City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee · Tuesday, February 6, 2024 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of January 3, 2024

packet pp.5–6

▶ Watch from 10:04 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 01-03-24 City Council Planning, Development & Page (1) Environment Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Planning, Development & Environment Committee 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. January 3, 2024 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Central Issaquah Pioneer Program ID 1568

45 min · Jen Davis Hayes, Economic Development Manager · packet pp.7–46

Topics: Land Use

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Jan 11, 2024

▶ Watch from 10:29 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

Administration recommends creating the Central Issaquah Pioneer Program with the following elements:  Two (2) Projects Total  Within Urban Core and Mixed-Use Zones in Central Issaquah  Project size must be between 100-400 units  Provide 8% of housing at 60% AMI to meet both inclusionary and development bonus requirements  Eligible for 8-year MFTE (lifetime affordability required)

Comprehensive Plan Update Draft Economic Vitality Element ID 1581

45 min · Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager · packet pp.47–82

Topics: Land UseEconomic Development

▶ Watch from 54:56 Open packet at p.47 ↗

Staff report:

The Community Planning & Development (CPD) department is partnering with multiple staff Departments and their boards and commissions to integrate or update the functional plans and incorporate their policies into the comprehensive plan. The Long Range Planning Division in CPD will work with the Economic Vitality Commission (EVC) to use the Economic Development Strategic Plan and update and other relevant functional plans to update the Economic Vitality Element.

