Economic Vitality Commission · Wednesday, November 15, 2023 · City Council Digest

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Welcome & Introductions

Information · Chris Reichley, EVC Chair · packet pp.3–40

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Apr 24, 2023 City Council Regular Meeting · May 22, 2023 City Council Committee of the Whole · Aug 9, 2023 City Council Regular Meeting · Sep 19, 2023

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

The Central Issaquah Plan was adopted in 2012 to “to guide the evolution of Central Issaquah from a collection of strip malls and office buildings into a more livable, sustainable and balanced mixed use urban area serving everyday essentials to residents, employees and visitors.” The area was segmented into different zones that encouraged density in the Urban Core and Mixed-Use areas to add residential units to the commercial, natural, and other amenities already in place. Since the decade of the Plan adoption, 355 residential units were developed in one apartment community (Atlas Apartments) and no affordable housing units were development within these zones.

Pioneer Program

Discussion · Jen Davis Hayes, Economic Development Manager Mike Stanger, Senior Planner, ARCH Policy Commission.** · packet pp.41–72

Open packet at p.41 ↗

Staff report:

Issaquah Economic Development Action Plan Summary Update & Theme 3 Prioritization

Economic Development Action Plan

Discussion · Economic Development Staff

Topics: Economic Development

4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of October 18, 2023

packet pp.73–74

Open packet at p.73 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 10-18-23 Economic Vitality Commission Minutes Page 1 CITY OF ISSAQUAH Economic Vitality Commission 6:00 PM Tibbetts Manor, 750 17th Ave. October 18, 2023 MINUTES NW, Issaquah

5. REPORTS

Industry Trends, Business Openings & Closures (D)

All Commissioners · packet pp.75

Topics: Economic Development

Open packet at p.75 ↗

Staff report:

City-wide Reports and Information for Economic Vitality Commission Reference Updated November 2023 (new items highlighted)

Reports - City Council, Commission Committees (I)

All Commissioners & Staff · packet pp.77

Open packet at p.77 ↗

Staff report:

Economic Vitality Commission PO Box 1307 1775 12th AvenueIssaquah, NW | WA 98027 issaquahwa.gov

2023 Schedule

Information · Chris Reichley, Chair

2263 segments .txt ↗

0:05 ↗ officially so all right so good evening

0:07 ↗ everybody my name is p the economic

0:10 ↗ Vitality committee um chair I first need

0:14 ↗ to make quum so I'm going to call one of

0:16 ↗ my altern up Neta thank you for showing

0:18 ↗ up would you be happy to take a chair

0:20 ↗ tonight with one of the commissions

0:22 ↗ ACS thank you and a new and then a new

0:26 ↗ as well as one of our other alternates

0:27 ↗ thank you for showing up I can call you

0:29 ↗ up

0:30 ↗ back Commissioners thank you so we do

0:33 ↗ have Cor in the EVC and then for the

0:36 ↗ planning policy uh tonight's meeting is

0:38 ↗ the joint meeting between the first half

0:40 ↗ is between the economic pitality

0:41 ↗ commission and the planning policy

0:43 ↗ commission so thank you for showing up

0:45 ↗ planning policy do we have a a quum with

0:48 ↗ pling policies yes chair there's a

0:50 ↗ quorum for PPC and the Commissioners not

0:53 ↗ in aent have excuse absence thank you so

0:57 ↗ we do um with that said tonight we'd

0:59 ↗ like like to start the joint meeting on

1:02 ↗ the Pioneer project um like to call to

1:05 ↗ order the meeting at

1:08 ↗ 608 we do have uh one two three four

1:11 ↗ five public comments one being in person

1:15 ↗ um public comments are limited to five

1:16 ↗ minutes per person uh keep in mind if U

1:20 ↗ for the public comments if somebody has

1:22 ↗ said something that you you know that

1:24 ↗ that you're willing to stay or you're

1:26 ↗ able to stay and they and they said it

1:27 ↗ already before you you can either say I

1:30 ↗ agree and add what you wanted to add but

1:32 ↗ just for sake of time we're limiting it

1:34 ↗ to five minutes per public comment we do

1:37 ↗ have in-house on public comment that

1:39 ↗ we'll start first I have Jess C

1:42 ↗ R and you can come sit at the table

1:45 ↗ right

1:46 ↗ there and Brian Brian runberg is also on

1:49 ↗ that

1:51 ↗ list

1:54 ↗ [Music]

