Arsen, we're ready.
>> All right, everybody. Thank you for
being here.
Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello.
I know. I know. So, we just got caught
off guard, but we are actually live
right now. So, welcome to this evening's
planning policy commission. I wasn't
ready for it either. Um, we're going to
call this meeting to order. It's
currently 6:31 p.m. Today's meeting is a
hybrid meeting. The planning policy
commission is in person, but staff or
members of the public may be attending
virtually or in person.
I should have attended virtually
thinking of what's going to happen in
about a half hour. Uh staff, do we have
a quorum this evening?
>> Yes, we do.
>> Excellent. Thanks, Kristen. Okay, first
item of business is to approve two sets
of minutes. And the first set of minutes
is for the May 28th meeting. Um, as you
may remember, we had some technical
difficulties. So, these meeting minutes
are coming to us almost a month later.
Uh, having reviewed them, does anyone
have any concerns,
any corrections?
Okay, seeing none, those meeting minutes
are approved. And next, we will uh look
at the June 11th meeting minutes. Same
questions, any concerns,
any corrections?
Okay, the June 11th meeting minutes are
also approved.
We're going to begin this evening with
public comment. These are general public
comments at this time for the commission
or any of the regular business items we
have on tonight's agenda. Uh, has anyone
signed up to make public comment this
evening?
>> Yes, chair. They have.
>> Okay. We're going to offer some
guidelines very quickly for our
commenters. And for all those who would
like to speak, we ask that you speak
clearly and pause frequently. Please
state your name each time before
speaking. If you're attending virtually
or by computer uh and you would like to
speak, we ask that you also mute your
microphone when not speaking. And if
you're having any technical issues,
please try joining the meeting using a
different device such as a smartphone or
tablet. You can use the call-in
information in the meeting invite to
call in. This is an important part of
the planning policy's public process. We
take them seriously are factored into
the decisions that we make. Um, again,
these comments could be general or
anything on the business agenda this
evening. We do ask that everybody limit
their comments to 5 minutes or less.
Okay, moving along. Who's our first
speaker?
>> Carl Short.
>> All right.
>> Good evening, commissioners. Nice to see
you all again. Uh my name is Carl
Sheret, senior director of development
with Avalon Bay Communities,
representing NAOPP and our coalition of
housing developers. As always, I want to
thank the commission and staff for the
work you all are doing on the promoting
building investment program. The PBI is
crucial. It is the city's opportunity to
focus on the items that move projects
closer to feasibility, to actual
groundbreaking, and ultimately to
completion, resulting in an increased
diversity of housing options for Isiqua
residents. Today, Isiqua's regulatory
framework is not producing housing at
the pace we all want. Mandatory
inclusionary housing requirements at low
AMI levels that lack meaningful
incentives have stalled development
across the city, resulting in neither
the market rate nor the affordable
housing the program originally
envisioned. That economic reality is
clearly documented in the Eco Northwest
report that the city commissioned and
that you all have in your agenda. Viewed
through the lens of prospective Isakqua
residents, the city's current
inclusionary program is asking residents
in market rate apartments to carry the
brunt of the cost of new affordable
housing, upwards of $200 a month. This
is not a viable model for a housing
abundance in an environment of scarce
capital. The conclusion is
straightforward. It's time to revisit
this program and consider recalibration
for today's market conditions. As many
of your peer municipalities are now
exploring, affordable housing
requirements coupled with multif family
tax exemptions remain one of the most
meaningful levers the city has to
reinvigorate development in Isiqua.
We would strongly encourage you to
direct staff to advance a recalibrated
MFTTE program, one that is more broadly
applicable with a 10% set aside at 80%
AMI and without permanent affordability.
That's a structure that the market can
actually support as evidenced by strong
demand for projects in the recently
reszoned and reccalibrated program in
the Wilbertton neighborhood of Bellev.
In parallel, the density bonus program
needs to be recalibrated. So, the
incentives are real. Today, for example,
bonus density largely gets consumed by
parking due to the city's high water
table. It doesn't necessarily translate
into more housing and should be thought
of less as a bonus and more as a project
requirement. We urge you to use this
moment to improve these programs. These
are wellestablished tools that can
materially increase housing production
if structured correctly. Thank you again
for your time and leadership.
>> Great. Thank you, Carl.
>> Believe we have someone else. Please go
ahead.
>> Christy Triple, sorry. Christy Triple.
Sorry, I haven't been here in a while.
Good evening, planning policy council
members. Uh, I'm Christy Triple. I'm VP
for community development with Rally
Properties here in Isiqua. Uh, Rally
Properties has been part of the
community for more than 70 years. We
have a 30-year development agreement
with the city to redevelop our Rally
Center and Hilo Crossing neighborhoods
over time. I've also had the privilege
of serving on the Isqua Chamber of
Commerce Board twice, the Transportation
Advisory Board, and the city's economic
vitality commission. So, after working
in this community for a very long time,
I've attended more public meetings than
I can count. So, um I've seen a lot as
Kristen knows as well. Um but I'm here
tonight to talk about um both agenda
items. First of all, we second Carl and
NaOop sentiments. Um, I'm here tonight
with um my peer because not only that we
have a development agreement, but it's
because we care about the broader future
of housing here in Isiqua. We want to
see housing created for people at every
stage of life. Whether they're moving
here for the first time, downsizing,
returning from college to begin their
careers, or to raise their own families.
We want to thank the city staff and the
PPC for undertaking the promoting
building investment program. This is
important work and a timely opportunity
to fine-tune Title 18. We know it was a
heavy lift, but it there's also an
opportunity to better facilitate high
quality housing. That work is critical.
We had agreed with Eco Northwest's
findings and we were disappointed that
the recommended additional analysis was
not pursued. We recognize, however, that
does take time and money. But fast
forward to today,
you have something equally valuable.
Developers and partners who are here
actively wanting to invest in Isqua and
who are willing to share firsthand
experience about what works and what
other jurisdictions are doing
successfully to encourage housing
production.
We all know that Isiqua presents unique
development challenges that no one can
control, including the high water table,
critical areas, and other site
constraints. What the city can control
are the policies and the incentives that
you're discussing tonight.
We encourage you to seize this
opportunity to strengthen the MFTTE
program inclusionary zoning and
development incentives. These are pro
proven common sense tools that can
meaningfully increase housing production
and that will help the city achieve its
housing goals. Choosing not to make such
improvements, I think unfortunately
would send a clear message to the
development community that housing
production isn't a priority. So, we do
appreciate your work. We know it's hard.
It's a heavy lift and you've already
been through a big one with Title 18.
So, we appreciate you taking a look at
that.
Um, and then one last thing, I'd like to
speak to the second agenda item, which
you'll hear further from Kristen on the
urban village purpose language language
proposed edits. Um, as a customer of the
city with the development agreement and
a partnership with the city, we are not
aligned with the proposed change of
language and we would request that it
remain the same as adopted um in the 21
2021 comp plan and at the time we had
adopted our development agreement. And
the reason for that is simple. Each
development agreement is unique to its
own and its purpose is grounded in the
comp plan and so um it's important to
remember that they are legally binding
contracts with the city. It's great to
have an overarching description but to
get too far in the weeds with a purpose
statement I think is a little too much.
Anyways, thank you for your time.
Appreciate it and look forward to your
conversation.
>> Thank you Christie. Would anyone else
like to speak?
>> There are no more and there is no one
online as well.
>> Okay. Well, I want to thank Carl and
Christie for sharing their comments with
us. Um, that will conclude our public
comment. So, we are going to move on to
regular business. And we have two items
this evening for regular business. And
the first is a presentation from
principal planner Kate Kaney and senior
planner Emily Medina on proposed policy
and code amendments related to the
comprehensive plan amendments
one and two regarding land use
designation descriptions and changes to
the names of residential zones. Uh Kate
and Emily, when you guys are ready,
please go ahead.
One moment please.
Okay.
And can anyone see that on this? Oh,
sorry.
Great. Okay. Here is the presentation.
Um, thank you, chair. Um I am Kate Kaney
and am here with Emily Medina. I will
start the presentation and then we will
switch places. So we are back uh to talk
about proposed amendments uh for uh
these final docket items. Uh we did an
introduction session uh in May 14th I
believe and uh tonight we're back with
actual proposals that were in your
packet um policy proposals as well as uh
proposals related to the code. Uh, one
thing noted in your packet was that, you
know, both of these amendments look at
land use designations and zoning. And
so, uh, the amendments, uh, share, uh,
some of the same changes even though
they were separately proposed. So,
that's something you may have seen. So,
I'm going to go ahead and start talking
about the land use designation
descriptions, adding those back in, and
clarifying what the implementing zones
are for those uh designations. So, uh
the overall intent really was uh to
clarify what land use designations uh
really mean, what their purpose and
intent are um for the city. Uh it it's
uh helpful. developers come in, look at
the land use map and are not really
sure. Um, you can see the existing nine
designations that we have to the right
of your screen. Um, some of the
questions we would get would be about,
you know, what is retail exactly? What
is commercial allow? And so those are
some of the clarifications that we
talked to you about earlier. It's all
about making sure people understand what
these land use designations are, where
and how are we going to grow, how are we
going to implement the vision in the
comprehensive plan. So now I'm going to
go ahead and talk about some of the
proposals starting with the land use
map. Um many cities call these flumes or
future land use maps. Um we call it the
comprehensive plan land use map and it
identifies land use in the city now and
in the future. And this map is
implemented by the zoning map and the
zones. So, uh, what you see are proposed
changes to the legend on the left of
your screen. And, um, one of the, uh,
ration behind some of these changes was,
um, not only to make their the purpose
and intent of the land use designations
clear, but also to increase alignment
with the zone, the zoning co, sorry, the
land use code and the way the zones are
described. So, as you may recall, we
talked about how there are five
categories of zones, including
residential, mixed use, commercial, um,
urban village. Um, and so in some of
those cases, it was uh, uh, difficult to
see the direct alignment between some of
the zones, some of those uh, zoning
descriptions and categories. So, um, our
intent again was to clarify all of that
with these new names. Um so what are the
changes? Uh we maintain conservancy
community facilities, community
facilities privately owned. But then we
made some changes um specifically to
residential um low density residential
uh was mainly covering the single family
zones. Um we'll be talking about those
name changes again. But because of the
middle housing amendments from last
year, we wanted to make sure that um
lowdensity residential didn't just mean
single family to people. that
residential also could better
incorporate the meaning of middle
housing as well as single family uses.