2291 segments .txt ↗

0:08 ↗ all right good evening everyone welcome

0:10 ↗ to the February 6th meeting of the isqua

0:14 ↗ city council Planning Development and

0:15 ↗ environment committee I am joined uh my

0:18 ↗ name is council member Victoria hunt and

0:20 ↗ I joined by council president Walsh and

0:23 ↗ council member

0:24 ↗ Hall we have um two items of business on

0:27 ↗ our agenda this evening and we will

0:30 ↗ start off first with public comment um

0:34 ↗ so since I do see there are members of

0:36 ↗ the public who may wish to make comments

0:38 ↗ I will read some guidelines at this

0:42 ↗ time all right public comments are an

0:45 ↗ important part of the public process we

0:46 ↗ take them seriously and Factor them into

0:48 ↗ our decisions during audience comments

0:51 ↗ members of the public are invited to

0:52 ↗ address the council regarding matters

0:54 ↗ that are directly related to City

0:55 ↗ programs projects services or events um

0:58 ↗ except public hearing items items quas

1:00 ↗ judicial items or campaign related

1:02 ↗ matters when recognized please unmute

1:04 ↗ your microphone for virtual attendees

1:06 ↗ please step up to the lecturn for

1:07 ↗ inperson attendees and we will be using

1:10 ↗ the lecturn at the um front of council

1:12 ↗ chambers this evening uh please state

1:15 ↗ your name address and the relationships

1:17 ↗ to the city for example resident

1:18 ↗ property owner or business owner please

1:20 ↗ speak clearly and pause frequently and

1:23 ↗ please limit your comments to 5 minutes

1:25 ↗ if you are attending virtually and do

1:26 ↗ not respond after your name or phone

1:28 ↗ number is called or if your connection

1:29 ↗ is lost the meeting will continue you

1:31 ↗ are encouraged to rejoin the meeting if

1:33 ↗ able and as a reminder written comments

1:36 ↗ can be submitted at any time to city

1:38 ↗ council at ISA w.gov personal attacks

1:41 ↗ obscene language derogatory remarks and

1:43 ↗ disruptive behavior such as shouting

1:46 ↗ booing clapping and stomping feet will

1:48 ↗ not be permitted if a speaker is out of

1:50 ↗ order the presiding officer will direct

1:51 ↗ the speakers to return to his or her

1:53 ↗ seat or per virtual attendees may direct

1:55 ↗ staff to mute the microphone if a

1:57 ↗ speaker does not comply the presiding

1:58 ↗ officer may take a recess to restore

2:00 ↗ order and if A disruption to the meeting

2:02 ↗ occurs and Order cannot be restored the

2:03 ↗ presiding officer May proceed to use

2:05 ↗ options in RCW

2:07 ↗ 42.3 .50 to ensure order um again public

2:12 ↗ comments are an important part of the

2:13 ↗ process and we take these seriously so

2:16 ↗ with that I will check in with the city

2:18 ↗ clerk first if there's anybody who has

2:20 ↗ indicated that they would like to make a

2:22 ↗ public comment this

2:23 ↗ evening yes chair hunt we have uh Mr

2:27 ↗ Brian runberg uh in our audience tonight

2:29 ↗ who would like to make comment and we

2:31 ↗ have one virtual attendee but they do

2:32 ↗ not yet have their hand up so I would

2:34 ↗ invite you if you would like to make

2:35 ↗ public comment to please raise your

2:36 ↗ raise your virtual hand and we will get

2:38 ↗ to you

2:40 ↗ shortly um all right so let's start with

2:42 ↗ Brian um Brian if you could please come

2:45 ↗ up to the leor and it looks like it's

2:46 ↗ already on you can please make your

2:49 ↗ comments thank

2:52 ↗ you thank you uh Brian runberg and I'm

2:55 ↗ representing the owner interest of the

2:57 ↗ former Red Robin site at 1085 5 Lake

3:00 ↗ Drive um and um try to be efficient as

3:04 ↗ possible in five minutes here and I'm

3:05 ↗ going to read from notes primarily to

3:07 ↗ keep on task here uh appreciate the

3:09 ↗ opportunity participate in evaluating

3:11 ↗ the criteria for this uh Pioneer program

3:14 ↗ we've been engaged with this for the

3:15 ↗ past past year and through the various

3:17 ↗ committees um you have I believe got

3:20 ↗ today a letter submitted from Jesse

3:21 ↗ Clawson land use attorney who was unable

3:24 ↗ to attend tonight to co um outlining

3:27 ↗ some of the issues for your attention on

3:28 ↗ this fight final criteria language uh

3:31 ↗ namely the two options that had been

3:33 ↗ previously available the 60% Ami

3:36 ↗ discussed and the 80% Ami discussed

3:38 ↗ there's the lifespan of the permits uh

3:41 ↗ whether two years we're suggesting it go

3:43 ↗ to three years and whether it's two

3:45 ↗ projects or three sample projects um uh

3:48 ↗ got some comments on that but I want to

3:50 ↗ focus with you on number one about the

3:53 ↗ the two options that were available um

3:56 ↗ the optionality of this Ami selection

3:58 ↗ process was was dropped for some reason

4:00 ↗ at the Joint meeting last month um and

4:04 ↗ want to bring and propos to bring that

4:06 ↗ back in um that said I mean we are

4:09 ↗ completely aligned with your goals and

4:10 ↗ Visions within the centralis quad plan

4:13 ↗ and and really have the strong desire to

4:15 ↗ execute that on as it was intended our

4:18 ↗ understanding and the point of the

4:19 ↗ pioneer project was about stimulating

4:21 ↗ mixed mixed use growth and density uh

4:24 ↗ where it makes the most sense obviously

4:26 ↗ in the in the urban core it was not

4:28 ↗ really as I we saw are understood about

4:30 ↗ affordable housing however that aspect

4:32 ↗ certainly has dominated the debate in

4:34 ↗ the past few months and uh our group had

4:37 ↗ worked with Arch and staff in a

4:39 ↗ transparent way to find a way that we

4:41 ↗ could come up with two options uh that

4:44 ↗ was proposed and then suddenly this last

4:46 ↗ month that the option option dropped out

4:50 ↗ so there is no

4:51 ↗ optionality um this is a

4:54 ↗ significant warrants a significant di

4:56 ↗ dialogue that with proper context and we

4:58 ↗ haven't had the ability to respond in

5:00 ↗ real time uh you know again we developed

5:04 ↗ both affordable and market rate housing

5:06 ↗ and produced much or many of that in the

5:08 ↗ region in the in the past 30 years and

5:11 ↗ experts in doing so on both sides um and

5:14 ↗ that said we are strong proponents of

5:16 ↗ affordable housing to be clear here the

5:18 ↗ real concern that we have is how to

5:20 ↗ execute that affordable housing

5:22 ↗ and to try and talk about the

5:24 ↗ fundamentals it is complex but the

5:27 ↗ affordable housing is has been stood

5:29 ↗ traditionally anything 80% and below and

5:32 ↗ largely funded by nonprofits and

5:35 ↗ operated and with offsets and

5:38 ↗ availability to Alternative financing

5:40 ↗ either local state Bond financing credit

5:42 ↗ financing Etc whole different array and

5:45 ↗ then there's market rate this is apples

5:48 ↗ and artichokes in two different groups

5:50 ↗ which goes with conventional financing

5:53 ↗ with no bond financing or any advantage

5:55 ↗ whatsoever it's what the commercial

5:56 ↗ markets will prevail like you're getting

5:59 ↗ a single family home on a bigger scale

6:02 ↗ while recent race market rate projects

6:05 ↗ in the region have been able to

6:06 ↗ incorporate some affordable housing

6:08 ↗ along with the upzoning that has

6:09 ↗ occurred you know over the past decade

6:12 ↗ those examples successful examples have

6:15 ↗ all lined in the 80% Ami with mfte and I

6:18 ↗ can cite many many examples of that it's

6:21 ↗ best practice industry standard and it

6:23 ↗ works commercial financing in a nutshell

6:26 ↗ the capital markets they don't really

6:28 ↗ know how to right to 60% Ami this is a

6:31 ↗ new a fairly New Concept without some as

6:34 ↗ I said some offsets offsets of land or

6:36 ↗ some other bonuses that are not

6:38 ↗ available here to us so um dropping the

6:42 ↗ optionality effectively drops the

6:44 ↗ options on financing and and puts the

6:46 ↗ project not just ours but all projects

6:48 ↗ at at high risk to be able to execute

6:51 ↗ this um and I just want the group to

6:54 ↗ consider you know the 10% 80% IM

6:57 ↗ criteria in that hand out was the

7:01 ↗ definition that you came up with with

7:03 ↗ your PR pioner project criteria

7:05 ↗ originally there's a reason why and it's

7:07 ↗ because I said to demonstrated industry

7:09 ↗ secondly about a year ago Council was

7:12 ↗ presented with a commissioned report

7:15 ↗ from Eco Northwest these are unbiased

7:17 ↗ Regional experts economists and policy

7:20 ↗ Specialists that concluded that the 10%

7:23 ↗ at 80% with mft was the targeted

7:26 ↗ suggestion you have that I don't have

7:28 ↗ access that to but it was given to you

7:30 ↗ about about a year ago these logical

7:32 ↗ benchmarks suggest that 80% is the right

7:35 ↗ model so I don't we don't understand why

7:37 ↗ it's being eliminated just opens up more

7:39 ↗ options we can all appreciate

7:42 ↗ Arch narrowing this down to 60% because

7:45 ↗ that's their vested interest in in

7:47 ↗ having a lower Ami threshold we get it

7:50 ↗ but we need different mechanisms for

7:52 ↗ executing on that um the rare examples

7:56 ↗ that there are they're not really off

7:58 ↗ apples to apples and they're not the

8:00 ↗ significant app offsets that we have

8:02 ↗ available to us here so in some is the

8:05 ↗ Pioneer program really about proof of

8:07 ↗ concept which we understood it to be to

8:09 ↗ learn for future development uh or a

8:11 ↗ combination of Epic or is it a

8:13 ↗ combination of metric economic metrics

8:16 ↗ to come together and make Ami work if so

8:18 ↗ that's really a narrow slot to fill we

8:21 ↗ appreciate the ideals of the 60% option

8:24 ↗ but it's clearly stated in the testimony

8:26 ↗ of if you read the testimony last

8:28 ↗ month's the economic vitality commission

8:30 ↗ members all came to the same conclusion

8:33 ↗ about the cost of that moving forward

8:36 ↗ and that's not their just opinion it's

8:37 ↗ also Eon Northwest opinion having one

8:40 ↗ option is not optionality and it's I

8:43 ↗ don't we also don't think it's helpful

8:46 ↗ ining proof of concept so we would like

8:48 ↗ to have the council consider including

8:51 ↗ the two options we can take it to the

8:53 ↗ market and test it that's the real value

8:55 ↗ to you um this is $125 million

8:59 ↗ investment in your city and to be able

9:02 ↗ to really attract Capital we cannot do

9:05 ↗ so with a single model that has a narrow

9:07 ↗ Focus um we've designed and developed

9:11 ↗ and produced

9:13 ↗ some one

9:15 ↗ second um yes if you can what last last

9:18 ↗ two sentences we've developed and

9:20 ↗ designed the most sustainable Innovative

9:23 ↗ energy efficient mixed use apartments in

9:25 ↗ the nation we've done it right so here

9:26 ↗ in this region we've delivered thousands

9:28 ↗ of in the in the and that are lotted

9:30 ↗ nationally we'd like to deliver the same

9:32 ↗ for you and have this as a very uh

9:34 ↗ unique and important precedent for you

9:36 ↗ but we need some optionality to do that

9:39 ↗ thank you thank you all right um I will

9:43 ↗ look in the room if there's anybody else

9:45 ↗ not seeing anybody else indicating to

9:47 ↗ speak in the room and I will check in

9:50 ↗ again if there are virtual attendees

9:52 ↗ that may want to

9:54 ↗ comment Sher there are no virtual

9:56 ↗ attendees uh wishing to make public

9:58 ↗ comment at this time

9:59 ↗ okay great thank you um we will now move

10:04 ↗ into approval of the minutes there were

10:06 ↗ minutes for the January 3rd

10:08 ↗ 2024 Council uh Planning Development and

10:11 ↗ environment committee meeting um do we

10:13 ↗ have any edits to those all right I move

10:17 ↗ to approve the minutes as they appear in

10:19 ↗ our packet please signify by saying I I

10:25 ↗ I those are approved and uh with that we

10:29 ↗ will move into our agenda items so the

10:31 ↗ first agenda item is ID 1568 Central

10:34 ↗ isqua Pioneer program this will be with

10:38 ↗ this will be presented by Jen Davis

10:40 ↗ Hayes the economic development manager

10:42 ↗ welcome Jen thank you good evening

10:44 ↗ council members I'm Jen Davis Hayes

10:46 ↗ economic development manager and I also

10:49 ↗ wanted to mention that Mike Stanger um

10:51 ↗ is here from Arch if you have any

10:53 ↗ questions regarding that so um we're

10:56 ↗ here tonight to talk about the central

10:59 ↗ isqua Pioneer program um Shar the

11:02 ↗ recommendations from the EVC and

11:04 ↗ planning uh policy commission and gather

11:07 ↗ input to move forward to uh the next

11:10 ↗ meeting of a full city council for

11:12 ↗ consideration of adoption of this

11:15 ↗ program and so we are will'll go through

11:18 ↗ the uh the administration's

11:19 ↗ recommendation and um again looking to

11:22 ↗ see what information you'd like us to

11:24 ↗ bring back to the full Council and or if

11:27 ↗ you agree with the recommendation

11:29 ↗ uh this has been a long uh Journey uh

11:32 ↗ starting with as our public speaker uh

11:35 ↗ shared with us the information that was

11:36 ↗ in the 2012 Central isqua plan um

11:40 ↗ referring to the potential for a Pioneer

11:42 ↗ program um it was a uh brought up in May

11:46 ↗ of 2023 um as a uh question why aren't

11:50 ↗ we looking at that and from there we

11:53 ↗ started to look at it came back had many

11:55 ↗ iterations wanted to make sure we

11:56 ↗ understood from Council what was

11:59 ↗ uh of importance for this program since

12:01 ↗ it was something um new and requested by

12:04 ↗ Council to explore so um Long Trail but

12:08 ↗ we are here today again with a

12:10 ↗ recommendation we believe that will meet

12:12 ↗ our um the needs so the again reminder

12:16 ↗ you guys have seen this you know several

12:17 ↗ times before but the uh the goal of oh I

12:21 ↗ think my thing slipped one there you go

12:23 ↗ so the housing Continuum we always like

12:25 ↗ to show this when we're talking about

12:26 ↗ housing projects and so this is um not

12:29 ↗ intended to be an affordable housing

12:32 ↗ project it will have some affordable

12:34 ↗ housing but really it's looking at the

12:36 ↗ uh the uh top end of our Spectrum on the

12:38 ↗ housing Continuum so the goal is to uh

12:42 ↗ spur development in the urban core and

12:44 ↗ mixed use zones in Central isqua and to

12:46 ↗ provide a proof of concept um again we

12:48 ↗ have not seen any housing development in

12:51 ↗ the urban core and we've seen 344 units

12:54 ↗ in mixed use zone of central isqua since

12:57 ↗ the plan adoption in 20

12:59 ↗ 2 so tonight our proposal you've asked

13:02 ↗ us several times what are you proposing

13:04 ↗ right because we've talked about lots of

13:06 ↗ options so our proposal is uh two

13:09 ↗ projects total uh within the urban core

13:12 ↗ and mixed use zones uh the project size

13:15 ↗ must be between 100 and 400 units and