1:55 ↗ Brian thank you kind of excited to do an

2:03 ↗ um and I've got two two minutes five

2:06 ↗ minutes no thank you oh he less than

2:09 ↗ that I think um thank you Commissioners

2:12 ↗ my name is Jessica R my land's attorney

2:14 ↗ with Malla Hill and I'm here tonight on

2:16 ↗ of who will speak as well but sitting

2:19 ↗ next to me um we won't say the same

2:22 ↗ things um wanted to thank all of you for

2:25 ↗ doing the work you're doing on the on

2:27 ↗ the on the on the pioneer projects we

2:30 ↗ generally support it and are excited

2:33 ↗ about it but just a thank you to you for

2:35 ↗ studying and looking at his hard um

2:37 ↗ thank you also to staff for all the work

2:39 ↗ that goes into uh asking and answering

2:42 ↗ these hard questions um we submitted SRM

2:46 ↗ development who's also working with us

2:48 ↗ submitted a public comment that you

2:49 ↗ probably it's written you may or may not

2:52 ↗ have been able to see it we won't

2:53 ↗ reiterate all those points but again

2:56 ↗ we're just here to say that um we think

2:58 ↗ the city is asking the right question

3:00 ↗ when it asks how do we get if we're

3:02 ↗ lacking in housing right now how do we

3:05 ↗ how do we jump start that how do we get

3:07 ↗ affordable uh housing and then how can

3:10 ↗ we get affordable housing um and to that

3:13 ↗ end we want to make sure development is

3:16 ↗ feasible um we do support the options

3:18 ↗ that are presented in the in the staff

3:21 ↗ memo to change the affordability levels

3:24 ↗ a bit and try and jump start housing um

3:27 ↗ we outline the levels I think are

3:29 ↗ capable that consistent with what's in

3:31 ↗ your option one and two I believe in

3:33 ↗ staff memo so 10% set aside 80% Ami with

3:38 ↗ the mft program or 80% at 60% Ami with

3:43 ↗ an eight-year mft program um we're

3:46 ↗ excited to be partners here with the

3:48 ↗ city of Isa and really excited to be in

3:51 ↗ the room with such a great group of

3:53 ↗ resources um and that's you know also

3:55 ↗ we're just here for any questions and

3:57 ↗ further discussion on it thanks

4:01 ↗ thanks that was less than two

4:04 ↗ minutes thank you for your comments we

4:07 ↗ can be brief you're good I have a Josh

4:10 ↗ fredman well well let's do Brian he says

4:12 ↗ he's here person yeah good thank you

4:15 ↗ Brian remember sorry I went to the wrong

4:17 ↗ venue got here as quick as I could but

4:20 ↗ yes uh again to reiterate thank you all

4:23 ↗ and I know there's been different

4:24 ↗ audiences as we've been working through

4:26 ↗ this with you for eight nine 10 months

4:29 ↗ on

4:30 ↗ um and so I'll recap a few things just

4:32 ↗ for the sake of context to this has been

4:35 ↗ rock with some complexities we right in

4:37 ↗ the heart of the our project is anyway

4:40 ↗ right in the heart of the central isqua

4:41 ↗ plan for mixed use housing which has

4:43 ↗ been a problem to get started and even

4:46 ↗ before the market tipped this was near

4:48 ↗ impossible to get and and again to

4:50 ↗ reiterate a few of the things you know

4:51 ↗ first the market nobody's been there uh

4:54 ↗ very high water table some constraints

4:57 ↗ uh there's inherently lower rent

5:00 ↗ in isqua at least a dollar a foot but

5:02 ↗ the construction cost are the same so

5:04 ↗ that's another hurdle light rails 15

5:06 ↗ years out so those are some of the the

5:08 ↗ basic parameters we've been dealing with

5:09 ↗ and I know over time you know we we're

5:12 ↗ doing our independent study spent a lot

5:14 ↗ of we've been very transparent studying

5:15 ↗ a lot of different analysis about how we

5:18 ↗ can make this work how we can get some

5:20 ↗ housing going and I know also there's

5:22 ↗ been a report before from the the uh

5:25 ↗ Regional Economist policy group Eco

5:28 ↗ Northwest that had had can said it the

5:30 ↗ best way that there's a value

5:32 ↗ calibration is the way they put it which

5:34 ↗ are tools to offset some of these costs

5:36 ↗ to get to to offset some of the

5:38 ↗ subsidies that are required for the

5:40 ↗ affordable housing uh it it sometimes

5:43 ↗ gets perceived that these get buried

5:45 ↗ into a a project in the overhead and

5:47 ↗ that's really not the case there always

5:49 ↗ has to be some sort of equilibrium

5:51 ↗ because this affordable housing stays

5:53 ↗ with it for over 50 years so that's a

5:56 ↗ and so what we've been talking about all

5:57 ↗ these months is what is that calibration

5:59 ↗ or equilibrium and and I know jens's

6:02 ↗ done or due diligence there's been

6:03 ↗ several interviews outside of just

6:05 ↗ talking to us um can get some outside

6:09 ↗ perspective and and there's been the

6:12 ↗ cons consistent indicators of saying

6:15 ↗ this offset of this equilibrium there's

6:17 ↗ different tools the mft program which

6:19 ↗ has you know been put before you impact

6:21 ↗ fees as well as adjustments in the

6:24 ↗ affordable

6:25 ↗ housing that was have been shown and

6:27 ↗ again we've worked through with uh our

6:31 ↗ our uh Underwriters and our analysts for

6:34 ↗ months and and been transparently

6:36 ↗ sharing in real time with Jen as well as

6:38 ↗ with Arch to get there which is landed

6:40 ↗ on option one or two that does work and

6:43 ↗ it the magic metric we've been trying to

6:46 ↗ get to is is is a 6.25 yield on cost

6:51 ↗ that's complicated for some folks but

6:53 ↗ that's kind of the minimum number to

6:55 ↗ attract Capital to to be able to get

6:57 ↗ this to to Market to get it to move

6:59 ↗ forward forward so that's the matric

7:01 ↗ magic metric and that's before or after

7:04 ↗ the current downturn of where we are but

7:08 ↗ um we feel that either option one or two

7:10 ↗ can get us there to that uh close enough

7:13 ↗ to that that metric to to move

7:15 ↗ forward um for example and I had our

7:19 ↗ analyst run this quickly today the

7:22 ↗ option three was to stay where it is

7:24 ↗ with the current metrics of or the

7:27 ↗ adjustables um and he just took out the

7:31 ↗ land cost which was $13 million um and

7:35 ↗ just taking that out and it it yields a

7:37 ↗ 6.1 so it's even lower than where we are

7:41 ↗ so I know there's a lot of different

7:42 ↗ variables but even if if the city or

7:45 ↗ somebody else was able to give us the

7:47 ↗ land for 13 million this still wouldn't

7:50 ↗ wouldn't work so and again for

7:53 ↗ context 13 million for the you know 275

7:57 ↗ units you do the master or 280 whatever

7:59 ↗ we end up it is roughly a little over

8:02 ↗ $440,000 an apartment unit I mean going

8:08 ↗ market for something for midrise housing

8:11 ↗ of this type which be somewhere around

8:13 ↗ 60 so it's not the land that's

8:15 ↗ overvalued here it's just the metrics of

8:18 ↗ the affordable housing's not working so

8:20 ↗ one minute warning right so um and and

8:24 ↗ it's good thing I've done I we

8:26 ↗ appreciate the audience on this subject

8:28 ↗ and have for many months that we've gone

8:29 ↗ through all the groups and uh we do look

8:33 ↗ forward if we can go get take this to

8:35 ↗ the next step for this Pioneer status um

8:38 ↗ with these offsets of this equilibrium

8:40 ↗ we look forward to the opportunity to

8:41 ↗ provide isqua with some much needed

8:43 ↗ housing and and the high need for

8:45 ↗ affordable housing as well so In This

8:47 ↗ Very location in Central in the central

8:50 ↗ Esa plan where it's zoned and is needed

8:53 ↗ most so thank

8:55 ↗ you thank you

8:58 ↗ Bri

9:01 ↗ we have Josh

9:07 ↗ Freedman hi there can you see and hear

9:09 ↗ me okay yes we can thank you for joining

9:13 ↗ awesome thank you um hi my name is Josh

9:16 ↗ fredman I'm a lawyer at the Hillis Clark

9:18 ↗ Law Firm in Seattle um and although I

9:22 ↗ work for a lot of clients that build

9:24 ↗ affordable housing and Market housing

9:26 ↗ I'm not here on behalf of any specific

9:28 ↗ client or clients

9:30 ↗ tonight um as someone whose job it is to

9:33 ↗ help housing get built I'm commenting to

9:35 ↗ highly recommend uh options one and two

9:39 ↗ um and especially option two as bold

9:42 ↗ steps that will help make the most

9:44 ↗ difference in actually providing units

9:47 ↗ going forward um despite the best

9:51 ↗ intention of the program as it currently

9:53 ↗ exists um it has not uh resulted in

9:58 ↗ affordable units actually being built um

10:01 ↗ and unfortunately over the last 10 years

10:04 ↗ interest rates and construction costs

10:06 ↗ have generally been much lower than

10:08 ↗ we're facing now and will continue to

10:09 ↗ face in years ahead so we're trying to

10:13 ↗ break out of the no new units even as

10:16 ↗ market conditions are getting more

10:18 ↗ difficult um so all that is to say that

10:21 ↗ I think the city is definitely doing the

10:22 ↗ right thing by reevaluating its program

10:25 ↗ and uh these bodies and the staff are

10:28 ↗ doing great work um under either option

10:32 ↗ one or option two staff have recommended

10:35 ↗ a great mfte program um other

10:38 ↗ jurisdictions in the area have

10:39 ↗ demonstrated success in getting

10:41 ↗ affordable housing actually built using

10:43 ↗ these programs um it makes a difference

10:46 ↗ on a very regular basis um and for the

10:50 ↗ regulatory adjustment um both option one

10:53 ↗ or option two are good um I especially

10:57 ↗ recommend option two um it's my view

11:01 ↗ that more affordable units will be built

11:03 ↗ under that program um it's simply harder

11:07 ↗ in today's market in the Puget Sound to

11:09 ↗ build 60% units than it is to build 80%

11:13 ↗ units um and if the uh goal of the

11:17 ↗ project if the goal of this effort is

11:19 ↗ for more housing units to affordable

11:21 ↗ housing units to get built um option two

11:25 ↗ will do the most option one will do less

11:28 ↗ and um but still excellent and uh

11:32 ↗ obviously option three will keep us at

11:34 ↗ the status quo that um has been going um

11:39 ↗ with respect to uh Arch's ranking um in

11:44 ↗ terms of value that these three

11:47 ↗ proposals present to the city um I just

11:49 ↗ want to add uh one background point that

11:52 ↗ I don't think made it into that ranking

11:56 ↗ um value is only added or lost to the

12:00 ↗ city um coming from the back the

12:03 ↗ Baseline that we exist at today um and

12:06 ↗ the Baseline that we exist at today is

12:07 ↗ that no affordable units have been last

12:09 ↗ have been constructed in the last 10

12:12 ↗ years under these programs so um you

12:15 ↗ know if the effort is to get that

12:18 ↗ affordable housing built

12:20 ↗ um the the options are that you want to

12:24 ↗ consider are option one or option two um

12:26 ↗ and we think that option two will bring

12:29 ↗ the most to Market um thanks for your

12:32 ↗ time you thank you

12:35 ↗ Josh next I

12:37 ↗ have Gage

12:41 ↗ Stromberg yeah I'm here yes uh my name

12:45 ↗ is Gab strongberg I'm with SRM

12:47 ↗ development uh as Jessica mentioned

12:50 ↗ we're working with Brian runberg uh on

12:52 ↗ his property in isqua I wanted to give a

12:55 ↗ little background on SRM development uh

12:57 ↗ in support of the uh this Pioneer

13:00 ↗ program SRM has been active in the Puget

13:03 ↗ Sound for more than 20 years doing

13:04 ↗ development uh we have completed more

13:07 ↗ than 12 million square feet of real

13:08 ↗ estate including 8,300 residential units

13:12 ↗ and nearly 2 million square feet of

13:13 ↗ commercial space uh we are currently

13:17 ↗ have projects uh under construction in

13:19 ↗ both Seattle and Bellevue and we're

13:21 ↗ actively working on development uh in

13:24 ↗ addition isqua in uh Ron Spokane Tri

13:27 ↗ Cities and in locations throughout

13:30 ↗ California we've recently started uh

13:33 ↗ being very active in the affordable

13:34 ↗ housing uh we have teamed up with

13:37 ↗ Seattle Housing Authority the Washington

13:39 ↗ State Housing Finance commission uh

13:41 ↗ Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle and

13:44 ↗ both Microsoft and Amazon to support

13:46 ↗ Workforce and affordable housing

13:48 ↗ projects in Puget Sound and have used

13:50 ↗ the mfte programs in Seattle and bellw

13:54 ↗ uh in other words we have a lot of

13:55 ↗ experience in this area uh on both

13:57 ↗ market rate and affordable

13:59 ↗ uh

14:00 ↗ projects um there's been discussion of

14:04 ↗ the need for housing in isqua and we're

14:06 ↗ pleased to be part of the conversation