So residential was the name we settled
on. Um that residential designation is
aligned with the residential zone
category in title 18. So then the mixed
use category in title 18 was looked at
and uh we looked at the content of
zones. We looked back at the
descriptions of land use designations
from uh former comprehensive plans and
we came up with three mixeduse
categories. Mixeduse residential
primarily a residential category. Um
mixeduse medium and mixed use high.
Again to get that alignment with uh the
mixeduse zone category in title 18. Um,
urban village also is part of the the
mixeduse zone category as well as its
own thing. And then we had a category or
sorry a land use uh designation called
commercial and it's implemented by uh
intensive commercial zones. And because
it mainly allows uh light industrial and
mineral resource type uses with some
heavy commercial or intensive commercial
uses to clarify what was allowed in that
designation, we're proposing changing it
to industrial. So this is where we
landed on uh the nine land use
designations. Oh, I just also want to
mention um so not only are there
proposed changes to the legend and the
land use designation names, but also in
the map, we we haven't been able to
change the colors of the map. Uh we
don't want to do that until um you all
have uh and and council has made uh some
decisions and confirmed our direction.
But we will probably need to change some
of the colors on the map um to ensure
that we have zones in land use
designations and the color coding
correct so that everything is aligned.
So we'll come back with that. So let's
go ahead and take a look at um some of
the key amendments in the land use and
sustainability element of the
comprehensive plan. This is the table of
contents for that chapter. And as you
can see um what's noted is where changes
are proposed. So in your packet in the
existing conditions section you may have
seen some changes to the introduction to
some data and diagrams and uh there was
language there about the land use map
that was repurposed for one of the new
sections I'll talk about in a second. Um
then the main changes under goals and
policies were really in the first three
uh sections that you see growth
management and existing section. Um I
will go through that on the next slide
what the changes are are proposed for
that um that section. And then there are
two new um sections of the land use
element that are proposed to help tell
the story of growth and the purpose and
background of the land use uh
designations. And that's a new citywide
growth strategy section and a section
specifically for that uh confirms and
establishes the land use map and the
land use designations. Um so that's
really the list that I can uh share with
you of changes. So now let's go one by
one through what is proposed. And again
these are the key changes. There are
some minor changes that were in your
packet that I'm not going to go through.
So this is that growth management
section that starts off the land use um
uh chapter. And what this section does
is talk about how uh the city needs to
maintain an adequate supply of
appropriately zoned land to accommodate
the projected growth that is identified
in the King Countywide planning
policies, the CPS. So that was a process
um through the periodic update adopted
in 2024.
Um the adopted growth targets, there are
housing targets and there are job
targets. So uh what is proposed to be
added underneath the diagram is a policy
that helps explain what the diagram is.
And so what's proposed is language that
says plan to accommodate at least 35
additional housing units and 7,950
additional jobs between 2019 and 2044
the time horizon in the CPPs um as
established by uh King County. So it's
just clarification about you know this
is what the city's uh going to plan and
accommodate for over the next 20 plus
years as part of the background for so
what are what's the job of the land use
designations then you know how should we
describe them as part of that story. So
the next uh slide talks about the new
citywide growth strategy section. Um if
uh you looked at some of the other
cities and their comprehensive plans, uh
many of them have a section that just
goes right out and says this is how
we're going to grow. Um in the past you
might have a very general policy in your
comp plan and then maybe some of your
sub area plans would tell the story. Um
so uh to help clarify you know our
understanding of how you know where and
how is the city going to grow, what are
the land use designations going to help
implement? Um this new section is
proposed. So the goal is to talk about
continuing to guide new growth and
development to support thriving and
sustainable neighborhoods everywhere in
the city throughout the city. Um and
that they provide a variety of housing,
jobs, services, and amenities for local
communities. So that's sort of the high
level. So then uh like most of the
sections of the comprehensive plan there
is a
uh discussion a section and it talks
about um kind of the goal and the
policies and it provides more context.
So the context here is that you know the
city is planning to accommodate most of
the future housing and job growth within
four neighborhoods central Isiqua Isqua
Highlands Talis and Lakeside. Now, we're
trying to be as specific as possible,
but is this the whole story? Still
digging in. Still might do some word
smithing um as we're looking back at the
data. Maybe Talis doesn't belong here
because they're pretty fully developed,
right? Um so, we're just going to do a
double check on that. But again, the
idea is to tell a clear story about
where and how the city's going to grow.
Um, part of that story is that while you
know, most of the growth is going to
come into these four, three or four
neighborhoods, the majority of all new
growth is to be focused within the
central Isiqua urban core regional
growth center. We're working on that
other comprehensive plan amendment about
the RGC and this helps give policy basis
for that growth. It, you know, helps
describe the story. So, additional
growth will come in the city's other
neighborhoods, including Oldtown. Um and
the reason is it you know for vital
revitalization you know just a growth
will come everywhere it's equitable that
aligns with our other policies um but
just in line with existing land use
patterns. So that's a a summary of the
narrative in the discussion. So that is
the precursor to the proposed policies.
The first policy again to bolster that
RGC um you know Pugettown Regional
Council designated growth area. The idea
is that, you know, focus most of the
city's housing and job growth within the
designated RGC within a walkable,
equitable, transit oriented community or
set of communities.
The next policy that's proposed is talk
about well, you know, it's not just in
one place that's going to grow. allow
growth outside of that urban core
regional growth center um in mixed use
and residential centers and in the
city's other neighborhoods as
appropriate to ensure there's equitable
access to opportunity, right? Diverse
range of housing, jobs, services.
Again, word smithing to confirm that,
you know, should we have the names of
those other neighborhoods? What's the
real growth amount? That kind of thing.
So also in the new growth strategy
section these last two talking about you
know ensuring that future growth is
supported by infrastructure and services
that's key that's reiterated in other
parts of the comprehensive plan and also
recognize and plan for the uni unique
role and character of our neighborhoods
and really enhance and maximize our
existing community assets even as we
grow. So that is what is proposed in
that new citywide growth strategy
section.
All right. So now um this is where the
land use uh designations will go as well
as information about the land use map.
So the goal um that is proposed is to
achieve the city's preferred land use
pattern you know as it's illustrated
with that land within that land use map
by establishing and maintaining land use
designations and implementing zones.
This is to really you know create a new
section for where all those descriptions
can land. make it clear, you know, what
we're trying to do with it. Um, also in
land use policy AB1, we're going to work
on the the numbering. Um, you know,
we're it clearly establishes that
establish the general location and
intensity of land uses through the land
use map and where you can find the land
use map because it is in the exhibits to
this chapter. Um, another uh policy uh
define land use designations and they're
implementing zones according to this
table below. And I'm just going to let
it pop up here. Um, so the table was in
the memo and there's a lot in there.
There are a couple of errors that I'm
going to highlight as we go through and
I'm just going to um summarize what's in
them. And I want to share that many of
the land use designation descriptions
are from the 2014 comprehensive plan
which I believe was the last time the
city had these descriptions uh in a
chart with their implementing zones and
I think there was a streamlining process
where those things were removed um since
then. So 2014 um it for this con you
know description of consery purpose of
the designation is to proect uh protect
and preserve natural systems etc. What
zones are implemented by this
designation? Um community facilities and
community facilities privately owned.
these descriptions also from that 2014
comprehensive plan. Um you know
providing areas for public benefit uses
on public property um for community
facilities and then privately owned is
to show and identify land uh owned by
private entities or nonprofits dedicated
to providing civic, cultural etc
services to the public. So um again uh
descriptions that help um you know
provide context.
So next is the um was the low density
residential designation proposed to
change into residential so that I it can
not only speak to promoting single
family but also middle housing uses.
Right? And so this description, I'll
read some of it, um was partially taken
from the 2014 comp plan and also
refreshed with some of the goals that we
have today, especially uh regarding
allowing middle housing. So the purpose
of this designation is to provide a
lower density residential environment
that promotes highquality housing and a
diversity of housing types. And then it
goes into say specifically allow single
family, middle housing, etc. Um, and you
will see to the right the new uh names
for those single family zones and uh my
colleague Emily Medina will go through
that when we talk about comprehensive
plan uh amendment two after I present
this information. So, let's go ahead and
turn from the residential zone category.
Uh, sorry, residential land use
designation. Um, and that again aligns
with the residential uh zone category in
title 18. And now we're going to turn to
the mixeduse uh designation starting
with mixeduse residential and that is um
the revised version of the multif family
residential existing designation. So the
purpose of this designation is to
provide medium and highdensity multif
family neighborhoods with a variety of
urban services and commercial and other
complimentary uses. This language aligns
almost exactly with what is in title 18
in the zone descriptions for multifamily
medium multif family high. So um you
will see in the implementing zone to uh
the right of your screen that we removed
urban village multifamily from this uh
implementing zone of mult the old multif
family residential and actually I should
mention put it into the uh residential
zones because of the types of uses that
were allowed. It did not allow
commercial um or mixed use. So that's
why it landed there.