13:18 ↗ that's to give enough size to again

13:20 ↗ proof a concept and that can be

13:22 ↗ replicable um but not too many that um

13:25 ↗ would have could have a negative impact

13:27 ↗ on the on the community um our

13:29 ↗ recommendation is to have require for

13:31 ↗ the affordable housing requirements for

13:33 ↗ the inclusionary zoning and the density

13:36 ↗ bonus or development bonus zoning or

13:39 ↗ program is to uh provide 8% of the

13:42 ↗ housing at 60% Ami and uh provide an

13:46 ↗ 8-year mfte but still require that

13:49 ↗ lifetime affordability for those units

13:52 ↗ um which a lot of times with mfte is

13:54 ↗ just the length of the the uh multif

13:57 ↗ family tax exemption

13:59 ↗ uh planning policy commission held a

14:01 ↗ public hearing and they did uh approve

14:05 ↗ our recommendation to amend uh the

14:08 ↗ affordable housing code um and with the

14:11 ↗ recommendation that we had on the

14:13 ↗ previous slide with those

14:15 ↗ details the one thing to kind of note

14:18 ↗ because uh planning policy commission

14:20 ↗ addresses Title 18 the multif family tax

14:23 ↗ exemption is not part of Title 18 and so

14:26 ↗ we did not uh have a public hearing on

14:28 ↗ that if we move forward with this we

14:30 ↗ will have a public hearing um with city

14:33 ↗ council as a full move moving forward um

14:36 ↗ there is some draft language in your

14:38 ↗ packet and we're still working with Arch

14:40 ↗ to kind of uh fine-tune that and we'll

14:42 ↗ have that final um at the city council

14:44 ↗ meeting as we move

14:46 ↗ forward um some of the options that uh

14:49 ↗ we want to uh get input on um so the

14:53 ↗ urban core uh uh and the mixed use zones

14:58 ↗ are the the two areas that we've looked

14:59 ↗ at so the in general that's the let's

15:02 ↗ call it all the commercial area of the

15:04 ↗ valley floor minus downtown right um the

15:07 ↗ urban Corps itself is more attuned to

15:09 ↗ the regional growth uh Center and so

15:12 ↗ that is not going to include all of

15:13 ↗ Gilman or East Lake samamish PL uh East

15:16 ↗ Lake samamish Parkway so um we could

15:19 ↗ focus on uh Urban core Zone only um we

15:23 ↗ as uh the administration decided that we

15:26 ↗ wanted to broaden it and had

15:27 ↗ conversations with economic Vitality

15:29 ↗ commission and I believe the planning

15:31 ↗ policy commission as well about you

15:33 ↗ don't know where that next Project's

15:34 ↗ going to be and so having that larger

15:36 ↗ area those are again both those zones

15:39 ↗ have amenities jobs access to Transit

15:42 ↗ that are um important um and then the uh

15:46 ↗ what's been talked about in public

15:48 ↗ comment is we again as Administration

15:50 ↗ chose the 8% at 60% because of the need

15:53 ↗ for that level of housing um but there

15:57 ↗ was uh comments and discussion about

16:00 ↗ maybe providing the developer choice

16:03 ↗ between the 8% at 60% Ami or 10% at 80%

16:08 ↗ so those are the two options we um we

16:11 ↗ can discuss further with you um so again

16:14 ↗ this is the recommendation um from the

16:16 ↗ administration is to create this program

16:18 ↗ with these

16:19 ↗ elements um and so then we'll uh if

16:23 ↗ we'll move forward to s full city

16:24 ↗ council meeting to consider adoption if

16:26 ↗ it's adopted then we'll go forward with

16:29 ↗ the process to adopt the multif family

16:31 ↗ tax exemption portion of that and begin

16:35 ↗ you know working with uh Community

16:36 ↗ Planning Development for implementation

16:38 ↗ and beginning to Market to um property

16:41 ↗ owners and developers so

16:44 ↗ um that is uh all for tonight for my

16:50 ↗ presentation great thank you um so at

16:53 ↗ this time do we have questions I'm sure

16:56 ↗ we

16:57 ↗ do president Walsh thank you um John I

17:02 ↗ know you said you looked at a top limit

17:06 ↗ of 400 so that we weren't getting super

17:10 ↗ large projects and that were um able to

17:14 ↗ be kind of replicated can you talk me

17:16 ↗ through that a little bit more is there

17:18 ↗ any concern amongst the administration

17:21 ↗ if we bumped that up to 500 or 600 or

17:25 ↗ something in that area um I don't think

17:27 ↗ there would be ER I think what we've

17:29 ↗ been seeing as far as what projects that

17:31 ↗ have been proposed in these areas have

17:33 ↗ been in about the 300 400 range we

17:36 ↗ thought that was made sense for the

17:37 ↗ market um the one the one thing that

17:40 ↗ when we did have conversations with the

17:42 ↗ commissions is that unknown of the

17:44 ↗ multif family tax exemption so um and I

17:47 ↗ say unknown meaning how that's going to

17:48 ↗ impact uh City finances there's a you

17:51 ↗ know a worry that that would be negative

17:54 ↗ impact but we also know that and I'm not

17:56 ↗ going to get into the discussion about

17:58 ↗ FTE too deeply here but that you know

18:00 ↗ that does uh having a development also

18:02 ↗ brings additional uh revenues to the

18:04 ↗ city so you know they worried um if it

18:07 ↗ was a you 800 unit project that uh and

18:11 ↗ there were two of those that's 1,600

18:13 ↗ units and what that does for um you know

18:16 ↗ the the community change that rapidly

18:18 ↗ but also uh the potential impact to the

18:21 ↗ city finances so um you know I I think

18:24 ↗ to 500 or 600 wouldn't be drastically

18:27 ↗ different um because it's going to be

18:29 ↗ according to the size of the parcel and

18:31 ↗ so and obviously the development

18:33 ↗ standards of height limited of height in

18:35 ↗ F because that's still exist um in our

18:38 ↗ code for this project and so did they

18:42 ↗ have the same cost and revenue

18:45 ↗ calculations that we have in our packet

18:47 ↗ or no they didn't have the detailed so

18:50 ↗ they have they had the general this is

18:52 ↗ what it is but then we got to the City

18:54 ↗ Port all that kind of so we have a

18:56 ↗ little bit more information that might

18:57 ↗ be able to um that okay thank you that

19:01 ↗ was

19:05 ↗ it um I have five so feel free to jump

19:08 ↗ back if you need to so um I just I found

19:11 ↗ the planning policy commission economic

19:13 ↗ Vitality commission conversation

19:15 ↗ fascinating so I have several follow-up

19:17 ↗ questions um number one it seemed like

19:19 ↗ there was some disagreement as to where

19:21 ↗ is AA stands in the region with regards

19:23 ↗ to planning for affordable housing whe

19:25 ↗ whether we're kind of leading or

19:27 ↗ trailing behind I was wondering if you

19:28 ↗ could kind of clarify for the best of

19:30 ↗ your

19:31 ↗ knowledge that well I'm also looking to

19:34 ↗ Stephen too because he's chairs the

19:35 ↗ planning Poli so so when you when you

19:37 ↗ say and I I don't remember the exact uh

19:41 ↗ details of the discussion but um

19:43 ↗ obviously we had two commission two

19:45 ↗ commissions together for the first or

19:46 ↗ second time and so um do you remember

19:49 ↗ the specific conversation yeah so the

19:52 ↗ the questions was around the amount of

19:54 ↗ affordable housing the city has

19:55 ↗ generated compared to a lot of our

19:57 ↗ neighbors and and the answer is in terms

19:59 ↗ of volume the city esqua has actually

20:01 ↗ done really well when it comes to

20:03 ↗ affordable housing in the region but the

20:06 ↗ context of how we got the affordable

20:08 ↗ housing was primarily from development

20:09 ↗ agreements versus through our program

20:12 ↗ programs so that's kind of the

20:13 ↗ difference between us and our

20:16 ↗ neighbors and that makes sense I think

20:18 ↗ also the timing right so a lot of those

20:20 ↗ those units were in the highlands

20:21 ↗ development agreement and then um

20:24 ↗ additional ones recently and so in the

20:27 ↗ last few years they they're like okay

20:28 ↗ well that happened you know 15 years ago

20:31 ↗ 5 years ago nothing really is in the

20:33 ↗ pipeline or not much mhm okay thank you

20:37 ↗ yeah and I think the contradict because

20:39 ↗ that's what Arch said um in their

20:42 ↗ comments when they were responding to a

20:44 ↗ PPC question and someone in public

20:46 ↗ comment refuted that so perhaps they

20:49 ↗ just weren't looking at it the same way

20:50 ↗ re worth development okay thank you know

20:53 ↗ that's that's that's helpful um there

20:56 ↗ was also some discussion at the EVC with

20:59 ↗ regards to um you know something we hear

21:02 ↗ as council members from the community

21:04 ↗ all the time which is ensuring that

21:05 ↗ infrastructure is in place before

21:08 ↗ construction um concerns around traffic

21:10 ↗ and parking my understanding is that's

21:12 ↗ much easier said than done given our

21:14 ↗ limitations as local government so I was

21:15 ↗ just wondering if anyone could

21:17 ↗ expand yeah and I think that gets to a

21:20 ↗ little bit of the understanding of our

21:21 ↗ commissioners about how this works and

21:22 ↗ so we did um we did share that when a

21:25 ↗ development comes and you know this is

21:27 ↗ that they requireed to do you know

21:29 ↗ infrastructure improvements there's

21:30 ↗ mitigation funds there's concurrency all

21:33 ↗ those things happen um and you're right

21:35 ↗ we we can't go and build the we have

21:38 ↗ chosen not to go and build the whole

21:39 ↗ city out for the future development

21:41 ↗ because that would be really costly and

21:42 ↗ you wouldn't know exactly where but um

21:45 ↗ but that I think that's a little bit of

21:48 ↗ again uh education that we can do more

21:51 ↗ with our commission to understand how

21:53 ↗ that works um but the but you know a

21:57 ↗ concern about making Mak sure there's

21:58 ↗ capacity there and and when it goes

22:00 ↗ through the through the uh permitting

22:02 ↗ process they will address that and look

22:04 ↗ at all of those

22:06 ↗ things okay perfect yeah that would be

22:08 ↗ helpful information to share back with

22:09 ↗ them too just so they feel satisfied

22:11 ↗ that their comments address

22:15 ↗ um there was also some discussion around

22:18 ↗ that adjusting of the two-year period to

22:20 ↗ three-year period I think it was in the

22:21 ↗ validity section of that and I'm not

22:23 ↗ entirely sure what the impact would be

22:26 ↗ so yeah and so I'll also um have Stephen

22:30 ↗ juman if he likes because we we actually

22:31 ↗ sat down with our planning staff and

22:34 ↗ said okay how long you know will it take

22:36 ↗ for each of these these um uh pieces and

22:40 ↗ we actually changed it from our original

22:42 ↗ first draft um and felt that from the

22:45 ↗ time that the application is approved

22:48 ↗ for the Pioneer project to uh instead of

22:51 ↗ originally I think that it was to get

22:53 ↗ your building permit but now we're

22:54 ↗ saying apply for your building permit um

22:57 ↗ that 2 years should be more than

22:58 ↗ adequate we want we don't want to

23:01 ↗ because there's only two projects we

23:02 ↗ don't want to lock up one of those

23:05 ↗ projects and then that person sits on it

23:07 ↗ and doesn't do anything for five six

23:09 ↗ years so um I don't know if if Stephen

23:12 ↗ or we luckily we have our community

23:14 ↗ Planning Development uh director here as

23:16 ↗ well if there's any comments about that

23:18 ↗ but I feel pretty confident um in

23:20 ↗ talking working with her staff that um

23:23 ↗ and the efforts they're doing now and to

23:25 ↗ this is again so basically getting

23:27 ↗ through land permit that um you know 2

23:30 ↗ years uh is is enough time for that

23:33 ↗ process as well as getting your uh

23:35 ↗ building permit ready

23:37 ↗ but you want me yeah you know there's no

23:40 ↗ magic number between two and three

23:42 ↗ honestly if if you feel three is needed

23:44 ↗ and that's needed I think the intent

23:47 ↗ here is not that you are first in the

23:49 ↗ door you preserve it and you never do

23:51 ↗ your development and then nobody else

23:52 ↗ who may be interested in using it can

23:55 ↗ use it so just finding that right

23:57 ↗ balance of if there's an you know if you

24:00 ↗ want to do a creative project and can

24:02 ↗ use it then you have the we want to work

24:05 ↗ with people generally within that time

24:08 ↗ range uh one year is not significant uh

24:12 ↗ delay I think the approach that we took

24:15 ↗ was more of Milestones within you know

24:18 ↗ 90 days you submit your first thing and

24:19 ↗ then as long as you're making progress

24:21 ↗ and you submit your building permit

24:22 ↗ within X number of time frame and then

24:25 ↗ you then the building code really

24:27 ↗ dictates how long their uh construction

24:29 ↗ permits are good for and that's in our

24:31 ↗ building code and that will kind of you

24:33 ↗ know if if it's an actual project that's

24:36 ↗ happening then we keep going otherwise

24:38 ↗ um you know it's an opportunity for

24:40 ↗ someone

24:41 ↗ else no thank you that's that's super

24:44 ↗ helpful um two

24:47 ↗ more

24:51 ↗ um oh there was also some discussion

24:54 ↗ around whether or not to remove this

24:57 ↗ from the affordable housing chapter and

24:58 ↗ I don't think I understood kind of what

25:02 ↗ um the desired outcome for that is so I

25:04 ↗ was hoping staff could comment on kind

25:06 ↗ of pros of it living in this section

25:11 ↗ versus maybe it seemed like some of the

25:13 ↗ commissioner saw pros of it living

25:14 ↗ somewhere else stepen bu longrange

25:17 ↗ planning manager so the the reason why

25:19 ↗ we chose the section in the code where

25:20 ↗ it is because there is no other programs

25:22 ↗ be besides the development bonus program

25:24 ↗ which is where it sits in the affordable

25:26 ↗ housing um section of the title 18 code

25:30 ↗ so the pros is we it's next to a very

25:35 ↗ similar program and when people are

25:36 ↗ looking for this type of program it's

25:39 ↗ consistently at least in the same area

25:41 ↗ of the code con is is the point that was

25:44 ↗ brought up in the EVC and PBC discussion

25:46 ↗ of the um confusion of this Pioneer

25:50 ↗ program not being affordability housing

25:52 ↗ affordability program but it does the

25:54 ↗ only incentive is the MFD

25:58 ↗ uh incentive for the program and so

26:00 ↗ that's kind of the balance that we were

26:02 ↗ trying to take the the alternative that

26:04 ↗ we've discussed with the city attorney's

26:06 ↗ office is creating an entirely new

26:08 ↗ section of code within um the that

26:12 ↗ Housing section of Title 18 um but then

26:15 ↗ it would be kind of a standalone by

26:17 ↗ itself which would be not as intuitive

26:19 ↗ to look for so there's kind of the

26:22 ↗ balance we wanted it to be at least

26:23 ↗ where similar language is or a similar

26:25 ↗ program is in the Cod okay yeah I

