depending on the affordability
level they're at so the city's had those
rules in place for a very long time they
put them in place way back when they
were doing the the master playing
communities kind of thing and they and
they apply them now citywide so that's
here to your first one that's the thing
that the city has in place city might be
looking at for very small scale councils
the second strategy that they're looking
at is multifamily tax exemption
short-term exemption on improvements in
exchange for affordability but they're
if they're gonna look at that if it's a
very very small area right now so that's
potentially on the council's plate for
later this year as well but for this
it's the fee waivers combined with delay
intensity increases to your second
question how does this impact the other
90% of the unit's I know I view it
doesn't okay this is designed that you
are giving land value equal to the
reduction in rent so the first part of
the answer is there is a trade-off of
value given for value taken so it should
not affect the economics of other units
that's the first the second is if it did
what I've always preached the city's is
if we don't design it right your impact
isn't to other consumers in that
building that might get built the impact
is there won't be units built for people
to move into
builders won't build okay and so that's
always the litmus test now with always
is the challenge is sometimes plan
through ten years ahead of the market
anyway so is it because of how you
design the system or is it because you
design something for the future and my
experience has been with cities I came
from the development world where we used
to negotiate these exactly these deals
with cities we would negotiate trade off
and density for giving them
affordability that's what I did for a
living before I came to the public
sector so we try to take that principle
and apply that same principle here
that's half the answer the other half of
the answer is once a builder starts
building costs do not impact the rents
of consumer pays for a unit proof of
that what happened in 2010 builders
didn't get to charge rent based on their
costs builders charged rents based on
what people would pay so once you start
construction in your committee that's
what makes development so risky you
don't get to charge based on cost you
make a decision to move forward thinking
that your class will work but once
you're in that ground and you're going
if the market shifts on you good or bad
the market will dictate your economic
return so one story is everybody look at
the recession I had a builders in
downtown Redmond who were saying that
the 80% units that they had to do when
they Pro formed them were going to be
two to three hundred dollars below
market when they came on to market the
80% unit rented for less than they were
allowed to rent because I rebuilt the
unit and that building was renting for
under 80 percent of ami rent levels
because of the market the other story I
tell I worked on a development once and
I had a really really not happy
neighborhood with what we were doing we
were doing ownership housing with condos
and some below market condos they did
not like us they appealed our approvals
we got delayed a year and a half the
cost of that delay to me was ten
thousand dollars per unit to my company
the market shifted thirty thousand
dollars in that year and a half so I
Proform at the project to sell the homes
for two hundred thousand our costs went
up ten thousand the market was 230 that
I fell the homes for two hundred and ten
thousand or did I fell in for two
hundred and thirty thousand I think you
know the answer to the question or the
comment so but I will say just as
strongly if you don't do this right you
can kill development or landowner
because what you're doing is you're
affecting land values and what we're
trying to say is when you change the
zoning we're trying to have some of that
my old boss used to go at this podium
when the zoning was changed tonight you
guys just rang the cash register for us
as a land owner the difference tonight
is we are giving it back to the
community because we're going to give
you that value you gave us back to the
community and some of the units being
affordable that's the principle that
you're using here if you're trying to
say we increase the value of property
but what we're trying to do is manage
that so there's a public benefit that
goes with that public decision
so looking at this methodology and I
need a clarification a is really the
same thing as C except it's 2.7 f AR
that's like a so yeah yeah yes because
they're both in the quarter they both
start from the court you're right now
and so the only difference is one's
vertical mixed use and the other one
would be all residential it's no it's
worse than the math the math the math
and get back to the map application the
difference is the location if they're
both urban core but but one now has the
base of five they're in the vertical
mixed use which is this area here your
base F AR went from 1.7 to 5.0 but in
this right area you only went from 1.7
to 3.0 and so if you go back to our
examples so in the one case you are only
getting to 120 units and so into your
old formula you're getting only in units
of extra because it you only increase
that you know that that bonus area right
is is smaller that you in other words
the amount you increased your base is
taken from old bonus area so that only
went up 1.3 but in the core you went all
the way up to 5 which is an increase of
2 point whatever and so you are under
the old rule if someone were building at
5.0 you'd be getting a lot more
affordability because you gave a lot
more bonus okay so now that I have a
better understanding of this mm-hmm
this is if we left if we had no
affordable housing whatsoever we would
be looking at 69 units
at what level at your base 2012 level 69
the your fa 69 total unit and 7
affordable in the core right 0 outside
the core so in order for us to get
affordable housing what you're saying is
if we went all the way to 5 we would
almost be 3 times the amount of housing
that we're allowing into the into his
o'clock no because you right now allow
all the way up to 5 in that area we're
not changing the maximum we're just
changing you know you have a zero
maximum base right there just moving the
base you're not checking we're not
changing any of the maximums in any of
the areas we're changing the base FA are
and then the heights one or more
one-story in two of the three areas and
I however much in the in the vertical
mixed-use so with the maximum capacity
for central Issaquah has not changed all
right so that's the part that I'm
confused about because looking at this
looking at the table I see units going
up so the units that I see going up are
just if a developer is going to build
400 units and we give them a
a 5.0 far they're still going to have
400 units but a certain percentage of
those is going to be affordable housing
the different we allowing them to
actually add on to that 400 and build
another 12 you know what we're what this
what I think we're trying to respond
here in the council is you won't have
projects like Atlas that work under
rules that didn't have to trigger any
affordability everything will trigger
affordability now any project no matter
how big or large and so that's really
what this is doing it's not changing
maximum if someone was gonna build the
5.0 before they can still build the 5.0
and as this map shows you the number of
units they're gonna give you affordable
hasn't changed that much but what will
happen is all projects now will have
some level of affordability okay so
we're not increasing the capacity on our
buildings correct or increasing the
number of units for direct okay that's
the part that was confused about tonight
and I can see doing that it's because
you have this two-tier kind of thing
we're just moving this sort of this
little floating thing well it's the
whole incentive idea of we're allowing
an extra 20 feet which to me sounds like
we're allowing expansion beyond of what
we are at today and again we only showed
you the base heights the maximum Heights
if you in this chart if you go to the
chart in your packet you will see that
they do the higher FA are if you already
allow higher Heights you have a lower
height that goes with the base then you
write so if you look at chart for for a
on page nine you will see in the urban
core and you'll write you currently have
is a 48 foot height for the base and 125
for the max so we're not all we're
saying is since we've floated up the FA
are we're floating up the height a
little bit too but we're not floating