So let's go ahead and talk about
mixeduse medium.
Um so the purpose of this designation is
is to provide areas with a mix of
retail commercial office residential
at a medium to high scale and density.
And that also has a note about the
cultural business district zone in
Oldtown and uh some other information.
And then on the implementing zones to
the right, you can see some yellow
highlights where there were some
inadvertent errors in your packet. So, I
just want to be clear about which zones
implement this designation. Um, UVMUR
um is actually in mixed was was uh
supposed to have moved to mixeduse high.
So, sorry about that error. And village
residential
was supposed to be in this category. Um,
and just as a double check, because I
know this is a little confusing, we
wanted to show you why the zones that
are proposed uh should be in this uh
designation um as an implementing zone.
So, you can see the heights and um
density information and whether uh staff
feels it's a good fit for mixeduse
medium. So um that would include uh
village residential um at the higher end
of mixeduse medium.
Okay, mixeduse high. So uh the purpose
of this designation is to provide that
mix of uses at higher scales and
densities to create vibrant urban
environments and it describes that the
urban core zone uh promotes the highest
scale and intensity of development in
the city. um that one of its goals is to
create, you know, pedestrian transit
oriented communities within the RGC.
Also highlighting that and helping to
bolster uh other policies on the RGC
that we have. So the zones that
implement this um designation are to the
right. Also just as a double check, it's
hard to understand, you know, what's
involved with all those zones. So we
thought this might be helpful. Um you
can see uh mixed use, mixeduse central
isqua, urban village, mixeduse
residential and the urban core zone. Um
starting with the lower lowest intensity
to the highest intensity zones. Um so
that is that double check for you.
All right. So now let's turn to the
urban village zone. So the land use
description that you see proposed here
was from the 2014 um comprehensive
plans. um intent statement for this land
use designation and you can see um the
zones are uh the urban village zones uh
indicating where the city has uh
development agreements. Um this map is
about to pop up on your screen. So you
can see to the left of the screen urban
village Rowley is in that central Isiqua
area in that brown cross-hatching.
um and Urban Village Lakeside to the
right in the uh brown and white stripes
and then just Urban Village uh in those
brown lots over there in uh in the
Highlands. So, just to locate those for
you.
So, um we got some input about um the
proposed in uh uh designation
description. Um it aligns very closely
with what is in title 18. And again,
this is from the 2014 comprehensive
plan. And you can see barely maybe under
to the right the land use designation
intent statement matched what I showed
you on that blue screen with what was
proposed. But um it was raised to our
attention that there's some really good
language and maybe even better language
on the left side of your screen under
the um land use designation uh and
districts just kind of the titles for
the designations. I'm going to go ahead
and read some of it because it's
helpful. Um it talks about the urban
village designation recognizes that ma
that master planning of larger parcels
provides the opportunity for mixeduse
development um clustering and phasing
etc. And that the designation is
implemented by the adoption of a UV
development agreement and UV zoning by
city council. Um there's some additional
information on there, but these key
words, you know, uh promoting
innovation, mixeduse zoning, and
information about the development
agreement is helpful. It was not part of
the intent statement or the description
from 2014, but we're thinking it it
should be considered perhaps as a more
viable or more accurate than what we're
we were proposing initially. Um, so want
you guys to, you know, think about it.
Um, and we'll have some discussion about
it where we can look a little bit more
in our Q&A which will happen shortly.
Just wanted to point that out.
Okay. So, coming up to the end, um, the
change to the commercial land use
designation to industrial is here with
the land use designation description
that was from the 2014 comprehensive
plan. Uh purpose of this designation is
to provide areas for intensive
commercial services, light industrial
uses, and mineral extraction and
processing. You can see to the right uh
that we're not going to change the
abbreviation for the zones, but IC turns
from indust intensive commercial to
industrial commercial and industrial
commercial central isqua um would also
be a change. The idea is to really
clarify what type of uses are allowed in
this area. So,
some considerations as you're thinking
about questions, you know, were those
proposed amendments clear? Um, are
changes or additional information
needed? You heard that we are thinking
about some lang potential language
changes? Um, I can turn back to slides
if you want to see them or if you are
just ready for the next part of the
presentation, just let me know.
>> All right. Well, thank you, Kate.
Do we have any questions? We'll start
with questions. Any questions for Kate?
>> Yeah, Commissioner Zachro.
>> Thank you. Um, well, I was listening to
the presentation. Thank you so much,
Kate. And I was also listening to the
public comments before the presentation.
And I would really, well, first I do
have question. Why do we returning from
the 20 2021st to the 2014?
So yeah, and that so there was not to my
knowledge a 2021 comprehensive plan
amendment. I I think there were some
ordinances maybe, but the language um
that um we received as part of um the
comments today are from this left left
hand section of the 2014 comprehensive
plan amendment. So I'm not sure if
additional information things happened
in 2021 but it's the same uh language
that was shared with us earlier.
>> Thank you. And then the second uh
question that I would have while I kind
of like it to me it clarifies how it's
now all of the residential zones are
marked. So that's that's clear. I do
have a question about the urban village
and uh because I had a chance to compare
the previous explanation and current
description and why do we it feels like
that was like specifically
um developers were kicked out of that.
So that development agreements that had
a real designation they kind of were
kicked out which I can understand why
the developers might be here and maybe
concerned about that. Thank you.
>> Sure. Thank you for that.
So yeah, I mean yeah. Oh well, it can be
a comment. Yes, I kind of like I don't
can I I I understand why they're
concerned and I kind of like I would
think that might be we might want to
combine and to maybe um the previous
language was clearer to me like cuz I
read both of them several times and it
was clearer to me how it was before.
>> Yeah. And it's a pretty unique
designation and when we were sent this
information it was it was helpful to see
um I dug a little bit just to see oh
where where did this come from and um
when you know I was working through this
you know the policy statement the intent
statements are the ones to the right on
your screen um here but the detailed
information about this is done through
development agreement that's helpful
definitely want to pull that in
discussion about mixed use so we want to
review this we think it it seems like
there's a lot of good information in
here um to bring forward. So um if you
all want to take a moment and share
whether you think we should use that
lefthand column information rather than
the right hand column information that
would be helpful or a com combination um
that'd be helpful for us to know or we
can bring it back the next time we come
and and give you more time to think
about it. So
>> please Commissioner Zach.
>> Thank you. They both look different from
what was kind of like provided according
to the 2021.
>> Well, so 2021 I think was um I think
maybe it was just an ordinance because I
don't believe there was a comp plan
amendment process.
>> Yeah, we we removed all land use um
designation descriptions in the 2015
version of comprehensive plan
>> because I'm not sure. We were just like
the comment that we were provided that
it has specific kind of like uh names of
designated uh developers there. So I'm
okay
>> and I think that may just be an I I can
tell you that the information that uh
was attributed to 2021 that we were
emailed earlier is exactly the same as
what you see on the left hand side of
your screen from the 2014 comprehensive
plan.
>> It's the same language. It just it's not
in the intent statement section to the
right. It was more of like a okay
>> I don't know informational but again it
seems very appropriate for the
description of what's happening today
and with the DA development agreement
information uh useful. So again if
if this kind of input you know you like
that version um you think a combination
of what's on the left hand of your
screen and the right end of the screen
is better. We're we're open to we really
want to hear, you know, what you guys
think.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Any comments?
>> Yeah.
>> Uh can you switch back to the map
related to this one real quick?
>> Thank you.
Um, I guess one comment I would have in
relation to the language, um, in
agreement that the I guess the 2021
ordinance language makes sense given the
development agreements. It looks like
since then though, I'm curious if the
Highlands and Talis are now no longer
urban village or are they part of a
development agreement?
>> No, that development agreements, those
two development agreements sunseted in
2018 and then they just became part of
our regular land use code.
>> Gotcha. And that became just urban
village
>> or part. Okay.
>> No.
>> Now they're just
>> the Isqua Highlands and Talis.
>> Gotcha. So do they need to be called out
in the language as Talis and
>> they're they're they're they are
neighborhoods on our neighborhood map
now. So we have the Isqua Highlands
neighborhood and the Talis neighborhood,
but they're not urban village. They're
not zoned urban village anymore. So if
you were to go back to the language one
more time, at the very end of the lefth
hand column, it mentions Talis and Isqua
Highlands. So we could remove those, I
think, is what I'm saying. Okay.
>> Yes. Thank you. Yeah, we would
definitely bring it up to date. That's a
great point. Thank you.
>> But that being said, I understand agree
with the UV Rowley and Lakeside
>> due to the development agreements.
>> Yes. Thank you.
No,
>> thank you, Vice Chair Patterson. That
helped clear something up for me.
>> Okay. Uh any other comments?
All right. Thank you, Kate.
>> Great.
All right. So, I'm going to go ahead and
hand over the uh slides to Emily.
>> All right. Good evening, commissioners.
Emily Medina, senior planner, and I will
go over comprehensive plan amendment
number two. Um, this one, if you will
recall, is clarifying names of
residential designations and zones.
So the key goals for this amendment is
that our lowdensity residential land use
designations and what is now kn right
now known as our single family zones
need to be renamed to better represent
um their capabilities and the locations
of what kind of housing can go in these
zones which is now more than single
family housing and includes middle
housing. um as well as undertake any
additional updates as necessary to make
sure that our designations and our
zonings and internal policies and codes
are all consistent.
So looking at our title 18 broken down
into its separate parts here, the main
code amendments are going to occur in um
title four, which is our zoning section.
Um the main ones being the establishment
of zones and then the zoning
descriptions themselves. pretty much
every single other section of our code
will be touched, but it will mostly just
be the name change from single family to
residential. Whereas with the
establishment of zones and the zone
descriptions, there's going to be more
language changes to um reflect uh
consistency with the land use
designations that Kate told you about.
So, what are our new zone names,
proposed zone names? Um we are
essentially removing single family the
word single family and replacing it with
residential to try to keep us close to
what our zone names are now. Um so
conservity conservancy residential
becomes residential conservancy. Um, and
then the main ones that are changing are
single family small lot or excuse me,
single family suburban is becoming
residential large lot and then single
family duplex is becoming residential
Oldtown as that zone is only located in
Oldtown. Um, and then you'll see the
urban village just switching the order
around to maintain consistency with
residential as the first word for all of
our zones and it will be residential
urban village.
So um, summary of those keys
descriptions which I was talking about
are the ones outlined in yellow and
these are the ones that are in the
packet as well. So currently we have
three residential zones section of code.
Um, so it is like an overarching
residential zone that has then a another
section for single family and another
section for multif family. We are now
just going to have one residential zone
section um which will go over all of
those residential zones and then some of
the
zones that were in the multifamily zone
section are moving to the mixeduse zone
section. And then the mixeduse zone
section is going to be updated all the
names and such and reorganized right
now. um in our different sections, the
way that the zones are listed are not
from least to most intense. So, while
we're already in there, we are going to
reorganize the order just so that it
makes sense so that when you're
scrolling through, it's lowest to
highest intensity.
And that's it. Mine's much more simple
than Kate's. Um so, same considerations.
Are the amendments clear? Any changes or
additional information needed? or any
other questions that you all have.
>> Thank you, Emily. Um, okay, we'll start
with questions. Any questions for Emily?
Any comments for Emily? Commissioner
Dair,
>> there is a map mentioned. Can we see the
map?
>> Right. I thought there it said earlier
that there was going to be an overlay
map.
>> Nope. Oh, okay. Maybe I misread this.
>> I don't think so.
>> Okay. Sorry. Okay. See, undertake
additional. Okay, never mind.
one time you wanted a map. You don't get
a map. Um, seems pretty straightforward.
Okay. Like staff's cleaning up some
things, reorganizing some things,
obviously taking the opportunity to
make it make a lot more sense for all of
you and the developers that use
our literature. Does anyone else have
anything else they'd like to add? Rily,
>> we can go back to Kate. Sure, Emily. Did
you get what you needed?
>> Yep. Kate had the next slide anyway. So,
good segue.
>> All right. Perfect. Thank you.
>> Uh, I wanted to go back. You had
mentioned uh asking for a little bit of
feedback on including the names of some
of the neighborhoods uh on some of
those. Mhm.
>> I was thinking about it seems like the
one that's impacted the most or the most
focus would be the regional core urban
uh growth center areas. Um so I think it
makes sense to call that one out but it
seems like everything else is mostly
kind of lumped into
>> you know we'll grow as needed or as
conditioned in that area. So, I'm guess
I'm making a formal suggestion is I
think it makes sense to call out the
urban growth center or regional growth
center part, but maybe we can just say
and other neighborhoods as it was kind
of presented.
>> Can I just um thank you for that? I do
just want to mention that um you know,
I've been a newcomer to Isqua. I've
worked here since November, which is
great. But there the um some of the
background environmental analysis was
looking at um mixeduse and residential
centers and recognizing that you know
Isqua Highlands is a center. It's a it's
it's a much lower dens you know it's
it's not the high density central Isiqua
but it is a center um that functions as
you know kind of a pretty complete
neighborhood. And so that's the idea for
the growth that's coming. The zoning is
a little higher there so there is more
growth to come there. um Lakeside as a
residential center is going to be built
over the next few years. So the idea
would be to kind of reflect on that. Um
but maybe just discussing uh at a higher
level in context and making sure we have
the data to support it. Um are you
amenable to that? I mean maybe not
calling out the names but discussing
this as you know centers. Okay.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I think that makes sense for
sure. Yeah.
>> As you mentioned probably some more word
smithing to be done before we get to
final. Yeah. All good in the
Okay.
>> All right.
>> Okay. Any other final comments for Kate?
>> Or Emily?
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Well, just sorry, one real quick thing.
I just wanted to share um that this uh
uh is the first time I think we've shown
you that the public hearing is likely in
September and that there are few more uh
amendments uh proposals you haven't seen
in ter including from the parks system
plan. that one's kind of been uh sliced
down a little bit. So, just some uh
minimal updates for that as well as the
uh Isukqua climate action plan. Um also
that'll come to you soon. So, that's all
I've got. Thank you.
>> All right. Well, thank you both. Great
presentation.
Going to move on to the next item of
regular business, which is a
presentation related to the promoting
building investment code amendments from
planning manager Kristen Leon and Andrew
Bjorn from ARCH. uh AR stands for for
our listening audience or our television
audience a regional coalition of
housing. Kristen and Andrew will be
presenting an introduction to floor area
ratios. Fun stuff inclusionary zoning
and the development bonus program. So
Kristen and Andrew, please go ahead.
All right. Good evening. Yeah. So this
this is just our intro. And some of this
you've heard before, but we're going to
hear it again. Okay. All right. So, let
me get this out of the way. I apologize.
Okay. So, we're going to talk about the
goals of the amendments that we're going
to make with this. The we're going
tonight we're also going to review the
existing regulations that we have in
place. the just a quick quick overview
of the Eco Northwest report, how these
housing tools work together and then
what our next steps would be
maybe.
Come on.
There we go. You did it. Okay. So, as a
reminder, these these are actually two
of our 17 amendments that council has
asked us to do
the floor area ratio and height
consistency and then inclusionary zoning
development rate development bonus
program and uh multif family tax
exemption. And the reason that we are
doing these together now is because we
cannot ask for something from developers
i.e. inclusionary zoning unless we also
give something back to the developers.
So if we're going to do this, we need to
potentially increase our F or base
height or something like that. Leverage
to be figured out mixed with then the
inclusionary zoning, MFTTE and um
development bonus keeping in mind that
both the MFT and development bonus are
actually voluntary programs and the
inclusionary zoning is a mandatory
program. So we'll talk about that in a
minute.
So the goals for these are the the floor
area ratio. It's to align the height and
F require requirements to get additional
affordable units under the development
bonus program. And they just say the
potential action is to blend this with
MFT and inclusionary zoning to see what
we can do. And then the goal for
inclusionary zoning and the others are
to recalibrate these to help improve
development feasibility while still
getting affordable housing that we need
to meet our targets. So I I don't know
how many of you have seen this for
before. I think you have, but we have
our housing continuum and everything to
the left is something that requires more
public support. It's not something a
developer is just going to come in a
market rate developer is going to come
in and do. It requires a lot of funding
from federal, state, and lo local
governments and and um
entities such as Arch who provide that
funding. And then everything else to the
right is stuff that doesn't need as much
support. developers can generally do
this provided they have all the right
tools in place. Um and so what we are
geared toward with these is those
amendments that um will get more of
those housing developments that require
less public funding.
What is area median income AMI? So come
on Andrea
>> come on Andrea
because you guys are asked questions
that I'm not going to know the answers
to. I can do that. I ignored that.
>> Okay. Uh so hello. Uh glad to be
speaking with you today about an
interesting topic like area median
income. So when we're talking about
affordable housing, we need a benchmark
to work from. And while talking about
affordable housing may sound easy with
respect to like what is it, it can be
very hard when trying to distill that
down to dollars and cents. So, uh, with
affordable housing in the US, typically
what we do is, uh, we base this off of a
a figure, uh, area median income. And
this is also calculated as median family
income. This is a number that's drawn
from the US uh, Department of Housing
and Urban Development from information
from the American Community Survey that
um, uh, is conducted by the Census
Bureau. So what it does is that you know
over the space of five years it uh sends
out surveys to different people in the
community and asks them what their
income is and it bases the number off of
that. It's a more complicated
calculation
uh especially since uh you're basing the
number off of uh surveys that have
happened in the past not right now. uh
but it's essentially trying to get at
what is the midpoint of income. Uh if
you look at the families in Isiqua, 50%
of the families would have an income
greater than that. 50% would have uh
incomes less than that. Uh when we're
looking at this from a regional
perspective though, this is uh conducted
over the metro area. We're all part of
the same housing market. So, we want to
be considering everything together. For
Seattle, it's actually King and Snomish
counties. So, Pierce County has a
separate metric for the Tacoma area. So,
um, when we're talking about when we're
talking about the numbers themselves,
um, the area median income for King and
Snomish County, uh, for 2026 is
identified as $164,400.
Uh, but it's not simply a matter of just
saying what the number is overall. there
needs to be some adjustments on the
basis of family size and for um the
uh kind of the level of affordability
that's required. Um so
you have here a matrix on the left that
shows household income limits. This is
on the basis of people. So the fewer
people that you have um it's likely that
the fewer
uh income earners you'll have within a
household. So that's why the numbers go
down from four people to one person.
Uh the the percentages for AMI are the
typical break points that are used when
we're talking about affordability. So uh
30% and below is extremely low income.