26:28 ↗ appreciate that yeah we don't want to

26:29 ↗ remu up our code went through that huge

26:33 ↗ effort so no I appreciate that um I see

26:36 ↗ the pros and cons there so that'll um my

26:39 ↗ last question has to do so in the draft

26:43 ↗ code

26:45 ↗ Amendment um there's approval criteria I

26:48 ↗ don't know how to phrase this question

26:50 ↗ so bear with me but I'm wondering if the

26:53 ↗ approval criteria is is limiting in any

26:56 ↗ way and so I'm hoping you can kind of to

26:57 ↗ walk me

26:58 ↗ through being the city staffer waiting

27:01 ↗ for these applications so if you

27:03 ↗ receive it's done stamp is is there from

27:07 ↗ Council and now the program is being

27:09 ↗ implemented we've done all the marketing

27:10 ↗ we receive um an application from a

27:13 ↗ developer maybe

27:15 ↗ it's maybe it's good to go does that

27:17 ↗ mean one of two is now now done or do we

27:20 ↗ have to do our review give it back to

27:22 ↗ them and then also what happens if it's

27:24 ↗ like there's missing information or

27:26 ↗ something's wrong and has to go back is

27:28 ↗ that still one of the two or is it not

27:30 ↗ one of the two until that's been

27:32 ↗ corrected yeah that's a great question

27:34 ↗ we we are aiming for Simplicity right so

27:38 ↗ um the only requirement so they're going

27:40 ↗ to be applying for this you know

27:42 ↗ potential thing on um um

27:44 ↗ mybuildingpermit.com so electronically

27:46 ↗ and so the um I'm going to go back to

27:51 ↗ the sorry this my um so the the the

27:57 ↗ items that the the planner would look at

28:00 ↗ is is this within Urban core and mixed

28:03 ↗ use Check Yes um is it a pro project

28:06 ↗ size between 100 and 400 check um are

28:10 ↗ they you know do they understand that

28:11 ↗ they need to provide 8% uh at 60 or 10%

28:15 ↗ at 80 whatever we decide and they

28:17 ↗ understand you know they need to they

28:19 ↗ we'll put like the rules of the program

28:21 ↗ they signed off so that is then you have

28:24 ↗ the again pretty easy to to verify and

28:27 ↗ and then then so they have that your

28:29 ↗ number one of two or your number two of

28:31 ↗ two and then they have to go do the

28:33 ↗ preap you know land use process and so

28:36 ↗ then that's more information that comes

28:38 ↗ in so we wanted to we wanted to give

28:40 ↗ some certainty because obviously if you

28:42 ↗ you know you're quotequote you know you

28:43 ↗ have it then you can you're going to

28:45 ↗ submit with that information but if you

28:46 ↗ don't then you're you may do something

28:48 ↗ different so somebody calls and it's the

28:49 ↗ third or fourth say sorry they're not

28:52 ↗ available now if a project drops out

28:54 ↗ we'll keep a wait list or like you know

28:55 ↗ let people know that it's it's it's time

28:57 ↗ but typically if you're farther in the

29:00 ↗ process you may it may not make sense to

29:02 ↗ change but we'll see yeah so Simplicity

29:06 ↗ that's the the term for this beginning

29:08 ↗ part because it isn't really about

29:09 ↗ checking all the boxes of the the

29:12 ↗ development standards and those type of

29:14 ↗ things but it's really meant to be

29:16 ↗ simple no yeah Simplicity definitely did

29:19 ↗ in my mind too I think what one followup

29:22 ↗ question I have is

29:26 ↗ um

29:27 ↗ well that wouldn't be simple would it I

29:29 ↗ guess I'm I'm thinking what if there are

29:32 ↗ four applications that come in minute

29:34 ↗ after minute like so close to each other

29:36 ↗ do we have any do we have any

29:38 ↗ flexibility to pick as a city or or

29:41 ↗ would it just be you came we said first

29:43 ↗ so you can choose that we could we could

29:45 ↗ put that in the in the program but right

29:47 ↗ now it's first come first serve so they

29:48 ↗ would be timestamped right um as

29:51 ↗ submitted um yeah and you know it

29:55 ↗ probably is pretty rare four come in at

29:56 ↗ the same time time but it could you

29:58 ↗ could you don't want to create something

29:59 ↗ that doesn't think about these

30:06 ↗ things okay all right um okay so I had

30:11 ↗ two

30:12 ↗ questions maybe three now that we've had

30:15 ↗ that conversation um the first one was

30:17 ↗ similar to council member Hall's

30:20 ↗ question um on where this lives in the

30:23 ↗ code and how that works um my question

30:26 ↗ was more

30:28 ↗ this is meant for two projects and so by

30:33 ↗ Design This code becomes Obsolete and

30:36 ↗ also is different after there's one

30:39 ↗ project and so I'm just wondering does

30:42 ↗ that mean when we have the one project

30:44 ↗ we have to make sure that that's

30:46 ↗ reflected in the code or that's just

30:48 ↗ part of the project and then once we

30:50 ↗ have the two projects do we have to also

30:52 ↗ remove the code and rewrite it it's yeah

30:58 ↗ the answer is yes yeah we would once

31:00 ↗ once the two projects are constructed we

31:02 ↗ would want to remove it from the code

31:04 ↗ but ultimately because the amount of

31:06 ↗ time these projects take to get

31:08 ↗ constructed by that point we have

31:10 ↗ hopefully had more policy discussions

31:12 ↗ around different programs or something

31:14 ↗ another approach to get um to the city

31:16 ↗ goals that perhaps we're replacing that

31:18 ↗ language potentially another program uh

31:21 ↗ to get at your other question

31:24 ↗ of do we need to recognize one project

31:28 ↗ once it's constructed I don't think so

31:30 ↗ just primarily because we're still

31:32 ↗ managing the program we need the code

31:33 ↗ for that management yeah okay so my

31:37 ↗ other question on that is uh there there

31:41 ↗ was wording about we need to have either

31:44 ↗ both Urban core or I I believe it's one

31:47 ↗ mixed use and one Urban core for the two

31:50 ↗ projects I guess firstly I'll check if

31:52 ↗ that's right they can either they can

31:53 ↗ both be Urban in the urban core yes or

31:56 ↗ one can be mixed use and one can be

31:58 ↗ Urban cor or two mixed use oh they can

32:01 ↗ be two mixed use okay yeah so it's it's

32:04 ↗ it's if if you decide that that's what

32:06 ↗ you want us to propose move forward that

32:09 ↗ it could be in either Zone it's the

32:10 ↗ first two applications for either zone

32:13 ↗ or we could say one in one right but

32:16 ↗ then you're um creating a little bit

32:19 ↗ more barriers and Hoops jump through but

32:22 ↗ that's completely possible as

32:24 ↗ well okay um no problem then that was

32:28 ↗ that was my misunderstanding then the

32:30 ↗ other question I had is was there so you

32:33 ↗ mentioned that the upper limit of the

32:35 ↗ units was to make sure that we didn't

32:38 ↗ have you know something like a huge

32:40 ↗ number of units before we really had

32:43 ↗ time to look at the impacts of this

32:45 ↗ program because it is a Pioneer program

32:48 ↗ so I wondered if you considered having

32:51 ↗ an upper cap for both projects but could

32:54 ↗ give some flexibility between the two

32:56 ↗ project projects um so something like

32:59 ↗ together the program would provide a

33:02 ↗ maximum of 400

33:05 ↗ units um yeah that I mean again we could

33:09 ↗ this project we could put whatever we

33:11 ↗ want in here but uh it seems like it

33:13 ↗ might be hard then for the second

33:15 ↗ project to be feasible because let's

33:18 ↗ just say we say up to 600 the first

33:20 ↗ project takes

33:21 ↗ 400 um the next project may you know be

33:25 ↗ on a parcel that's larg ler you know

33:28 ↗ they're not going to build even one

33:30 ↗ building with 200 um so it just makes it

33:32 ↗ a little bit harder to try to if you're

33:35 ↗ the first one in you get all the spoils

33:37 ↗ maybe um but again it's if there's

33:40 ↗ something that uh an approach that you

33:43 ↗ think makes sense but I just worry about

33:45 ↗ again creating too

33:47 ↗ many choice you know things that that if

33:50 ↗ ANS or butts that then make it harder to

33:53 ↗ try to Spur this on for only two

33:55 ↗ projects right right okay that makes

33:57 ↗ sense so then so the way this is written

33:59 ↗ um

34:02 ↗ the uh restrictions Etc are and

34:05 ↗ conditions are exactly the same except

34:08 ↗ that you would either be the fir one of

34:10 ↗ two or two of two and everything else is

34:12 ↗ the same correct okay I think those were

34:15 ↗ my questions um do we have any

34:18 ↗ additional questions no okay additional

34:21 ↗ questions at this

34:24 ↗ time no okay all right great um so we do

34:28 ↗ have a opportunity for public comment

34:31 ↗ again we will have opportunity for

34:32 ↗ public comment after each regular

34:33 ↗ business item um so at this time I'll

34:36 ↗ ask if you uh there is one member of the

34:39 ↗ public who would like to make a comment

34:40 ↗ so call you up for another comments and

34:44 ↗ um same same

34:47 ↗ uh same applies as before so five five

34:50 ↗ minutes please um and if you can say

34:52 ↗ your name and relationship to the city

34:54 ↗ address um for the record that would

34:56 ↗ also be great

35:02 ↗ oh and this time the microphone was not

35:03 ↗ on yes there's a button perfect thank

35:06 ↗ you thank you again for for hearing us

35:08 ↗ and and thank you for the process and

35:10 ↗ the opportunity I want to reiterate that

35:12 ↗ over and over again um just a few points

35:15 ↗ that I want to um go back to on uh the

35:20 ↗ previous discussion about having

35:22 ↗ optionality to to to make this realistic

35:26 ↗ and to to do it um one is on the

35:31 ↗ variables that we're dealing with on on

35:33 ↗ land prices we were able to purchase

35:35 ↗ this land for somewhere around 25 or 30%

35:38 ↗ under what the market is for you know

35:41 ↗ per unit per door etc those metrics so

35:45 ↗ we do have some room to accommodate this

35:47 ↗ affordable housing I'm not so sure the

35:49 ↗ next group would would have that ability

35:52 ↗ so that's a reason why we're here and

35:53 ↗ that's why we're sticking it out but I

35:55 ↗ just wanted that as a context in the

35:57 ↗ background um and and for reference

36:00 ↗ development Agreements are a whole

36:02 ↗ different animal that they can Factor as

36:03 ↗ you well know factor in and project

36:06 ↗ different metrics to to carry cost and

36:09 ↗ project that in really early in so those

36:12 ↗ are two different

36:14 ↗ analysis

36:15 ↗ um there was a couple other things I on

36:18 ↗ the timing aspect that I wanted to bring

36:20 ↗ into this um one is on timing we are in

36:25 ↗ our specific project is in Pickering

36:27 ↗ place and it has some ccnr in place

36:31 ↗ which have inherent conflicts with what

36:33 ↗ you're trying to do for housing they the

36:35 ↗ ccnr currently do not allow for housing

36:40 ↗ ironically so there's an inherent

36:41 ↗ conflict uh we are trying to work

36:44 ↗ through that ownership those ownership

36:46 ↗ groups to say this is what the code is

36:49 ↗ will you allow it it has taken well over

36:52 ↗ a year to get there and we'll keep you

36:54 ↗ posted on that the other aspect to that

36:57 ↗ is there's an arc board that's with that

37:00 ↗ group which Costco

37:03 ↗ controls we we are there's going to we

37:05 ↗ have a dual architecture program to to

37:08 ↗ go through so we will need some we'll

37:11 ↗ keep you apprised of that process but uh

37:14 ↗ there's some timing issues that that we

37:16 ↗ don't have control of I just wanted to

37:18 ↗ put that out there so um and the other

37:21 ↗ thing that I've let Jen aware of your

37:24 ↗ new title 18 code come into effect in

37:27 ↗ April we started this a year ago we made

37:30 ↗ our feasibility analysis and made it all

37:32 ↗ work to previous code and then we've

37:34 ↗ said okay here's some conflicts that we

37:36 ↗ see we haven't been able to work through

37:38 ↗ those with them we're going to try and

37:40 ↗ set up a meeting here in the next couple

37:41 ↗ weeks with them differences between the

37:43 ↗ new zoning code specifically about open

37:46 ↗ space and building code and how to

37:48 ↗ accomplish that open space so uh we'll

37:51 ↗ keep you appraised on that but we might

37:53 ↗ need some some flexibility or some

37:55 ↗ understanding on those kind of things so

37:57 ↗ those were the those were the key points

37:59 ↗ I wanted

38:00 ↗ to thank you thank you Brian all right

38:03 ↗ and at this time I will check in there

38:05 ↗ are no other members of the public

38:07 ↗ indicating a desire to speak on this

38:08 ↗ item so I will check in city clerk if

38:11 ↗ there's any members of the public online

38:13 ↗ that might want to speak we do have a

38:15 ↗ virtual attendee who would like to speak

38:17 ↗ all right um well as a reminder if you

38:20 ↗ can please state your name and address

38:22 ↗ and relationships to the city and follow

38:24 ↗ the earlier stated guidelines that will

38:26 ↗ be

38:28 ↗ great thank you I have James rard I'm

38:30 ↗ making you a

38:32 ↗ panelist you are now panelist you should

38:34 ↗ be able to unmute yourself and turn on

38:36 ↗ your camera if you wish can you guys

38:38 ↗ hear me as well sorry my camera doesn't

38:40 ↗ work so I apologize uh also with the Red

38:43 ↗ Robin project and uh I would also like

38:45 ↗ to reiterate just from a time frame

38:47 ↗ standpoint U we're really working hard

38:50 ↗ to push the project forward and to

38:53 ↗ provide the housing and the urban core

38:56 ↗ and really the the first housing project

38:57 ↗ in Pine square but the three-year uh two

39:01 ↗ years is well it seems to be you know

39:04 ↗ enough in particularly in this

39:06 ↗ environment which we don't know how long

39:07 ↗ will continue three years would be much

39:10 ↗ much preferred so if if we can give some

39:13 ↗ consideration to that we would very much

39:15 ↗ appreciate it that would be my primary

39:18 ↗ comment thank

39:20 ↗ you thank you James are there any other

39:24 ↗ members of the public that would like to

39:26 ↗ make a

39:33 ↗ comment I have no other virtual

39:35 ↗ attendees with their hand up all right

39:37 ↗ thank you very much okay at this time

39:40 ↗ then we will move into our Council

39:42 ↗ discussion and um who would like to

39:46 ↗ start us off on

39:50 ↗ these all right and then um we currently

39:54 ↗ have two questions needed uh Direction

39:56 ↗ needed for the administration um if the

39:59 ↗ if we support the recommendation and

40:01 ↗ also if there's additional information

40:03 ↗ or

40:04 ↗ adjustments so go ahead great I support

40:09 ↗ this um it I think having had the

40:14 ↗ information from the PPC VC meeting and

40:18 ↗ having the cost data makes all the

40:21 ↗ difference for me um and I particularly

40:24 ↗ appreciate the comments that we received

40:27 ↗ today um and the comments in the PPC VC

40:31 ↗ meeting talking about hey this isn't