14:08 ↗ and trying to move our particular

14:10 ↗ project ahead um as Jessica pointed out

14:13 ↗ we did we've submitted a letter uh on

14:15 ↗ some of these points but I want to

14:17 ↗ reiterate a couple of things uh first we

14:20 ↗ we would like to develop this project

14:22 ↗ we'd like to bring housing units to

14:23 ↗ isqua but in order to do that uh we have

14:26 ↗ to have a project that can be

14:27 ↗ underwritten by lenders for construction

14:30 ↗ loans and permanent financing and we

14:32 ↗ have to attract investors we're

14:34 ↗ anticipating that our project is going

14:36 ↗ to take between 40 and $50 million of

14:38 ↗ equity uh to move this project ahead

14:41 ↗ neither we as developers or the

14:43 ↗ investors are looking for outsized gains

14:45 ↗ but the project has to make economic

14:47 ↗ sense and in order for that to happen we

14:49 ↗ need a project like this the Pioneer

14:51 ↗ program uh to be able to support the the

14:54 ↗ project and the financing and it simply

14:57 ↗ will not happen without it

14:59 ↗ so we're glad to be part of this

15:00 ↗ conversation we're glad to be supporting

15:02 ↗ this this project and the efforts that

15:03 ↗ are taking place uh and we're looking

15:06 ↗ forward to uh moving forward and hoping

15:08 ↗ we can bring housing to isquat thanks

15:11 ↗ for the opportunity to

15:12 ↗ speak thank you

15:14 ↗ Gage last I have John

15:18 ↗ Schwarz hi everyone assume you can hear

15:21 ↗ me um so I'm John Schwarz I uh run the

15:24 ↗ Schwarz company uh based in Seattle um

15:29 ↗ and we do owners repping uh for family

15:32 ↗ offices nonprofits uh for-profit

15:35 ↗ developers on a really broad range of

15:38 ↗ primarily a residential Focus project uh

15:41 ↗ currently we have a project in ballor

15:44 ↗ that'll break ground

15:45 ↗ in probably in February that has 50 and

15:49 ↗ 60% of median income significant Public

15:51 ↗ Funding in that um we have also

15:55 ↗ developed shelters we've developed 30%

15:58 ↗ of meeting income with special needs uh

16:01 ↗ We've developed uh 50 60 80 and market

16:05 ↗ rate um up in down the P sound region so

16:08 ↗ we've got a pretty good uh depth in this

16:11 ↗ uh providing that affordable housing

16:13 ↗ that uh you're looking to get um I did

16:16 ↗ also speak at your last spring meeting

16:18 ↗ and um happy to see that that uh some of

16:22 ↗ those comments are getting addressed in

16:24 ↗ terms of uh coming up with programs that

16:26 ↗ are actually feasible to support

16:28 ↗ development

16:30 ↗ um we've also done work in uh in some of

16:34 ↗ your reports you you looked at Kenmore U

16:36 ↗ we tried to get projects going there

16:38 ↗ prior to them having their Pioneer

16:40 ↗ project incentives going and those

16:41 ↗ didn't work uh we just finished a

16:44 ↗ project in Kirkland last year that one

16:47 ↗ was part of a contract rezone where we

16:51 ↗ uh also provided the city with some new

16:53 ↗ rways in that one they were able to do

16:56 ↗ 10% of the units at 80% of median income

16:59 ↗ for a 20-year mfte and a 50-year

17:02 ↗ commitment on that so that was a little

17:03 ↗ bit unique but that um longer mfte

17:07 ↗ period um and at the lower percentage

17:10 ↗ actually help those things work uh

17:13 ↗ Redmond we have a current project going

17:15 ↗ there um before the interest rate spikes

17:18 ↗ that program was working with their

17:20 ↗ program um with the interest rate spikes

17:23 ↗ that's pushing down that property value

17:25 ↗ by about

17:26 ↗ 30% um which is something the current

17:29 ↗ owners are not really uh willing to go

17:31 ↗ forward on uh we're also working right

17:35 ↗ now on projects in Lynwood and Federal

17:37 ↗ Way both of those cities are looking at

17:39 ↗ 8-year mft programs without without any

17:43 ↗ affordable requirements um you know

17:46 ↗ because they they're really trying to

17:48 ↗ generate some housing in their downtown

17:50 ↗ Urban cores uh both of which have new

17:53 ↗ Transit connections uh rail connections

17:56 ↗ with Sound Transit so they're in a

17:58 ↗ little bit different situation than is a

18:00 ↗ qua but I I only share these just to

18:03 ↗ illustrate that some of our regional uh

18:06 ↗ cities are being very very bold in in

18:08 ↗ how they're approaching this and really

18:10 ↗ going outside the box on on you know in

18:13 ↗ those cities what'll be Pioneer projects

18:17 ↗ also um you know I I doubt that you'll

18:21 ↗ see any for-profit developers ever doing

18:23 ↗ 50% of median income housing in just

18:25 ↗ about any jurisdiction I mean when I

18:28 ↗ look at the financing Stacks that we

18:30 ↗ have to put together for the

18:31 ↗ 50% uh medium projects we're doing and

18:34 ↗ have done it takes huge amounts of

18:37 ↗ public money uh tax credits and whatnot

18:40 ↗ to to make those work um so I think that

18:43 ↗ the work you guys are doing is is

18:44 ↗ actually quite quite useful hopefully

18:46 ↗ will will result in some projects in the

18:49 ↗ short

18:50 ↗ term um you know it's been kind of

18:53 ↗ shared shared with by others you know

18:54 ↗ our current our current economic climate

18:56 ↗ is pretty tough um you know your current

19:00 ↗ mandatory inclusion program has had

19:02 ↗ pretty limited results um so I think

19:05 ↗ these uh these programs are pretty

19:07 ↗ important another area that you might

19:10 ↗ want to also include in your look is at

19:12 ↗ some of the impact fees in Federal Way

19:15 ↗ they've they've set their school impact

19:18 ↗ fees they've gone from 20,000 per unit

19:20 ↗ to zero um and in other jurisdictions

19:23 ↗ we're also seeing some willingness to

19:25 ↗ get housing jump started um some pretty

19:28 ↗ significant reductions in Impact fees

19:30 ↗ you know for limited times uh to get

19:33 ↗ these downtown cores uh moving forward

19:37 ↗ um in Seattle I know warning one minute

19:39 ↗ warning okay thanks uh in Seattle we're

19:42 ↗ seeing where low-income projects this is

19:44 ↗ legislation that just got passed last

19:47 ↗ summer where any pro any low-income

19:50 ↗ projects and projects are doing on-site

19:52 ↗ performance under their mandatory

19:55 ↗ housing affordability are uh Exempted

19:58 ↗ from design review um and then I think I

20:02 ↗ would also look at the state law that is

20:03 ↗ also exempting a lot of housing projects

20:05 ↗ from sea review you know those once

20:08 ↗ again are regulatory things that um

20:11 ↗ reducing that red tape and the time it

20:14 ↗ takes to get permits out can be super

20:15 ↗ helpful so some additional ideas to

20:18 ↗ consider but really appreciate that you

20:20 ↗ guys are uh doing this work options one

20:22 ↗ and two seem both uh worth pursuing

20:25 ↗ thank

20:27 ↗ you

20:29 ↗ thank you

20:30 ↗ John do we have any other public

20:33 ↗ comments is there anybody else online

20:36 ↗ that would like to make a public comment

20:37 ↗ about the Pioneer

20:42 ↗ project heing none nobody else in the

20:45 ↗ room for public comments tonight

20:47 ↗ appreciate your

20:49 ↗ input okay so welcome again this is a

20:52 ↗ joint meeting between the economic

20:54 ↗ Vitality commission and the planning

20:55 ↗ policy commission so um my name is Chris

20:58 ↗ mitchley I the chair of the mentality

21:01 ↗ commission we'll do a brief introduction

21:03 ↗ we'll just go around the room and just

21:04 ↗ introduce ourselves U maybe just go how

21:07 ↗ long you've been on your commission want

21:09 ↗ and go from there that so I will go to

21:12 ↗ my right awesome uh Jesse pson planning

21:14 ↗ policy commission I've been here for

21:16 ↗ about a year and a

21:18 ↗ half keny planning policy

21:22 ↗ commission hean Al tomor planning policy

21:24 ↗ commission da Jason boy planning policy

21:29 ↗ commission oh old huh and and you are

21:33 ↗ the chair is that correct yeah I'm

21:36 ↗ chrisy Gard economic Vitality

21:37 ↗ commissioner and I a year and half guess

21:44 ↗ yeah say

21:47 ↗ commission are staff staff yeah I'm far

21:51 ↗ Economic Development coordinator I've

21:53 ↗ been this tomorrow is my I'm Maring one

21:56 ↗ year yeah my name is Juliana de Cruz I'm

21:59 ↗ also an economic development coordinator

22:02 ↗ for and I've been on this Staffing this

22:05 ↗ commission for one year almost yeah Jen

22:09 ↗ Davis Hayes economic development

22:13 ↗ manager 10

22:16 ↗ years uh Steven Padua longrange planning

22:18 ↗ manager V on for planning policy

22:21 ↗ commission I've been with the city for

22:23 ↗ about five years

22:26 ↗ now

22:33 ↗ uh kimal

22:36 ↗ commission I'm migan planning policy

22:41 ↗ commission

22:44 ↗ above John CR PBC is our first year so

22:47 ↗ what five

22:48 ↗ months

22:51 ↗ UMC six months and

22:54 ↗ now all right well thank you for all

22:56 ↗ joining now we're here for for the

22:58 ↗ wonderful

22:59 ↗ Pioneer program I'm going to turn it

23:02 ↗ over to

23:03 ↗ Jen yes us with what we're going to go

23:05 ↗ over and talk about tonight this is uh

23:08 ↗ definitely I gotta stop sharing and then

23:09 ↗ restart sharing um this is definitely a

23:11 ↗ a great opportunity to bring commissions

23:14 ↗ together we want to is a SED oh yeah

23:18 ↗ sorry we do have some Commissioners

23:20 ↗ online now I gotta get back to my stop

23:23 ↗ sharing um yeah you want to go ahead and

23:26 ↗ introduce yourself then and Tom yeah

23:31 ↗ hi hi this is sashman Maman and I'm a

23:35 ↗ local business owner here and I've been

23:37 ↗ with the commission for uh four plus

23:39 ↗ years now if I'm

23:42 ↗ correct this is uh Tom Brown economic

23:45 ↗ Vitality commission and this is my

23:47 ↗ second

23:49 ↗ year hi folks this is this is AJ Taylor

23:52 ↗ I'm sorry I'm home with a cold tonight

23:54 ↗ but um uh I've been on the EVC now for

23:57 ↗ about 18

24:02 ↗ months Joan are you able to

24:10 ↗ unmute so

24:15 ↗ oh so Joan proa who used to be on the

24:18 ↗ planning policy commission now she's on

24:19 ↗ the economic Vitality commission and

24:21 ↗ probably a year and a half maybe I don't

24:23 ↗ know it seems like everybody's a year

24:24 ↗ and a half so we'll have say

24:26 ↗ that

24:28 ↗ okay so um yeah I really appreciate you

24:32 ↗ guys uh coming together for this because

24:35 ↗ this is definitely um oh and I I want to

24:38 ↗ mention that we do have online also mik

24:40 ↗ St Mike Stanger from Arch he is uh going

24:44 ↗ to be at another planning policy

24:45 ↗ commission meeting in a different city

24:47 ↗ at supposedly later this evening so we

24:50 ↗ appreciate Mike you being here on on uh

24:53 ↗ line to be able to answer any questions

24:55 ↗ regarding the uh work that you've done

24:57 ↗ on this project so thank you very much

24:59 ↗ Mike um as you've heard we've been

25:01 ↗ looking at this project for a while and

25:03 ↗ some of you um have uh been did the

25:08 ↗ Pioneer program 101 with me to help kind

25:10 ↗ of start to explain a little bit about

25:12 ↗ the program um and so as you may have

25:15 ↗ heard a lot of conversation about

25:16 ↗ affordable housing but again I just want

25:19 ↗ to state that this project is not 100%

25:21 ↗ about affordable housing it will create

25:23 ↗ affordable housing but the idea and the

25:25 ↗ concept is to actually SP some housing

25:28 ↗ in the area we don't have uh housing in

25:31 ↗ our Urban core and our mixed use area in

25:33 ↗ central isqua all of you probably know

25:36 ↗ there's been a lot of development in

25:37 ↗ Newport there's been development at the

25:38 ↗ Highlands so we we are not um looking to

25:42 ↗ just create more housing for housing

25:43 ↗ sake but we're want to create housing

25:45 ↗ where we we have uh dense amenities and

25:49 ↗ access to uh jobs and Transit so tonight

25:53 ↗ um we're going to you know go over uh

25:55 ↗ the Pioneer program and the goal um and

25:58 ↗ ask her input on two different options

26:01 ↗ uh two different uh topics and then

26:04 ↗ we'll share that information with City

26:06 ↗ Council on December 4th and we'll be

26:07 ↗ coming back so uh for PPC folks

26:10 ↗ sometimes you're asked for a formal

26:11 ↗ recommendation you're not at that point

26:13 ↗ yet so it's uh sitting back and and

26:15 ↗ letting us know what you think so um one

26:19 ↗ of the things when uh whenever we talk

26:21 ↗ about something that does have something

26:22 ↗ to do with affordable housing um as you