50% and below between 30 and 50% is very
low income. Uh 50 and 80 is low income
and 80 and 100% is moderate income. And
you you can take a look at different
sources. There are a few few times when
you can go out and find slightly
different definitions. I've seen um you
know uh midm moderate income for example
in some communities. uh but these are
typically the definitions that we deal
with and these are also important
because the uh King County growth
targets by income uh are based on these
break points. So um
so it's important to look at it by
people but uh when we're trying to look
at the acceptable rents
uh it can get a little bit more complex.
you don't necessarily have uh property
owners that are charging rents
necessarily on the number of people that
are that are going to be staying within
those uh within those units. So the
household limits on the left are used to
calculate out the total housing expenses
that would be tied to different sizes of
units. So studios, onebedroom, two,
three. Uh the typical formula that's
used is assuming that one person will be
in a studio apartment and then you'll
have one and a half people per bedroom.
So a two-bedroom apartment would
accommodate three people which is uh
somewhat consistent. It makes certain
assumptions. Uh, you know, if you have a
uh if you have a threeperson household,
but it has a single parent and two
children, you know, it might get a
little annoying for the kids to be
sharing a bedroom, but uh we need to
have some kind of broader standard. We
understand that there are exceptions to
the rule that there are special cases
but these are kind of the the standards
that are used in the analysis that that
we typically do
and the policies that we set. So um it's
also good to provide an example of what
we mean when we're talking about these
different levels. So when you're talking
about 50% AMI, the the break point where
very low income starts, uh if someone is
living alone, um you know what what you
have here is textile knitting and
weaving. I honestly just took the the
highest in the highest income in the
category according to labor statistics
from the state of Washington. Um, but it
does give you an idea like all of these
nine occupations,
well eight technically I guess since
power plant operators are are duplicated
here. But it gives you an idea that for
example
um if you have a single parent who's a
librarian
uh and is making the median income for a
librarian in in the Seattle metro area,
they're going to be at 50% AMI. Um and
that's when we're talking about who
we're trying to accommodate with this
type of housing, that's what we're
thinking about here. It it may be like
we throw around a lot of numbers, but
these are the the people that will be
living in these spaces. So,
are there any questions about that?
Throw a lot at you. I could throw a lot
more formulas at you if you really want.
I'm assuming not, but
>> No, appreciate it. Andrew, uh,
Commissioner Matthews,
>> I just had, sorry, I just had one
question. is 30% 31% to pay for housing
say if you have a four person family or
four bedrooms whatever it was is that a
typical countrywide what the expectation
is that you'd be able to afford if you
were at 100% AMI like 31% is that
typical for everybody
>> um
>> or that's what you're trying to target
>> well the sorry I'm bit you might need to
repeat the question do you mean like
>> back in the slide before it basically if
you look at the 100% AMI with four
people and three bedrooms that's 31% of
their income is going to housing. Is
that typical of what we're trying to
reach?
>> Oh yes. So um the two uh the two levels
that we look at here are when your
housing costs are at 30% of your income.
And again, some of these numbers are
somewhat arbitrary often just because
they're they're rules of thumb. You can
get more precise with certain things,
but typically the limit that we look at
is 30% of income as being the 30% of
income or below as being the desirable
amount that people should be paying on
housing costs overall. So that includes
rent or mortgages and then utilities
excluding um oh man I always forget
excluding telephone I think and then but
including things like heat and water
sewer gas etc. Um when you get above 30%
then households are considered to be
cost burdened. So, they're devoting more
of their income towards uh housing costs
than they should. And that that eats
into a lot of the income that they would
be spending on other things. Uh when it
gets to be 50%, then they're assuming
then then the term that we use is
severely costburdened and that's when
it's a significant expense. It's cutting
into income for a lot of other things.
And uh that is uh also typically the
level at which um uh like market rate uh
renters like market rate um uh property
owners are not going to be renting to
someone who uh makes less than twice of
what um uh you would twice of rent.
So
>> thank you very much.
>> Yeah. Thanks.
turn it back over to you.
>> So, I'd like to u make two notes. One is
that there's a reminder that in at the
in our comprehensive plan toward the end
as one of the appendices, we have our
housing analysis which has all of this
information about Isiqua and cost how
many or how many households are cost
burdened or severely costburden and it
has all great information in there. The
other one is that you all may recall
Mike Stanganger. he had the audacity to
retire. Um, but we are lucky and
grateful that Andrew has joined the team
for us. All right. Well, for Arch, but
us too.
All right. So, moving on. We're going to
talk I'm not going to go over that
slide. All right. So, starting with
floor area ratio.
Um, I just want to explain it a little
bit. Um, we have in our and I only
picked out the three zones here to use
where we have the most development
potential. So mixeduse residential,
mixed use central isqua and urban core.
And in each one of these zones, you have
a base floor area ratio F and a max F.
And we also have a base height and a
maximum height.
So if
moving toward that, we have our
development bonus program. If you choose
to go above, say the base height is 60.
If you choose to go above that base
height, not all the way to the max, but
anywhere above 3 feet to 25 ft, whatever
it may be, then you are required. So
it's it's opt it's voluntary because you
don't have to go above the base. But if
you choose to go above the base, you
must participate in the development
bonus program. So, it's in central
Isiqua only and there are two parts to
it and I'm not going to get it into the
numbers, but essentially a third of this
a third of this requirement requires
that you have if you're a residential
property on-site affordable housing.
The second part of it, the other
twothirds of it, you have the option of
on-site affordable housing fee inl or an
open space option. You get to pick which
one you want to do. Um, and off-site
compliance is op is a possibility. We
are doing that currently with the market
rate development at next to next to
trail head. We are doing alternative
compliance on that site right now. So,
all of those affordable units are going
into trail head.
Okay, moving. Do you have any questions
about that one before I move on?
So,
okay. So if I understand it correctly,
you're saying that if they go above 60
ft, then one/3 can go into affordable
housing on site and one/3 can kind of do
a fee for loo program. 2/3 23 can be fee
for
>> you get really into it. So really it's
the square footage. It's not just the
height.
>> So say that that
>> uh 20 ft or 15 feet, whatever this is,
results in Oh man, I'm going to have to
do math. um 30,000 ft² of additional
developable space that you're adding on
to it. 10,000 20% of 10,000 square ft
has to be on-site affordable housing.
Okay? And then 20% of the other 2/3 can
either be
um on-site affordable fianl or open
space.
>> Commissioner Grass.
>> Hello. So, um, we may not have a big
enough base, but if you look more
regionally, this essentially just
incents people to build at 60 ft and
don't even think about going an inch
higher. So, I'm curious
of the data that exists across all the
jurisdictions,
what percent of the developments are
actually just keeping it at the base
versus wanting to go higher and doing
these programs? meaning is the incentive
just to like are we just wasting time by
having all these complicated things
because they're just going to build a 60
or am I wrong and a good portion of the
developers want to go higher and they
will do these programs. So I'm curious
what's actually being built across the
region.
>> So
most cities in the I'm going to I know
mostly about the arch jurisdiction
cities which of which there are 15. Most
of the arts jurisdiction cities do have
a program like this. Ours is a little
bit more complicated. What you're asking
is part of the discussion that we're
going to have with this is do we need
it? Is it really an incentive? But of
our we have had four developments take
advantage of it. As a result, we've
gotten about 14 new affordable units. 11
of those at 50% AMI and about $2.1
million of fee and loo.
>> Okay.
>> So, people have taken advantage of it.
But that is part of our discussion about
is it once all this analysis is done do
we do we want that in place.
>> So I'm just looking at more that's why I
say we have a very small base
>> and 14 units sounds like nothing
>> very small. Um that's why I say if you
look at more regionally is this is this
just
pushing the incentive just to do the do
the the base and I'm just so the
question is more like there's data out
there of what's what's been done. And so
I think hopefully that'll be part of the
discussion, not just what we think will
happen, what's actually happening.
>> See, Andrew is going to get into that in
about 12 slides. And he's and that but
that's the whole purpose of this is to
do the analysis and and say how do how
does this affect it? How does it affect
it in the region? How will this affect
us with different scenarios?
That's that's the whole purpose of this.
>> I'm all I'm saying is have we already
looked back and have the data to see
what's actually happened? Assume these
are not new programs. These have been
around for a while or is this a new mood
looking?
>> It was uh development bonus was adopted
in 2014.
So, but you know things have changed.
Construction costs have changed. Land
costs have changed.
So, we don't know. The most recent one
that was used was in a project that was
just permitted this year.
So, you're right. We're gonna look at
it. Yeah. Okay.
So, I'm going to move on to what in our
code is called required affordable
housing, but what most jurisdictions
will call inclusionary zoning. If you go
in Google inclusionary zoning, that's
this is what you'll find.
This was adopted in 2017. It was part of
the city council when one of our
developments went up and there were 350
units there and none of them were
affordable. There was a moratorum and
they said one of the things we want is
more affordable housing. So we developed
our affordable housing program or our
inclusionary zoning program and it's
it's broken up into three different
parts and we have a lighting scale. So
if you build and this is mandatory. So
if you build anything with a resident a
development with residential component
in our mixeduse centralqua zone you have
an option. You can either build include
five of those unit 5% of your units at
60% area median income if it's rental
70% if it's sale or ownership or you can
do 7 and a half% of your units at 70%
AMI for rental and 80% AMI for
ownership.
moving up into higher densities.
If you get in to the urban core,
um you have again two options. 10% of
your units have to be affordable at 50%
AMI for rental, 60% AMI for ownership
units. And then if you your other option
is to do a combination. So you have 10%
of your units are available at 70% and
80% and an additional 5%
lower at 50% and 60% AMI.
Lastly, our most dense area which is our
vert vertical mixed use zone. And it's
denser because they actually can go all
the way up to 125 feet, but an eight
floor floor area ratio of 8.0 in this in
this little area. And in this case,
because you're could potentially get
more density. Option two is 10% of your
units at 50% AMI or 60% um ownership or
12% of your units at 60% rental with 70%
ownership.