40:33 ↗ really an affordable housing project

40:35 ↗ even though a lot of the conversation is

40:38 ↗ on that um I

40:42 ↗ mean I had generally said I'm not in

40:45 ↗ favor of the idea of an mfte for non-aff

40:50 ↗ housing but looking at these prices if

40:53 ↗ we can get some affordable housing and

40:56 ↗ and um get this as a Pioneer project

40:59 ↗ that would be compact housing in a

41:02 ↗ Transit um oriented area gosh I think

41:06 ↗ this is so many wins so I'm very um

41:10 ↗ comfortable with this and because again

41:13 ↗ this is not an affordable housing

41:15 ↗ project um or mft um project and is

41:20 ↗ rather about proving the concept that we

41:22 ↗ can create housing in this area I'm

41:26 ↗ comfortable with having both options for

41:29 ↗ the developer the 8% at 60% Ami and the

41:33 ↗ 10% at 80%

41:36 ↗ Ami um I'm comfortable with using three

41:41 ↗ years and I'm also comfortable with

41:44 ↗ upping the max unit per

41:48 ↗ project um I think the concerns from EVC

41:53 ↗ were sound at that time but given

41:56 ↗ we now have some general estimates I

41:59 ↗ know these nothing is exact because we

42:01 ↗ don't have projects they aren't they

42:03 ↗ haven't gone through valuation but this

42:05 ↗ is super cheap super cheap even when

42:08 ↗ you're taking in the cost to other

42:13 ↗ taxing um districts and there's a whole

42:16 ↗ question out there how we as a city

42:19 ↗ should handle that given that it's

42:21 ↗ costing King County and the local school

42:23 ↗ district more than us but even

42:26 ↗ considering all of that this is a low

42:30 ↗ cost to get long-term affordable housing

42:34 ↗ and a proof of concept in an area that

42:38 ↗ will be more environmentally friendly

42:41 ↗ and more Transit oriented more walkable

42:45 ↗ all of the things that um we have been

42:48 ↗ trying and so let's see other

42:51 ↗ comments I think hearing the comments of

42:55 ↗ why this is in the affordable housing

42:57 ↗ section of the code makes sense um I do

43:00 ↗ appreciate that the um commissioner

43:03 ↗ brought up this isn't affordable housing

43:05 ↗ we shouldn't put it off as that but this

43:07 ↗ is really a code organization and where

43:11 ↗ will developers find something that

43:13 ↗ they're looking for um type of thing so

43:15 ↗ I'm fine with that so those were my

43:18 ↗ comments happy to hear what everybody

43:20 ↗ has to say and see where it goes from

43:23 ↗ there okay uh thank you I have one

43:26 ↗ clarification did you uh suggest

43:29 ↗ increasing the number of units or that

43:31 ↗ we should consider having a higher

43:33 ↗ number of units in there yeah I would be

43:35 ↗ comfortable having a higher number of

43:37 ↗ units um given that we now know what the

43:42 ↗ mft kind of cost estimate is which was

43:45 ↗ one concern over why we would keep it at

43:48 ↗ a lower number so I think I'm

43:50 ↗ comfortable with having a higher number

43:53 ↗ because that gives more options to a

43:55 ↗ develop Vel ER and has more options to

44:00 ↗ provide more affordable housing and

44:02 ↗ prove out different sizes of

44:10 ↗ projects all right um M Hall would you

44:14 ↗ like to go or

44:16 ↗ okay thank you yeah I think for the most

44:19 ↗ part I'm aligned with council president

44:21 ↗ Walsh here um I don't know what to think

44:25 ↗ about raising the number of units or

44:28 ↗ what impact that would have so maybe we

44:30 ↗ um maybe if there's not other alignment

44:33 ↗ of the committee on that that can be an

44:34 ↗ open question for when it comes back to

44:36 ↗ council and there could be some new cost

44:37 ↗ data to show a new upper limit um yeah I

44:42 ↗ don't know how to think about that but I

44:43 ↗ think for kind of the four questions

44:46 ↗ that you seem to be asking Urban versus

44:50 ↗ Urban core and multif family it makes

44:51 ↗ sense to do both Urban core and multif

44:54 ↗ family um whether whether to do oh mixed

44:59 ↗ use yes

45:01 ↗ sorry um the I also think that having

45:05 ↗ the developer choice of either 8% at 60%

45:07 ↗ Ami or or what was it 10% at 80% Ami is

45:11 ↗ probably good especially if we're having

45:12 ↗ developers tell like professionals tell

45:14 ↗ us that this this is how this is how

45:17 ↗ it'll pencil out um and recognizing

45:21 ↗ having that kind of reframing of

45:23 ↗ thinking of this not as a affordable

45:25 ↗ housing specific program was really

45:27 ↗ helpful for me too although I agree with

45:29 ↗ council president Walsh this is a great

45:31 ↗ steal for getting lifetime affordability

45:33 ↗ I I don't I don't I'm not sure if that's

45:34 ↗ common with mfte if it's more common for

45:37 ↗ it to end um when the mfte ends but

45:41 ↗ lifetime affordability of the project is

45:43 ↗ certainly make an appropriate use of a

45:45 ↗ city um resources um I see Bros I guess

45:50 ↗ the third question then is um the timing

45:53 ↗ the two years or three years I see both

45:56 ↗ um Pros for each you know making sure

45:58 ↗ people aren't resting on their on their

46:00 ↗ designation for that full two years but

46:03 ↗ also three years um with a specific

46:06 ↗ example but also other things could come

46:08 ↗ up that might limit an applicant's

46:09 ↗ ability to to to finish within that

46:12 ↗ two-year time frame

46:16 ↗ um I don't know exactly what to think

46:18 ↗ about that I might lean towards 3 years

46:20 ↗ but I'd be interested in in more staff

46:22 ↗ comments as as we as it comes back to

46:24 ↗ council there um and then also uh even

46:28 ↗ answered very well why it should live in

46:31 ↗ this code so I think it should be a part

46:33 ↗ of the affordable housing especially

46:34 ↗ because was it the development bonus

46:36 ↗ program is right next to it so it makes

46:38 ↗ sense for it to live there I don't know

46:40 ↗ if if there should be language in there

46:43 ↗ that like this code will automatically

46:46 ↗ be removed after something or or I also

46:50 ↗ liked what you said about being

46:51 ↗ intentional about we might actually

46:52 ↗ replace it with a new program so we will

46:54 ↗ have those conversations by by them so

46:56 ↗ maybe it's not necessary to have that

46:57 ↗ kind of BL Mo in there but it seems like

46:59 ↗ those were kind of the four big big

47:02 ↗ questions but if you need any other

47:09 ↗ feedback okay so to clarify the uh

47:13 ↗ administration's recommendation at this

47:14 ↗ point is to have the 8% of housing at

47:18 ↗ 60% Ami not the options but you're

47:21 ↗ suggesting we consider having the

47:24 ↗ options okay and you also yeah I also

47:28 ↗ agreed with that yeah okay um

47:31 ↗ interesting all right so I uh have some

47:34 ↗ I different comments the first thing is

47:37 ↗ I think this should not be in the

47:39 ↗ affordable housing part of the code um

47:41 ↗ seems to me like this is going to be

47:43 ↗ sunset I wouldn't want it to seem like

47:44 ↗ we're removing some affordability code

47:48 ↗ options it's a program that is meant to

47:50 ↗ Sunset and it's really meant to be a

47:52 ↗ different part of the code not meant to

47:53 ↗ be um a long-term term affordability

47:57 ↗ component to our code and so I would

47:59 ↗ make it it's separate part of the code

48:01 ↗ and then have it be clear I would also

48:04 ↗ ideally have it be clear that it is uh

48:06 ↗ only applying to two projects and and

48:09 ↗ then would be sunset and so for those

48:11 ↗ reasons I I would uh want it like

48:15 ↗ clearly separate um and then if we

48:18 ↗ expand the program or write new code to

48:20 ↗ have mfte or whatever we decide to do

48:23 ↗ after we get the data back from the

48:24 ↗ pirate pilot program then that can be in

48:27 ↗ the part of the code that makes the most

48:29 ↗ sense but since this is Standalone seems

48:32 ↗ to me like it should stand alone in the

48:34 ↗ code um on the two to three years the

48:41 ↗ recommendation is two

48:44 ↗ years

48:47 ↗ okay uh and and staff um has doesn't

48:53 ↗ have a strong recommendation on this but

48:55 ↗ that's correct I think we can that's not

48:57 ↗ a major issue I I would say from a

49:01 ↗ policy standpoint the 8% at 60% Ami

49:04 ↗ versus 10% at 80% Ami is a much bigger

49:08 ↗ policy question and the city's you know

49:11 ↗ requirements under the countywide

49:12 ↗ planning policies to plan for uh lower

49:15 ↗ Amis and all of that and I think a lot

49:17 ↗ of work went into uh the analysis so we

49:21 ↗ want it to work for the developers uh

49:23 ↗ and the numbers because the whole point

49:25 ↗ of doing a Pioneer project is that it

49:27 ↗ it's used and it's uh available um and

49:30 ↗ and gets used no point in crafting a a

49:33 ↗ program so I think um a lot of uh an

49:36 ↗ financial analysis went with all of

49:38 ↗ those Alternatives um I don't know if

49:40 ↗ you want to get more information about

49:42 ↗ the two options where where the numbers

49:44 ↗ stand on both of them but I think those

49:46 ↗ were vetted out during the EVC and PPC

49:50 ↗ but they didn't have the numbers um we

49:52 ↗ actually presented them to City Council

49:53 ↗ in the past and I can't remember which

49:55 ↗ meeting it was um but it was in the memo

49:58 ↗ and then the EVC and PPC had that those

50:00 ↗ numbers but not the detailed

50:02 ↗ mfte by the jurisdiction that Arch was

50:06 ↗ kind enough to create a model for us

50:08 ↗ correct and then I think the other thing

50:09 ↗ I would add is the city already has um

50:13 ↗ no traffic mitigation fees for

50:15 ↗ affordable housing I mean there are

50:16 ↗ other incentives that are already in

50:18 ↗ place that that this particular project

50:20 ↗ would get uh to provide that affordable

50:22 ↗ housing um so at what a I um you know

50:27 ↗ there's other incentives that will come

50:29 ↗ with the full package for that which can

50:31 ↗ be significant investment from the

50:33 ↗ city's policy objectives of providing

50:36 ↗ that okay so this so H correct me if I'm

50:39 ↗ wrong but it sounds like staff has a

50:41 ↗ strong recommendation on the on the

50:44 ↗ level of affordability and the

50:46 ↗ percentage of affordability and not so

50:49 ↗ not that's why you see this one

50:51 ↗ recommendation that was vetted out with

50:53 ↗ the various options is my

50:58 ↗ staff chose yeah so staff chose uh to

51:00 ↗ recommend the 8% at 60% Ami because of

51:03 ↗ the reasons that um director dolw

51:06 ↗ mentioned is that there's you know we

51:08 ↗ felt there was a higher need that's

51:09 ↗ harder to get in the market and since we

51:11 ↗ are creating this to um you know we are

51:15 ↗ uh reducing the affordability we wanted

51:17 ↗ to try to get the level of affordability

51:20 ↗ we needed um you know we hear we we've

51:22 ↗ heard comments again so from the velers

51:25 ↗ about the reason why they mayly work and

51:28 ↗ that's again the reason why we're asking

51:30 ↗ Council um as far as the two or three

51:32 ↗ years I think it doesn't seem like it's

51:34 ↗ a that big of a difference especially um

51:38 ↗ if St if in this market and such I do

51:41 ↗ see that our friend from uh phona friend

51:44 ↗ from Arch would like to U make a comment

51:46 ↗ is that all right yes you're welcome to

51:49 ↗ hi uh Mike Stanger planner with

51:53 ↗ Arch um call the the same um motivation

51:58 ↗ that that uh doly wall is is mentioning

52:02 ↗ about the reason behind the staff

52:04 ↗ recommendation the the one thing that I

52:06 ↗ would add was that in our analysis

52:08 ↗ indicated that the um that the 8 at 8%

52:14 ↗ at 8 sorry 8% at 60 and 10% at 80 are

52:18 ↗ not equivalent um in an economic sense

52:22 ↗ to the the lower Ami is produces more

52:27 ↗ value uh economically to the community

52:31 ↗ in the for affordable housing than the

52:33 ↗ 10% at 80 we'd be happy to uh provide

52:37 ↗ you know more uh detailed numbers on

52:40 ↗ that if you

52:42 ↗ like okay thank you Mike

52:46 ↗ um all right so I think for me um the

52:51 ↗ the fact that it is very challenging to

52:55 ↗ have the 60% and this is a incentive

52:58 ↗ program this a Pioneer program it's it's

53:00 ↗ a optional program um I I for those

53:04 ↗ reasons and because again that's a huge

53:06 ↗ value because it's very hard huge value

53:09 ↗ to the community to have that 60% Ami

53:11 ↗ housing because it is uh very

53:13 ↗ challenging to have that be built um my

53:17 ↗ preference would be to use the staff

53:20 ↗ recommendation and have that one option

53:23 ↗ the 60% 8% at 60% Ami um so we have a

53:29 ↗ couple differences of opinion I think

53:30 ↗ one thing is that I'm also fine with the

53:32 ↗ three years so we can all agree that

53:36 ↗ having the flexibility of three years is

53:38 ↗ good um do we want to do so the other

53:40 ↗ things that we don't currently have that

53:44 ↗ we might want to have more discussion on

53:46 ↗ are the um placement into the code

53:50 ↗ although not as important and then the

53:53 ↗ upper ends of units

53:55 ↗ um and then this percentage uh

54:03 ↗ affordability okay so for the upper end

54:05 ↗ of units I will say I'm good with it the

54:08 ↗ way it is um I do think if we want to

54:11 ↗ consider if we want Council to consider

54:13 ↗ a higher number we should definitely get

54:15 ↗ the analysis back for how much um um how

54:19 ↗ much tax we would be

54:24 ↗ foregoing is there a number that you

54:27 ↗ want like that would be too high because

54:29 ↗ because basically we we did the analysis

54:31 ↗ for 300 so if you double it it's twice

54:33 ↗ but but um is there a number that uh for

54:36 ↗ a size of one project that would um be

54:40 ↗ don't even go there the cap in your mind

54:43 ↗ so I I did have a question does it just

54:45 ↗ it's just linear

54:47 ↗ scaling okay so if it's 600 units it's

54:51 ↗ just twice as much as 300 okay well

54:54 ↗ that's

54:56 ↗ then I don't yeah then I think we can do

54:58 ↗ that

55:09 ↗ math was there a upper Li a different

55:12 ↗ upper limit that was discussed at either

55:14 ↗ of the volunteer commissions no the idea

55:17 ↗ was actually they put they asked for a

55:19 ↗ limit um yeah so that's where we we came

55:22 ↗ up with that uh range that was a

55:25 ↗ previous conversation not the last

55:28 ↗ one okay so they wanted a upper limit

55:31 ↗ and this was provided and they they

55:33 ↗ approved of this as the upper

55:38 ↗ limit and the reason they wanted an

55:40 ↗ upper limit was because they were

55:42 ↗ concerned at what the cost for the city

55:45 ↗ would be yeah and I think beginning this

55:47 ↗ is a pilot project how did you know

55:49 ↗ these one or two projects how did it

55:51 ↗ really impact the community so we see

55:53 ↗ that at a scale that isn't overwhelming

55:56 ↗ for the for the current uh area um I