26:24 ↗ heard all these you know Ami discussions

26:26 ↗ it's like this is a a image that we

26:30 ↗ started using with city council to

26:32 ↗ distinguish when we are talking about a

26:33 ↗ certain program where where what sliver

26:37 ↗ of affordable affordability for housing

26:39 ↗ we're talking about so we do we as a

26:42 ↗ city do a lot of things across the

26:44 ↗ Spectrum so this is just an example of

26:46 ↗ some of the planning works we do in the

26:49 ↗ brown there the uh More Human Services

26:53 ↗ programs in the orange and then in the

26:55 ↗ green more of the uh Investments we do

26:58 ↗ so um again because we're not talking

27:02 ↗ about that tonight doesn't mean we don't

27:03 ↗ have uh programs that that are already

27:05 ↗ addressing it and of course could do you

27:07 ↗ know there's always need for more so

27:09 ↗ tonight we're talking about the Pioneer

27:10 ↗ program which really is on again the um

27:13 ↗ affordable rental and ownership and the

27:15 ↗ market rate

27:17 ↗ end um so again we talked about there's

27:20 ↗ been a lot of housing growth right um so

27:22 ↗ since 2012 when the central isqua plan

27:25 ↗ was adopted we um have had

27:29 ↗ 3,537 units added to our housing mix

27:32 ↗ right okay so those of you went through

27:36 ↗ um the Pioneer program 101 with me you

27:38 ↗ saw this chart although I was corrected

27:40 ↗ by Kristen because the um the actual 344

27:44 ↗ units that I originally had in the

27:46 ↗ actual thing was is actually in the

27:48 ↗ mixed use not in the urban core so in

27:50 ↗ the urban core

27:51 ↗ itself um we have the ability capacity

27:56 ↗ through the zoning to be to build 7,000

27:58 ↗ units over time um we anticipated in

28:01 ↗ 2012 you know by 2035 about 2 200 units

28:05 ↗ in that Urban core area again zero built

28:10 ↗ zero affordable housing so going back to

28:12 ↗ 3500 units were built in central isqua

28:15 ↗ since that time zero in C in the urban

28:18 ↗ core and 344 in our mixed uh use Central

28:22 ↗ isqua

28:24 ↗ Area so again uh what is a pine program

28:28 ↗ um it's an it's really meant to spark um

28:32 ↗ investment in an area and to account for

28:34 ↗ the risk of being first in an area for

28:35 ↗ our economic commi uh de Vitality

28:38 ↗ Commissioners you know in your business

28:39 ↗ when you're the first in the market

28:40 ↗ there's a risk there and once you show

28:43 ↗ success other people come in right and

28:45 ↗ the same thing is for development and so

28:47 ↗ um other cities have utilized this tool

28:50 ↗ um so you can reduce regulatory or

28:52 ↗ affordability requirements or you can

28:54 ↗ provide Financial incentives as kind of

28:56 ↗ the the two m tools that are being

29:00 ↗ used um again I'm repeating myself here

29:03 ↗ but uh really wanting to look at housing

29:05 ↗ in the area where we have jobs Transit

29:07 ↗ and other amenities and creating a proof

29:09 ↗ of concept for others to be to uh

29:12 ↗ encourage more development in that area

29:15 ↗ so I talk about Urban core and mixed use

29:18 ↗ and so here on this map the urban core

29:20 ↗ is that lovely salmon color um and so we

29:23 ↗ are sitting just below where it says

29:25 ↗ isqua Central isqua um at at uh tibits

29:28 ↗ Manor and then the mixed use uh Central

29:31 ↗ isqua is basically the commercial areas

29:34 ↗ around um East Lake samamish Parkway and

29:37 ↗ then uh along Gilman to Front Street so

29:41 ↗ in our commercial cores is where we're

29:43 ↗ talking that where we want to see um

29:45 ↗ housing

29:47 ↗ happen so we'll go over the outline of

29:50 ↗ the pioneer program um and then again at

29:52 ↗ the end we'll start uh asking questions

29:54 ↗ so um our first one is is uh again a

29:58 ↗ pioner program is just for a limited

30:00 ↗ time right and so um we will uh want to

30:04 ↗ talk to you about what makes sense for

30:07 ↗ how many units um or time frame or

30:12 ↗ number of projects again uh when you

30:14 ↗ look at this map go backwards it's a

30:17 ↗ pretty large area right and so um if we

30:20 ↗ want to see where uh start to build that

30:23 ↗ that the housing that's again near jobs

30:27 ↗ and such we want to um maybe not just

30:29 ↗ pick one dot on this map um and move

30:35 ↗ forward the

30:38 ↗ um so the uh once that limit is met uh

30:44 ↗ so whether we pick projects timeline or

30:47 ↗ units then every other development from

30:48 ↗ then on we have to follow the current

30:50 ↗ code at that time so um there's a a

30:53 ↗ limit to the risk of what we're offering

30:55 ↗ here and and I think that's uh

30:57 ↗ especially cities have done this before

30:59 ↗ because they know it's not going to um

31:02 ↗ offer things that may not work for

31:05 ↗ forever regarding the regulations and

31:07 ↗ incentive side we we'll we looked at the

31:10 ↗ multif family tax exemption program

31:12 ↗ which you heard about here um lots of

31:14 ↗ other cities do it throughout Washington

31:16 ↗ State and we actually do have a limited

31:18 ↗ uh version here in isqua and then we

31:20 ↗ looked at adjusting our affordable

31:21 ↗ housing requirements so Ami you guys

31:25 ↗ love that term don't you

31:28 ↗ so put this here not to have you

31:30 ↗ memorize it may be hard to read up the

31:32 ↗ screen but um I wanted to you know just

31:35 ↗ show some numbers before we dive into

31:37 ↗ talk mentioning Ami but really it's an

31:40 ↗ area mediate income for King County so

31:43 ↗ every uh County across the country has

31:45 ↗ this with different numbers and so

31:48 ↗ looking at 60% Ami so if you are a

31:51 ↗ single individual and um household and

31:55 ↗ you that means that you qualify for 60%

31:58 ↗ Ami uh housing if you're making

32:01 ↗ $61,500 or less right so um you know a

32:06 ↗ lot of people mentioned again I it was

32:09 ↗ in the letters or in the comments but

32:10 ↗ that um you know you you're thinking

32:12 ↗ about um teachers and other Workforce

32:15 ↗ housing that's probably lower than some

32:17 ↗ of the some of those folks in those

32:19 ↗ Industries um if you have a larger

32:21 ↗ household there's more there's more um

32:24 ↗ income uh that you to meet that same LEL

32:27 ↗ but uh this is what you have to qualify

32:30 ↗ in order to rent in those um markets in

32:35 ↗ those units um this is a maybe the

32:38 ↗ planning policy commission has seen this

32:39 ↗ before but looking at uh our supply

32:42 ↗ versus our targeted needs and so this

32:45 ↗ thank you Kristen Leon uh from our

32:48 ↗ planning longrange planning department

32:50 ↗ looking at um in that 50 to 80% column

32:55 ↗ and I can I can move on else um you can

32:58 ↗ tell that there's a lot of uh unmet need

33:02 ↗ again a little bit less here a little

33:03 ↗ bit less here and even in our you know

33:05 ↗ above 120 there's some needs but we're

33:07 ↗ not looking at at incentivizing this at

33:09 ↗ this time um as you get lower as we

33:12 ↗ heard from the public comments um

33:13 ↗ there's a lot of public subsidy that

33:15 ↗ needs to happen for that so um typically

33:19 ↗ you don't see that Market Market um

33:21 ↗ developers creating that type of

33:25 ↗ housing so

33:28 ↗ the financial incentive is the multif

33:29 ↗ family tax exemption so mention again

33:32 ↗ that 55 cities use it across the the

33:34 ↗ state um we currently do have it for the

33:37 ↗ transit oriented development site which

33:39 ↗ it will be built in the future next to

33:40 ↗ the transit center um but we it is a

33:45 ↗ tool that council is interested in learn

33:47 ↗ in analyzing more um and interested in

33:49 ↗ looking at it for this project um you uh

33:54 ↗ for that project during the time of the

33:56 ↗ exemption so we're looking at at 8-year

33:57 ↗ exemption we would not collect property

34:00 ↗ tax on that residential portion so not

34:03 ↗ just the affordable units but on all of

34:05 ↗ the residential portions so if it's a

34:07 ↗ 300 unit project we don't collect it on

34:10 ↗ that we still collect it on the land and

34:12 ↗ if there's any commercial space that we

34:14 ↗ would um that would be built there you

34:17 ↗ would collect it on that as well um and

34:20 ↗ that that when I say we I mean we as a

34:23 ↗ whole uh agency so this is a from um

34:26 ↗ King County assessor's office of all the

34:28 ↗ entities that get a portion of the

34:30 ↗ property tax so that exemption counts

34:33 ↗ towards all of these agencies now again

34:35 ↗ you've heard other cities are currently

34:37 ↗ doing this so um other you know the

34:39 ↗ entities in this in this um wheel here

34:43 ↗ um are aware and and you acknowledge

34:46 ↗ that these that uh it is foregone

34:48 ↗ Revenue so it is revenue that they they

34:51 ↗ don't lose money they're not taking away

34:52 ↗ any money you just don't get that extra

34:54 ↗ eight years or you get you don't get

34:56 ↗ thatt extra income for eight years year

34:58 ↗ nine that collection starts

35:03 ↗ again affordability requirements so um

35:07 ↗ right now we have um you might have

35:10 ↗ heard again we have an inclusionary

35:11 ↗ zoning requirement so that's required

35:13 ↗ for everybody who builds within those

35:14 ↗ two areas and then we have um an

35:17 ↗ optional where if you want to go above a

35:19 ↗ certain height or floor area ratio um

35:23 ↗ that you can utilize that most of the

35:25 ↗ sites that are in Central on the valley

35:27 ↗ floor because of the um high water table

35:31 ↗ um especially get more towards the lake

35:34 ↗ um it's tougher to do underground

35:36 ↗ parking so that that means they will

35:37 ↗ have to build structured parking at at

35:40 ↗ you know at the ground level um and can

35:43 ↗ wrap it with some you know uh entrance

35:46 ↗ way Etc um but they're going to be

35:48 ↗ having to build up for uh the parking

35:51 ↗ which means there's less rentable space

35:52 ↗ so very quickly they decide I need to

35:55 ↗ build higher than the the base um height

35:59 ↗ in order to make my my project work so

36:01 ↗ most projects are going to use both of

36:03 ↗ these even though in this area even

36:05 ↗ though one is optional in order to make

36:07 ↗ it work both of them have to use that so

36:10 ↗ there are currently again two um

36:12 ↗ programs that we required so here is for

36:15 ↗ the urban core um those those

36:18 ↗ requirements now so the top one again

36:20 ↗ shows you have to do 12 and a half% at

36:22 ↗ 60% Ami if you're doing rental or you

36:25 ↗ can do a deeper level at

36:27 ↗ 10% um and then the development bonus

36:30 ↗ program so the base which is confusing

36:34 ↗ but the Bas is the height that you can

36:36 ↗ build to before you have to if you build

36:39 ↗ want to build at 61 feet you have to use

36:41 ↗ the development bonus area um and then

36:44 ↗ you can build up to 125 feet within that

36:47 ↗ region there and you would take that

36:49 ↗ extra space that you're building and be

36:52 ↗ required to provide uh affordable

36:54 ↗ housing and some other public benefits

36:55 ↗ for that

36:57 ↗ um in The Proposal we're going to be

36:59 ↗ talking about tonight um this would

37:01 ↗ eliminate we would we're we're

37:04 ↗ recommending a percentage of uh Ami

37:07 ↗ housing um that would not limit the so

37:11 ↗ you so you wouldn't have to uh only

37:14 ↗ build to 60 feet you could build to the

37:15 ↗ 125 feet but I will tell you that that

37:18 ↗ is a different construction type so the

37:20 ↗ you see a lot of Wood Construction in

37:22 ↗ this in this area where you have uh

37:25 ↗ Podium over five or six Uh Wood levels

37:29 ↗ when you get to the 125 ft you're

37:30 ↗ talking about steel and that's a lot

37:31 ↗ more expensive and the market the

37:33 ↗ expense to the market um rents don't

37:37 ↗ make sense here in isqua so again what

37:39 ↗ you see in the community and and I know

37:41 ↗ we have some some development um in our

37:45 ↗ two of them sitting next to each other

37:46 ↗ there that can you know better explain

37:48 ↗ that but we wanted to make sure people

37:50 ↗ understood that

37:52 ↗ um you know moving forward we will see

37:55 ↗ higher um

37:57 ↗ higher buildings in central isqua if

37:59 ↗ this passes it won't be at the at the 60

38:01 ↗ feet although again we haven't seen any

38:03 ↗ development happening in this

38:05 ↗ area so what are we what are we uh

38:08 ↗ proposing so option one again you heard

38:10 ↗ people mention this is looking at 8% of

38:14 ↗ the units so again if they build above

38:17 ↗ that 60 feet that normally anything

38:20 ↗ above that also would have to have 8% of

38:21 ↗ those units are affordable at 60% Ami

38:25 ↗ for rental and they would get it

38:26 ↗ eight-year mft multi family tax

38:29 ↗ exemption the other option is to look at

38:32 ↗ uh 10% at 80% Ami so again you get a

38:35 ↗ little bit more units but a higher

38:37 ↗ affordability level

38:39 ↗ or less higher affordability yeah um and

38:43 ↗ then the no change it's again depending

38:45 ↗ on how much you build in your uh

38:47 ↗ development bonus area depends on what

38:49 ↗ the plus is but you um the no change is

38:52 ↗ the current requirements that we've

38:53 ↗ discussed ear or presented earlier so

38:56 ↗ oops so what does that really mean right

38:58 ↗ that's a lot of numbers and percentages

39:00 ↗ but looking at an example of a 300 unit

39:04 ↗ development um so the one on the left is

39:07 ↗ what is under current so you'd have

39:09 ↗ about 249 units of market and looking at

39:13 ↗ um again 37 units plus six plus eight um

39:17 ↗ of affordable at different levels of

39:19 ↗ affordability between 80 60 and 50 the

39:22 ↗ two options we're talking about so

39:24 ↗ option one at 60% Ami would result in 24

39:27 ↗ units at 60% Ami again a lower

39:30 ↗ affordability for some of our um entry

39:33 ↗ level um Workforce and then option two

39:36 ↗ would provide 30% of Ami again at a

39:40 ↗ little bit higher you know entry level

39:42 ↗ professional Workforce so not six units

39:45 ↗ is six units but it's not like 100 units

39:47 ↗ versus

39:52 ↗ 10 so um we've tried to think about how

39:55 ↗ to how to kind of look at this BEC how

39:58 ↗ to uh to talk about the pros and cons

40:01 ↗ about this um knowing that again this is

40:03 ↗ not an affordable housing project but

40:05 ↗ about trying to get uh housing in an

40:08 ↗ area where housing hasn't happened um so

40:12 ↗ some of these do talk about

40:13 ↗ affordability but um you know a lot some

40:15 ↗ of them are going to talk about

40:17 ↗ basically uh you know again improves

40:18 ↗ housing feasibility so both options

40:20 ↗ we've heard from developers on um today

40:23 ↗ that both option one and two would

40:25 ↗ actually allow it to happen doesn't mean

40:27 ↗ it's going to guarantee but it it makes

40:28 ↗ it more

40:30 ↗ feasible um and um as far as the

40:34 ↗ affordable housing 50% Ami again neither

40:37 ↗ of those option of our options would um

40:40 ↗ provide that but it's also in our

40:43 ↗ current system it's a developer's choice

40:45 ↗ they have a choice to either provide

40:46 ↗ that or provide a fee and Mo and so it

40:51 ↗ it's not a guarantee we would get at

40:52 ↗ that lower 50% Ami level Workforce

40:55 ↗ housing um again in option one we would

40:58 ↗ get um some of that

41:00 ↗ 60% um which would be similar to in our

41:03 ↗ no change uh option um diversity of

41:06 ↗ housing this is something that you know

41:08 ↗ Stephen and Kristen has worked a lot on

41:11 ↗ EV um uh making sure that we have

41:14 ↗ multiple different types of housing in

41:16 ↗ different areas again we don't have any

41:18 ↗ housing in here so this would definitely

41:20 ↗ um add to that and then I added a column

41:23 ↗ for our friend Mike on on the line um

41:25 ↗ they did a analysis about the value to

41:27 ↗ the city right so thinking about the

41:28 ↗ affordability piece um and of course you

41:31 ↗ know the current one which uh as you saw

41:34 ↗ in the in the previous slide has more H

41:37 ↗ more units of affordable housing is the

41:39 ↗ highest but that still there's there's

41:41 ↗ definitely um some benefit to the city

41:44 ↗ to have that 60% Ami as well as the 80%

41:49 ↗ Ami um so what's next we're going to

41:52 ↗ talk to you guys tonight get your

41:53 ↗ feedback um go to Council on December

41:56 ↗ 4th

41:56 ↗ and depending on what they say we'll be

41:59 ↗ either back for public hearing and or

42:01 ↗ continued conversation um but eventually

42:03 ↗ we'll get to a public hearing hopefully

42:06 ↗ um and then city council will consider

42:08 ↗ adoption so we're thinking um we've

42:10 ↗ penciled in for January 11 um for the

42:13 ↗ next time to come to planning policy

42:15 ↗ commission and we hope that

42:16 ↗ Commissioners EVC Commissioners can join

42:18 ↗ that as well um again we'll see what

42:20 ↗ happens after December 4th if we need to

42:21 ↗ do some additional work um before we

42:23 ↗ come back um and so then city council

42:27 ↗ could you know decide on this in January

42:29 ↗ February is

42:33 ↗ right so any questions prior to

42:35 ↗ discussion discussing the options

42:38 ↗ because I went through that pretty

42:39 ↗ quickly I'm from the East Coast so I

42:41 ↗ talk quickly we do have a hand up as

42:44 ↗ well so AJ would you like to tell us

42:48 ↗ what I just have a quick question I'm

42:51 ↗ curious about can you tell me how the

42:53 ↗ eight-year tax exemption is arrived at

42:56 ↗ meaning why not 6 versus 10 versus 8 how

42:59 ↗ was that decision made oh yeah so um

43:01 ↗ yeah thank you so that's actually a

43:03 ↗ state uh um law or state yeah program so

43:07 ↗ you have an eight-year a 12 year and a

43:10 ↗ 20 year the 8 year there's actually no

43:14 ↗ requirement as you heard one of the the

43:15 ↗ develop um rep public speakers mention

43:19 ↗ um does not require portable housing but

43:21 ↗ you can add that requirement and we

43:23 ↗ would add that requirement for that

43:25 ↗ 12year requires

43:27 ↗ 20% affordable housing and we're not

43:29 ↗ going to get to that 20% so that is not

43:31 ↗ an option and then the 20 year has to do

43:33 ↗ with home home ownership so those two

43:36 ↗ weren't options for that so there isn't

43:37 ↗ a six year there's not a 10.5 year a 500

43:41 ↗ year whatever it's it's part of the

43:42 ↗ state rules and

43:45 ↗ regulations

43:48 ↗ thanks question yeah John questions

43:50 ↗ about just some background data because

43:52 ↗ I think there's a couple different

43:53 ↗ inputs there's the between option War

43:56 ↗ one and two there's the um is there data

44:00 ↗ on the potential number of renters that

44:02 ↗ would fit at those different levels it's

44:06 ↗ is there significantly much more

44:08 ↗ opportunity if you have at the 60 or 80

44:11 ↗ or because it's it could be you know

44:15 ↗ we're picking numbers but if you don't

44:17 ↗ know how many people are in each group

44:19 ↗ it may have that's one question and then

44:21 ↗ the other question is from the

44:24 ↗ perspective of a developer how much

44:27 ↗ between option one or

44:29 ↗ two they make one way or the other

44:32 ↗ because that may drop because right now

44:34 ↗ nothing's so the whole goal of this is

44:37 ↗ how do you get two I think the major

44:40 ↗ thing is can you get two started and

44:42 ↗ maybe be softer on is at 600 units 500

44:44 ↗ whatever getting two things going

44:46 ↗ because once again success being success

44:48 ↗ as you mentioned um and is there any

44:51 ↗ input of if you look at from performer

44:53 ↗ from a developer standpoint of option

44:55 ↗ one or two

44:56 ↗ does one become much

44:58 ↗ more lucrative or the other because then

45:02 ↗ if that's the case then that would be a

45:03 ↗ good input of which one's better okay so

45:07 ↗ to answer your first question and this

45:08 ↗ is not exactly that answer but what we

45:10 ↗ uh the the chart that's on on the screen

45:12 ↗ now um again looks at um and and what

45:16 ↗ did you

45:17 ↗ say Stephen is the um is the not need

45:24 ↗ but Target is that the word like as far

45:27 ↗ as this the the supply

45:29 ↗ versus yes Target okay so again doesn't

45:33 ↗ look at need 100% but targeted what we

45:36 ↗ in in isal we looking at the creating

45:38 ↗ housing across the Spectrum um it shows

45:41 ↗ a little bit more need in the 50 to 80%

45:46 ↗ Ami both the same

45:54 ↗ but

45:56 ↗ so and the person who just created it

45:58 ↗ walked in this chart so is is there a

46:02 ↗ higher need uh for 60% uh housing Ami

46:06 ↗ housing versus 80% CL yes okay so can is

46:11 ↗ is it possible to get a version of this

46:13 ↗ chart where instead of dividing it at 30

46:15 ↗ to 50 and then 50 to 80 we did a

46:18 ↗ division to see what is 60 and below and

46:21 ↗ then what is the distinction between 60

46:23 ↗ and 80 that's the number that we're

46:24 ↗ truly trying to identified to choose

46:27 ↗ between the two

46:29 ↗ options um I can try and do that this

46:31 ↗ came from the county and I need to see

46:33 ↗ how they divided it up so I I'll try

46:36 ↗ yeah so so a lot of the information in

46:38 ↗ terms of like what we need in terms of

46:40 ↗ growth allocation for our targets is

46:42 ↗ divided up by the county so we're using

46:44 ↗ kind of their numbers on how to divide

46:45 ↗ this up but we can try to put it

46:48 ↗ together to help I understand what

46:50 ↗ you're saying but when we think about is

46:52 ↗ like we are focusing on this city and

46:55 ↗ not the as a whole though we are

46:56 ↗ impacted by it what I would also like to

46:59 ↗ know specifically for our city is two

47:02 ↗ things right what is the population

47:04 ↗ currently within isaka that is across

47:07 ↗ these Ami bands in two ways right first

47:10 ↗ is the individuals who are individuals

47:12 ↗ or families residing in its a so to give

47:16 ↗ us a sense of who we have been able to

47:18 ↗ attract versus not right secondly of we

47:22 ↗ have discussed this in the past as the

47:24 ↗ EVC at that what our small business

47:27 ↗ owners typically have a lot of

47:28 ↗ challenges in

47:30 ↗ attracting Workforce because housing

47:33 ↗ costs are really high right so if we

47:36 ↗ look at the people who are employed

47:38 ↗ within Thea who ideally want to live

47:40 ↗ here like what do those bands look like

47:43 ↗ because that is ideally from the EC's

47:46 ↗ perspective the audience or the target

47:48 ↗ population that we want to bring in so

47:51 ↗ that they are staying here working here

47:53 ↗ driving business here yeah so I know we

47:55 ↗ do have had that first pocket of data

47:57 ↗ I'm not sure about the second one with

47:59 ↗ uh the bands of our employees so I think

48:02 ↗ but I think you hit the nail on the on

48:05 ↗ on the head yeah that um if we look at

48:08 ↗ who lives here you're probably not going

48:09 ↗ to see a lot of the 20 30 40% Ami

48:12 ↗ because the housing doesn't exist for

48:14 ↗ that right so um but we didn't we know

48:18 ↗ as EVC especially and I think probably

48:20 ↗ everybody who's gone Jo store where it

48:21 ↗ says please be patient because we don't

48:23 ↗ have enough workers is that again for

48:25 ↗ that the folks that are working in our

48:26 ↗ service industry that's you know your

48:28 ↗ 60-ish percent um there's not people are

48:32 ↗ are driving taking the bus from far away

48:34 ↗ places so I don't know that we can we

48:37 ↗ can I don't and I'm looking at our our

48:40 ↗ person data person not data person but

48:41 ↗ who has access to lots of data if if we

48:43 ↗ have data of employees at Ami

48:48 ↗ level in isqua esqua

48:53 ↗ yeah the thing is like when it comes to

48:56 ↗ things like Ami we go into like hairy

48:59 ↗ territory very quickly right it comes

49:02 ↗ down to like these levels that are there

49:05 ↗ let's assume there is a teacher who is

49:07 ↗ making say $50,000 a year right now is

49:11 ↗ that teacher single versus living with

49:13 ↗ roommates versus having a family where

49:15 ↗ her income is substantiated by a

49:18 ↗ spouse's income or something else right

49:20 ↗ parents and like we get into all these

49:22 ↗ specific conditions so we cannot make

49:25 ↗ generalization saying oh our teachers

49:28 ↗ are mostly under 60% that is probably

49:30 ↗ not true um but but actually you can

49:33 ↗ look at starting pay and it's above

49:36 ↗ 60% may not be a single person even

49:43 ↗ AG by themselves all these perations and

49:47 ↗ combinations that can be exactly exactly

49:49 ↗ but I do know that starting salary for

49:52 ↗ teachers is above $50,000 you know 60% I

49:55 ↗ was just so but but but if they had

49:58 ↗ seven kids then that then that you know

50:00 ↗ changes things I think that's a really

50:02 ↗ important piece right but devoid of that

50:04 ↗ data which we don't have right now it'

50:06 ↗ be great if we could find that and

50:08 ↗ that's part of our action plan

50:09 ↗ discussion right of what is that data

50:11 ↗ right but you know if we look at the two

50:13 ↗ options on on the table and talking

50:16 ↗ about inputs you have you know this the

50:19 ↗ things that we can really try to

50:21 ↗ understand is you know there are fewer

50:23 ↗ affordable units if at 60% or more units

50:29 ↗ uh at 80% right so it's about number of

50:32 ↗ total affordable units right that's

50:34 ↗ something that we can toggle the other

50:36 ↗ thing is if we go with option one as

50:40 ↗ opposed to option two who are we leaving

50:43 ↗ out between that 60 and 80% Ami right so

50:46 ↗ that person that's 61 to 80% of Ami that

50:49 ↗ otherwise could have qualified for

50:51 ↗ affordable housing I don't think it

50:53 ↗ works that way it does like if someone

50:57 ↗ is within the under 60% they

50:59 ↗ automatically should qualify for under

51:00 ↗ 80% as well right by definition they are

51:04 ↗ under

51:05 ↗ 80% uh so you're basically increasing

51:08 ↗ your pool of people by increasing the

51:11 ↗ Ami level not

51:12 ↗ reducing

51:14 ↗ correct so so then it comes down to

51:18 ↗ quantity so I guess we were in the

51:21 ↗ question stage so but but and we're

51:22 ↗ getting into the debating stage which is

51:24 ↗ good good so so to answer your last half

51:27 ↗ your your second question about what are

51:28 ↗ developers I think you heard me these

51:30 ↗ related so both of these are feasible

51:33 ↗ right um is what we understood and we I

51:35 ↗ think you heard from feedback and that

51:37 ↗ it's harder for developers to build at

51:39 ↗ 60% than at

51:41 ↗ 80% um but again we worked uh with we

51:45 ↗ got feedback from developers and Arch

51:48 ↗ Mike uh he's still here um did the

51:52 ↗ analysis to make sure that you know

51:53 ↗ makes sense in their model as well so

51:55 ↗ these are both

51:56 ↗ feasible um and so it's just a matter of

52:01 ↗ um which which one makes more sense for

52:03 ↗ us as thinking about balancing our needs

52:06 ↗ in our community and our our longer term

52:09 ↗ goals

52:10 ↗ yeah so putting my banker hat on as I

52:14 ↗ jump from the financial industry and

52:15 ↗ looking at the affordability options

52:18 ↗ when I look at what I how I read it is

52:23 ↗ option one we're we're we're we're

52:26 ↗ attracting

52:27 ↗ rental and and not so much ownership so

52:31 ↗ I really think the Pioneer project

52:33 ↗ really needs to look at are we wanting

52:35 ↗ them to own the units or we wanting them

52:36 ↗ to rent the units because the option two

52:39 ↗ is more attractive to own the unit at

52:42 ↗ 70%

52:43 ↗ Ami so at that point it's more I see it

52:46 ↗ as a banker more longevity when you talk

52:48 ↗ about funding and loads and everything

52:50 ↗ else yes if so I I'll I'll I'll push

52:53 ↗ back a little bit on that if that's the

52:55 ↗ choice of the Builder and Builders are

52:58 ↗ not building um condos right

53:01 ↗ now what's what kind of units are we

53:04 ↗ looking at to own because when I look at

53:05 ↗ affordable you know ownership level

53:08 ↗ affordable income for ownership are we

53:10 ↗ looking for them are we looking for more

53:12 ↗ rental than we need to be focusing on

53:14 ↗ the 60 80 50 you know the current I

53:16 ↗ thought this is about R that's

53:18 ↗ confused it was both because that was we

53:20 ↗ talked everything about the 60 and 80

53:22 ↗ which is all about rental units and

53:24 ↗ right right right

53:26 ↗ a new thing this the ownership is always

53:28 ↗ has been an option in our current code

53:30 ↗ um to again provide at a higher level um

53:34 ↗ to encourage the home ownership but

53:36 ↗ again the the market because and this is

53:39 ↗ not just in isqua the condil condo

53:42 ↗ liability uh

53:44 ↗ concerns Statewide Statewide um have not

53:48 ↗ not allowed has not uh resulted in

53:51 ↗ condos being

53:53 ↗ built very and far between

53:57 ↗ just

53:59 ↗ only yeah yeah I mean the the developer

54:03 ↗ is going to choose that um if if a

54:05 ↗ developer came and had some you know

54:08 ↗ desire to do home ownership I think that

54:09 ↗ would be a positive right so I don't

54:11 ↗ know that um that's true affordable

54:13 ↗ housing right there yeah I mean if you

54:15 ↗ look at 7 Ami but I would I would I

54:18 ↗ would assume it's G to be rental right

54:21 ↗ yeah sorry I was just going to clarify

54:24 ↗ an earlier

54:26 ↗ so the with option one it's 60% of Ami

54:30 ↗ you have to be below 60% of Ami in order

54:33 ↗ to qualify the point I was trying to

54:36 ↗ make is with that

54:38 ↗ option the folks that are making between

54:40 ↗ 60 on an 80% Ami would no longer be able

54:44 ↗ to qualify in option in option yeah

54:47 ↗ there's less there's less potential

54:48 ↗ people to be a I just wanted to I think

54:50 ↗ we're all the same page yeah but then a

54:52 ↗ question that comes to my mind is that

54:55 ↗ ban of is when we talk about these

54:58 ↗ affordability right the rent that is

55:01 ↗ going to be charged for these units will

55:04 ↗ also be adjusted adjusted accordingly

55:08 ↗ right so by just the she power of

55:11 ↗ economics and

55:12 ↗ finances does that mean and this is a

55:14 ↗ genuine question does that mean that if

55:16 ↗ we say 80% Ami even though everybody

55:19 ↗ else is included by definition can they

55:21 ↗ truly afford that

55:23 ↗ house she she

55:27 ↗ so that then that becomes exclusionary

55:32 ↗ right you've been trying to jump in for

55:34 ↗ a while um no I just had a question you

55:36 ↗ mentioned that there were two this would

55:39 ↗ be a pilot of two uh that's one of our

55:42 ↗ so yeah we get to the conversation that

55:44 ↗ was our first conversation but we can

55:45 ↗ dive into this next one is um what makes

55:47 ↗ sense yeah so okay and then my SEC so

55:49 ↗ thank you for that then my second

55:50 ↗ question is if these are successful is

55:53 ↗ there a further discussion about mm

55:55 ↗ going be on wow you

55:58 ↗ just okay thank you no no no no so um

56:02 ↗ and actually this group here uh will be

56:04 ↗ working on that in 24 mid 24 to 25

56:08 ↗ looking at not only mfte but some other

56:11 ↗ development uh regulations of making

56:14 ↗ sure that they are calibrated correctly

56:16 ↗ so so this is kind of a pilot to see if

56:19 ↗ there's some interest now again you know

56:21 ↗ we don't we're not going to pass this

56:23 ↗ and then the next day something's going

56:24 ↗ to happen but it will see if we get some

56:26 ↗ more interest in the in Redevelopment

56:29 ↗ and kind of hear from you know

56:30 ↗ developers Beyond who we've heard from

56:32 ↗ so um yeah so do we wna continue uh

56:37 ↗ discussion on the levels or you want to

56:39 ↗ go to and fine with me the program

56:41 ↗ limits

56:42 ↗ limits are we still talking about uh as

56:46 ↗ far as the template what we want to do

56:48 ↗ with options one or two so so the um so

56:51 ↗ we're doing questions and then we have

56:54 ↗ doen into our discussion which is great

56:56 ↗ fine so um so again we can we can we're

57:01 ↗ looking for input we're not and again we

57:03 ↗ we don't have to decide today so the

57:05 ↗ input I hear is that we need some more

57:07 ↗ data and so bring some more data that we

57:08 ↗ can we may not be able to get all the

57:10 ↗ data you want but we will try to bring

57:11 ↗ that um but what are what other feedback

57:16 ↗ comments questions do you have regarding

57:18 ↗ these options well I guess for me I'll

57:21 ↗ start is the primary goal is to sperm

57:24 ↗ development it's really not about

57:26 ↗ affordability program that is a

57:27 ↗ secondary it's a wonderful thing but

57:29 ↗ that's not what this program is about um

57:32 ↗ after the P Pioneer program sunsets it

57:35 ↗ all reverts back to our current

57:36 ↗ inclusionary zoning and everything like

57:38 ↗ that so again this is an idea only to

57:40 ↗ learn develop so for me after listening

57:44 ↗ to Jen who mentioned that it's more

57:46 ↗ difficult for a builder or developer to

57:47 ↗ build at 60% I would go with option two

57:51 ↗ because again we're not trying to figure

57:53 ↗ out a Panacea right now for entire

57:55 ↗ affordability that's secondary the only

57:58 ↗ thing I would say that's I about the

57:59 ↗ performer from the developers

58:00 ↗ perspective that they made less money an

58:02 ↗ option to they probably wouldn't even do

58:04 ↗ that and then you're back to building

58:06 ↗ nothing right but I guess I guess I

58:08 ↗ think it probably pencil better also

58:09 ↗ right but the point is is again it's a

58:11 ↗ pilot program it's going to Sunset so

58:14 ↗ again we can sit here and nitpick these

58:15 ↗ guys for another four years about it I

58:17 ↗ think what they're just looking for is a

58:19 ↗ template to move forward and for me it'd

58:21 ↗ be option two because it that sounds

58:22 ↗ like it's got a better chance of

58:23 ↗ spurting the devel

58:26 ↗ so my feedback and and with that we get

58:30 ↗ more data points right so that can

58:32 ↗ inform any future regulatory changes if

58:35 ↗ any when it comes to the mft program

58:37 ↗ right because then we can understand

58:39 ↗ what's working what's not how is the

58:41 ↗ need adjusted was that a deeper enough

58:43 ↗ affordability right and based on actual

58:46 ↗ data buil unit is there is a hypothesis

58:49 ↗ is if you do nothing then nothing will

58:52 ↗ be built so that's not a hypothesis

58:54 ↗ that's say a continued hypothesis it's

58:56 ↗ already been proven so far right and now

58:59 ↗ with higher interest R in construction I

59:00 ↗ would I would I don't know a lot about

59:03 ↗ this but I would say you will still have

59:04 ↗ no development so then you have to do

59:06 ↗ something and the goal is to have

59:08 ↗ something done so then what's the most

59:10 ↗ Advantage so you're asking the priority

59:12 ↗ of the goals and I agree with you Jason

59:14 ↗ that if you have to you can have a great

59:17 ↗ plan but if it doesn't get implemented

59:18 ↗ doesn't matter right

59:23 ↗ exactly

59:25 ↗ so I'm for number two I have two

59:30 ↗ questions so first of all um how is the

59:35 ↗ city planning to accommodate from an

59:39 ↗ infrastructure standpoint the additional

59:41 ↗ people that are going to come to the

59:43 ↗ city second is how is the city planning

59:45 ↗ to fund all of this like where is the

59:47 ↗ funding coming because that takes away

59:51 ↗ from investment that we can make within

59:53 ↗ other parts of our community same

59:56 ↗ business um and providing them the

59:58 ↗ infrastructure that they have asked

1:00:00 ↗ for so the central actually I'm gonna

1:00:04 ↗ have her I was G let Stephen do

1:00:06 ↗ it so the central Isa plan that was

1:00:09 ↗ created 12 years ago thought about this

1:00:11 ↗ area as a whole and how do how do we how

1:00:15 ↗ do we deal with infrastructure

1:00:17 ↗ investment regarding the area as a whole

1:00:20 ↗ that's why we going to Stephen

1:00:22 ↗ Buton you want me yeah so with the

1:00:25 ↗ development of the central Planet

1:00:26 ↗ actually took into account extra

1:00:28 ↗ development based on the zoning so

1:00:30 ↗ that's how we help determine the Zoning

1:00:32 ↗ for the area so um the expectation is

1:00:35 ↗ that we're getting a lot more

1:00:37 ↗ development in this area which is going

1:00:39 ↗ to create more Capital need and so

1:00:42 ↗ that'll be determined through our CIP

1:00:44 ↗ process or the capital Improvement uh

1:00:47 ↗ plan program plan plan uh to figure out

1:00:52 ↗ what kind of projects we need to put in

1:00:53 ↗ place to support for any infrastructure

1:00:55 ↗ needs and then so our utility Engineers

1:00:57 ↗ will figure out okay with this

1:00:59 ↗ development does it

1:01:00 ↗ spur improvements that need to get

1:01:03 ↗ prioritized sooner than later and then

1:01:05 ↗ there's also impact fees that come out

1:01:07 ↗ of the in development that'll the

1:01:09 ↗ developer will pay into to help with

1:01:11 ↗ some of those infrastructure

1:01:11 ↗ improvements as well we have two other

1:01:14 ↗ things one is that we've been we have

1:01:16 ↗ just updated our water and storm water

1:01:19 ↗ plans we updated um something else a few

1:01:21 ↗ years ago but all of those plans that

1:01:23 ↗ are being updated right now for

1:01:24 ↗ infrastructure have taken into account

1:01:26 ↗ the capacity for growth in that area

1:01:29 ↗ both residential and Commercial so

1:01:32 ↗ they're planning on it already that they

1:01:33 ↗ know it's going to have to go in there

1:01:35 ↗ and then the impact fees and then in

1:01:37 ↗ theory too we the central part of this

1:01:40 ↗ area Jen already probably mentioned is a

1:01:42 ↗ regional growth Center and being a

1:01:43 ↗ regional growth Center therefore

1:01:44 ↗ qualifies you to get more infrastructure

1:01:46 ↗ funding for that area so when you apply

1:01:48 ↗ for Grants and you can put that on there

1:01:50 ↗ that helps to get

1:01:53 ↗ answerer more more development will

1:01:56 ↗ allow us to get more grants okay and the

1:01:59 ↗ developers pay also the fees impact fees

1:02:01 ↗ to help invest in that as well

1:02:06 ↗ so Pig you back on your question so um

1:02:09 ↗ are you saying that impact fees are off

1:02:11 ↗ the table because there have been people

1:02:12 ↗ suggesting that we reduce or eliminate

1:02:15 ↗ impact fees in this program no no impact

1:02:17 ↗ fees are all for the city we have waved

1:02:20 ↗ them for all affordable units but only

1:02:22 ↗ the affordable units so for 8% or 10%

1:02:26 ↗ the remainder of units are going to be

1:02:29 ↗ in that's question and then the other is

1:02:31 ↗ generally you said um that there's no

1:02:34 ↗ extra income for the mfte years um but

1:02:37 ↗ how do how do we um how do we uh

1:02:41 ↗ calculate that with the extra costs

1:02:43 ↗ because U certainly additional

1:02:46 ↗ residential units additional residents

1:02:49 ↗ will have an increased cost to the city

1:02:52 ↗ um children schools so yeah so we

1:02:56 ↗ right so U we haven't done a full

1:02:58 ↗ analysis we've done an analysis of what

1:03:00 ↗ that would mean as far as the foregone

1:03:01 ↗ Revenue but um and other cities have

1:03:04 ↗ done a full analysis of the revenue you

1:03:06 ↗ do obtain so again you get you get uh

1:03:09 ↗ land uh property tax on land which

1:03:11 ↗ typically increases as you develop in an

1:03:13 ↗ area and then commercial you also get

1:03:16 ↗ construction permit

1:03:18 ↗ fees construction sales tax which is

1:03:21 ↗ significant the impact fees and then

1:03:23 ↗ during that eight years um the people

1:03:26 ↗ are buying things from many stores

1:03:29 ↗ online and we get that sales tax and I

1:03:31 ↗ think I've said it before here in the

1:03:32 ↗ EVC is there's a a store that's not

1:03:36 ↗ located in this in this city but we

1:03:38 ↗ actually get more this is an Amazon we

1:03:40 ↗ get more sales tax from that store being

1:03:44 ↗ delivering things to our city than some

1:03:46 ↗ of our big box businesses so that's not

1:03:50 ↗ an insignificant amount of money right

1:03:51 ↗ it's not you know may not cover all of

1:03:53 ↗ the costs for for um for everything

1:03:56 ↗ that's needed um but again I think

1:03:58 ↗ there's we're talking about overtime so

1:04:00 ↗ you're not going to be adding 5,000 new

1:04:03 ↗ people right during this time so um and

1:04:06 ↗ then it is a very complicated way that

1:04:09 ↗ the the property tax is kind of is kind

1:04:12 ↗ of figured out and so it it um it may

1:04:16 ↗ not be at a a large or a small it may be

1:04:20 ↗ a small bump for people across the

1:04:22 ↗ Spectrum versus um so there so I the the

1:04:27 ↗ the the shift of where taxes are

1:04:29 ↗ actually collected from is pretty minor

1:04:32 ↗ so then we we only get a small sub yeah

1:04:36 ↗ yeah someone else takes bigger risk on

1:04:38 ↗ this school school state school state

1:04:41 ↗ school fund and the schools are a

1:04:43 ↗ percentage of that and we have a a

1:04:46 ↗ recent

1:04:49 ↗ yeah uh as far as like the schools

1:04:51 ↗ because I think people's biggest concern

1:04:54 ↗ emergency services and education right

1:04:57 ↗ so again those ones aren't as impacted

1:04:59 ↗ because they do a head count for all

1:05:01 ↗ children right you still get a

1:05:02 ↗ percentage like if you have a kid in the

1:05:04 ↗ class you get X number dollars for it

1:05:06 ↗ it's more about the capital right then

1:05:08 ↗ you have fire and police I think the

1:05:10 ↗ other big concern but again you're

1:05:11 ↗ talking about a very limited amount of

1:05:13 ↗ units we're not talking about right you

1:05:15 ↗ know the 3,400 that were added over yeah

1:05:18 ↗ 10 years you're talking about Pioneer

1:05:19 ↗ program which could be depending on

1:05:23 ↗ whether it's units or child

1:05:24 ↗ you're talking about a very limited

1:05:26 ↗ period of time again to get people to

1:05:28 ↗ come in to be the number one not the

1:05:30 ↗ number seven eight n 10 right right and

1:05:32 ↗ we're not going from a rural to like

1:05:34 ↗ high scra skyscrapers if they buy a

1:05:36 ↗ ladder truck and all those other things

1:05:38 ↗ again Capital Investments that would

1:05:39 ↗ come from from the property tax stuff so

1:05:43 ↗ are there any other comments because I I

1:05:45 ↗ do want to be cognitive of time so we

1:05:47 ↗ can go also talk about the um the option

1:05:50 ↗ of how many and and the limits is there

1:05:52 ↗ any other comments data requests we may

1:05:55 ↗ not be able to get them all but um

1:05:57 ↗ things that help you in the next meeting

1:05:59 ↗ be able to make a recommendation um to

1:06:01 ↗ provide to council and or you want to

1:06:04 ↗ you know say to council like hey you

1:06:06 ↗ know consider this or what do you you

1:06:08 ↗ know what do you think about that

1:06:10 ↗ question the summary of our questions is

1:06:13 ↗ like we're looking for the business case

1:06:14 ↗ behind it right the city is trying to

1:06:17 ↗ invest all this money and promoting

1:06:20 ↗ housing and affordable housing what's

1:06:23 ↗ the business for the city in the long

1:06:25 ↗ run yes it has a Time Horizon associated

1:06:28 ↗ with it but we just heard during public

1:06:30 ↗ comment that Builders are looking to

1:06:31 ↗ make 6.25% yield on that what time

1:06:34 ↗ window does that come over right like

1:06:36 ↗ I'm curious what their yield to on it

1:06:38 ↗ that's it's their perspective one and

1:06:40 ↗ two right and if it's a negligible

1:06:42 ↗ difference then that's a input that's

1:06:44 ↗ not as important it's a it's a bigger

1:06:46 ↗ difference that it would

1:06:49 ↗ be okay so um so when you take the City

1:06:54 ↗ invest money we not investing any money

1:06:56 ↗ I mean the revenue is an investment okay

1:06:59 ↗ okay okay I wasn't sure you were saying

1:07:01 ↗ thinking we were investing other ways

1:07:02 ↗ okay it's a a

1:07:05 ↗ loss yes it's a sub yes yeah yes okay

1:07:10 ↗ you get more off we should I know I

1:07:13 ↗ think I think so yeah every other yeah

1:07:16 ↗ um okay again and this is not the last

1:07:19 ↗ time you're going to talk about this so

1:07:20 ↗ if you guys afterwards have thoughts

1:07:22 ↗ questions you know like

1:07:24 ↗ you have a conversation with somebody

1:07:25 ↗ after during the break and you want to

1:07:27 ↗ provide more input you send it to

1:07:29 ↗ Stephen or myself um so again it's

1:07:33 ↗ limited um so there's multiples ways you

1:07:35 ↗ can limit it um you know by units by

1:07:38 ↗ projects um you know here I talk about

1:07:42 ↗ um that's 522 Acres that we're looking

1:07:44 ↗ at so again a pretty large area so um I

1:07:47 ↗ one of the C City Council Members you

1:07:49 ↗ know we originally had 200 units and

1:07:52 ↗ they're like well that's not even one

1:07:53 ↗ project um and you know I'm curious to

1:07:56 ↗ see to like think about more than one

1:07:59 ↗ again we're not looking to have 10 um

1:08:02 ↗ but does it make sense to kind of again

1:08:04 ↗ if you're going to do a pilot and it's

1:08:06 ↗ such a large area does it make sense to

1:08:09 ↗ um look at more than one um you uh

1:08:13 ↗ within this you could say it could be

1:08:15 ↗ one in each Zone you could be one on you

1:08:17 ↗ know north of I90 one in south of I90

1:08:20 ↗ and those are kind of nuances that you

1:08:21 ↗ can consider um you could also do it by

1:08:24 ↗ time so you can say an application a

1:08:26 ↗ certain application has to begin by a

1:08:27 ↗ certain time um you know we don't know

1:08:30 ↗ when the stabilization of is rates are

1:08:32 ↗ going to be so um we can take our

1:08:34 ↗ crystal ball out if that's something

1:08:36 ↗ strongly you feel strong about that uh

1:08:38 ↗ time wise but those are the things to

1:08:40 ↗ consider and ask questions and provide

1:08:41 ↗ input what are your initial thoughts can

1:08:44 ↗ we do a combination of those like how

1:08:47 ↗ would that be so X number of units

1:08:50 ↗ within a two or three year time but go

1:08:53 ↗ sure so you could the one caveat with

1:08:57 ↗ time is that even if this program were

1:09:01 ↗ rolled out today no project would come

1:09:04 ↗ to market for at least 24 months so

1:09:07 ↗ making sure whatever if there is

1:09:09 ↗ AA one um making sure we take that into

1:09:13 ↗ account so that folks AR finding on that

1:09:15 ↗ I would my point is go big right like

1:09:19 ↗ the more units we can get the more data

1:09:22 ↗ points we can get the more momentum we

1:09:24 ↗ can get so you know I'm curious why we'

1:09:27 ↗ limit ourselves to 600 like what's the

1:09:29 ↗ Magic in that number or is there um or

1:09:32 ↗ why wouldn't that be 800 900 so quick

1:09:35 ↗ question so going back to your point

1:09:37 ↗ you're trying to

1:09:39 ↗ Spur and just start something so that

1:09:42 ↗ you go what's going to start is the

1:09:44 ↗ number of units or the number of

1:09:46 ↗ entities that are started so um and my

1:09:50 ↗ hyp my view would be probably number of

1:09:52 ↗ entities and maybe have M

1:09:54 ↗ Max so having just one done probably

1:09:57 ↗ doesn't do it probably having two or

1:10:00 ↗ more all of a sudden says this a viable

1:10:02 ↗ thing because I'm not alone or I'm not

1:10:04 ↗ just following some other one other

1:10:06 ↗ crazy person I think maybe having the

1:10:08 ↗ number of projects maybe the primary

1:10:10 ↗ thing and maybe having a min max meaning

1:10:14 ↗ men like don't waste our time if you

1:10:15 ↗ want to be part of this project and bu

1:10:17 ↗ 12 units but there's a mint and then Max

1:10:19 ↗ so it becomes something that becomes you

1:10:22 ↗ know manageable meets some of the other

1:10:25 ↗ concerns you may

1:10:27 ↗ have I actually agree with the number of

1:10:30 ↗ projects concept because in an Ideal

1:10:34 ↗ World you'd have more than one developer

1:10:37 ↗ wne to get those projects and the more

1:10:40 ↗ we can distribute it the better it will

1:10:42 ↗ be because that will also support more

1:10:44 ↗ competition in the housing and rental

1:10:46 ↗ market which is better for our end

1:10:49 ↗ consumers I would agree I think that uh

1:10:52 ↗ particularly if MS FTE is going to be on

1:10:54 ↗ the table later for additional projects

1:10:57 ↗ that seems to be the Game Changer in

1:10:58 ↗ these Pilots so why not add a few more

1:11:01 ↗ in the potential for that so you know

1:11:03 ↗ instead of two if we were to say four to

1:11:04 ↗ six or something like that to be able to

1:11:06 ↗ to Really spur that development um and

1:11:09 ↗ then you know as as Jason said the

1:11:11 ↗ affordability isn't the um isn't the

1:11:14 ↗ main goal but that's the other piece is

1:11:17 ↗ the reduction of affordability and so

1:11:18 ↗ getting those projects going helps the

1:11:21 ↗ economy

1:11:22 ↗ regardless I should be clear we don't

1:11:24 ↗ know 100% that the mft will be happening

1:11:27 ↗ in future but we'll be looking at it

1:11:29 ↗ yes yes yes yes I'll just say I pretty

1:11:33 ↗ much agree with what what our

1:11:34 ↗ commissioner just said I think Cam and

1:11:36 ↗ John kind of mentioned the same thing I

1:11:38 ↗ like the idea of projects versus numbers

1:11:40 ↗ um I think you could again I'm just this

1:11:43 ↗ is whiteboard right talking whiteboard a

1:11:45 ↗ long

1:11:46 ↗ time what if it was like two in the

1:11:48 ↗ urban core two in central I mean I don't

1:11:50 ↗ know how you would do it but again

1:11:52 ↗ you're going to have people buying so

1:11:53 ↗ again I don't know if two is the right

1:11:54 ↗ number but I do like the idea of

1:11:56 ↗ projects versus units because some units

1:11:58 ↗ are going to be some projects are going

1:12:00 ↗ to have a different viability as far as

1:12:01 ↗ how many units they want um I agreed I

1:12:04 ↗ don't like timelines because again to

1:12:06 ↗ your point I mean you're G to have the

1:12:08 ↗ permit process you're gonna have all SCH

1:12:09 ↗ do you say five years I mean who knows

1:12:11 ↗ again the idea is to Spur the

1:12:12 ↗ development to John's Point some crazy

1:12:15 ↗ person's going to follow number one you

1:12:17 ↗ number

1:12:19 ↗ two because you don't want to have us be

1:12:21 ↗ like a little tiny dinky thing you want

1:12:23 ↗ to make right and that's the idea right

1:12:25 ↗ is to start these hubs so again it's

1:12:27 ↗ number two is almost as important as

1:12:29 ↗ number one and then like I said number

1:12:31 ↗ three important will hopefully follow so

1:12:33 ↗ again I don't really care for the

1:12:34 ↗ timelines myself I don't know what that

1:12:36 ↗ number is but I think the number of

1:12:38 ↗ projects is more important more critical

1:12:40 ↗ than the number of unit so if if

1:12:43 ↗ that's if that's how we want to go I

1:12:46 ↗ also want to consider another aspect is

1:12:48 ↗ if we're going by number of projects and

1:12:50 ↗ I really like his idea of having some

1:12:52 ↗ Min number of units but also having a

1:12:54 ↗ max number of units per project because

1:12:57 ↗ we have to cap the city's risk it cannot

1:12:59 ↗ be open-ended we cannot if we say let's

1:13:02 ↗ build six projects assuming each one of

1:13:04 ↗ them is 300 but some developer says let

1:13:07 ↗ me build a th in each one of them that

1:13:10 ↗ puts the city at thisis so we have to

1:13:12 ↗ have an upper cap somehow either with

1:13:14 ↗ time or with number of projects or sry

1:13:16 ↗ or number of units for project if you're

1:13:18 ↗ if you're choosing to go with projects

1:13:21 ↗ as the limiting factor and I think I

1:13:23 ↗ think Fair

1:13:24 ↗ compliment size of

1:13:26 ↗ the tell right there the size of it not

1:13:30 ↗ so much time of it but the size I I I

1:13:33 ↗ hear the thinking but what what would

1:13:35 ↗ the risk to the city be if all of a

1:13:37 ↗ sudden a developer came in and provided

1:13:40 ↗ it will alter the business case that

1:13:41 ↗ we're trying to discuss right like how

1:13:43 ↗ much investment are we making how much

1:13:44 ↗ money are we foregoing what are we

1:13:46 ↗ getting in return like that has to be

1:13:48 ↗ balanced

1:13:52 ↗ okay

1:13:54 ↗ yeah we're really talking about 8 to

1:13:57 ↗ 10% hear no no the MF loss is for all

1:14:01 ↗ the units it's not for just the

1:14:05 ↗ according again this is this is mostly

1:14:07 ↗ temp I mean again the the Wizards over

1:14:10 ↗ here are gonna change oh

1:14:12 ↗ go it all the crystal ball I think you

1:14:16 ↗ took our two Commissioners over there's

1:14:17 ↗ Point again base in a a Max as far as

1:14:20 ↗ the units but again I think projects are

1:14:22 ↗ probably more

1:14:24 ↗ uh to Kin point you can have more data

1:14:25 ↗ points so again unit number seems

1:14:28 ↗ arbitrary it's more about the prod as

1:14:30 ↗ far as getting people excited can I add

1:14:33 ↗ um I want to support the number of

1:14:36 ↗ projects and put a cap on it or and I

1:14:40 ↗ love your idea J of having so many in

1:14:42 ↗ this region or area and so many in that

1:14:45 ↗ and and if you have that then you don't

1:14:47 ↗ have the time because first come this is

1:14:49 ↗ the time if you're not the second person

1:14:51 ↗ you don't get to do it or second project

1:14:53 ↗ you just don't get to do it so doesn't

1:14:54 ↗ care and because we're in AAL Market

1:14:57 ↗ with um interest rates and other things

1:14:59 ↗ that are hindering development um it

1:15:01 ↗ might be a while yeah yeah and then but

1:15:03 ↗ then I I really love the um idea of

1:15:07 ↗ capping the number of units I was a

1:15:09 ↗ little shocked at thinking that the

1:15:10 ↗ projects would be 300 units or more I

1:15:12 ↗ live in Starpoint that's two large

1:15:13 ↗ buildings in Isa Highlands each of them

1:15:15 ↗ only 50 I mean that's 100 units that's a

1:15:18 ↗ lot of housing it's a significant

1:15:21 ↗ development it's beautiful an excuse

1:15:22 ↗ model for what we want down in yeah um

1:15:25 ↗ Central is AA and that that's 100 units

1:15:27 ↗ so I don't see that we need that many

1:15:30 ↗ units we need the number of projects to

1:15:33 ↗ should prove viability and account so

1:15:36 ↗ that we're proving it with mitigated

1:15:39 ↗ risk that's what I love the combination

1:15:42 ↗ and just yeah so for like the to project

1:15:44 ↗ which N I know you were involved in when

1:15:47 ↗ we had conversations I know but that's

1:15:50 ↗ close no how many units no that's close

1:15:52 ↗ to 300 so yeah it seems like a lot but

1:15:55 ↗ again that's what will happen in in in

1:15:57 ↗ this part of Central isqua so um but it

1:16:00 ↗ doesn't need to the the objective is to

1:16:05 ↗ Kickstart development to give an

1:16:08 ↗ incentive that is limited to those who

1:16:11 ↗ act soon yeah later and I think the

1:16:14 ↗ number of projects and a cap per project

1:16:18 ↗ would I'm not saying what the cap is I'm

1:16:20 ↗ just saying I also want I just one more

1:16:23 ↗ point to support the number of projects

1:16:25 ↗ idea is especially the way you mentioned

1:16:28 ↗ it is like some here some there having

1:16:31 ↗ it more distributed in Oldtown we

1:16:33 ↗ already have a congestion problem near

1:16:36 ↗ lak samamish we're going to run into

1:16:38 ↗ environmental impacts that these

1:16:39 ↗ buildings are going to have like if we

1:16:41 ↗ want to mitigate these risks we need to

1:16:43 ↗ distribute them and not keep them all

1:16:45 ↗ concentrated in one place so number of

1:16:47 ↗ projects kind of helps distribute and

1:16:49 ↗ mitigate the impact that they'll have on

1:16:51 ↗ their surroundings

1:16:53 ↗ ah had shaking anything

1:16:58 ↗ else show mind going back could we have

1:17:02 ↗ a little more discussion on the

1:17:03 ↗ geography parameters for the project do

1:17:06 ↗ we want more projects in the northern

1:17:09 ↗ side of I90 do we want more in the

1:17:11 ↗ southern side of I90 where our regional

1:17:13 ↗ centers are a little unique that it's

1:17:15 ↗ divided by Major interstate so that's

1:17:17 ↗ kind of a big discussion piece for how

1:17:19 ↗ to balance some of that development for

1:17:21 ↗ our regional growth Center so um I don't

1:17:24 ↗ think we know enough you probably to

1:17:26 ↗ have an opinion um you guys have a point

1:17:30 ↗ of view where you wanted to get growth

1:17:33 ↗ started

1:17:34 ↗ earlier what would be the idea yeah

1:17:37 ↗ that's that that was my thought process

1:17:39 ↗ what does the city think that's going to

1:17:41 ↗ be the biggest area of opportunity to

1:17:44 ↗ start the development project I mean I

1:17:47 ↗ would say I mean looking at this the map

1:17:49 ↗ if I was looking at the map right now I

1:17:50 ↗ would want to be around the water

1:17:52 ↗ because then what water impact P are

1:17:53 ↗ there right so I probably want to be in

1:17:55 ↗ the bottom half of the of the spectrum

1:17:57 ↗ where there's not a lot of water right

1:17:59 ↗ there but I have to physically see

1:18:00 ↗ what's out there developing where's

1:18:03 ↗ Costco headquarters you see that pond

1:18:07 ↗ that's there so Costco's there so it's

1:18:10 ↗ like people want to be around Costco or

1:18:11 ↗ they want to be on the opposite side of

1:18:12 ↗ Costco then you got to think in

1:18:14 ↗ consideration too with these projects in

1:18:16 ↗ the future projects that are coming up

1:18:17 ↗ with the trans center

1:18:19 ↗ yes but you're looking at you're looking

1:18:21 ↗ at with the light

1:18:23 ↗ I know it's how many years out Gillian

1:18:26 ↗ but at the same time done a survey we've

1:18:28 ↗ done a survey looking at where you know

1:18:31 ↗ what the impact is and getting the ducks

1:18:33 ↗ in a road to say hey is there a way as

1:18:35 ↗ qu can jump other cities to get the

1:18:38 ↗ light rail sooner than what they're

1:18:39 ↗ projecting in 20 45 or whatever was yes

1:18:43 ↗ we're trying so I mean we also got to

1:18:45 ↗ take in consideration where that's going

1:18:47 ↗ to go the transit center for that and

1:18:49 ↗ the stations for that because right now

1:18:51 ↗ it's projecting go right in the middle

1:18:53 ↗ by 90 does that make sense with the way

1:18:55 ↗ we got it so yeah it's probably yeah you

1:19:00 ↗ know I think Urban core area so that's

1:19:03 ↗ where yeah so

1:19:05 ↗ um you know the other part is we don't I

1:19:08 ↗ mean I think the part of the pilot is

1:19:10 ↗ and and to Nina's point is that we're

1:19:12 ↗ not g to pass this and then you know two

1:19:14 ↗ it's gonna take two years for them get

1:19:15 ↗ started but what will be interesting is

1:19:18 ↗ if people start coming and talking more

1:19:20 ↗ about oh I have a site over here I have

1:19:22 ↗ a site over over here and that part we

1:19:24 ↗ don't know we don't know who's been

1:19:25 ↗ sitting on their hands because um it

1:19:28 ↗ just doesn't make sense you know and so

1:19:31 ↗ again they're not gonna jump and do it

1:19:33 ↗ but they're gonna start talking about it

1:19:34 ↗ and thinking about it so Jen Jen oh

1:19:39 ↗ sorry go ahead yeah Jen so just curious

1:19:42 ↗ looking at the map uh if you look at it

1:19:45 ↗ uh major portion of the urban area or I

1:19:48 ↗ would say a major portion of it is owned

1:19:50 ↗ by rowy properties has

1:19:53 ↗ has your team taken effort to reach out

1:19:55 ↗ to them to seek their feedback this

1:19:58 ↗ doesn't cover them so it would only

1:20:00 ↗ cover the zones that are Urban core and

1:20:03 ↗ mixed use the the orange hatch this is

1:20:07 ↗ this is Raleigh properties the orange

1:20:10 ↗ part and they're under a development

1:20:11 ↗ agreement they have their own

1:20:13 ↗ requirements okay yeah so good thank you

1:20:16 ↗ for pointing that out though people may

1:20:17 ↗ not have realized that so that's why

1:20:18 ↗ they're a little different color I'll

1:20:20 ↗ just say real quickly uh to everybody's

1:20:23 ↗ point I I do agree I think GE

1:20:26 ↗ geographically it needs to be separated

1:20:28 ↗ what that looks like we'll leave it to

1:20:30 ↗ sta to figure out but the idea is again

1:20:33 ↗ you don't want so many regulations you

1:20:34 ↗ have to build here you have to build

1:20:36 ↗ here that nobody wants to build however

1:20:38 ↗ it is good to have different Geographic

1:20:40 ↗ locations because ideally what you want

1:20:42 ↗ is both those places to be small hubs

1:20:45 ↗ right so you want I90 number two to come

1:20:47 ↗ in right behind number one and same

1:20:48 ↗ thing below I9 so again it's good to

1:20:51 ↗ have our Pioneer program yeah which

1:20:53 ↗ which it is it's going to

1:20:55 ↗ Sunset but I would try and Li the amount

1:20:58 ↗ of regulations we put on these people

1:21:01 ↗ again the idea is to spurn the

1:21:02 ↗ development and the HS that the people

1:21:05 ↗ behind whether it's number three or four

1:21:07 ↗ in terms of the projects that they will

1:21:09 ↗ follow just because to the miners point

1:21:10 ↗ you see the liability they know they can

1:21:12 ↗ make money all of our old all of our

1:21:15 ↗ current code kicks in so I get the

1:21:17 ↗ geographic thing I think it's important

1:21:19 ↗ and I do because don't want it just to

1:21:21 ↗ be all clustered

1:21:23 ↗ but I think the less we can better one

1:21:28 ↗ sorry so rally excluded and in this area

1:21:31 ↗ of sing I mean those those that's all

1:21:34 ↗ develop most of it's all developed land

1:21:37 ↗ people own that property do you you

1:21:40 ↗ probably couldn't share but um do you

1:21:43 ↗ have an indication of those land owners

1:21:46 ↗ in the salmon area who would be the most

1:21:48 ↗ interested to to sell to a developer

1:21:52 ↗ like is that behind you not salel but um

1:21:57 ↗ you know I mean doesn't that play into

1:22:00 ↗ where you would say you want so there

1:22:03 ↗ have been several properties that have

1:22:05 ↗ recently been sold and I say recently

1:22:07 ↗ because like Co seems like yes you know

1:22:09 ↗ but like in the last three four years

1:22:11 ↗ there's been several properties I'm

1:22:13 ↗ gonna move my mouth so this is Hobby

1:22:15 ↗ Lobby is that that that's been sold yeah

1:22:17 ↗ so to is where I'm pointing here so we

1:22:19 ↗ know that's going to be coming this is

1:22:21 ↗ was sold Cascade business Park more

1:22:23 ↗ recently The Hobby Lobby Shopping

1:22:25 ↗ Center's been sold

1:22:27 ↗ um the Red Robin site is over here um

1:22:33 ↗ trying to think what else can you can

1:22:34 ↗ you tell us what is dy oh sorry Transit

1:22:38 ↗ Orient development project and that's a

1:22:40 ↗ city facilitated but King County Housing

1:22:42 ↗ Authority will um do it and I there on

1:22:45 ↗ our re on our um reference list is a

1:22:48 ↗ link to the web page for more

1:22:50 ↗ information um

1:22:55 ↗ so I mean it's it's not it's not and I'm

1:22:58 ↗ not sure about in here uh in the next

1:23:01 ↗ years

1:23:02 ↗ so it's not fair to say that all that

1:23:05 ↗ land is got everybody in that area would

1:23:08 ↗ be willing to sell to a developer to you

1:23:11 ↗ know I mean yeah the Price Is Right but

1:23:14 ↗ of course yeah I don't think then you

1:23:16 ↗ can make got warmer spots than others

1:23:19 ↗ yes yes there are some warmer spots yes

1:23:21 ↗ will factor in just to a developer's

1:23:23 ↗ interest right right there's also

1:23:26 ↗ another property over here that's um

1:23:28 ↗ people are looking at uh right now for

1:23:30 ↗ potential affordable housing um this

1:23:33 ↗ site will be vacant soon this is the spa

1:23:37 ↗ previous space Labs property that um in

1:23:40 ↗ the past somebody's looked up for

1:23:41 ↗ housing but that was when it was a

1:23:43 ↗ larger

1:23:45 ↗ parcel so again just just the Whiteboard

1:23:48 ↗ thing here but again larger a larger

1:23:50 ↗ area geographically you could do just

1:23:53 ↗ again maybe you do two de two

1:23:55 ↗ projects um for the urban core above

1:23:59 ↗ north of I90 two for the Mixed use above

1:24:03 ↗ I90 and maybe you do one below I mean

1:24:06 ↗ again

1:24:07 ↗ just can I pigy back on Christy's

1:24:09 ↗ comment I thought it was really good to

1:24:11 ↗ bring up that these Sur development

1:24:13 ↗ sites and and we um one of our speakers

1:24:15 ↗ brought up the cost of land and those

1:24:17 ↗ land those properties changed hands at a

1:24:19 ↗ pretty high market price and um so the

1:24:22 ↗ cost of land is significant but the

1:24:24 ↗ Redevelopment costs are huge and that's

1:24:27 ↗ one of the problems that we're facing

1:24:29 ↗ today a lot of our housing growth

1:24:31 ↗ happened when the central isqua plan

1:24:32 ↗ included a lot of green fields and of

1:24:35 ↗ course that's where all the development

1:24:36 ↗ went so we have a lot of new housing we

1:24:39 ↗ have no problem with new housing we just

1:24:40 ↗ don't have where we want it where we

1:24:42 ↗ want it is more expensive and it may

1:24:44 ↗ take time um but that's I think it's a

1:24:49 ↗ supply question like where is the

1:24:51 ↗ potential Supply yeah yeah can I picky

1:24:54 ↗ back on that um our remind me again our

1:24:57 ↗ um grow Target for the next interm it's

1:25:00 ↗ residential is 3500 units 3500 units and

1:25:03 ↗ if we're talking about 600 we're talking

1:25:05 ↗ about what would the cap be so I wanted

1:25:08 ↗ to bring up for conversation the

1:25:11 ↗ proportion to our Target that the pilot

1:25:14 ↗ would be if it was 600 because that's

1:25:17 ↗ one of the questions is would you count

1:25:20 ↗ the number of units so if we're Target

1:25:22 ↗ that is what

1:25:24 ↗ quarter

1:25:27 ↗ no much 600 32

1:25:32 ↗ okay

1:25:34 ↗ 20% less than 20% less than 20% okay so

1:25:38 ↗ is that does that seem like an

1:25:40 ↗ appropriate proportion I'm not saying it

1:25:43 ↗ isn't just bringing it

1:25:47 ↗ up have to put you on the spot Stephen

1:25:50 ↗ but I think it was In This Very Room you

1:25:51 ↗ shared with the central isqua plan in

1:25:54 ↗ particular the urban core there's a

1:25:55 ↗ pretty large percentage that's parking

1:25:57 ↗ lots correct or impervious service do

1:25:59 ↗ you recall what number 75% 75% if you

1:26:03 ↗ look at on Google Maps it's basically a

1:26:04 ↗ big gray blob of parking lots so in

1:26:07 ↗ terms of Redevelopment it's basically

1:26:10 ↗ redeveloping a parking lot into a

1:26:12 ↗ something else that's the goal yeah

1:26:15 ↗ true I think you know looking at the map

1:26:18 ↗ though that is the identified area so

1:26:20 ↗ you know to to Jason Point wherever we

1:26:24 ↗ put things like it's in that area

1:26:26 ↗ whether it's north south mix use like

1:26:28 ↗ that's been identified as the growth

1:26:29 ↗ area so if the goal here is to grow

1:26:33 ↗ somehow some way in that area then I

1:26:35 ↗ align with you like put two on the south

1:26:37 ↗ two on the North two in the mixed use

1:26:39 ↗ and see what happens or something along

1:26:41 ↗ those lines and again that's that's for

1:26:43 ↗ staff toig again we want to hear your

1:26:45 ↗ put yeah template because again Nina

1:26:49 ↗ brought up a great Point what is the

1:26:50 ↗ percentage you know in terms of what

1:26:52 ↗ we're trying to build over the course of

1:26:54 ↗ the next 10 years in terms of uh you

1:26:57 ↗ know what we're required to what our

1:26:58 ↗ Target is again I don't know if that's

1:27:00 ↗ right but well we do have a Target yeah

1:27:03 ↗ so six 600 it could be less but the

1:27:07 ↗ number of projects that are built viably

1:27:09 ↗ that's purpose is to

1:27:11 ↗ start for scale just so like the veil

1:27:14 ↗ Apartments how many

1:27:17 ↗ 34

1:27:19 ↗ 110 it's outside this area but yeah

1:27:22 ↗ scale how big that so Atlas is 344 so

1:27:26 ↗ that's next to Safeway in multiple

1:27:28 ↗ buildings that's it looks looks many

1:27:32 ↗ colors no

1:27:36 ↗ comment two points with regard to the

1:27:39 ↗ location I did want to make is I

1:27:41 ↗ completely agree with Jason that we

1:27:43 ↗ should not get into the space of over

1:27:45 ↗ regulating and making then driving away

1:27:48 ↗ the development that we're trying to

1:27:49 ↗ build but there are two things that we

1:27:52 ↗ we should keep in mind if we have the

1:27:55 ↗ ability to either influence or um

1:28:00 ↗ suggest to our developer friends about

1:28:02 ↗ this one is it should not add to the

1:28:05 ↗ congestion like the thought of a housing

1:28:07 ↗ complex with 300 people next to a Costco

1:28:10 ↗ will drive people crazy on every

1:28:12 ↗ Saturday and Sunday Costco becomes a

1:28:14 ↗ freaking maze Saturdays and Sundays

1:28:17 ↗ nobody wants that second thing which I

1:28:20 ↗ was thinking of before is if we having

1:28:23 ↗ multif family housing having them close

1:28:26 ↗ to a Transit Center makes more sense

1:28:28 ↗ because you'd want to You' hope that

1:28:31 ↗ people will use more of Transit and not

1:28:35 ↗ rely extremely on cars as you can see

1:28:37 ↗ I'm extremely concerned about conje

1:28:39 ↗ we've spoken about that before and it's

1:28:41 ↗ a big problem that even our business

1:28:43 ↗ owners have raised as a key issue

1:28:46 ↗ because of which they're not getting as

1:28:48 ↗ many customers as they would like to get

1:28:49 ↗ so from an EVC standpoint we have to

1:28:52 ↗ make sure that we are not hindering

1:28:56 ↗ progress or we're not taking steps in

1:29:00 ↗ the backward direction that prevent

1:29:02 ↗ further Business Development within a

1:29:03 ↗ sea and the urban core is pretty much

1:29:06 ↗ where most of our businesses are yeah

1:29:10 ↗ it's hard it's almost like a guardian

1:29:12 ↗ knot because I know we have just met but

1:29:14 ↗ I think John and I and you are probably

1:29:17 ↗ Kindred Spirits we live down on Front

1:29:19 ↗ Street so uh Stephen and Kristen here

1:29:21 ↗ striping it all the time but but it is

1:29:24 ↗ really hard because you don't want to

1:29:25 ↗ hinder it and obviously the developer is

1:29:27 ↗ going to have to find something bu uh

1:29:29 ↗ not that I want them to do it on F

1:29:31 ↗ Street I don't know like I said I don't

1:29:33 ↗ this won't

1:29:35 ↗ go a builder will only make profit if

1:29:39 ↗ they're able to find enough tenants who

1:29:40 ↗ are coming to who are willing to come

1:29:43 ↗ pay the rent and stay there if it's it's

1:29:46 ↗ permanently congested I don't know how

1:29:48 ↗ many people would be interested in doing

1:29:50 ↗ that yeah um in then also on on the

1:29:54 ↗ location

1:29:56 ↗ congestion um so we we understand that

1:30:01 ↗ option A for light rail station would be

1:30:03 ↗ in the middle of I90 there's no no

1:30:06 ↗ there's no specific location well okay

1:30:09 ↗ so right there's been there's been

1:30:12 ↗ suggestions there's there's no option A

1:30:14 ↗ ver

1:30:16 ↗ B

1:30:17 ↗ right but well I'm just saying that um

1:30:21 ↗ Power it be you know probably have in

1:30:24 ↗ your brain what option b and c could be

1:30:29 ↗ and well we're doing that planning right

1:30:31 ↗ now right but so that's also then if you

1:30:34 ↗ want it in in this in this salmon area

1:30:37 ↗ it's gonna come into play with where you

1:30:39 ↗ would want to encourage developers to

1:30:41 ↗ select build right so that you have you

1:30:44 ↗ have some backups if this the initial

1:30:48 ↗ suggestion doesn't you know doesn't work

1:30:51 ↗ out

1:30:53 ↗ yeah

1:30:54 ↗ okay any if I could respond really quick

1:30:57 ↗ so I I do want to set the commissioner's

1:30:59 ↗ expectations that congestion

1:31:03 ↗ because Regional our regional center is

1:31:05 ↗ primarily autoc centrically designed

1:31:08 ↗ congestion is going to get worse with

1:31:10 ↗ new projects right now until we get to

1:31:12 ↗ the point where our regional center is

1:31:14 ↗ starting to walk become more walkable

1:31:17 ↗ and people are going to want to use more

1:31:18 ↗ Transit as more Transit supporters and

1:31:21 ↗ so there's going to be a point where

1:31:22 ↗ people are going to start shifting to

1:31:24 ↗ more Transit use and walking and biking

1:31:26 ↗ but we're nowhere near that yet we need

1:31:29 ↗ more development to get to that point so

1:31:31 ↗ I just want to make sure everybody

1:31:32 ↗ understands that any new projects coming

1:31:35 ↗ in isn't going to solve the congestion

1:31:36 ↗ problem there's no way to avoid it even

1:31:39 ↗ even if no projects come in congestion

1:31:42 ↗ is going to get worse because de

1:31:43 ↗ development is still happening around us

1:31:45 ↗ I get that which is which kind of goes

1:31:47 ↗ back to the original question that I had

1:31:49 ↗ asked very very early in this

1:31:51 ↗ conversation was how are we making sure

1:31:53 ↗ that there's enough

1:31:54 ↗ infrastructure roadways being a part of

1:31:57 ↗ it to support the development that is

1:31:59 ↗ going to come yeah and so that's that

1:32:01 ↗ was to Kristen's point about our models

1:32:03 ↗ looking at our zoned capacity for the

1:32:06 ↗ area in those models they're looking at

1:32:08 ↗ those infrastructure needs of if if you

1:32:12 ↗ know we're raiseed this you know upzone

1:32:14 ↗ a certain area is that going to create

1:32:16 ↗ red flags on sewer or water or even the

1:32:19 ↗ roadways and so we actually identify

1:32:21 ↗ where those red flags are as part of

1:32:23 ↗ those malls with what's zoned for those

1:32:25 ↗ areas currently that includes New Roads

1:32:28 ↗ correct so when we did our Central SC

1:32:29 ↗ plan we added roads into the plan and

1:32:31 ↗ those are factored into our traffic

1:32:33 ↗ model and bike lanes and more sidewalks

1:32:35 ↗ that are pedestrian friendly so and

1:32:37 ↗ there's a requirement as part of

1:32:39 ↗ developments adjacent to those new

1:32:40 ↗ roadways that developers pay into some

1:32:42 ↗ of those infrastructure implements as

1:32:44 ↗ well that's a good reminder well in in

1:32:47 ↗ you know for the sake of time we're not

1:32:49 ↗ going

1:32:50 ↗ to R wasn't built or

1:32:53 ↗ conquered so I mean we' gone over a lot

1:32:56 ↗ so I think there's some good stuff that

1:32:58 ↗ staff can take back and definitely get

1:33:00 ↗ back to us for the next meeting go from

1:33:02 ↗ there and then we have options to always

1:33:04 ↗ email our staff and each other just to

1:33:06 ↗ say hey this is ideals that G have in

1:33:09 ↗ the thought process because we all go

1:33:10 ↗ home and probably think about it and

1:33:12 ↗ talk about it and be like okay I should

1:33:14 ↗ have sent this or I should have S that

1:33:15 ↗ so Des utilize that time between now and

1:33:19 ↗ the next meeting I would say just to

1:33:22 ↗ collaborate does it make sense now we

1:33:25 ↗ have a we have a platform to look at it

1:33:27 ↗ what does that number look like Jason

1:33:29 ↗ point it's it's about development is it

1:33:31 ↗ about affordable housing really not it's

1:33:33 ↗ about development and growth and getting

1:33:35 ↗ his Squad there where it's at and and

1:33:37 ↗ then and then the caveat to it the the

1:33:39 ↗ Carry On Top would be the affordable

1:33:40 ↗ housing hopefully a teacher a police

1:33:43 ↗ officer a firefighter they could they

1:33:44 ↗ could also move there that work and live

1:33:46 ↗ and is a and they have that luxury of I

1:33:49 ↗ work and live and I can walk to work or

1:33:50 ↗ I can walk to to the store I can walk to

1:33:52 ↗ Costco instead of driving in the

1:33:54 ↗ congestion of Costco but just keep that

1:33:56 ↗ in mind so we're at 741 right now which

1:34:01 ↗ we have a whole another hour topic sorry

1:34:04 ↗ we won't for that but is there any

1:34:06 ↗ closing comments any comments on that as

1:34:08 ↗ far as any

1:34:10 ↗ additional

1:34:12 ↗ yeah thank you

1:34:15 ↗ for for the evening yeah absolutely yeah

1:34:18 ↗ hopefully we do it again in January

1:34:20 ↗ absolutely we'll see

1:34:22 ↗ we get to go against trap

1:34:25 ↗ yeah

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