the maximum that you can do so that
person who is
to five-o before under the current they
could have potentially gone to 125 feet
because they were in the bonus ramp
okay I'm sorry that totally does not mix
okay okay is there a minimum height is
that what the base is I'm gonna have to
point to somebody else
there's no manual hypes hmm yeah there's
a minimum if they are right so there's a
minimum fer so the base the base height
that's being increased is what's the
threshold at which the affordability
criteria is triggered is that true
let's let's try it this way so think of
it as a stacked cake right two layers
the first layer you can do without
having to do so that so before we
touched it you could do that first layer
without any affordability right that's
ends of 48 and the second layer was
called density bonus and if you chose to
get into that second layer there was an
obligation for some affordability to
come with it and so what we're doing
with this is saying that base now we
want to get affordability in both layers
of the cake right but we have to give
them something to be able to get
something in that lower layer which used
to have no affordability and to do that
we're increasing the FAA are so think
about it in terms of so FA R is a
function of your property and the
footprint of the building and the height
right and so really what we're saying is
you could do bigger squatter buildings
have a bigger F AR and still not trip
that density bonus if that's so a
developer's gonna pencil out what that
means for them to go both taller and to
add additional affordability by going
into that density bonus range so far
that's been kind of not many people have
wanted to venture into that space and so
what we're doing now is capturing that
lower level by increasing the FA are
giving them kind of a bigger squad or
building
because that's a way that I think as
Arthur mentioned earlier we can get
there with the math because we can show
that there's value add to their property
by doing that so this black box science
basically just produces bigger buildings
but not more units your for each of
those three areas there is no more
capacity or no more extra height than
exists today
by the way are saying that the FA are
where before without getting into the
affordability they could only do 1.7 FA
are right now they can do 3.0 so if they
still build a 1.7 that thing they need
to have affordable units they could also
build up to 3.0 and still have
affordable bill oh they can even clip
going up to the five but for us to
capture that old 1.7 at 1.6 building we
had to give them something to enable
them to go higher they may choose not to
just like in Redmond Redmond gave many
years ago doubled they barely did change
capacity and when they did that they
told the builders everyone's gonna give
us 10% affordable even if you build to
the old rules and some builders have
chosen to do that but they still give
you 10 because they had the they were
empowered to do more that's their choice
whether or not they use all the capacity
given to them but you have given them
that capacity under the base okay the
difference between a 3 and a 5 is you
get a bigger building and bigger units
not necessary bigger units no the
Builder would do a unit mix based on
what he thinks the market is I'll get
you got more units or you might get
bigger more you know it depends on where
the market so in this case someone could
still build the 1.7 base FA are at 48
feet height and 69 total units but if
we're looking at that option a
if we adopt that that means instead of
doing the 10% at 70% a ami you have to
do 12.5% at 15 and actually so to do the
best explanation rather than looking at
the urban core we should probably be
looking at to go say let's really if
you're talking to zero scenario you're
talking there so in this case somebody
could build the one point seven that
would give you sixty nine units and in
right now there would be nothing going
forward you'd have 7.5% of those sixty
nine units right at the 70% AMI or they
could build higher yep more dense
buildings I think that they're they
wouldn't do that because they could
because they're being given this the
change in the base so economically they
that's why they're being great I would
do that but he just said some of the
builders in Redmond did choose to do
yeah I'm going to do some you know
that's that's the hard thing about doing
this is different builders build
differently they have different kinds of
money they have different kinds of
product they have different kinds of
this and you see in downtown Bellevue
you see high-rises and you still see
wood frame and there's all of them can
do high-rise I think one of the problems
instead of thinking about it as we're
gonna get bigger buildings which I mean
first of all we've already asked for
with the vertical mix use stuff we've
that's what we're going for
but the problem might be that if you've
got a builder who wants to build these
1.5 FA are type buildings and we're
saying more affordable units and they
don't want to do that they're gonna go
to Bothell or Woodinville or you know
something like that to build theirs
rather than coming
essica so that's what we need to be
considering as our potential and what
we're saying is this is the point I was
making earlier is that a builder
shouldn't need to decide between here or
somewhere else because they got
something for it that didn't exist now
what happens is landowners want the
people buying to forget about this
decision that was made but we keep
reminding builders but the land can say
well no this provisions been in place
for 15 years in Redmond or 20 years in
Redmond so that's requirements kind of
like if you adopt rules for steep slopes
some slopes have sites have them some
don't what do you do you pay different
amounts for land because of the
constraints on the land and that's why
I'm saying we can kill it is if you make
land go negative then you're not doing
anybody the right thing so I would just
disagree a little bit with the bigger
buildings I think we wanted more density
but not not just bigger buildings Point
Blank especially in the vertical mixed
use and the FA are at five there and I
think when I'm looking at these I keep
looking at the two blue columns and
comparing to the green and it doesn't
seem that different but then in reality
because most people are choosing to go
with the base it's really comparing the
the white versus the green because
people are as we've seen that's been the
problem is that people haven't been
choosing to use the bonus option so very
good point but because there's an
economics behind this you know this word
called taking just a bike like that
because of a thing called takings if the
number in the green was double or triple
what was in the blue for the same you
know it's like well how did you make
that happen
okay so there's there's sort of a little
reason why they look somewhat similar
right and just just just to put real
numbers to this because it looks like
7-7 doesn't seem like a lot and we're
like whoa but when you when you add
gateway and Atlas together and those are
both outside now
now gateways not mixed-use but we didn't
include it because Western gateway was
done but if but both of those are in
central Issaquah they're outside the
core and total there there's 750 units
and so when you take 750 units and you
take seven and a half percent so now
we're getting 56 affordable units with
this where we got zero in reality so so
those numbers start to actually make
feel a lot different than looking at
seven right and that that's a good point
in the last you know a lot of cities
have adopted these kind of programs and
until about during the recession we were
getting zero because nobody was building
before the recession
between all the different cities we were
getting maybe 20 or 30 a year maybe 40
this year we might get 300 units in East
King County through these kind of
provisions it is it is this incremental
it's out there but this year alone we
think we're gonna we're gonna get to or
very close to 300 units created through
the East King County cities through
programs like this and that's because
cities that put these kind of programs
in place I'd like to go to Keith's point
this is one of the questions I had for
you Trish as we see numbers you present
to us about projections of growth for
Issaquah and what I'd like to see is an
actual projection of units right so that
was one of your questions and there this
is a one rough level a way of thinking
about this is the CIPA Pass 'ti is just
over 7,000 units over seventy five
hundred seventy five seventy seven
hundred units so you've got a scenario
at seven and a half and you got a
scenario at 12% and you got a scenario
at ten plus five you know ten percent
you got a lot of you know so different
builders might do but okay so you've
said on average ten percent of that
capacity that's seven hundred units now
your growth isn't all expected to happen
in the next 15-20 years your growth
capacity you're assuming about a third
of that might happen in the next 15 to
20 years so you know 2,200 happened and
that's a couple hundred I mean it's
you're probably going to see
because we had different affordability
levels and choices for builders so to
that question it's a matter of look at
your capacity and just take about ten
percent of that number so then when we
look at that number of we're looking at
it between 300 and let's say 500 units
and that 500 is actually being pretty
generous how what impact is that going
to give us to our community what are we
actually getting for affordable housing
this is actually going to meet our
demand are we gonna have 500 units that
solve a serious portion of the crisis
that we're currently having or is this
actually gonna make a dent so I just
spent a day at a day-long conference
where about 10 or 12 people all talked
about different ways to create
affordability and everybody always says
there's not one silver bullet and you're
not going to get to the needs that are
defined in your comprehensive plan one
way or the other and what I found over
the years it's a combination of cities
looking at a site and decor where
they'll use subsidy dollars from them
and from cities and from the county and
stuff and that'll be one answer this is
an answer where the private sector in
the past you've got zero explicitly now
sometimes the market on its own way back
built units affordable at 80% of media
okay when they bill today that doesn't
seem to happen so this is a way to get
at and that's why I made the point that
we used to get 20 or 30 so it's 10
percent of your growth in the court I
appreciate that better is better I'm
glad that we're adding to our base what
I'm curious is what the city is
assessing what is this going to do for
our that what slice of the pie is it's
going to contribute to no one's saying
this is the one answer that we're going
to have but based on what this is going
to give us how much of this is getting
salt but what is the percentage of the
city seized or it's gonna take a chunk
out the hurt we're having when you look
at a community you can decide if you
want to look at city of its across scale
or at a larger scale I would argue
larger scale and its cost scale are
about the same because you have a lot of
employment that when you look at you
know you if you look at your plan you'll
see these numbers in your planet 17
percent or 24 percent affordable to
people under 50 percent of median
come and another 15% affordable from 50
to 70% of median income those
percentages have been pretty darn
consistent from my 40-year career that
is you bro economically a workforce
profile that gets the household income
profile that gets results of our
workforce and if anything it's skewing a
little more towards the lower end these
days is 24% under 50% of median and
another 15 16% between 50 and 80 that's
from so if you look at this is this is
growth and this is trying to deal with
50 to 80 percent of median you're doing
or not to and most of your growth is in
the center that's what you're planning
for then through a policy like this you
are potentially making a pretty darn
good dent and actually meeting the
growth demand you're not taking care of
existing problems but you're doing a
pretty good job of dealing with that
moderate need resulting from growth by
having policies like this it's a pretty
so you're doing 50% or more probably by
having this kind of policy there's nine
housing strategies and this is just the
first one we're hitting and so I think
as Arthur says we're trying to do many
different things to try to hit the very
big problem for the city but we're at
least we're starting to do some it some
bigger things and when you were updating
your comp plan we put together data for
all of the cities on the same format
that showed you how many units the
cities were creating for direct
assistance how many they were treating
just the market we go out and survey all
new buildings to see if by any chance
any of them are affordable under 80% of
median and then we also track all of
these created through fee waivers and
density bonuses or land use and we we've
kept that data for 25 years so we can
show every city exactly how much then
there's also the census which said when
you look at
what's our affordability look like so
there's a two very different ways of
slicing information but both of those
are ones we do keep tabulating for all
the cities so that they can see the
result of what they're doing the joys
point though Trish could we when we're
looking at affordable housing can we go
back to that presentation where we saw
what the need was at 70% 60% 50% based
on our population I think we had those
numbers yes it's not cut that finely but
it is kind of like I have the right book
we look at what data we have to know we
have this many total population this
many total units in Issaquah and this
much need at whatever the ami levels are
and what we and how much of this
proposal address but part of what we do
that and it's a good idea but I also
always remind people why I work for you
and why I came back here to work in this
area you are generating demand for
housing from your workforce and they may
not be able to afford to live here so
when you're looking at that it's fair to
look at it how you describe we also
think it's useful to look at it from the
employment base the company I worked for
in the Bay Area was formed by the
business community saying we need
housing for our workforce so when we
have it both ways so you can see that
information and that's where we're
saying is you have generated a lot of
jobs in your community that pay and that
low you know the income ranges we're
talking about here but yes we can we
have that information and getting it all
this in a slightly different way I guess
I'm knowing that there's not a silver
bullet I'm not my gut tells me that
having a mix of affordability is better
so you have some at 17 750 you know
rather than having more at 70 which we
didn't leave out you know a large
portion of
but I don't know if that's the right
answer that's just kind of what I feel
and I don't know if there's any comment
on that you all right there from other
cities the data will show that the
further you go down the median income
range the greater the gaps and the needs
are because the market starts to create
units at about 7080 percent of median
and so there is some choice in the
community as you start getting to 70 to
80 less so than there used to be and
that's one of the things we're seeing so
in general the biggest gaps are for
renters under 50 even but even doing
something like this can help them
because they're still living in your
town they just pay over 50 percent of
their income so if this might give them
a choice for paying 40 percent of the
rainfall but the gaps you have that the
information that was asked for but
Commissioner Walsh will show that those
gaps feel more significant as a
proportion of those populations as you
go down lower incomes I've got two
questions here the first one under the
current provision we would allow under a
far of 2.56 affordable units is what we
would get if the developer chose that
option or for three we would get ten and
or they could go back and actually do
zero
the current if they only built to the
one point seven right if the only bill
to the one point seven right and the
solution that's being recommended is
that we require every unit to meet an
affordable housing requirement or not
every unit but every development meet an
affordable housing requirement which
would produce in this case seven to five
units of affordable housing at 60% of
ami and 70% of am I correct so okay but
the total number of units being
developed does not change so what you're
guaranteeing me is that
if we had a developer come in and say
I'm gonna build 7,000 units to the
maximum of Issaquah capacity we gave
them a lot of affordable housing units
under the current code options he would
not be able to go above 7,000 units
right I guess I mean yeah right so this
isn't a growth issue that's right
the other question I noticed we're
focusing a lot of attention on 60% of
ami and 70% of AMI
what about eighty ninety and a hundred
percent because even a hundred percent
of AMI
it's still hard to find affordable
housing right so okay now we didn't if
you read that section drill carefully we
get you all rental scenarios your code
is written that if you're doing
ownership housing these requirements are
ten percent of ami higher okay because
of just the economics of that and it's
currently that's how it is today you
know your current coding says yeah
10% in 70 of your base if it's rental
and 10% at 80% of median if it's
ownership okay so you just program for
ownership we'll go a little bit higher
for if we ever get the ownership stowing
which is that strategy number can't
remember which one and I suspect that
will happen one way or the other will
get to a point where condos are built
again in terms of rental at 80 and 90 or
whatever you could start to make that
argument but again I would say if you go
back to the comment about where the
needs are this is where your needs are
because at 80 and 90 there are all the
existing older buildings I'm doing the
economics and the gas based on new
buildings where the rents are at 100% of
median at 80 and 90 percent of median
existing buildings are there in the
community today that's slow that might
be going away I would argue it can it
probably gets hard to go much further as
a percent of ami or there'll always be
rentals in the 80 to 90 because most
renters earn under ninety percent of
median okay
yes there are some than the Microsoft
they're coming here and they rent and
stuff but most renters are in the
lower-income tier kind of thing so
that's why I think here we're looking at
these kind of levels because that's
where your biggest issues are in your
community so if you're going to use an
incentive try to get to levels where
you're at guys yeah I think my memory of
when we talked about the affordable
stuff was that we had the biggest gap in
that 50% range whereas we saw that we
were really good at the 80 to a hundred
percent so I think this especially that
rental yeah for ownership that's a whole
nother story
but then the program is actually
designed and again this is good condos
because it's central Issaquah it's not
going to be townhomes and things the
affordability is a little bit higher and
part of it is because that's market part
of it that's where needs probably more
how does this be touched on it affecting
the ownership Housing Strategy does this
contribute to any other of the
strategies that we've laid out in any
kind of a direct or indirect way so I
said I can get a couple answers to an
earlier question and you've now reminded
me of that sometimes people say oh by
doing this you're gonna have the markets
start changing the mix of you and if
they put in their building I said does
it affect the price and I do the other
consumers that said I don't think so and
my experience is it doesn't now some
people may say otherwise and I know
you've heard otherwise I know you've
heard it I just from my experience
haven't seen that play out but some
question is does it affect like do you
do more studio so that you get the
smaller gap so it doesn't cost you as
much the comment we make is we're trying
to keep it at ten percent or less of the
product the builders been a bill he's
got 90 percent of his product and that's
where he makes that's where they make
their money you're going to make your
decisions on what you bill on the 90
percent and we're designed to be a small
enough percentage we just go along with
whatever you're doing so when the condo
market took off I didn't see any less
condos being built in Redmond then in
like Kirkland where there wasn't a
requirement I didn't see a difference it
all went condo because the market was
there for condos in general at the condo
markets there they're gonna beat out the
renters developers they're gonna pay
more for land that's just how the
economics works so it's a good question
and I haven't seen it it's bigger market
factors that seem to affect what
builders do which makes in my mind
common sense because 90% of the product
is marked they're a product I have a
question about the long-term
affordability of these so for for
renting as the market changes as the
median income changes
if somebody is making the same amount
and the median income is changing um is
there any provisions on keeping
affordable housing affordable for the
people when they enter the rental units
so no the provision is they get to rent
at you know if it's a seventy percent of
median income unit
it's whatever 70 percent of median
income is for the area and if that
increases that's how much the rent is
allowed to increase but that's the only
amount they can increase it now we do
have provisions in our covenants that
say that you can only adjust rent once a
year to somebody so we put that in there
and then we even have provisions that
once you move in your income can go up a
little bit and it might even go above
the standard you can still say we don't
want to get just above it and be booted
out or and stuff so there's a little
cushion in there for that doesn't seem
to happen a whole lot but that's how it
works to sort of say oh this person's
income went down or is flat so you can't
raise the rent they have expenses I mean
they are these we're not subsidizing
these properties so they are allowed to
raise the rent on a unit by the changes
in median income right so I was thinking
about and it could no the Covenant is
not fifty years the company is for the
life of the building it's a land use
approval so you had mentioned the Bay
Area and I know there's so rents you
know are increasing and as the as people
are making as the median income I think
is increasing then the rents are all
increasing so I was just thinking are
there options for people once they enter
a building to try to make it affordable
in the long term for them so they don't
get priced out is there any metric
saying is the area median income we all
do is false you know it's the whole
county yeah it's I don't know if I've
ever seen it be more than 5% an average
is about 3% if not less the last ten
years in fact my first 15 years of my
career was like for per se
changing on average some fear zero hits
one or two it went negative
we don't make people lower rents and
then the last 15 years of my career it's
been more like three or even a little
below so if anything median incomes are
changing a little bit slower than they
used to but it's around 3% which as a
developer you go to a bank and you try
to underwrite a building they're not
gonna let you have a rent increase of
more than that anyway so for
underwriting for a builder they might
get more when they have once they own it
so if the markets going up 10% 15% a
year
no we just for those units it just is
based on the median income for the
region okay so that so I think you're
saying correct me if I'm wrong but the
market is projected probably to be
increasing at a much faster rate than
the median okay if you really want to
get into theoretical conversations
theoretically it shouldn't over time
short term yeah long term no but we have
been seen it feels like over time
because when I first was here average
rents were affordable at 70% of median
income and I'd see it go up to 75 you
know take a whole city's rents take the
average and if you were at 70% of median
income you could afford the average rent
in the town on each side for the rest of
the county with 60 low sixties but for
East King County was always like around
70 and sometimes we go to 75 and then we
have a recession and go back down very
quickly back down to 70 and what's
happened in the last four years is we've
gone up and up to 85 that's like almost
85 percent of meeting on the east side
there probably will be some correction I
don't think it will go all the way back
down but if I showed you we have a graph
in the materials we've given you for the
comp plan that needs analysis that shows
you how rents have changed relative to
median income over time and we just have
had this lip the last four or five years
like nothing I've ever seen and are we
likely to stay there maybe but it's it's
a historically high relative to median
income level we're at right now
sorry if this is semantics but in the
code in our packet there's a footnote
number four for Table four point four a
that's talking about the base height and
it says the base height may increase to
54 feet to accommodate additional first
floor height does that need to be
increased by the same 12 feet that the
base height is also increasing it makes
sense what I'm asking
it's another one of the notes that we
didn't 54 would need to be 66 good
question I'm trying to find the 4 in the
table did you find the 4 already in the
table it's on page 10 see the footnote I
don't see the tape I don't see it in the
table though number 4 oh it's in so
table 4.4 its height I see night okay I
just couldn't find it that's where it's
referenced so I'd say it's a good
question we should probably look at it a
little more carefully
yeah before we say yes I'll
automatically but it's a good yeah good
catch thank you
any other questions before we open it up
for the public hearing it's always nice
when you come up with questions that I
haven't thought about congratulations
so with that I'm going to open up the
public hearing at 7 250 if there's
anybody that would like to make public
comment on this issue that we're talking
about oh I thought that was a yes you're
too far away nobody know how cash is
then I'll close the public hearing at
11:51
and open it up to you guys is there
something else on this specific issue
that you would like to discuss so I
think in looking at Commissioner Stobbs
question about height I actually think
it should be 66 it should be 66 in the
table so change the 60 to 66 66 in the
car in the footnote in the column so the
60 should be 66 to account for the
additional Oh for retail but for retail
on the ground floor is that that's only
applicable to mixed-use yeah so why
would it not just do the same reference
in a footnote if it refers to like
height exemptions and ever
saying make adjustments for sorry I just
want to make sure I understand why there
was a footnote there before and if we
are proposing to basically get rid of it
66 but the column doesn't change down to
66 okay and the column c60 should stay
okay okay
anything else so I've actually done a
lot of research in reading on affordable
housing strategies and santa clara
county actually specifically has a good
example that red and SFGate
and one of the things that they had
mentioned was that affordable housing
strategies that don't have a targeted
audience in mind are ineffective so if
we create a housing supply at sixty
percent of median income
we're basically opening it up to the
entire Puget Sound area and saying hey
come to Issaquah because we are really
affordable and so we build it they will
come but it may not actually do anything
for the people that are working here
because you're going to have supply and
demand issues so now you're going to
have an enormous amount of demand for a
very short supply of housing units so it
may not actually solve our problem by
creating this affordable housing using
the strategy that's being proposed
tonight
if we create a target audience this
affordable housing package or direction
furgus then it could be more effective
in basically solving our problems but
right now as we see the way this policy
is being presented to us it's too
general and I don't think it's actually
going to be effective and in fact I
think it's going to have the opposite
effect of all of our intentions what do
you mean by target audience do you mean
limiting this to teachers or something
like that we can't do that we need to
and I don't know about the legalities of
this but if we create a and this is
actually a question to art as well as
Keith if we create this vision and leave
it very loose and say we have this great
affordable housing package here it has a
quoi comes as a quoi
that's actually going to create so much
demand for these units that the people
that are actually working here our
teachers our police officers and whoever
else that's actually working here may
not even be able to get a chance to or
take in these affordable units because
it would be so much demand for them it's
like leaving money on the sidewalk
everybody wants it so the YWCA family
village is a building that's primarily
at 60% of median income the people who
live there working your banks your
school's your restaurants
the reason remember I said earlier I
came back here I came here I worked for
a company world-renowned now that was
formed by the business community saying
we need to find ways to for create
housing for our workforce we're not in
the business we want somebody to create
it for our workforce when we have a
slide that we showed you when we were
doing the housing strategies your slide
looked the same about if every other
city in East King County
the first thing that slide shows is you
created demand from your workforce that
is 30 to 40 percent greater than your
supply of housing the second graphic
shows you that the income of the people
that we employ in East King County is no
different than the countywide mix of
incomes and in fact in many cities
including yours you have more jobs that
are lower pain than you do have that or
higher pain 50% of your jobs I believe
are very close to it pay under 50
percent of being an income right so how
can we create this affordable housing
package to protect the people that work
here so that they can partake in this I
don't want to create a package and but
but that kind of housing is everywhere
throughout the county and people tend to
want to work and live in general
proximity or maybe they have family in
proximity Redmond has hundreds and
hundreds of units that they have been
creating through similar programs
through our housing trust fund that the
city is all fund we've created 3,000
housing units throughout East King
County that are targeted at 50% of
median and les they're generally serving
people from area but on the flip side if
we start saying that Seattle which
produces a lot more affordability are
they going to say the same thing so the
idea is generally speaking people now
the groups we work with they reach out
to local companies and they do reach out
locally but naturally people who are
nearby fine properties who are ever
nearby I just had a guy walk in the door
who was in one of these units and
Bellevue worked locally and he said had
to move out of there or there anymore in
the area I can find my wife's a
schoolteacher in a local elementary
school and over the years three or four
of her teachers have bought units or
lived in rental units through these
programs people look locally more times
than not okay you can find a unit at
sixty percent of median down in South
Kent County I mean so to say that you
know right now you are exporting all of
this income yes we you know the why reek
is out locally
but the need the demand for this housing
we're talking about is being generated
here but your housing stock does not
match the income profile the business
community survey of Bellevue in last
year fifty percent of the businesses
saying they are having an increasingly
hard time attracting employees because
they can't they can't find housing they
can afford that's the kind of issues
we're dealing with that we hear about
from the business community here this is
housing that is matching incomes of
households that you are creating in your
community that right now are not living
in your community I agree with you the
but my argument is that the more
attractive the community is the higher
demand you're going to have for that
community right so if Issaquah is a very
safe place to live and raise kids and we
have a very excellent school system
that's a huge magnet for Issaquah and
because we have all these great
attributes the people who actually work
here are going to have to compete with
other people who want to move here
because it's better than living in other
parts of the Puget Sound area not I
don't sound smug but you know
supply-demand if you got a better
product people are going to want on and
so all I'm saying is many other cities
have these rules in place you have a
civil Highlands that had affordable
units in them you created them there
I haven't what I'm saying is what's
resulted is well maybe if they move here
they get jobs here too because your
workers your employers need people at
that income because of what they pay and
I'm saying we've been doing this for 25
years here I've been doing it longer in
other areas I hear that question raised
a lot what I find the experience and the
result that works and there's also fair
housing issues and things like that is
that local reaching out to local
companies etcetera to make sure they're
aware that these opportunities are there
that's why we have our website for
people to be able to find but I haven't
found that the phenomenon you're
expressing has played itself out in
other communities except Santa Clara
County where they wrote
excuse me in Santa Clara County actually
wrote about this problem where they
create affordable housing and their own
teachers can't live with in Santa Clara
County because they can't afford it so
they actually started creating their own
housing to rent to teach in Santa Clara
County is one of the counties I used to
do work at so I'm familiar with the
situation so and I realize some of this
is hypothetical but I want to be
forward-looking and making sure that we
have the right the right things in place
to regulate or to policeman make sure
our targets our goals our aspirational
goals are going to be met if a and how
are these units can be made of Elva are
they going to be made available through
a lottery system who's going to control
that lottery or is it just open market
people are developed or property
managers just put the units for rents on
Craigslist history has been they market
different the same as they market the
rest of their housing in your community
now when it's the affordable stuff we do
with community groups that's a little
different story they're at below 50 and
that's a whole explain that but it's a
different story but for these units and
all the other communities and we got
1500 of them now they're marketed the
same as the rest so the market builder
is marketing these units the same as all
their others okay they'll usually say
starting at for the owners right exactly
so then it starts and the real and
what's happened is like for the
ownership housing the realtor community
knows about the program's now in the
cities because there's like 600 homes
and so the realtor is when they're
showing locally they you know the local
Realtors know and that's how often the
buyers are found but it.we it's the same
marketing system for your market rate
units too it's kind of hard when you
limit it to teachers or just people who
live in the commune
in that range salary range people have a
tendency to move around so once you're
in here and you you decide to get a job
in Bellevue does that mean you have to
leave that unit and move to Bellevue so
I mean it complicates things
to a degree that I don't think that I
mean I I'm sensitive to the point you're
raising what I'm letting you know is
from the practice of being around this
field and understanding it that the
natural way of people moving and renters
etc that we haven't seen it play out and
I built in Santa Clara and surrounding
communities and stuff when I was in the
Bay Area that I'm sure there's antidotal
stories here and there you can find out
those stories for anything but as a
whole and on the balance we haven't
heard that issue emerging in Redmond and
they're they've got hundreds of units at
this point in time okay yeah I'm not the
subject-matter expert but I have to rely
on outside resources so that's why I'm
asking you so I'm a little right now all
I've got our hypothetical okay I do have
one question that's actually off scope
so we'll have to pardon me I'd brought
this up to Trish since we do have Arthur
here with us not everybody in our
community fits these indexes and some
people actually fall at zero well I
realize this is not related I would love
to have an update we've talked before
about addressing our homeless situation
and the strategies that the city is
doing we're looking at it there's a lot
of things we do I hear that frequently
I'm hoping that you have an update even
if it's just a line item on something
that's going on for those that are don't
fall within these categories well right
now we're going through a funding round
and of the proposals in front of us one
is well you've all probably heard about
the Bellevue shelter and that's not in
this round because it's taking a little
bit harder to get to a final decision on
specific location but in Kirkland they
are looking at doing that for families
and women and they have a site and so
that one is hopefully proceeding in the
next year so that's a shelter type
facility we also the group that is
looking at
the men's shelter they do other forms of
housing and so what they're what one
thing they've been doing is leasing
homes in neighborhoods where they have
six men who have been with them for a
while and are now working and stuff but
aren't making much where they live in a
group home situation so they're looking
at that's another alternative being
looked at the third is is that we have a
property in Redmond that will be kind of
in the same areas you know it's an over
Lake if any of you are familiar with
over Lake and the old group health
hospital and that now a big thing with
lots of new development going on well
one of those sites kind of like what you
did up in Misco Highlands one of those
sites is being bought a little bit of a
discount by imagine housing and they're
doing a 250 unit building that will have
a hundred market rate with a private
builder and then they're doing 150 units
and that building will have 30 or 40 of
those units will be for formerly for
homeless families and individuals and
then the other units the other hundred
will under it or so will be at 60 50 and
30 percent of median income and then
there'll be market rate so those just in
this round are three different ways in
which affordable units are being
incorporated in we're about to break
ground and Bellevue on a family project
that will have half the units for
formerly homeless families in half for
other just lower-income families so
those are exhibits there's such a wide
range of different approaches that are
being looked at but that just gives you
examples of some new things that are
being worked on yeah that are happening
here on the assign their community I'm
curious if we have any updates about
Issaquah specifically if there's any
yeah do we have anything in the works
right now in the year that we've been
looking at housing strategies do we have
anything right now that the city is
actively involved in then we can have an
update on so our community this is okay
I'm going to say no but yes
and it's willing to say yes is you are
working on the Tod project and you have
selected the housing authority and the
housing authority will put some vouchers
into some of the units that they are
going to have there that's going to be
property targeted at 50 and 60 percent
of median for the most part
but they're going to put vouchers in a
number of these units when someone has a
voucher it means that their income can
be any income zero to I think can go up
to 70 or 80 percent immediate and you
pay one third of your income to live
there and you the balance between that
and a contract rent which is somewhere
close to market is pay all the time by
the federal government so that's a big
program that the Housing Authority has
now they're having an increasingly hard
time for people with vouchers finding
housing in these Kent County so we are
working on ways to get vouchers in fact
we are having a meeting next week with
city staff where one of the things we
may do is for some of these units that
are here see if the owner is willing to
have a voucher put on that unit so
they'll get the same rent or maybe a
little bit more in exchange for someone
with a voucher now with voucher program
or the public housing lists or whatever
they have the housing authority
prioritized people with the lowest
incomes and people who are formerly
homeless now in my thinking of
homelessness it's not one of these
things that starts and stops you get to
a point where you become homeless or you
might become your threat of becoming
homeless you are homeless and then when
you get back on your feet you're at a
threat of going homeless again or trying
to get back on your feet to me all of
those are part of dealing with
homelessness vouchers is the best way I
know of to create housing that helps
people who maybe they're not homeless
but could be or would be or where and so
that property because the housing
authorities working on it is looking at
having like 20 vouchers in that building
and I would say to some degree that's
helping you deal with homelessness yes
absolutely thank you for that update so
would any of these be eligible for that
so what we're working on with the
Housing Authority right now is they
would love to do that but these are
private owners so we're trying to figure
out you know most of the cities aren't
like tell ability that gotta have a
voucher there but I have talked to some
builders who are been willing to say
okay I'll think about it
and we're thinking about playing around
with it
little bit and if we do we have to go
back to every city and one idea is to
say well if they normally get $600 a
month the owner you know under the park
maybe we'd let them get 650 or 700 a
month if they take a voucher because of
the extra working stuff but any code
changes or any planning it for us by a
city or so we don't know at one level if
we tell the owner you're gonna get the
same right we're gonna get why don't you
do it you help out and if we get you
know the Housing Authority only has so
many vouchers so one approach is that
what we have said is if a builder is
willing to do it the income reporting
they normally have to do to the city's
will say we'll waive it just show us
that you're done you have a voucher
contract and if you have a voucher
contract you have to they have to send
information to the housing authorities
that don't don't have to do with us
we'll just get a letter because we know
anyone who's got a voucher is going to
be having income z' that we're trying to
help so we're looking at administrative
things as things so it would not take
any code changes but just makes the
builders life a little bit easier in
terms of the administration they have to
do with us so that's one angle and then
the other angle is if we if the city
wanted to say and that'll be a peach so
that would be a code change the city
would have to make so we don't know
we've got a couple builders who are just
willing to do it without any code
changes needed and we're seeing how we
can get so we're working on like model
contracts with the Housing Authority and
there would be a contract that that
certainly and when do all they do to do
certain units would say those units will
be available to people with vouchers and
so they're trying to do a couple I
wasn't this included in our
possibilities for strategies for
creating affordable housing vouchers
yeah because they can do them without
that you currently have many people with
vouchers in your community well and
that's great but if being able to create
code changes or present plan ideas that
would increase
that creates more affordable housing
sounds like it should have been
something we addressed in the earlier
area right and I guess it's cuz we were
already doing it
it wasn't something we were looking to
whoops to to start or to because we're
we don't know the scale the housing
authority is willing to do it too and
yes I mean it's the the seven you have
aren't the limit to the seven and if
this works out there's nothing that says
we wouldn't talk with the city and say
let's what do you want to look at this
as well but they're not talking huge
numbers and they want to do it through
Audi's King County but it's it's these
you asked about how we help there and
this is when I gave you one example and
I think that's an important thing for us
to consider because I think it's Joy's
saying a lot of our strategies address
this idea of the fifty to a hundred
percent we don't have much that was
presented to us as an option for the
below 50% particularly any of our
homeless population and so having a
strategy that specifically addresses so
actually you do in number nine number
nine so okay we just start that this
year that's the one that we know is sort
of they've got all kinds of funny pieces
because homelessness there's so many
funny pieces so I mean you you know so
so that is something that we are you
know trying to find ways to get vouchers
to fit in and things like that and
there's a couple but you have one
proposal in front of you very clear that
would make something like that happen
yes when we get that
well it's in for funding requests now I
mean it's it's a relatively real concept
that's trying to be put together by your
city great that's why we like to ask and
think the best I can do is ask for
update as we go and a little bit more
the little bit more we know yes it's a
fuller picture of what we're looking at
so thank you for asking
it's like so many things revolving
around it's hard to remember every
little point that's going on out there
so art I've actually been thinking about
your response to my concerns here about
protection for some of the employees
that work here I'm still not convinced
that the problem doesn't exist because I
don't know how you would be able to
measure it but is it legal for us to
include protections for public service
employees which would be teachers city
workers city staff law enforcement
firefighters anyone who's actually
trying to help make this city a better
place by working with the city does that
make sense yes I mean I understand the
question first responders I mean the
whole nine yards retail workers while
retail workers could be a second tier I
want people who are working on support
services to have preferential treatment
and then you can go to employees working
within boundaries of Issaquah or so my
comment is going to be its a city
attorney question because it's a fair
housing issue and there's different
degrees of fair housing and fair
housings gotten tough for the last
couple years because of some court cases
and you're not in the community that
pushing these kind of things doesn't put
you under a microscope to be honest with
you so to some degree depend on how you
did it and the scale you did it
potentially I have built the building a
long time ago that was the city gave the
land though it wasn't privately built it
was the city gave the land for it and we
did give some level of priority did not
require but it's challenging thing to do
if you're going to do it I can't I
wouldn't take it off the table but I
would not go anywhere with that without
the city attorney closely at our side
monitoring what you do not saying
incentivizing I'm just saying for the
affordable housing piece okay we gave
them first preference if they qualify
for that right then they would be able
to move in there otherwise you know they
would fall under all the other normal
conditions just like everybody else
would but okay so there's there's a
legal side of it and there's a practical
side of it too well no one applies in
there just simply right no I understand
but there's there's definitely I'm
sympathetic to the question you're
raising okay I totally understand it but
I'm also hopefully you're getting the
point that it's a tough topic and alls
I'm saying is if the city wants to
pursue it and one of the philosophy
behind arches well you're asking the
cities in East Kent County to put up two
million dollars to help this project and
the state's going to put up money for
that project and the state doesn't
encourage people to do stuff like that
so there's a practical side of that
conversation as well as the legal side
and and so where what we have been able
to do and this is even getting harder is
to market aggressively locally maximize
awareness locally of opportunities by
controlling how they're advertised by
encouraging advertising being done in
certain ways yes but how would the state
so looking at this business model and I
bring up a great question so developer
comes in builds we have affordable units
how is the state involved in those
affordable unit they might not be
involved there but then when they say
you're doing that and you ask them for
money for something else they might say
well we don't necessarily love how
you're behaving with your programs I'm
just saying there's practical there's a
lot of discussion out there about
inclusivity and communities and in fact
the federal government recently about a
year ago made a comment that said
and I don't know how far this one will
go there's what I'm saying how touchy
and difficult the conversation this is
is that if you touch any federal money
everything you do should be consistent
with what the federal money would
require you to do so that's sort of the
point I was making how even though that
program might not touch that you are
getting federal assistance for other
things you are doing therefore your
behavior should be consistent with ever
your resources so there may be ways to
deal with this and I'm that same city
shouldn't think about it or look at it
but keep in mind how in reality you've
been creating stuff as a whole and who
are your partners in doing that is one
practical side but the legal side is
court cases around fair housing so it's
there's a lot of increasing court case
and I'm not versed enough in the legal
area and what we have found the comfort
with is what I've discovered what I've
presented to you and going beyond that
and I'm saying maybe it doesn't get
looked at it's a much more complicated
conversation we could just do whatever
we wanted without any rules or
regulations we would be just great but
we do have to follow them and I know
that there are a lot of fair houses with
the private sector what we try to do is
minimize interference because we aren't
giving them cash or anything they want
to rent they want to go quick they got
someone in the door they don't want to
have to all go at the wait a minute
right to do this right to do that so
that that's another side of the
practical side of it is keeping that in
mind is are you making it so it's real
easy for the private sector person to
fill their units there are so many
complications out there and to see at
all this they were even thinking about
it or they've already mandated you have
to rent to the first person replies yeah
so I mean you complicate things
rheumatica Lee when you do something
like that yeah that's what we hear from
the private sector people are I want to
be able to get people in qualifying
through and they don't so we have to set
up a system that we don't pre quite you
know they put somebody in they get all
the paperwork and they give us the
paperwork after the fact okay so
question how do we make sure that we are
serving the people that work here with
our housing model so that's why I gave
you the example of what happened in
Issaquah Highlands in a case where they
probably do more they are required to do
a more regional approach because of all
the funding that went into it that's why
I told you that they surveyed who's
there and where they work and so many of
them work in this community or any in
this community or the east side that's
and so we are so along those lines what
we're trying to do is collect data to
sort of be able to show you with the
approach that's been used to date what
happened the results I don't have it
right now but it is because this
question I mean I understand the
question I mean what do we tell you why
you have the need so that is one thing
we are trying to potentially research
and get a better feel for but the few
times we have and that's for the stuff
that would if what you're describing is
more likely to it's much more likely to
occur in the housing it's at 30 to 50
percent of median than it is to occur at
the housing that's at 60 and 70 percent
of media that I can guarantee you
because you can get that kind of rents
in other parts of the county and stuff
but we are surveying the properties
we're going to try to find a way in our
surveying next year you know they have
to monitor give us information if
there's some way we can get a feel for
that and that's for the housing that's
really affordable so you know if you
take what you're saying and it has basis
you're gonna see it play out probably
even stronger in that situation okay now
I want to be empathetic to the to my
community no I totally others tonight
understand that okay because I live here
too I mean I'm here this is my community
too I mean I live in Eve King County my
motivation is to help employees of our
areas have place to live I have the same
mode I hear where you're coming from
well I'm apathetic to King County but
I'm really more empathetic to there's a
cause it's harder when you start
thinking that because Bellevue ASIC why
you're two mile apart two miles apart
now but my point is I get the local need
for workforce and I think Joan already
made this point but people that are
often in these lower the the 70% 60% ami
may also also not have the same job
security and maybe switching jobs and
that doesn't mean that they're not a
part of the community if they get a job
in Bellevue they shouldn't have to you
know not be able to take a job if they
can get another job in another community
and I don't so I I see that as a sort of
limiting to the flexibility of these
units I think that if I think that you
can be a member of the community and
take a job in Bellevue and you know
especially one of these jobs that are
shorter term I was saying that for the
people who work here give them the
preference to move here so that it does
two things one we have more community
with a stronger community because not
only to the people who work here also
lived here so there's a pride of
community but you're also reducing cars
in traffic well and but then the other
thing I was thinking of
just in terms of loot the the total
percentage is so there are people
already in the community that are that
are at these lower income and they are
paying more than they can basically then
they can afford I mean they're they're
just cutting elsewhere I you know so
there's this demand and there are these
people that are paying more than they
can afford currently and our housing
market is mismatched with our demand and
so I think that naturally those people
will be the first people to apply for
these these units when they become
affordable because they're already here
and they're just paying you know paying
more than they can afford in this way
they could be able to afford their
housing okay we could debate this and
all evening and never come up with a
solution I don't think that's on our
docket this evening to actually go into
all of those different forms of vouchers
and everything else I think we have to
look at what the city has put together
now which seems to be a lot better than
having no requirements I think that was
one of our big problems originally was
there was no enforcement for any kind of
affordable housing and just you know
there is never going to be a hundred
percent availability for every part
every income level in Issaquah it's
never going to happen I'm I have said a
bunch of times you know I've heard
answers that the market will decide what
comes in what I'd like to have the city
look at the other side of that which is
this the builders can decide what they
want to build but the city has to do the
plans of what they want to do the city
the builders will build whatever the
city wants them
to build and I don't think that there is
enough discussion or plans yet to
[Music]
present the real vision I see what you
had what how you can build and what the
requirements are but not any specific
idea of where what goes where how its
put together I don't see that and I
don't think until we get that we're
going to have a city too full of
hodgepodge of eight-way and Atlas and
and different things up here because
they meet the qualifications that are
mandated by the city so I think that we
have to take the next step and actually
create a model what we want where we
want it it can always be changed but at
least we have some kind of an idea and I
I know they push back you've said many
times well the city doesn't have the
money to build a model and I think we're
at the point now that we need that model
we need to know where this is what the
city is going to look like and if it
doesn't work then we can always modify
it but we have to have some goal
otherwise the builders you build
whatever I want I meet the recruit you
know I we meet all the restrictions here
you have to let me do it whether that's
what I want what the city wants for that
area or not they meet that that kind of
requirement so I hope that sometime that
we start that discussion and have the
city actually build that model of what
they want the future to be instead of
just putting out numbers and and ideas
and
stuff so that's my two cents so is there
anything for the good of the order so
are there any requirements that you want
to change what's presented tonight
anything I was gonna say we're
addressing this in two meetings right
Trish no this we're hoping that you can
be through tonight possible okay so
right now we need a motion to either
accept or change what is being presented
tonight on the central Issaquah
development and design standards
regarding inclusionary zoning or
affordable housing does anybody want to
make the motion to accept what's been
presented by the city miss madam
chairman I move that we approve the
Central District Development design
standards and it's permissible code
chapter eighteen point two one regarding
inclusionary zoning including central
standards chapter four zoning districts
use in standards summary and this
communis will code chapter 1821
affordable housing fantastic they'll
have a second second any further
discussion
it excuse me that needs to include also
as modified tonight but the footnote
number four the sixty sixty six instead
of sixty verified by the six additional
heat units whatever it is okay so we
have a second all those in favor of the
motion please say aye opposed nay motion
passes
is there anything on the agenda any any
other updates that you want to talk
about no the next meeting is the ninth
the ninth is it was considered 7
November and that would be your first
night of district visions for central
Issaquah and we've got two meetings for
that it would be a continued public
hearing on the 30th of November and
those are your only two meetings in
November we're giving you Thanksgiving
off so enjoy your time away from us that
Thursday night any questions we don't
have another meeting until after
November 9 till number nine till the 9th
of November all right just two weeks I
think right two weeks flash so with that
I'm going to call the meeting to a close
it then eight back here twenty nine PPC
schedule
you