56:00 ↗ think just like the two versus three I'm

56:01 ↗ not sure that 400 versus 600 is that

56:04 ↗ much of a diff you know it obviously is

56:06 ↗ a little bigger but um if if Council

56:09 ↗ wanted to suggest a 500 or 600 uh upper

56:13 ↗ limit um you know we can again look at

56:16 ↗ that and look at the maybe even present

56:17 ↗ what that means in difference of scale

56:19 ↗ um but like for instance the Tod which I

56:22 ↗ know way too much about from my years

56:24 ↗ here is you know 375 units right and

56:27 ↗ that's in two buildings on that lot so

56:29 ↗ you can just again you know think about

56:31 ↗ that so so that's another a third

56:33 ↗ building on a lot about that size for

56:35 ↗ 600 right yeah around yeah I'm just

56:39 ↗ trying to make sure that this

56:41 ↗ isn't a limiting factor on a a potential

56:46 ↗ development that could prove this out

56:51 ↗ yeah so so the other thing is if it is a

56:53 ↗ project that's 600 700 th000 units you

56:55 ↗ know something really large um they

56:58 ↗ would could get the pioner program on

57:01 ↗ the first 400 units and then they could

57:02 ↗ still build beyond that but they

57:04 ↗ wouldn't get they would still have to

57:06 ↗ provide the affordable housing at the

57:07 ↗ levels that are in our current code

57:09 ↗ fantastic so um it doesn't say if you

57:12 ↗ have more than 400 units it just means

57:13 ↗ that you will only receive this benefit

57:16 ↗ for up to 400 units great that satisfies

57:19 ↗ me so I I'm comfortable with the 400 my

57:22 ↗ goal is just not to limit a project from

57:26 ↗ not being able to utilize this and thus

57:29 ↗ not

57:32 ↗ developing and that's helpful I'll I'll

57:34 ↗ spell that out a little better in in the

57:35 ↗ future

57:38 ↗ memo yeah I think that's helpful I mean

57:40 ↗ I I guess I don't really care very much

57:42 ↗ if it limits since this is a pilot pilot

57:45 ↗ program so I mean up I think 400 is

57:47 ↗ probably a reasonable Max to have it at

57:50 ↗ especially since we don't want it to

57:52 ↗ have too much of an impact on the other

57:54 ↗ property tax layers get spread out on

57:57 ↗ and then also our for forone forgone

58:00 ↗ forone Revenue as

58:02 ↗ well this is a pilot you know we don't

58:04 ↗ have to accomplish

58:06 ↗ everything I'm okay with 400 but it is

58:08 ↗ helpful to know that those bigger

58:10 ↗ projects wouldn't be completely um

58:17 ↗ unable okay great so we're keeping the

58:20 ↗ 400 uh clarifying that it could be a

58:23 ↗ bigger project but the um this pilot uh

58:29 ↗ program would only apply in that case to

58:31 ↗ 400 of the units within the

58:33 ↗ program um and so just to be clear the

58:36 ↗ mfte would only apply to the 400 units

58:40 ↗ not the whole building the mft would

58:42 ↗ apply for up to 400 units the eight yeah

58:45 ↗ for the uh and they have to provide the

58:47 ↗ 8% at 60 so if they had 500 that extra

58:50 ↗ 100 would need to meet the rules of the

58:52 ↗ inclusionary zoning and the bonus

58:54 ↗ density or development bonus sorry we

58:57 ↗ changed that name yeah I'm not sure

58:59 ↗ you'll be able to split the mfte program

59:02 ↗ though for one building that half of the

59:04 ↗ building applies in the other one I I

59:06 ↗ don't think practically that that's how

59:08 ↗ state law would work uh it gets pretty

59:11 ↗ complex with that so there yeah and I I

59:15 ↗ don't know we we could check into that

59:16 ↗ with the mft because again there may be

59:19 ↗ um you know one building has the the

59:21 ↗ affordable units the other one doesn't

59:23 ↗ um we want obviously we don't want them

59:25 ↗ to Cluster all the the uh affordable

59:27 ↗ housing units in one place so we'll

59:28 ↗ we'll look into that specific

59:32 ↗ detail and and maybe actually um our

59:35 ↗ phona friend knows that answer I know

59:38 ↗ that in other Pioneer programs I don't

59:40 ↗ think the mft was as much of a a factor

59:43 ↗ but there were the projects that used it

59:45 ↗ were larger than what was available as

59:48 ↗ part of the pilot um so do you I don't

59:51 ↗ know if you you were taking notes I'm

59:52 ↗ not sure if you heard the whole question

59:54 ↗ I think think so um I might want to give

59:56 ↗ it some you know try and pencil it out

59:59 ↗ to be sure but uh the tax exemptions are

1:00:04 ↗ usually applied to a whole parcel or tax

1:00:08 ↗ a tax parcel and for it to qualify for a

1:00:13 ↗ 12year sorry for an 8-year exemption um

1:00:16 ↗ it would be um you know than that 8% or

1:00:21 ↗ whatever percent set aside is for the

1:00:24 ↗ whole project um then the exemption

1:00:28 ↗ would apply to all the residential

1:00:32 ↗ improvements okay so it sounds like we

1:00:35 ↗ probably can't do what we talked about

1:00:37 ↗ doing a few minutes ago we can't do we

1:00:39 ↗ can't apply the mfte to the first 400

1:00:41 ↗ units of a larger project that's all on

1:00:43 ↗ one

1:00:45 ↗ parcel no but if but if the uh if the

1:00:50 ↗ whole project the whole parcel me the

1:00:54 ↗ eligibility

1:00:56 ↗ requirements May I'm I'm confusing

1:00:59 ↗ myself so I think yeah

1:01:02 ↗ so go

1:01:05 ↗ ahead maybe you could resay it so I

1:01:08 ↗ could go back and uh make sure I know

1:01:10 ↗ what I'm talking

1:01:13 ↗ about um

1:01:15 ↗ so I believe that based on the earlier

1:01:19 ↗ comments from director Dolly wall that

1:01:20 ↗ if we have a building with more than uh

1:01:25 ↗ the 400 units and it's all on one

1:01:28 ↗ building it's all on one parcel so 500

1:01:31 ↗ unit building we we could not just apply

1:01:35 ↗ the mfte to the 400 units that are in

1:01:39 ↗ the Pioneer

1:01:43 ↗ program I don't think so I think I'm not

1:01:46 ↗ sure how that would work but maybe Brian

1:01:48 ↗ has a better

1:01:51 ↗ idea

1:01:53 ↗ um

1:01:55 ↗ you could

1:01:56 ↗ segregate car so some you are welcome to

1:02:01 ↗ make a quick comment if you can be on

1:02:02 ↗ the microphone just so we can tell

1:02:07 ↗ um yes if you can just introduce

1:02:09 ↗ yourself I Brian runberg again right

1:02:14 ↗ yeah okay um I I we don't we wouldn't we

1:02:18 ↗ wouldn't we're not going over this

1:02:20 ↗ amount so I'm just helping you support

1:02:22 ↗ what happens in the marketplace

1:02:25 ↗ it realistically any developer would not

1:02:27 ↗ develop more than 400 units at one time

1:02:30 ↗ that that's just too many units to

1:02:32 ↗ delivered to the market so they would

1:02:33 ↗ separate into two different buildings

1:02:36 ↗ okay so that I don't think you need to

1:02:38 ↗ worry about that as much you are okay

1:02:40 ↗ great from a market perspective okay

1:02:43 ↗ thank you for that uh

1:02:45 ↗ comment all right so um we're back to

1:02:49 ↗ our our deliberation though do we want

1:02:53 ↗ are we okay with the 400 100 unit cap

1:02:55 ↗ recognizing that this is not a cap on

1:02:58 ↗ what can be what can be developed it's

1:03:00 ↗ just for one Pioneer program okay so

1:03:03 ↗ we're okay with the cap and um let's

1:03:07 ↗ just see if we can agree any change of

1:03:11 ↗ thought on the the code location or

1:03:14 ↗ still both think it should St an

1:03:15 ↗ affordability if so we'll say the the

1:03:18 ↗ committee's recommend recommendation is

1:03:20 ↗ to keep it in the affordability just

1:03:22 ↗ fine okay so then we'll keep it and

1:03:25 ↗ affordability I mean do you feel

1:03:27 ↗ strongly like really strongly that it

1:03:29 ↗ shouldn't live there

1:03:32 ↗ um I wonder if we could ask our legal

1:03:35 ↗ counsel who is not here right now to

1:03:37 ↗ make to just double check to make sure

1:03:39 ↗ that there's appropriate wording to the

1:03:42 ↗ effect that this is going to not be in

1:03:45 ↗ the code after the two projects we've

1:03:48 ↗ discussed um language like that with the

1:03:50 ↗ city attorney's office and um we don't

1:03:52 ↗ necessarily need a Time limiter built

1:03:54 ↗ into the code with it because we have

1:03:56 ↗ the option to remove it at any time as

1:03:57 ↗ or replace the language with either a

1:04:00 ↗ new program or or new code that we want

1:04:02 ↗ to put in that

1:04:04 ↗ section okay yeah it's more for

1:04:06 ↗ expectations if it would be possible so

1:04:08 ↗ maybe we can take that back with the

1:04:10 ↗ intent yeah and then we would put the

1:04:11 ↗ time limiter actually as part of the

1:04:13 ↗ ordinance for adoption of the code yeah

1:04:16 ↗ I think under the program we can add a

1:04:18 ↗ line to say you know I didn't go already

1:04:20 ↗ says it's to encourage development and

1:04:23 ↗ such this program will sunset after it's

1:04:26 ↗ been used for the provisions that it's

1:04:28 ↗ allowed under so even if it is in place

1:04:31 ↗ and you know by the time we come around

1:04:33 ↗ to changing the code it's already Sunset

1:04:36 ↗ so we can work on adding a

1:04:40 ↗ sentence okay that sounds good all right

1:04:42 ↗ let's go with that yes I'm I'm good with

1:04:44 ↗ that so then we agree on that one and

1:04:46 ↗ then the last one is

1:04:47 ↗ this um 60%

1:04:51 ↗ at 60% Ami at 8% council member H um

1:04:55 ↗ yeah just a clarifying question around

1:04:57 ↗ that because the last time this came to

1:04:58 ↗ us we were able to I think it was Arch

1:05:00 ↗ was there too we saw that kind of

1:05:01 ↗ spectrum of need and we couldn't

1:05:03 ↗ distinguish between 60 and 80% because

1:05:05 ↗ it was grouped together is that right

1:05:07 ↗ has more data come to light sense then

1:05:09 ↗ or no that's how K County gathers that

1:05:12 ↗ data so it's unfortunately together but

1:05:14 ↗ but we just know in general um you know

1:05:17 ↗ somebody who's at 60% Ami can pay less

1:05:20 ↗ rent and that's harder to find here in

1:05:22 ↗ isqua and throughout the region

1:05:27 ↗ and if you think about the workforce you

1:05:29 ↗ know with service industry entry-level

1:05:30 ↗ jobs that's more likely at the 60% and

1:05:33 ↗ the

1:05:38 ↗ 80% council president

1:05:40 ↗ Walsh so I'm a member of the affordable

1:05:42 ↗ housing committee for King County I

1:05:44 ↗ absolutely know the data on the 60% you

1:05:49 ↗ know like all of that seeing how the

1:05:52 ↗ need is that being said

1:05:55 ↗ this I don't view this and I think we

1:05:57 ↗ should remind ourselves this is not an

1:05:59 ↗ affordable housing

1:06:02 ↗ mft the goal of this is to get a Pioneer

1:06:05 ↗ project and I think the push back that

1:06:07 ↗ we got

1:06:08 ↗ from um Eco Northwest in their report

1:06:13 ↗ was we need to be really careful about

1:06:15 ↗ not putting

1:06:17 ↗ together a set of requirements that

1:06:20 ↗ isn't going to pencil out so in my mind

1:06:25 ↗ the affordability that we get on this is

1:06:28 ↗ a

1:06:31 ↗ bonus in addition to the fact that we

1:06:34 ↗ are

1:06:35 ↗ getting and is coming at a cheap bonus

1:06:40 ↗ um in addition to the development um as

1:06:45 ↗ a Pioneer project here so that would be

1:06:48 ↗ my thought

1:06:52 ↗ process ra

1:06:56 ↗ um was it Mike I'm so sorry I forgot

1:06:59 ↗ from yeah um so you had said you know in

1:07:01 ↗ the analysis between the two options

1:07:04 ↗ they weren't equivalent do we know what

1:07:06 ↗ would be the equivalent of

1:07:09 ↗ 10% at 80% Ami that's a great question

1:07:12 ↗ I'll bring that uh for our next Council

1:07:15 ↗ actually I think that that would be

1:07:17 ↗ really helpful like if we if we can't

1:07:18 ↗ come to alignment on that perhaps we

1:07:20 ↗ could figure out what the 60% Ami

1:07:22 ↗ equivalent would be bring that to a

1:07:27 ↗ account or if we need to have another

1:07:31 ↗ open uh I'm sorry so the question is

1:07:33 ↗ what the

1:07:35 ↗ 60% values

1:07:37 ↗ are yeah so it seemed like we had heard

1:07:40 ↗ earlier that the value of the units at

1:07:42 ↗ 60% Ami is not the same as the value of

1:07:45 ↗ the units at 80% Ami so wondering what

1:07:49 ↗ how do you tweak the number of 60% Ami

1:07:53 ↗ units to make

1:07:55 ↗ am I saying this right well what I was

1:07:56 ↗ thinking was that um we could come back

1:08:00 ↗ and tell you what uh the percentage of

1:08:04 ↗ 80 Ami units would uh deliver the same

1:08:08 ↗ value as 8% at

1:08:10 ↗ 60 so instead of decreasing the 60% you

1:08:14 ↗ would increase the 80% am uh

1:08:17 ↗ requirements is that correct what you're

1:08:18 ↗ saying right because he's saying the 60%

1:08:21 ↗ option provides more value to the to the

1:08:24 ↗ residence and City then the 80% needs to

1:08:27 ↗ increase so that's increasing that

1:08:29 ↗ required so it might be 12% at 80 or

1:08:37 ↗ something so sounds like from dollars

1:08:41 ↗ perspective there's got to be an

1:08:43 ↗ analysis that shows this is how much you

1:08:46 ↗ know it's going to cost the developer to

1:08:49 ↗ provide 60% and equal Apples to Apples

1:08:52 ↗ if you want to raise it to 80

1:08:54 ↗ perc Ami that what percentage of those

1:08:57 ↗ two equates equally on the developer

1:09:00 ↗ side as well as from a community's

1:09:03 ↗ perspective you know we know the need we

1:09:06 ↗ know what needs to be done I think I

1:09:08 ↗ want to address the Eco Northwest report

1:09:10 ↗ that has come out a few times tonight

1:09:13 ↗ what they were tasked to do was to look

1:09:16 ↗ at our housing strategies uh program and

1:09:19 ↗ see if we could expand our inclusionary

1:09:21 ↗ zoning so they weren't looking at and

1:09:24 ↗ currently we have inclusion resoning you

1:09:26 ↗ have to provide X number of affordable

1:09:28 ↗ units and then you get this incentive

1:09:31 ↗ which is the development density bonus

1:09:34 ↗ uh to say you your base height goes up

1:09:36 ↗ because otherwise I think it's 65 feet

1:09:40 ↗ and it can you can build more units up

1:09:42 ↗ above but in add in response to that you

1:09:44 ↗ have to have 20% of the area dedicated

1:09:46 ↗ to affordable housing we know those

1:09:49 ↗ numbers need a look at we didn't have an

1:09:52 ↗ incentive of MF East so one of the

1:09:55 ↗ recommendations from MCO Northwest was

1:09:57 ↗ how do you incentivize to get the policy

1:10:00 ↗ objectives that the city needs to work

1:10:02 ↗ towards so they never came to a

1:10:04 ↗ conclusion of 60% 80% percentage or

1:10:08 ↗ anything that is going to come with the

1:10:10 ↗ future work that Council has funded for

1:10:14 ↗ uh analysis and and I think you all uh

1:10:16 ↗ you know prioritize the recommendations

1:10:18 ↗ that we need to spend time looking on

1:10:20 ↗ for Eon so there was not a conclusion

1:10:23 ↗ what percentage of Ami is going to work

1:10:25 ↗ or not work it was they just said

1:10:28 ↗ there's no point in expanding your

1:10:30 ↗ inclusion or res zoning until you work

1:10:32 ↗ through some of

1:10:34 ↗ this and I would just like to add that