Any questions about that one?
Okay.
Now, lastly, our central Isiqua Pioneer
program. This one was adopted about
three years ago, intended to
um incentivize development in central
Isiqua only actually in the urban core,
which includes the uh vertical mixeduse
zone and the central Isqua or the
mixeduse centraliz.
And with this, you can go up, you can
pass the base, you can exceed the base
and go up to the maximum height, the
maximum F without employing the
development bonus program. You can just
go up there and then you do still have
to do inclusionary zoning, but you have
an option at either 8% of your units at
60% or 10% of your units at 80%.
Um, and then it's and like I said, it's
intended to get it's you can um two de
two developers or two developments can
can use this and they can range anywhere
from 200 units each to 400 units each is
what the limit is.
>> Mr. Grass,
>> she's looking at me. Um, so I I remember
this is when I first came on board. So,
do we have of the two because I think we
limited it to two as a test. Is there
anybody in the pipeline?
>> Not yet.
>> And do we have do we have a good
understanding of why in three years no
one wants to do this? Is it is it the
right formula is really the question or
is it something different?
>> Um, again something to be discussed but
I I don't have the answer to why.
>> Okay.
>> One question too also Kristen. Um, as
far as the two, those are the only two
and then the program expires for the
Pioneer program. Correct. Okay. So, it's
not like two every few years. Now, this
is two and then it's it's over. Correct.
Pioneer program is an ad hoc thing that
just happens once.
>> Correct.
>> Okay.
And I'm I'm going to Well, not yet. Um
we also have we do have we don't have a
multif family tax exemption program but
we have sites where it can be used. We
have three different sites. So one is
the it's the Tibet site which is the
trail head project where it's not being
used because it is a nonprofit developer
who is doing the trail head project and
they don't need it. They get tax
credits. Um the second one is the high
street or shelter projects which is the
backwards J which is the J at the
bottom. Some people call it a backwards
L, but it's a J. Um, they get to do it's
a 12-year program. 20% of their units
are going to be affordable at 80% AMI,
and then I believe the affordability
ends at the end of that 12-year program.
And lastly is the Central Pioneer
program, uh, Central Esqua Pioneer
program, which which we just talked
about. Um, and it's either eight units
at 60%,
10 units at 80% and but I believe that
those are for the life of the project.
The affordability is for the life of the
project.
Okay. And nope, this is the last thing.
I was kidding. Um, we also wave school
traffic, fire, and park impact fees. We
wave 100% of these for every project
that comes through for the affordable
units.
We require we wave 100%, but the state
really only says you can wave 80%. So
that other 20%, the city has to repay
right now. We have to pay ourselves that
20%.
We also wave all building and plan
review and permit review fees,
mitigation fees, and utility connection
fees. That's a lot that we wave. Um, you
can do these exemptions for units that
are 80% and below the area median
income. And the affordability
affordability requirements for every all
of these units is placed on the title
through a covenant.
And that's all I have for the for our um
Oh, wait. I'm kidding. Um, any questions
about that?
>> Questions, Commissioner Dare?
>> So, for the fee waving, that would be on
the specific unit. So, the percentage of
the specific unit. So, if you had like a
10-unit building and two of them were
affordable under 80%, we would wave the
fees just for those two units, not the
whole building. Correct.
>> Correct. And I didn't mention this
before, but when you do the multif
family tax exemption, those fee waiverss
are for
all the residential units there. Whether
they if it's a mixeduse property is for
all the units there. It does not include
commercial, it does not include the
land, but it does include um all of the
units. So market rate and affordable.
Yes. Okay.
Last thing, the Eco Northwest report.
This is it's a little dated now. It was
done in 2023 based on 2022 data. But
essentially what they said, we asked
them, I've told you this before, to
assess three things. One is more diverse
housing,
uh removing uh
what do you call it? Barriers to
condominium development, and then
expanding our inclusionary zoning
program.
Essentially, they said, "Yep, nope. Your
inclusionary zoning doesn't program
doesn't work as it is now. It needs to
be fixed." Um it reducing requirements
helps like parking and stuff like that,
but it does not make projects feasible.
Condo barriers are really at the state
level and city action won't affect
anything and other types of change that
we're going to be talking about will or
at least we hope so.
and they said to rightsize the current
the programs to expand our multif family
tax exemption and actually make it a
program um rather than sight specific
and to provide regulations for unit lot
subdivisions which we do parking which
has been handled by commerce because
we're no longer allowed to require
structured parking for residential and a
few other things that have been handled.
So now I'm going to hand it over to um
you know what I'm gonna hand it over to
Andrew now.
Um so building on the Eco Northwest
report there are um some things that
we're looking at supporting like uh uh
the Isiqua team on uh one of them is
looking at meeting housing goals. So uh
under changes to the growth management
act that were put in uh uh before the
update cycle for the comp plans uh there
are now requirements in place to look at
accommodating uh housing at different
income levels. So I was talking about
this before when defining uh AMI
but uh this is not necessarily that the
city itself needs to produce these
units. The city is not a developer, but
there does need to be a demonstrated uh
capacity to accommodate
um units in these income brackets. And
typically um uh the Department of
Commerce puts out guidance about uh what
specific housing types can be
accommodated. So looking at uh multif
family apartments versus uh town homes
versus kind of more uh duplexes and
single detached homes. But um what we're
looking at doing here is to uh support
the efforts of the city to try to
accommodate all of these uh all of these
types to be in compliance.
Uh but with that, one of the other
things, and this does come up in the uh
Echo Northwest report, uh what we're
finding is that in some neighborhoods
that can accommodate higher density that
that duplexes, for example, and town
homes are becoming more uh more of a
desired uh development type. And, you
know, we want to make sure that the free
market is providing housing. I mean
we're not again cities are not
developers per se but um what we do want
to ensure is that we're providing the
incentives for a much broader range of
housing types to be accommodated in the
city. One other point too is that uh a
recent uh bill in the legislature now
requires that uh uh that there is an
MFTTE
program and inclusionary zoning close to
transit stations. So this is going to be
applicable for Isiqua and it is going to
be applicable like even though uh uh
even though transit around that transit
station is not going to be immediate,
it's it's something that needs to be
planned for and the program needs to be
in place for that.
So
um so
one of the things that we're looking to
do in in tandem with uh uh with the
planners with the city is to provide
some recommendations for accommodating
the incentives that can both support
different types of diverse housing but
can also
uh uh provide the affordable housing
that the city needs. And again, this is
something where um the Echo Northwest
report gets at some of these points, but
we're looking at expanding out that
work. So, um one thing to be upfront
about is that cities don't have a lot of
tools in the toolbox to incentivize
affordable housing. There are certainly
direct funding opportunities both you
know just with the city devoting
dedicated funding or general fund uh
money or you know funding coming from
the outside like from ARCH or uh state
funding sources. There are indirect
funding opportunities like the tax
exemption um or fee waivers or even even
kind of fasttracking permits which can
actually reduce some of the carrying
costs associated with development.
There are other supports like you know
leveraging surplus lands which isn't
completely an option in ISO there are
some opportunities but um but
one point that we want to include is
that a lot of these tools operating
individually are not going to be able to
get that deeper level of affordability
to meet some of these targets that you
need to be working with them together
and in cooperation.
So,
what
uh before I get into a bunch of charts
here um
one of the things that we recommend is
that if you're looking at MFTTE, for
example, or you're looking at
inclusionary zoning that you consider
them together. And part of the reason is
that a an 8 or 12 or 20-year tax
exemption is one of the larger
incentives that the city can provide.
But when you're looking at a longer term
exemption, uh some of the requirements
that the state has can be a little
unwieldy. So, um for the 12-year MFTTE,
uh the state require it's a little
complicated, but essentially the state
uh the the typical U maximum that cities
use is 80% of AMI um for 20% of the
units. And that has two problems to it.
one is that um the 20% set aside is very
large. So if you're looking at deeper
levels of affordability
um that tax exemption can only go too
can only go so far. The other problem
and and this is coming up as a as an
issue. Um
80% of AMI in a lot of surrounding
communities outside of like the core of
Seattle
um are getting close to market rate and
that becomes a problem because there's
administrative overhead that's
associated with um ensuring that people
of those incomes are in those units. Um,
if you're uh in an MFT unit, typically
you need to provide evidence that your
that your income is at 80% AMI or below.
It's uh you know tax returns, pay stubs,
etc. Um, that's a little that's a little
difficult for the resident, that's
difficult for the property owners, and
that's difficult for the jurisdictions
that need to audit that information. So,
um, as we're seeing more and more of
these units come on the line, one of the
things that we're trying to encourage is
that we're looking at, uh, a smaller
number of units and deeper levels of
affordability in certain ways. Uh,
so that's where the layering can come
into place. Uh the other the other issue
with MFTTE is that unless you're looking
at certain specific kinds um 20-year uh
certain kind of 20-year exemptions uh
that are in the statute. Uh the eight
and the 12 year are limited to
uh 12 years of like the 12-year is
limited to 12 years of affordability
under the under the base statute
for inclusionary zoning. It's a little
bit different. Uh inclusionary zoning uh
has a requirement that you provide a
bonus. Uh it can be MF but typically
it's what you see in the bonusing
program here an increase in height
allowable F used to be that you could
allow for changes in parking
requirements etc. But that bonusing can
be uh a limited incentive. Um it's
upfront. it's something that uh
that uh is more permanent affordability.
But if we're talking about some of the
uh some of the situations, as I think
one of the commissioners stated, where
that additional floor of height uh may
have limited returns above what you
would get from just developing a smaller
development on the site, that extra
bonus may not be worth as much. So when
we're combining these together, we're
looking at addressing some of the
weaknesses with each while we're
providing a public benefit that um that
can both provide some incentive for
development, but also can provide a like
a public benefit and largely through
affordable housing.
So please do not look at the numbers
here. This is an example that I was
pulling from something else, but um this
I'll walk you through from left to right
here. So, if we're looking at just base
conditions for a project,
3.8%, 8%. I know that the real estate
folks in the room will blanch a little
bit at that number,
but just looking at that, ignoring the
numbers for now, but just looking at the
bars, if we're looking at um providing
uh going from like the base density that
you can have in an area and providing
some bonus, there can be kind of a small
increase in what you can uh what you can
get from a density bonus,
but There are a number of options that
we have in looking at providing for uh
additional
uh
sorry let me let me take a step back. So
if you're just providing the density as
of right if you're just saying to
somebody you can build higher build more
units uh then that bar is going to go up
um that's going to be additional profit
for a developer. They're just going to
be able to build more on the site.
When we're talking about though how to
how to I don't want to say claw that
value back but ensure that that value is
being shared with the community.
Uh what we're talking about is you know
what what's in here is one of two
things. either you're providing a
12-year MFTTE at 20% with 12 years of
affordability or you're providing kind
of uh like the density
uh and an impact fee waiver in exchange
for 10 like 10% of units that are
permanently affordable.
So these are two different scenarios
where we're looking at two different
instruments, the MFTTE and then just the
density bonus. And what you notice is
that alone if you're moving from 80%
which is the darkest bars in red and
green on the on the left over to the
highest levels of affordability at 50%
AMI on the right. you know, as you get
more and more affordable, um the uh you
know, eventually it gets to the point at
70 like past 70% where it's just not
worth it for a developer to participate
even if they get that density bonus uh
and an MFTTE
that you know the affordable units will
reduce the income that they're
receiving.
So what this means and what you can see
is that and and this is just an example.
These numbers can be different for
different uh types of construction. But
um when you have a large set aside of
20% of units or if you have permanent
affordability and nothing else to offset
it other than that density,
um the ability to get deeper levels of
affordability can drop off pretty fast.
So what we often want to take a look at
is like an alternate set of scenarios
here. This is a lot of bars. Um it's a
lot of numbers that are here. But I
think that the important thing is to
take a look at kind of what the behavior
looks like in different ways. If we're
if we're providing an 8-year tax
exemption and providing much smaller set
aside of affordable units, you're able
to get to deeper levels of affordability
and developers are able to retain more
of that benefit. Um there's a trade-off
between
uh you know providing more of an
incentive for development versus
providing more affordable units. But
that's an important discussion to have
like what is the priority that the city
would have providing more units ensuring
that there are more affordable units
that are preserved but this is something
that you have more leeway to do if
you're coordinating MFTTE and
inclusionary zoning together. So there
are certainly ways of doing this so that
you're not completely ensuring that
nothing will get developed versus
everything will be market rate or at 80%
where for a large swath of people it's
not really going to make that much of a
difference in rent.
So did you want to take this one or
should I Oh great. So um so what we're
looking to do in in coordination with uh
with uh uh the planners with the city
the planning staff with the city is to
adjust and rightsize
uh the inclusionary zoning and the
development bonus program to ensure that
there's feasibility for new development
and movement towards the affordable
housing goals that I was talking about
before but also that we're evaluating
different MFT programs at the same time.
That was not something that was
extensively discussed in the um in the
Echo Northwest report and that's
something that a lot of developers are
looking at now as a as a clear incentive
uh to provide for more development.
We also want to take a look at other
policy actions. Um, parking for example
is something that it it's it's hard now
because uh the state has put in certain
um uh like there there's less leeway to
provide parking incentives because uh a
lot of uh allowable parking restrictions
have been removed by the state. So
there's less leeway on that. But if
we're looking at other types of
incentives um that could potentially
move the needle a bit, we want to make
sure that we're providing with with a
full suite of options. So, uh it's
taking the results that you have here
and expanding them. I think that I think
that one thing that we want to recognize
is that it may not necessarily be
towards incentivizing micro units or
looking at cottage units per se. I think
that there are um I think that one of
the focuses that we would have is
looking at the types of units that would
fulfill some of the income requability
requirements that are in the comp plan
and required by King County, but that
Oh, yeah. Um but that uh you know, we
want to be focused on that. We want to
make sure that you're fulfilling the the
requirements that are set out in the
comp plan. Uh we also want to make sure
that we're providing for the technical
support. You know, we want to make sure
that there is a a solid u financial
analysis that's in place, that there is
some engagement that takes place to
ensure that, you know, I'm I'm more than
certain that there are a diversity of
opinions in the development community to
any proposal that would be put forward.
We want to make sure that that's clear.
Um, but there also does need to be at
the end of the day uh clear changes to
the municipal code and the land use code
language to support these programs. So
that's that's kind of where we're going
with this. Um, we're coordinating with a
an economics firm to be our backs stop
with a lot of the uh proforma analysis
and financial analysis that would be
supporting this and we're yeah we're
looking forward to uh moving forward.
So, I think that that's it.
>> So,
>> note um I did not put a a calendar on
here, but I believe the next time we
come back is at the end of August. And
we have provided ARCH with several
different scenarios to look at using
those different lever levers and
adjusting them and they will work with
the consultant and we'll come back and
show you the results of those levers.
Then we will also go to council planning
development environment committee and
talk about it with them. Once we sort of
come up with the direction that we want
to go, then we'll start looking at our
code amendments. But we want to we want
to get a good direction based on the
based on data first and see where we go.
>> Any questions?
>> Yeah. Well, thank you um Andrew. Thank
you Kristen. I don't think necessarily
we're talking about policy discussion.
We're just basically asking questions,
clarifying questions this evening. I
mean, I think we all kind of have our
general idea of where this is going just
based on the Echo Northwest, but again,
as Kristen mentioned, this is a dated
document, so we do want new data. But
yeah, really, we're not here to talk
about uh polyp sleep prescriptions this
evening. It's more or less just asking
questions. And it looks like John has a
question.
>> I always have a question. This is so I
have a theoretical question, but there's
some data that will help inform. So when
you think about
broader, we need to have places for
people to live that don't make as much
money. So let's call it affordable
housing just as you've been doing it.
And most likely those are going to be
rental units. Let's be realistic. If
you're not making a lot of money in this
area, buying anything is so let's just
say they're mostly going to be rentals.
Is there an analysis if you look at
because you have existing stock of of
rental units right now in Isiqua and
then there's new stock that will be
built and if you look at what already
exists
is there a scenario where I'm going to
say a couple bold things and Kristen's
going to like roll her eyes.
We get out of the incentive business on
stuff for new stock. We could say we
have a strategy that if we allow a lot
more new stock for certain size units
without restrictions, we let them build
higher. We're not giving all this money
back. All these things, we let market
take be market rate units. We look at
the existing stock, maybe the lower
grade units. Once again, I don't know
how many there are in this area, if this
math even works. Those will become lower
priced units compared to the new stuff
being built because building a new
building with costs to build something.
You're fighting the headwinds get higher
and and windier every time you even
think about this. So is there a way to
look at the existing old stock of units
in the area to be able to become your
strategy for affordable housing even
more so even if you have to give some
type of incentives whether it's from the
state or the city to some of the
landlords to to cover some of those
things. I was just curious if that's
even you're looking at a broader picture
not just the new things that are being
built but the whole installed base of
units that we already have. That's the
broader. So, I'm going to jump in and
then Andrew may have more, but we did
back in 2021 an inventory of all of our
apartment units in the city and looked
at the size of the units, how much each
unit cost, when it was built, that sort
of thing. So, we have a list of all
those market rate units that are not
covered under co or all of those more
affordable units that are not covered
under covenants right now. And our plan
was to go out and talk to different
agencies and see if they would be
willing to purchase some of these to
help preserve the existing market
affordable housing units. So market rate
affordable housing units. The problem is
that we've had
is one funding. you know, it's it's hard
to get all that funding in place, but is
two, you've got to find a property owner
who's willing to not sell their property
to a developer who can come and tear it
down and make a lot more money and you
get money off of it. Um, or that just
wants to keep it affordable.
>> My question is actually even more broad
is like do market forces, if you have a
lot more new nice ones, the existing old
ones are going to they're going to have
to if they want to rent them out, it's
going to they're going to have to be
cheaper and those become your affordable
play. I'm not sure if the math works
there because otherwise we're we're
doing all this work to get 14 units
built and it's like okay that seems like
a lot of work to not have something that
meets a bigger goal. I'm just curious if
there's other ways to look at the bigger
picture to get the ex get the result
that we want or is this just an
impossible task to do that?
>> Well, I I could say one unpopular thing
and say that uh the targets can feel
like an impossible task. Uh the if you
look at the county as a whole uh there
needs to be a lot of affordable units
created across the county, not just in
Isiqua, but everywhere. Uh what you were
talking about before with filtering.
Yeah, it's it's something that is uh a
clear trend in urban housing economics.
It's it's something that does occur
where, you know, people that move into
new housing free up housing for other
people. um you know that uh that housing
because folks that move in may have uh
you know less income to spend that rent
can go down. Um so that's fair. Uh but I
think that what we need to one of the
things to focus on here is that we need
to do a lot and it's not just with with
market rate housing. We do need to
promote that and I think that it is fair
to say that um cities across Washington
state really and North America I don't
want to leave anybody out here but need
to do more in promoting the conditions
that are necessary necessary for
development to occur. Um, one of the
some reasons to include this uh beyond
just trying to get affordable units are
to try to get affordable units in a way
that is integrated in with the rest of
the community. So one of the one of the
issues that we often face is that if you
are creating a 100% affordable project
in one location or another um that can
be dictated by the availability of land
it may not necessarily be in as ideal of
a location and it's concentrated. If
we're providing for a more distributed
model where you can encourage more more
affordable units to be spread out, then
that means that you're getting people
that um may not necessarily be making as
much money but still have access to a
lot of the same amenities and resources.
So, it it's I I think I think my main
answer is you're right, but we need to
try to do everything to try to put this
in place. Um there are certainly
arguments about focusing on uh other
ends of the spectrum that we were
showing you before looking at severe
need but it's we we really need to be
focusing on a lot of things and it's
it's a big task. So
>> my understanding, Andrew, was that Arch
and Kristen, forgive me if you're wrong,
but didn't Arch do that in the past,
bought property in as a cloth and
actually the entire unit was turned into
>> I want to say that was like three or
four years ago, right?
>> We did it. It was over on Clark Street,
right?
>> 245 Clark. It was several years ago.
Good memory. Um, but it was it was
funded in part by Arch,
>> right?
>> It was part of the general fund.
Correct. And then the city helped kick
in.
>> Right.
>> Right. Okay. I just want to, like I
said, I just want to go back in the time
machine because I I thought that is
something Arch did.
>> Oh, and it's it's what I was saying was
not to advocate against it. No, because
I mean
>> Well, I think I mean to your point, I
mean, the distribution model is a lot
better when it's it is everybody's
equitable. They have different I mean,
that's a lot better than having
tenementss in New York City. So, I get
that part.
>> Um,
>> yeah. I just like I said, I just wanted
to go back in a little history lesson. I
see you. I see you.
>> Uh but yeah, I just wanted to go back
and because I thought for sure that is
something that we've done in the past
that was pretty successful.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. So that's not taken off the board
or anything.
>> No. Again, I mean we need to be focusing
on a housing policy that's a stool with
many legs.
>> Sure. Sure. Yeah. Okay. Commissioner D.
>> Yeah. And just to um add to that and to
John's point, uh one thing we need to
keep in mind when we're looking at
economic levers is that we're not
actually existing in a frictionless
economic economy, right? So, for
example, when my husband and I were
house hunting and looking for rentals,
what we encountered when we first moved
up to Washington is that there would be
one company that owned every building
within a certain region and they
effectively have a monopoly, right, on
prices. So, they could, if you have
something like a Black Rockck, etc.,
they can theoretically hold on to enough
empty units to then force the supply
down and the price up. So we I think
just looking at all the levers is a
great idea and just something to keep in
mind.
>> Yeah. No, that's a good point. I mean I
I think that's what that's countrywide.
I know of that in other countries
actually where you have conglomerates
that are buying units.
>> Yeah. I I will add just one small thing
with that and you know talking about
moving into the region uh and trying to
find housing super important.
This is not just a housing strategy.
This is an economic development strategy
because a lot of people who would be
accommodating
50% 60% AMI units are the folks that are
doing retail work in the community that
are doing kind of um home health care.
And if we're talking about kind of
accommodating them here as opposed to
having them drive 45 minutes an hour to
get into the community uh from
affordable housing, that's that's
important.
>> Absolutely. Commissioner Matthews.
>> Hi. I just had a question about the Eco
Echo Northwest report about condo
development.
>> Um, there was it basically stated that
there's a bunch of state laws that went
in place that prohibit people from
wanting to develop them. So, why are
town houses going up? Aren't they under
the same structure, an HOA structure
like a condo is? I guess I I'm a little
confused about why
>> that condo bad.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
right there. Simplified.
>> I can I can talk to it a bit. I my uh
it's been a long-standing problem and
it's one that it doesn't seem like it's
being solved anytime soon. It primarily
has to do with liability from the '9s
associated with leaking condos, I
believe. But that's carried over into
kind of this concern about long-ter
concern about liability to builders.
Um and
wi when you're talking about town homes,
I mean, one of the other things that's
not included in the and I I switch
between eco and echo. I sorry about
that. But um one of the things in the
report that isn't acknowledged is that
there have been more recent changes
um that have allowed for unit lot
subdivisions to uh you know essentially
replace some of that condo style um
ownership models. Kind of essentially
condos except replacing a condo
association with an HOA. Um, but it it's
it's typically more because they're
profitable to build and the types of uh
liability from what I understand are not
as severe when you're talking about town
homes.
So,
>> yeah, the whole the whole report's
pretty fascinating. I mean, obviously
everybody read it, but it's there's a
lot in there. Um
well maybe part of it too is be beyond
the develop I mean one of the things the
developers said was that they would
prefer to rent those type of
multifamilies versus sell them outright
whereas the town homes they can do the
fee simple sell them not be responsible
for them they share one wall instead of
multiple walls and floors
>> we'll see if condos come back but what
was interesting too is I mean just how
well is a pretty diverse housing stock
>> so I think we kind of all know just from
what the report is and again it's
outdated we kind of know the levers the
levers that we have to work with
at least I feel like
um okay any other questions for Kristen
or Andrew Vice Patterson
>> I think this will be a quick one um I
keep trying to correlate the AMI to
market rate housing does it make sense
that 100% AMI would be considered market
rate housing or is that not quite apples
to apples
>> um it it's not apples to apples for two
reasons
Well, it I could talk to you for an hour
about this.
>> Yeah. Right. The simplified version.
>> Um a few points. One is that um it's
based on median family income. So that
is something that excludes certain types
of households that aren't families. So
individuals or roommates, etc. So it's
it's a little bit different um than all
of the households that are around. um as
well. Uh you would typically be seeing
uh homeowners at higher AMIs and renters
at lower AMIs, which is why when I was
talking before about 80% being pretty
close to what you can see for a lot of
market rate rents that are in the market
right now. Um that that's why it's that
that that's why that kind of occurs. Um
but it's it again it it's an arbitrary
number. It's kind of where you plant the
flag when you're conducting
um affordability studies, when you're
trying to come up with rent limits,
things like that. So, it's yeah, it it's
it's hard because it's really not a real
number. Um it's it's technically not
even actual median income in the
community. It's projected out from
previous years data. So,
>> just when you thought you got a grasp on
it, right? Of course.
Okay. Uh, any other questions for
Kristen or Andrew?
All right. Would Kristen or Andrew like
to add anything?
Okay. Well, thank you both for the
presentation.
Okay. That's going to do it for our
regular business this evening. We
appreciate everybody sticking around for
the presentations, the conversation.
Again, we'll get deeper into the weeds
uh in the coming weeks and months.
So, the next item we have is now
reports.
We'll begin with city council updates.
>> I don't have any council updates.
>> Aren't they on break? No, August.
>> August.
>> Okay. Um, how about any other updates?
Anything going on in the city? We got
some Fourth of July party coming up.
>> Um, Trail Head is about to break ground,
which is very exciting. It's what,
nine, 10, nine years in the process.
Yeah. So, we're very excited about that.
Um,
otherwise,
no, I don't think so. No.
>> Are you guys doing any type of ceremony
for it?
>> Yes, they're doing a ceremony on July
30th.
>> Cool.
>> All right.
>> Well, I see Minnie coming up to the
podium.
>> Sure. Um, just a quick update on the
council uh that you were asking. So
Monday night we take forward your
recommendations to council on stepbacks
and amendies spaces uh and all the other
housekeeping sort of uh clarifying
amendments that you had that's on
consent agenda uh as well as our permit
process improvement um metrics that
we're measuring. So that's in that
agenda. Um one of the work plan items
was um detached accessory dwelling
units. So we got feedback from planning,
development and environment committee
whether to pursue the pre uh approval
process. So the city has some
pre-approved plans that someone can use
versus the state law was changed to say
if they're self-certified, the city is
not going to do a building plan review.
So the committee said, you know, the
cities that have done pre-approved
plans, they haven't been really used by
folks. So pursue the selfcertification
process. So we because it's amendments
to title 16. So there's really not a
planning and policy commission uh
discussion on that. So that'll go
directly to uh planning development and
environment committee. And if they
approve it, it'll just get be a simple
code amendment in uh title 16, which is
a building code. So just so in case
you're wondering what happened to the
detached edu process. So it's just
moving forward on a quicker faster path
and you like um you know a lot of
exciting development break uh
groundbreaking events. So springs
assisted living facility uh
groundbreaking happened in the
highlands. So that's about 200 units. Uh
and then trail head uh to happening end
of July. Um and high school is under
construction. So a lot we're busy with a
lot of construction and town homes.
Yeah.
>> Um, yeah.
>> Yeah. No, I see I see quite a few uh
heavy machinery around town.
>> So, that's great. Excellent.
>> I I have one little side note that
doesn't have anything to do with
council, but I I mentioned the uh
excused absences.
>> And you'll notice on the calendar that
you get in your packets every week, I've
been putting those on there, the excused
absences. So, if you don't see your name
on there and whoops, when we gone, just
let me know and I'll put it on there.
That way, we know too when it shows it
when it comes up. Thanks.
>> Yes, we want to give uh staff at least 5
days notice. Again, it's a lot of work
as all of us know by reading through
these packets. So again, if for some
reason we don't have a quorum,
especially in the summer or especially
on a night like tonight,
uh oh,
spoiler alert, man.
>> I made it the whole evening.
Okay.
Ouch.
Yes.
>> That's okay. I will survive.
>> Okay. Well, on that note, I hope
everybody has a good evening and we will
adjourn this meeting of the Planning
Policy Commission at 8:21 p.m. Thank
you.