1:10:36 ↗ when we did the analysis with Arch and

1:10:37 ↗ their model um the 8% at 60 and 10% at

1:10:41 ↗ 80 was for the developer an equal um

1:10:45 ↗ value uh that we determined so it is as

1:10:48 ↗ Mike said a value to the community

1:10:50 ↗ that's a little higher um at the 60% so

1:10:54 ↗ um you again this is where we we had

1:10:57 ↗ probably seven options that we worked um

1:11:00 ↗ through and so uh really would like some

1:11:03 ↗ clarity of how what you would like us to

1:11:05 ↗ do if additional analysis is

1:11:11 ↗ requested okay so it sounds like the

1:11:13 ↗ analysis uh has been has been done this

1:11:16 ↗ is what for the developer these two

1:11:19 ↗ options

1:11:20 ↗ are same similar cost

1:11:24 ↗ um yeah so I I think I'm back to in the

1:11:28 ↗ community there's a real need for the

1:11:30 ↗ lower Ami for the people that are making

1:11:33 ↗ those you know those entry level workers

1:11:36 ↗ those people that are making less money

1:11:38 ↗ um I I also just did some a little bit

1:11:41 ↗ of back of the envelope math uh so

1:11:43 ↗ there's if we had the

1:11:46 ↗ 8% um of 400 units that's 32 units if

1:11:50 ↗ it's 10% that's 40 units so we're

1:11:52 ↗ talking about a difference of eight

1:11:55 ↗ units um but then we're talking about

1:11:57 ↗ you know all of them being 60% Ami or

1:11:59 ↗ all of them being 80% Ami

1:12:02 ↗ um so I my my preference is the 60%

1:12:07 ↗ because I think we will learn with this

1:12:10 ↗ program um and that's part of why it's a

1:12:12 ↗ pilot or a Pioneer program but I also

1:12:14 ↗ think that that's something we know we

1:12:20 ↗ need yeah I mean yeah that's tough I I

1:12:24 ↗ still

1:12:26 ↗ feel it seemed like there was consensus

1:12:29 ↗ relatively among PPC and definitely

1:12:32 ↗ economic Vitality commission and the

1:12:34 ↗ people that were hearing from

1:12:36 ↗ professional

1:12:37 ↗ developers they want the options so I

1:12:39 ↗ felt like honoring that seemed like the

1:12:41 ↗ best

1:12:43 ↗ policy maybe maybe this maybe this

1:12:47 ↗ requires some more gnawing from the full

1:12:49 ↗ Council um kind of a question that maybe

1:12:53 ↗ set set up for the council to decide

1:12:55 ↗ because I can see both ways I mean I

1:12:58 ↗ mean clearly there's more value to the

1:13:00 ↗ community for 60% am I I don't think

1:13:02 ↗ anyone's in

1:13:03 ↗ disagreement

1:13:06 ↗ um yeah I I think sorry we're not

1:13:10 ↗ providing you with very helpful no

1:13:12 ↗ that's okay I mean if you want this to

1:13:13 ↗ come to full Council as a discussion I

1:13:14 ↗ just if you wanted additional um if you

1:13:17 ↗ want an additional analysis that's why I

1:13:19 ↗ wanted to be clear on because you know

1:13:21 ↗ that whole thing of you know what about

1:13:22 ↗ 7% at this percentage you know we we've

1:13:25 ↗ kind of um been through the ringer a bit

1:13:27 ↗ with that and and um Arch has a model

1:13:30 ↗ the developer shared inut input on that

1:13:33 ↗ um so um these again these are the two

1:13:36 ↗ that came out as these seem to be uh

1:13:39 ↗ will work for developer um but again

1:13:42 ↗ every development is different um and I

1:13:44 ↗ think that's a little bit of where um

1:13:46 ↗ economic vitality and PPC you know with

1:13:48 ↗ the options because things are so uh you

1:13:51 ↗ know different here and there so so so

1:13:55 ↗ the schedule wise um Jen this um item is

1:13:58 ↗ moving to uh if depending on what

1:14:00 ↗ actions taken today um Committee of the

1:14:03 ↗ whole or or the regular meeting regular

1:14:05 ↗ meeting on the 18th of March 18th but

1:14:07 ↗ there is a March meeting for pde prior

1:14:10 ↗ to that if if you want us to come back

1:14:12 ↗ with more information we could do that

1:14:15 ↗ in

1:14:15 ↗ March to this committee you want more

1:14:18 ↗ analysis or the merch uh meeting of this

1:14:22 ↗ committee is currently cancelled so we

1:14:25 ↗ would have to bring it back for

1:14:28 ↗ this one uh

1:14:32 ↗ question well maybe I'll ask I guess

1:14:34 ↗ that all then rests on whether or not we

1:14:36 ↗ have more requests for information or

1:14:38 ↗ questions to ask for staff to go back

1:14:40 ↗ and come back um so it sounded like it

1:14:45 ↗ is actually equivalent based on the

1:14:47 ↗ analysis that staff's done not um not

1:14:51 ↗ equivalent um and it seemed like Dr

1:14:53 ↗ Dolly W from your

1:14:55 ↗ comments and correct me if I'm wrong but

1:14:57 ↗ it seemed like

1:14:59 ↗ um there are some hesitancy in in doing

1:15:03 ↗ like deeper analysis work because that's

1:15:05 ↗ what comes after this incentive project

1:15:07 ↗ because we're trying to rightsize

1:15:08 ↗ inclusionary zoning and figuring out

1:15:10 ↗ what the right levels are there so it

1:15:12 ↗ seemed like is that right like you

1:15:14 ↗ didn't necessarily want us to get too

1:15:15 ↗ far into that analysis because that's

1:15:17 ↗ already coming maybe separate from this

1:15:19 ↗ pilot

1:15:20 ↗ project no I think I just wanted to kind

1:15:22 ↗ of the what Eco Northwest where they

1:15:25 ↗ left off that they didn't get into and

1:15:27 ↗ then you know one of the recommendations

1:15:30 ↗ is to incentivize some of this in which

1:15:32 ↗ the incentive here is an

1:15:34 ↗ mfte so uh that is a give on the city's

1:15:38 ↗ part that the other is you know you're

1:15:40 ↗ getting away with the development Den

1:15:42 ↗ bonus requirements you don't have to do

1:15:44 ↗ the percentage that the current code

1:15:45 ↗ requires so just testing that out I

1:15:48 ↗ think most of the focus on the Pioneer

1:15:50 ↗ project though has been tied to

1:15:52 ↗ affordable housing piece um even though

1:15:55 ↗ the intent I think is is as discussed

1:15:58 ↗ tonight is first in the market but the

1:16:01 ↗ give and take of what the levers are

1:16:03 ↗ being adjusted to test them whether it's

1:16:06 ↗ going to pencil out in the in the

1:16:07 ↗ marketplace or not have been tied to

1:16:10 ↗ Portable housing so the and then the

1:16:12 ↗ incentivizing the mfp so those are the

1:16:15 ↗ only right J those are the things that

1:16:18 ↗ were kind of adjusted in the standard

1:16:21 ↗ for just the affordable housing

1:16:24 ↗ and and I think it related to that we

1:16:26 ↗ will you know CPD will be looking at

1:16:28 ↗ further levers in the housing analysis

1:16:31 ↗ right so that's a longer deeper

1:16:33 ↗ discussion not just about this you know

1:16:36 ↗ pilot or this area but Central squ um as

1:16:40 ↗ a

1:16:48 ↗ whole so president Walsh I think where

1:16:51 ↗ I'm ending up is just I'm a little bit

1:16:56 ↗ guny of proposing something with too

1:17:00 ↗ deep of requirements and I guess even

1:17:04 ↗ use of the word to deep as a phrase

1:17:07 ↗ suggests I've got something there in my

1:17:09 ↗ mind but that the project wouldn't get

1:17:14 ↗ used or the program wouldn't get used we

1:17:16 ↗ wouldn't have a project built um because

1:17:18 ↗ that's what we've been dealing with so

1:17:20 ↗ long with the inclusionary zoning now

1:17:23 ↗ I appreciate the commentary that we've

1:17:26 ↗ got a giveaway of the mfte we've got a

1:17:29 ↗ giveaway of not requiring the um higher

1:17:35 ↗ percentage um of units at a lower Ami so

1:17:38 ↗ there's a lot that we're adjusting at

1:17:41 ↗ this time so even the 8% at 60% Ami is

1:17:47 ↗ better than the requirement that we had

1:17:52 ↗ in central isqua of the inclusionary

1:17:55 ↗ zoning of 122% at 60% Ami

1:18:02 ↗ so I'm just super hesitant to not have

1:18:07 ↗ anything used

1:18:10 ↗ but I guess probably comfortable with

1:18:13 ↗ the 60% given that we're already moving

1:18:16 ↗ from the 12 and a half to8 and have an

1:18:20 ↗ mfte giveaway

1:18:29 ↗ yeah okay so um I think we've ruled out

1:18:33 ↗ needing more information for the full

1:18:36 ↗ Council um so we don't need that uh does

1:18:39 ↗ look like all of the data as far as what

1:18:42 ↗ 80% and what 60% uh median income is is

1:18:45 ↗ all available to us as well just looking

1:18:48 ↗ at that um so it's really just what we

1:18:52 ↗ um what we

1:18:59 ↗ think we can also we can also bring that

1:19:02 ↗ we had a long discussion about it at a

1:19:04 ↗ committee and we had two people you know

1:19:08 ↗ varing spectrum of opinions we can we

1:19:12 ↗ can bring that if

1:19:13 ↗ you um that's where we

1:19:21 ↗ land

1:19:23 ↗ so would you like us to ask the full

1:19:25 ↗ Council then to make that decision and

1:19:27 ↗ kind of bring both or well so this is

1:19:29 ↗ going back to full Council um I think

1:19:32 ↗ that the administration it seems to me

1:19:33 ↗ that the administration's recommendation

1:19:35 ↗ is likely to be uh the same as it was

1:19:38 ↗ here and so then when it comes time for

1:19:40 ↗ me to as chair to speak I'll talk about

1:19:42 ↗ this conversation and that we were not

1:19:44 ↗ of one

1:19:45 ↗ mind and then Council can discuss but I

1:19:48 ↗ think everything else we address okay so

1:19:52 ↗ does staff have what you need on this

1:19:54 ↗ item okay wonderful yes I do thank you

1:19:56 ↗ very much yeah sorry go ahead I was just

1:19:58 ↗ wondering if if sometimes it's helpful

1:20:00 ↗ to have like um potential Amendment

1:20:03 ↗ since we've had these conversations up

1:20:05 ↗ here about potentially changing this so

1:20:07 ↗ if in the agenda packet want to come

1:20:09 ↗ back to full Council it be helpful to

1:20:10 ↗ have potential

1:20:13 ↗ like we'll do thank

1:20:18 ↗ you all right um great then we have one

1:20:23 ↗ more item of business uh which is the

1:20:27 ↗ id1 1581 comprehensive Plan update draft

1:20:31 ↗ economic Vitality element and this is

1:20:34 ↗ presented by Stephen um welcome

1:20:40 ↗ Stephen thank you chair hun good evening

1:20:43 ↗ give me one second to get

1:20:50 ↗ connected okay

1:20:54 ↗ good evening committee members uh

1:20:56 ↗ tonight I'm here to talk about the draft

1:20:59 ↗ goals and policies for the economic

1:21:00 ↗ Vitality element for the comprehensive

1:21:02 ↗ plan periodic update there are two

1:21:05 ↗ questions posed to committee members

1:21:07 ↗ tonight are there additional

1:21:09 ↗ considerations that the economic fality

1:21:11 ↗ commission should study prior to

1:21:13 ↗ finalizing the recommendations to city

1:21:15 ↗ council and are there additional topics

1:21:17 ↗ for staff to consider when making final

1:21:18 ↗ edits to the

1:21:21 ↗ traft so back on information on the

1:21:23 ↗ development of the of this draft element

1:21:26 ↗ similar to how we uh approached and

1:21:29 ↗ designed a lot of the draft elements for

1:21:31 ↗ the conference fund that this committee

1:21:32 ↗ has reviewed last fall winter uh we

1:21:35 ↗ looked at restructuring we looked at

1:21:37 ↗ coordination across the different

1:21:39 ↗ elements but we also wanted to

1:21:41 ↗ coordinate the development of the goals

1:21:42 ↗ and policies in time with the

1:21:44 ↗ development of the economic development

1:21:46 ↗ action plan as well and so a lot of the

1:21:49 ↗ feedback that was collected as part of

1:21:51 ↗ the uh community engagement for uh the

1:21:54 ↗ action plan did feed into a lot of our

1:21:57 ↗ discussions and the analysis that was

1:21:59 ↗ done for the goals and policies for the

1:22:01 ↗ act or for the uh draft element as

1:22:04 ↗ well so we met with the economic

1:22:07 ↗ Vitality commission five times last year

1:22:09 ↗ prior to PPC reviewing all all all the

1:22:12 ↗ goals and policies on October 26 and we

1:22:16 ↗ had different discussions on how to

1:22:17 ↗ approach the restructure of the element

1:22:19 ↗ as well as uh the subsections that

1:22:22 ↗ you're going to

1:22:23 ↗ right and all the recommendations from

1:22:25 ↗ economic vitality and the planning

1:22:27 ↗ policy commission are incorporated into

1:22:29 ↗ the draft

1:22:32 ↗ language so the recommended changes

1:22:35 ↗ include uh complete restructure of a lot

1:22:37 ↗ of the the subsections for this element

1:22:40 ↗ so that it was consistent with how we

1:22:42 ↗ were approaching or at least Economic

1:22:45 ↗ Development was approaching the action

1:22:46 ↗ plan there also is consolidation of a

1:22:48 ↗ lot of policies just for redundancy that

1:22:51 ↗ we found from uh within this element but

1:22:53 ↗ also when we were looking at

1:22:54 ↗ coordination of policies across the

1:22:57 ↗ different elements we found some

1:22:58 ↗ redundancy in terms of items that we saw

1:23:00 ↗ on the land use element or items that

1:23:02 ↗ were being developed as part of the new

1:23:03 ↗ environment climate element as well we

1:23:06 ↗ also Incorporated uh an accountability

1:23:09 ↗ results and accountability goal and and

1:23:11 ↗ policy similar to how we incorporate it

1:23:13 ↗ into the other draft elements just for

1:23:15 ↗ consist but also as our strategy of

1:23:18 ↗ identifying where which functional plans

1:23:20 ↗ are being used to implement this

1:23:24 ↗ and then finally we incorporated new

1:23:26 ↗ policies related to Regional

1:23:27 ↗ coordination and consistency of language

1:23:30 ↗ with the climate action

1:23:35 ↗ plan so I'm going to start going through

1:23:37 ↗ the goals and policies um and

1:23:40 ↗ then be open for questions on how we

1:23:43 ↗ approach the draft

1:23:44 ↗ element so for the section strong

1:23:47 ↗ business climate uh goal a we updated

1:23:51 ↗ this goal for Clarity primarily with the

1:23:54 ↗ development of this subsection we wanted

1:23:57 ↗ to make sure that the goal was specific

1:23:59 ↗ to these

1:24:00 ↗ policies the policies A1 and A4 we

1:24:04 ↗ Consolidated um just because we felt the

1:24:07 ↗ language is very similar and we wanted

1:24:08 ↗ to make sure that there was one policy

1:24:10 ↗ focused on customer service and we felt

1:24:13 ↗ that from the recommendations from EVC

1:24:16 ↗ and from PPC that review timelines was

1:24:18 ↗ an important aspect of the customer

1:24:20 ↗ service for business class

1:24:23 ↗ we included new details about addressing

1:24:25 ↗ economic Trends with policy

1:24:27 ↗ A6 and then we updated the intent with

1:24:30 ↗ policy

1:24:32 ↗ A7 um around what we wanted from the tax

1:24:36 ↗ and and then for policies A2 and A3 we

1:24:39 ↗ updated the language for clarity but

1:24:41 ↗ also consistency of language with the

1:24:44 ↗ transation element as well as with the

1:24:46 ↗ utilities and capital

1:24:48 ↗ elements and then finally we proposed to

1:24:51 ↗ remove the

1:24:52 ↗ policy B6 because it's very similar

1:24:55 ↗ language to what we have in the land use

1:25:00 ↗ out then for business climate we are

1:25:03 ↗ proposing two new policies one related

1:25:05 ↗ to Innovative tools to enhance Economic

1:25:08 ↗ Development as well as making sure that

1:25:10 ↗ economic impacts are considered in City

1:25:12 ↗ decision-making

1:25:16 ↗ process for diverse business Community

1:25:19 ↗ we updated this goal um also to be

1:25:21 ↗ specific for this sub

1:25:23 ↗ subsection we incorporated it with

1:25:26 ↗ policy D5 D5 as an area of making sure

1:25:31 ↗ that all businesses have access to the

1:25:33 ↗ services that the city is wanting to

1:25:35 ↗ offer and then policies B1 and three

1:25:38 ↗ were updated for clarity and

1:25:40 ↗ simplification so that they were

1:25:41 ↗ specific to the Natural strengths of the

1:25:44 ↗ city as well as how we want to grow and

1:25:46 ↗ attract

1:25:48 ↗ businesses policy D3 was also updated um

1:25:52 ↗ to recognize the importance of

1:25:54 ↗ experiences as part of the business

1:25:56 ↗ climate then we are proposing to remove

1:25:59 ↗ policy D7 because it was similar to

1:26:02 ↗ policies in the previous section and

1:26:05 ↗ then we included a little bit of more

1:26:06 ↗ language on Clarity for how we want to

1:26:09 ↗ support industry clusters as an

1:26:11 ↗ importance for City isqua and we're

1:26:13 ↗ proposing policy X2 is highlighting the

1:26:17 ↗ importance of sustainable practices for

1:26:20 ↗ businesses as kind of a with the

1:26:23 ↗ environment

1:26:29 ↗ climate so for Vibrant Community go

1:26:33 ↗ D we wanted to simplify the language

1:26:35 ↗ around quality of life for businesses as

1:26:38 ↗ well as identifying uh for D6 making

1:26:42 ↗ sure visitor

1:26:43 ↗ destinations um was highlighted as

1:26:46 ↗ important for this for isqua for

1:26:49 ↗ policies C4 five and six we consolidate

1:26:52 ↗ ated just because they had very similar

1:26:55 ↗ language around employment opportunities

1:26:57 ↗ and and the balance of Housing and jobs

1:27:00 ↗ for policies D4 and two we updated to

1:27:03 ↗ make sure that it was clear on the

1:27:05 ↗ intent for outdoor recreation and um the

1:27:08 ↗ relationship between neighborhoods and

1:27:10 ↗ businesses we're proposing to remove

1:27:13 ↗ policy d8 as it is very close to

1:27:16 ↗ language we have in the Parks element

1:27:19 ↗ and the land use element and then we

1:27:21 ↗ wanted to simplif the language for D1

1:27:24 ↗ around the importance of arts history

1:27:25 ↗ and culture with

1:27:31 ↗ businesses for Partnerships goal C we

1:27:35 ↗ updated the language for this is a brand

1:27:37 ↗ new section for this element so we

1:27:39 ↗ updated the goals to be consistent with

1:27:41 ↗ all the uh policies we Consolidated to

1:27:43 ↗ this

1:27:44 ↗ section policies A5 and C1 we simplified

1:27:48 ↗ and reduced some of the language so that

1:27:50 ↗ is be more specific and intentional with

1:27:53 ↗ the language we're proposing to remove

1:27:55 ↗ policies B2 C2 and C3 um primarily

1:27:59 ↗ because it was there was redundancy with

1:28:02 ↗ policies that were already in this

1:28:04 ↗ element as well as policies that were in

1:28:06 ↗ the land use

1:28:09 ↗ element we are also proposing to remove

1:28:12 ↗ policies B4 um because it was also

1:28:15 ↗ similar to language that we see in the

1:28:16 ↗ landing elment and we're proposing two

1:28:18 ↗ new policies X3 and

1:28:20 ↗ X4 um for consistency with the

1:28:23 ↗ environment and climate element as well

1:28:25 ↗ as uh making sure that we are

1:28:28 ↗ identifying Regional collaboration as

1:28:30 ↗ important aspect for business

1:28:33 ↗ development and then finally we have the

1:28:35 ↗ results and accountability section which

1:28:38 ↗ is consistent with the changes we're

1:28:39 ↗ making with the other elements to

1:28:40 ↗ identify how we plan to implement

1:28:43 ↗ implement this goal and identify the

1:28:45 ↗ functional plans that we're using to do

1:28:48 ↗ that so the overall schedule Remains the

1:28:51 ↗ Same same we are finalizing Council

1:28:54 ↗ committee review this quarter and then

1:28:57 ↗ we are aiming to have Council adoption

1:28:59 ↗ of the periodic update for the

1:29:01 ↗ comprehensive plan around uh third

1:29:03 ↗ quarter this

1:29:05 ↗ year next steps for the comprehensive

1:29:08 ↗ plan is we'll be bringing the Human

1:29:09 ↗ Services Arts culture elements to the

1:29:12 ↗ services safety and Parks Council

1:29:14 ↗ committee later this month and the parks

1:29:16 ↗ elements to that Committee in

1:29:20 ↗ March and that conclud my

1:29:23 ↗ presentation thank you

1:29:26 ↗ stevenh all right do we have questions

1:29:30 ↗ counc member H um thank you yeah just a

1:29:32 ↗ quick process one so are is Staff

1:29:35 ↗ already planning on returning the

1:29:37 ↗ economic Vitality commission or is that

1:29:39 ↗ just dependent on whether or not we have

1:29:40 ↗ anything we need to flag for them it'll

1:29:42 ↗ be primarily def uh dependent if we have

1:29:45 ↗ any additional policy questions for them

1:29:46 ↗ but they're they're very comfortable

1:29:48 ↗ with what we've presented tonight okay

1:29:56 ↗ okay great no questions

1:30:02 ↗ okay all right um well I sounds like we

1:30:06 ↗ don't have any more questions so on this

1:30:09 ↗ one um we will move into public comment

1:30:12 ↗ I will note for the record there are no

1:30:13 ↗ members of the public in council

1:30:15 ↗ chambers any longer and I will check in

1:30:17 ↗ with the city clerk if there is anyone

1:30:19 ↗ online that might want to make a comment

1:30:22 ↗ CH hunt we have no members of the public

1:30:24 ↗ online either right then we will move

1:30:27 ↗ into Council deliberation and um okay

1:30:31 ↗ and we have two questions are there

1:30:33 ↗ additional considerations that the EVC

1:30:36 ↗ should study and if there are any

1:30:38 ↗ additional

1:30:40 ↗ topics council member

1:30:43 ↗ Hall well now I feel bad that already

1:30:47 ↗ planning to go to EVC because I

1:30:48 ↗ highlighted a couple that I'd like staff

1:30:50 ↗ for EVC to Noodle on

1:30:52 ↗ um so and bear with so the first one

1:30:57 ↗ is under goal a number A2 is about the

1:31:01 ↗ multimodal mobility system and it just

1:31:04 ↗ calls out biking walking and use of

1:31:06 ↗ Transit and I wonder if we can't be a

1:31:08 ↗ little bit more inclusive of um how

1:31:12 ↗ Transportation Innovations or just um

1:31:15 ↗ what did I right micr Mobility other

1:31:18 ↗ evolving Mobility Trends I brought this

1:31:20 ↗ up also because there were similar

1:31:22 ↗ language for the transportation element

1:31:23 ↗ so I just wonder if we can't have kind

1:31:25 ↗ of a parody of the language there as

1:31:28 ↗ things change yeah we can do that and

1:31:30 ↗ make sure it's consistent thank you

1:31:35 ↗ um

1:31:36 ↗ [Music]

1:31:38 ↗ B3 oh B3 um

1:31:42 ↗ was the

1:31:44 ↗ word is grow and attract businesses dot

1:31:48 ↗ dot dot um the word diverse was removed

1:31:51 ↗ from

1:31:52 ↗ the um original goal or the original

1:31:56 ↗ policy um that I think

1:31:59 ↗ potentially could add some value by

1:32:01 ↗ including it I mean essentially right

1:32:03 ↗ now it's goods and services that meet

1:32:05 ↗ Community needs or that the community

1:32:08 ↗ want to see I can't remember exactly

1:32:10 ↗ what what it was in there um but that

1:32:12 ↗ might not necessarily be aligned with

1:32:14 ↗ having like a diverse set of goods and

1:32:16 ↗ services that serve our future needs too

1:32:18 ↗ especially like if all we want is bars

1:32:21 ↗ and pizza shops that might not Ser as

1:32:23 ↗ our kind of long-term needs right so I

1:32:26 ↗ was just thinking something to Noodle on

1:32:27 ↗ maybe the word diverse there could be

1:32:30 ↗ helpful

1:32:32 ↗ um

1:32:35 ↗ B4 oh B4 was one that was removed in the

1:32:38 ↗ diverse business Community section

1:32:41 ↗ because um it was recognized in

1:32:45 ↗ A5 which is the facilitate Innovative

1:32:48 ↗ Partnerships with the private sector so

1:32:50 ↗ B4 had originally had kind of that land

1:32:53 ↗ use kind of element like ensure that

1:32:55 ↗ development and Redevelopment is using

1:32:57 ↗ land efficiently so I I don't know if I

1:32:59 ↗ have a strong opinion on this but you do

1:33:01 ↗ lose a little bit of that land use

1:33:03 ↗ context by merging it with A5 so I

1:33:05 ↗ wasn't sure if um EVC had an opinion

1:33:08 ↗ about this or staff had an opinion about

1:33:11 ↗ um whether or not there's any value in

1:33:13 ↗ having that context live in A5 about

1:33:16 ↗ Innovative Partnerships um or we're

1:33:20 ↗ happy with kind of the land you

1:33:22 ↗ element something about that living in

1:33:24 ↗ the land use element

1:33:27 ↗ um uh X2 where was

1:33:30 ↗ X2 oh that's also um

1:33:33 ↗ diverse in uh goal B X2 was build

1:33:36 ↗ awareness and Sh accountability for

1:33:38 ↗ sustainable business practices

1:33:42 ↗ um I don't know if that necessarily just

1:33:45 ↗ means environmental sustain

1:33:46 ↗ sustainability or if it's also like

1:33:48 ↗ fiscal or or business sustainability

1:33:50 ↗ practices that there I didn't know if

1:33:52 ↗ there was value in calling out exactly

1:33:54 ↗ what we mean by that or just

1:33:56 ↗ intentionally being broad especially

1:33:58 ↗ because on the next page for

1:34:01 ↗ X3 um we do call out environmental

1:34:04 ↗ sustainability so if we're calling out

1:34:06 ↗ sustainability again in goal B maybe

1:34:10 ↗ just being intentional about why are we

1:34:12 ↗ adding them um then the only other

1:34:17 ↗ thing I added um was

1:34:22 ↗ to chew on whether or not you think

1:34:24 ↗ there's any value in including some

1:34:26 ↗ reference to the green necklace in here

1:34:28 ↗ uh you know in the transportation

1:34:30 ↗ element it was included um called out

1:34:32 ↗ very specifically because it's also a

1:34:34 ↗ trail system that supports our Mobility

1:34:37 ↗ around town and so I was just wondering

1:34:39 ↗ if there's any value in calling it out

1:34:40 ↗ as a way to connect our um business

1:34:44 ↗ communities around town to um and if not

1:34:48 ↗ the walking part

1:34:50 ↗ of uh policy A2 may have that covered

1:34:53 ↗ already but I'll leave that to

1:34:56 ↗ you those are great comments thank

1:35:05 ↗ you no comments I mean I'm just

1:35:08 ↗ generally pleased that I'm seeing much

1:35:11 ↗ more um pursue and leverage and advance

1:35:17 ↗ and things like that rather than just

1:35:20 ↗ support and seek um I I think generally

1:35:23 ↗ this moves forward in um the directions

1:35:27 ↗ and does seem to have a lot of the

1:35:28 ↗ connections between the um I want to say

1:35:32 ↗ environmental report Economic

1:35:34 ↗ Development action plan yeah

1:35:39 ↗ thanks yes go ahead um I just wanted one

1:35:42 ↗ more thing I totally forgot to say thank

1:35:44 ↗ you um and that it looks excellent these

1:35:47 ↗ were just I've just been nitpicky with

1:35:48 ↗ all the other um elements so I thought I

1:35:51 ↗ would would here too but seriously

1:35:52 ↗ excellent work I've really loved as

1:35:55 ↗ we're doing the comp plant updates

1:35:56 ↗ seeing like the thorough Matrix and the

1:36:00 ↗ annotated version it's been really

1:36:01 ↗ helpful for us to study

1:36:07 ↗ thank okay great um so similar I think

1:36:11 ↗ it's I think it's great

1:36:15 ↗ um I think there's there's a few things

1:36:18 ↗ they're also pretty pretty minor um

1:36:23 ↗ um so I think I I don't really actually

1:36:26 ↗ need to get into them but just a few

1:36:28 ↗ places where I thought um so for I'll

1:36:31 ↗ just give you one example The Leverage

1:36:33 ↗ the Arts the D1 um it says Leverage The

1:36:36 ↗ robust arts history and cultural

1:36:37 ↗ opportunities to provide experiences and

1:36:39 ↗ entrepreneurial opportunities and then

1:36:42 ↗ previously it was working with the

1:36:44 ↗ private sector and other stakeholders

1:36:45 ↗ continue to encourage and promote robust

1:36:48 ↗ arts history and cultural opportunities

1:36:50 ↗ actually think they kind of

1:36:52 ↗ changed because this one is that you're

1:36:54 ↗ leveraging the Arts to provide

1:36:57 ↗ experiences whereas the other one is

1:36:58 ↗ more to encourage and promote the Arts

1:37:02 ↗ um so I think in that case it was and

1:37:04 ↗ then it says the intent is to simplify

1:37:06 ↗ so um I thought that actually in that

1:37:08 ↗ one I kind of liked first one better

1:37:11 ↗ because I think it was uh more what I

1:37:15 ↗ thought I liked what it said better um

1:37:20 ↗ but I I think over all uh the I I was

1:37:23 ↗ mostly focusing on the matrix it's very

1:37:25 ↗ clear why things were changed in the

1:37:27 ↗ Matrix which which I appreciate and for

1:37:28 ↗ the most part you know it seems like a

1:37:30 ↗ lot of the changes were to encourage

1:37:32 ↗ diversity of of businesses be welcoming

1:37:35 ↗ and um inclusive and I think that's

1:37:38 ↗ great and then also added in those

1:37:39 ↗ sustainability elements I like the

1:37:41 ↗ thought of the green necklace I don't

1:37:42 ↗ know if staff has thoughts on if that

1:37:46 ↗ makes sense to include but we did have

1:37:47 ↗ discussions during Title 18 about making

1:37:51 ↗ Mak sure that

1:37:52 ↗ businesses um you know as developments

1:37:54 ↗ go in that they know where the green

1:37:56 ↗ necklace connections are and that um

1:37:58 ↗ where we want to have connections so if

1:38:02 ↗ you think that might fit in somehow be

1:38:06 ↗ I'd be interested in hearing staff's

1:38:08 ↗ thoughts on

1:38:09 ↗ that I think overall we were just trying

1:38:12 ↗ to reduce the similar language so the

1:38:15 ↗ policy A2 being focused on the

1:38:18 ↗ multimodal system captures a lot of what

1:38:21 ↗ talked about particularly in the

1:38:22 ↗ transation element and the parks element

1:38:24 ↗ of what we're trying to get out the

1:38:25 ↗ green necklace but we're happy to add a

1:38:27 ↗ policy or build in language in either A2

1:38:30 ↗ or something in this element that talks

1:38:33 ↗ specifically to the green necklace

1:38:35 ↗ as okay yeah I mean I would be

1:38:38 ↗ interested in that um I think there's

1:38:41 ↗ there's currently a fair amount of uh

1:38:44 ↗ promoting the outdoor recreation

1:38:45 ↗ elements and um you know and so I think

1:38:49 ↗ that is meant to be one of our our big

1:38:52 ↗ outdoor recreation amenities um so I

1:38:55 ↗ would be interested if there's a way to

1:38:56 ↗ work that in but um I think otherwise I

1:38:59 ↗ don't have any any any uh other

1:39:04 ↗ edits okay all right great well H do you

1:39:07 ↗ have what you need from from us I do

1:39:10 ↗ thank you okay wonderful um well then uh

1:39:15 ↗ there are no further items so let me

1:39:18 ↗ just check the

1:39:20 ↗ agenda

1:39:21 ↗ we have any

1:39:22 ↗ announcements no announcements then this

1:39:25 ↗ meeting is adjourned at 8:10 p.m. thank

1:39:28 ↗ you good

1:39:30 ↗ night

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF