Human Services Commission · Thursday, May 25, 2017 · City Council Digest

2713 segments .txt ↗

0:15 ↗ good ooh you think welcome to your third

0:19 ↗ or fourth Joint Commission meeting my

0:22 ↗ name for those of you I haven't met my

0:23 ↗ name is Kristen Lisa and I'm with the

0:25 ↗ development services department I'm a

0:26 ↗ Senior Planner in the long range

0:27 ↗ planning division and I work a lot with

0:31 ↗ PPC so tonight will be our final meeting

0:35 ↗ and we're going to go over the

0:37 ↗ highlights today especially for those

0:39 ↗ who are new who maybe haven't attended

0:40 ↗ one of these meetings yet we're going to

0:42 ↗ do a survey results overview Trish kind

0:45 ↗ of ran through it last time it's

0:46 ↗ included in your packet so hopefully

0:48 ↗ evolved on your homework and had a

0:49 ↗ chance to look at it and we'll just talk

0:51 ↗ about some of that tonight

0:52 ↗ I look just we're just going to go over

0:53 ↗ it quickly we'll talk about the mission

0:56 ↗ statement and the three problem

0:57 ↗ statements the strategies and actions

1:00 ↗ and the final report that we hope to

1:02 ↗ send which is Exhibit A in your packet

1:04 ↗ it's a very very rough draft but we just

1:07 ↗ want to talk about overarching ideas

1:10 ↗ that you think may be missing from the

1:11 ↗ report that helped tell the story of

1:13 ↗ what we have been through and what you

1:14 ↗ want counsel to know and then we'll talk

1:16 ↗ about next steps so we finish step one

1:22 ↗ back in September of last year we hired

1:24 ↗ a consultant who did it in existing

1:26 ↗ conditions inventory or statement for us

1:30 ↗ and then also did a picture of the 2040

1:32 ↗ housing and if we continue on the same

1:34 ↗ track what that might look like and then

1:37 ↗ right now we're in step 2 so after we

1:40 ↗ got the reports back we went and we

1:42 ↗ talked with we have a couple of council

1:47 ↗ work sessions and we also talked with

1:49 ↗ the school district service providers

1:53 ↗ seniors and providers for seniors small

1:58 ↗ businesses large businesses to help

2:00 ↗ identify gaps that they see when they

2:02 ↗ are out in the community and working

2:04 ↗ with our residents and and those who

2:05 ↗ work here but may not live here so we

2:08 ↗ took all that information to bring to

2:10 ↗ you for you to digest and help try and

2:12 ↗ come up with solutions which is what we

2:14 ↗ are doing tonight

2:16 ↗ step three will be a policy conversation

2:19 ↗ and we go back to Council on June 12th

2:21 ↗ so we'll do some discussion in-house and

2:23 ↗ then we

2:24 ↗ take that to policy or to City Council

2:25 ↗ and talk with them please feel free to

2:28 ↗ come to the meeting on June 12th and

2:30 ↗ contribute to that conversation the

2:35 ↗ survey results I'm not going to run over

2:36 ↗ all of them not going to do all the

2:38 ↗ demographics where people live and how

2:40 ↗ old they are and how much they pay

2:41 ↗ that's in your packet but some of the

2:42 ↗ highlights from that when we asked when

2:44 ↗ looking for a place to live what are

2:49 ↗ what are you move what are your more

2:51 ↗ important factors ranked from the most

2:55 ↗ important down to the least important

2:56 ↗ and I just put the top ones in there our

2:58 ↗ proximity to daily needs cost and safety

3:02 ↗ so these are things to consider when

3:04 ↗ we're talking about solutions and how

3:05 ↗ they fit with the problems as we see

3:07 ↗ them which of these statements reflects

3:09 ↗ us a quad a again most to least lack of

3:14 ↗ affordable housing few opportunities for

3:17 ↗ families particularly young families

3:19 ↗ lack of overall housing stock and lack

3:23 ↗ of small housing such as micro housing

3:26 ↗ or cottage housing which you have talked

3:27 ↗ about it's a possible solution 66

3:33 ↗ percent of people who answered this

3:35 ↗ question said that yes they know people

3:37 ↗ who have not been able to find a place

3:39 ↗ to live in it's across primarily because

3:41 ↗ of the price of how things so again that

3:43 ↗ goes to affordability and which are

3:46 ↗ successful outcomes in the next 20 years

3:48 ↗ there are a range of housing options for

3:52 ↗ households in all stages of life

3:54 ↗ new housing fits and preserves existing

3:57 ↗ character yet there's still a diversity

3:58 ↗ of housing types and architecture and

4:00 ↗ there's a preservation of environmental

4:02 ↗ features there are opportunities to age

4:05 ↗ in place housing for local employees

4:08 ↗ earning 25 to 60 thousand dollars a year

4:10 ↗ becomes more available and more single

4:14 ↗ housing Pervis for families is present

4:17 ↗ so I'm gonna let Jen take over from here

4:20 ↗ it was

4:26 ↗ right now actually okay hello my name is

4:33 ↗ Jen Davis Hayes I work here at the city

4:36 ↗ and economic development my staff the

4:37 ↗ economic vitality vitality Commission

4:40 ↗ and what we're passing around is

4:42 ↗ actually just a copy of these on one

4:44 ↗ page because the Oh actually for the

4:47 ↗ joint image I'm sorry for the Joint

4:48 ↗ Commission mission statement the the

4:51 ↗ what is passing out is actually the

4:52 ↗ problem statements so I didn't get a

4:54 ↗ reminder for those who were with us for

4:57 ↗ this whole process but to let the foot

5:00 ↗ new folks know basically the strategy

5:02 ↗ Housing Strategy mission statement we

5:04 ↗ developed is to encourage housing than

5:06 ↗ braces a city's character and

5:08 ↗ environment while providing a diversity

5:10 ↗ of choices to meet the needs of people

5:12 ↗ who choose to live work and play in

5:14 ↗ Issaquah if any of you have been

5:16 ↗ involved in developing mission statement

5:18 ↗ or vision statements you know you could

5:21 ↗ Sally we could probably spend another 20

5:23 ↗ years tweaking this but this gives a

5:25 ↗ general outline of what we as a group

5:27 ↗ set out on a mission to do to develop

5:30 ↗ strategy strategies that will dress this

5:33 ↗ and in that we created we talked about

5:37 ↗ three problem statements that were

5:39 ↗ identified and so that's what's being

5:40 ↗ passed out and we'll be referring to

5:43 ↗ those tonight as we talk about the

5:45 ↗ strategy because we want to remind

5:46 ↗ ourselves that those strategies any

5:49 ↗ strategies we talked about suggest

5:51 ↗ should address one of the problem

5:53 ↗ statements that we have identified so

5:55 ↗ the first problem statement is that

5:57 ↗ overall housing affordability in

5:59 ↗ Issaquah and the region have decreased

6:02 ↗ has decreased for households at all

6:04 ↗ levels and so some of the data that we

6:07 ↗ provided in previous data sets look at

6:11 ↗ the housing home prices as well as rents

6:14 ↗ have both increased quickly since 2012

6:16 ↗ they're less affordable for households

6:19 ↗ below the median income and low-income

6:21 ↗ housing is not being built near the

6:23 ↗ demand or the goal that we have for

6:25 ↗ ourselves so again we understand this is

6:27 ↗ not just about Issaquah but it's

6:29 ↗ throughout the region but that's overall

6:31 ↗ affordability has decreased at all

6:33 ↗ levels

6:35 ↗ problem statement number two is that so

6:37 ↗ individuals and families to not choose

6:39 ↗ four to choose to work and live in

6:41 ↗ Issaquah so we know that a lot of people

6:44 ↗ people make decisions where they choose

6:46 ↗ to live on a lot of different reasons

6:47 ↗ but you but if you would like to choose

6:50 ↗ to live in Issaquah it's really

6:52 ↗ challenging we we have data that shows

6:55 ↗ only 1500 just a little bit over 1500

6:58 ↗ people who live in this COIs also

7:00 ↗ working as a club and then looking at

7:03 ↗ what's called workforce housing so

7:04 ↗ that's between 60% ami and so ami is

7:08 ↗ area median income to 80% is not being

7:12 ↗ built at the level demanded and so those

7:14 ↗ are the folks that are not working in

7:16 ↗ their first job entry level but maybe in

7:18 ↗ a more have moved up and there may be in

7:20 ↗ a beginning managerial job or beginning

7:22 ↗ professional job it's really challenging

7:24 ↗ to find and so a really challenging to

7:27 ↗ find housing if you're making that much

7:30 ↗ money here in Issaquah what is the

7:32 ↗ current ami first ago

7:35 ↗ 96 thousand and so this based on the

7:37 ↗ king cap for family four and its base

7:39 ↗ for King County as that's the and it

7:43 ↗ depends to what if you actually would go

7:45 ↗ into affordable housing as a family we

7:47 ↗ depend on your family size and then yeah

7:50 ↗ and then problems even number three

7:54 ↗ doesn't address affordability camor

7:57 ↗ about the diversity of demand and so we

8:00 ↗ noticed that there's a lot of demand

8:02 ↗ from downsizing baby boomers or

8:04 ↗ millenials for that one or two-bedroom

8:06 ↗ small home or even a condo and those are

8:10 ↗ not available at the the level of demand

8:12 ↗ and the interesting data I thought was

8:14 ↗ that we always think about as a place

8:18 ↗ for families which it is true but 30% of

8:20 ↗ Issaquah residents live alone yet only

8:23 ↗ 10% of our units are one-bedroom or less

8:25 ↗ so it's a niche mismatch of size of

8:28 ↗ household and housing housing units that

8:31 ↗ are available so those are the three

8:34 ↗ problem statements that we developed

8:35 ↗ over time we have been talking about for

8:37 ↗ a while

8:38 ↗ any initial questions about those or

8:40 ↗ kind of thoughts we're not here to

8:42 ↗ adjust these or add more but those are

8:44 ↗ kind of what we've been developed so far

8:46 ↗ yes I can

8:48 ↗ that's of a question and more of a

8:50 ↗ comment we discussed this last kind

8:54 ↗ foreign thatch thing and if you think

8:56 ↗ about the middle class middle classes

8:59 ↗ people cannot buy a lot of houses here

9:03 ↗ anymore just because you know foreigners

9:05 ↗ I don't see that bullet point here so

9:07 ↗ right so this data was actually we I and

9:10 ↗ I should have mentioned this we had

9:12 ↗ hired a consultant to do basically a

9:14 ↗ needs assessment and assessment of

9:16 ↗ what's currently existing in Issaquah

9:17 ↗ looking at demographics etc and so this

9:20 ↗ data is not didn't address that but also

9:24 ↗ isn't a day that we've had found since

9:26 ↗ or have talked about since that actually

9:29 ↗ trend we are we want to make sure that

9:31 ↗ we note in our report and we can and

9:33 ↗ actually that was a comment that we'll

9:36 ↗ share from some commissioners who are

9:37 ↗ not unable to make the meeting tonight

9:38 ↗ that we will make sure it's addressed or

9:41 ↗ at least at least noted in our final

9:43 ↗ report so thank you so tonight why are

9:48 ↗ you here besides you you want to be

9:50 ↗ outside maybe but you're going to we're

9:52 ↗ here to put a final touches on the

9:54 ↗ strategies for our housing strategy for

9:57 ↗ Issaquah so the current strategies I

10:01 ↗ guess are you actually exhibited RB okay

10:08 ↗ so for those of you who printed out a

10:10 ↗ packet ignore the Exhibit B in your

10:13 ↗ package we have since updated to make it

10:14 ↗ hopefully easier to read and easier to

10:17 ↗ follow

10:17 ↗ so Exhibit B is actually a list of the

10:20 ↗ strategies that we currently have

10:21 ↗ discussed if on on the printout photos

10:27 ↗ are in here is xx exhibit XS sauce P so

10:31 ↗ there has been no changes as far as we

10:34 ↗ didn't eliminate things we just kind of

10:36 ↗ created again a format that's a little

10:38 ↗ easier to read we believe oh and then

10:43 ↗ okay so what so Exhibit B again or xx is

10:47 ↗ a most and are in our first discussion

10:51 ↗ about strategies we focus on affordable

10:54 ↗ housing and we kind of we know because

10:57 ↗ of the moratorium those are things that

10:58 ↗ we need to address more completely by

11:02 ↗ to September then the entire than all

11:05 ↗ the other strategies where some of the

11:07 ↗ strategies we made up saying let's

11:08 ↗ explore do this let's do more more

11:10 ↗ research on that and then our last

11:13 ↗ meeting we started to talk about the

11:14 ↗ broader strategies for housing for

11:17 ↗ housing it overall and so on this xx is

11:21 ↗ the what we've identified so far and so

11:27 ↗ the idea tonight is to take exhibit C

11:30 ↗ and so again that we've cleaned up as

11:34 ↗ well and so it looks like the copier

11:36 ↗ accidentally stapled them all together

11:38 ↗ but it's a two-page document looks like

11:40 ↗ so we'll be passing those out and so

11:44 ↗ basically what we want to do tonight is

11:46 ↗ to look at so the larger the larger

11:51 ↗ printouts the XX can I get one of those

11:53 ↗ please go anywhere looking at is again

11:57 ↗ this will be this is kind of our working

11:59 ↗ draft right this is our our will become

12:02 ↗ our final recommendations to City

12:04 ↗ Council so we want to refine and want to

12:07 ↗ look at these is there anything now that

12:09 ↗ we've been discussing this for for

12:11 ↗ meetings that we believe we should add

12:13 ↗ we should change we want to remove and

12:16 ↗ we were using Exhibit C as a resource to

12:21 ↗ look at other strategies that may

12:23 ↗ address the problem statement so that's

12:25 ↗ so again why you have a problem

12:26 ↗ statement so if there's a strategy that

12:28 ↗ you recommend look at how we want you to

12:33 ↗ you are talking about this we would like

12:36 ↗ you to address say this we I believe

12:39 ↗ this addresses strategy 1a or whatever

12:41 ↗ maybe or just one in general or number

12:44 ↗ two or number three because there's a

12:46 ↗ lot of great strategies as you can tell

12:47 ↗ there's so many options out there but in

12:51 ↗ order for us to be successful we just we

12:53 ↗ need to focus on how the problem

12:55 ↗ strategies statements we've identified

12:57 ↗ and develop strategies along there for

13:00 ↗ instance the we want to also take note

13:02 ↗ of trends that we want to include in the

13:04 ↗ final report and understand that what we

13:08 ↗ do right now is not diving to the detail

13:12 ↗ so we do not need to figure out that

13:13 ↗ this housing is exactly

13:15 ↗ can be for 30% ami and it's going to

13:18 ↗ provide job trading services and this

13:20 ↗ and that we are looking for the higher

13:22 ↗ levels general strategies and that will

13:25 ↗ that work will be done in a later time

13:27 ↗ so are there any questions about what

13:31 ↗ we're doing here and the other thing we

13:35 ↗ want to pass out actually is a few

13:42 ↗ commissioners that were unable to make

13:43 ↗ the meeting tonight but they did send in

13:46 ↗ comments and so what we did is we cut

13:49 ↗ and paste exactly as I wrote it so and

13:53 ↗ then put who said it so I categorize

13:56 ↗ them by topic and so not it's not always

13:58 ↗ going to go exactly to what's on here

14:01 ↗ but these are just voices that aren't

14:04 ↗ here but it has something to say again

14:06 ↗ when it says at the top this does not

14:08 ↗ mean that these are any more important

14:10 ↗ than any other voice that's spoken

14:12 ↗ tonight about this and sometimes when

14:14 ↗ you write something doesn't come across

14:15 ↗ exactly how the full nuance so just take

14:18 ↗ that in mind as you look at that but

14:19 ↗ there they did provide some input on

14:21 ↗ some of the things we've talked about so

14:24 ↗ I guess what I'd like to do first is to

14:27 ↗ look at the strategies one through five

14:31 ↗ and again these were identified in the

14:35 ↗ past and are there are there any

14:37 ↗ concerns or inserts in editing or

14:43 ↗ removing any of these five strategies so

14:45 ↗ again if you look on your exhibit xx it

14:48 ↗ gives you a little bit more details from

14:50 ↗ the pros and cons and kind of where

14:52 ↗ we've got data to back those so for

14:56 ↗ instance the accessory dwelling units

14:58 ↗ citywide that is and so those are the

15:02 ↗ mother-in-law apartments the apartment

15:03 ↗ above in your house or above your garage

15:05 ↗ so trying to make those more easier to

15:09 ↗ build in the city looking at that we

15:12 ↗ believe that that would provide some

15:13 ↗ some different housing sizes as well as

15:16 ↗ some affordability because it would be

15:18 ↗ less than a full home you have to run

15:20 ↗ out and right now as you can see the

15:24 ↗ city has about 40 of these permitted

15:25 ↗ they are currently lab but we do is

15:27 ↗ explore to see if there are some other

15:29 ↗ regulations that we should be looking at

15:31 ↗ that may prohibit builders from pursuing

15:34 ↗ this option so one on that have we

15:40 ↗ looked into it all considering tiny

15:42 ↗ homes for Adu options and when you say

15:46 ↗ look into tiny homes as an Adu option

15:47 ↗ meaning though tiny homes are mobile all

15:51 ↗ of them do we have anything that

15:53 ↗ prohibits tiny homes and could we kind

15:56 ↗ of consolidate some kind of code around

15:59 ↗ that that would encourage it for ad you

16:01 ↗ use yeah I'm looking at the planners in

16:05 ↗ the room to find out if we have a need

16:06 ↗ it prohibits tiny homes because I know

16:08 ↗ that was a trend that we have did mark

16:10 ↗ right now they need to be connected to

16:12 ↗ sewer and so the tiny homes that we've

16:15 ↗ seen are not connected all to sewer but

16:20 ↗ that's something we can explore but you

16:23 ↗ can't have a detached ad you correct in

16:26 ↗ front of tiny elements like this on like

16:28 ↗ a triangle but it has we ad you has to

16:31 ↗ be connected to sewer set right

16:33 ↗ everything has to be an actress or yes

16:37 ↗ yes so that is definitely something we

16:40 ↗ didn't scoff specifically but we can

16:42 ↗ look at that as well

16:43 ↗ I think that is an option that that was

16:46 ↗ discussed as last meeting looking at as

16:48 ↗ an option so thank you another quick

16:51 ↗ comments a quick comment last time we

16:54 ↗ talked about and it's in red under the

16:58 ↗ pros we talked about building ad use to

17:02 ↗ condo standard oh maybe I'm getting

17:05 ↗ mixed up you think maybe apartments to

17:06 ↗ condos Sanders

17:07 ↗ that's mm-hmm that's okay no yep yep but

17:12 ↗ but I mean I kind of gets the read the

17:15 ↗ FIR the second bullet point there where

17:17 ↗ it says it spot is it possible for

17:18 ↗ builders to build with future ad use in

17:20 ↗ mind so allowing them to convert their

17:23 ↗ basement into an ad you and thinking

17:25 ↗ about that so that's yeah there's if

17:27 ↗ there's a way to encourage or even

17:29 ↗ require some of those things will be

17:31 ↗ able look at that a question for number

17:33 ↗ three proposed housing lovie

17:35 ↗ have we looked at mello-roos does that

17:37 ↗ make sense for our town

17:39 ↗ have we looked at I'm sorry I didn't

17:41 ↗ hear mello-roos what not sort of funding

17:46 ↗ in California is very popular work lots

17:50 ↗ of the utility fees and so on that are

17:52 ↗ normally be passed on to the developers

17:54 ↗ here or actually passed on to residents

17:57 ↗ moving in so then the residents are

17:59 ↗ actually responsible for paying Mello

18:01 ↗ Roos for 10-15 years do you know what

18:05 ↗ that is I'm going to invite Arthur

18:08 ↗ Sullivan afternoon flight hi Brougham

18:10 ↗ Arthur Sullivan program manager arch

18:12 ↗ we've been here for other nights

18:14 ↗ that's essentially what King County has

18:16 ↗ done with their sewer system connection

18:19 ↗ where you pay for I don't know if it's

18:22 ↗ 10 or 15 years and you have an option

18:24 ↗ you can pay it up front but it's set up

18:27 ↗ to be paid over X number of years so

18:30 ↗ that is used right now in this county by

18:32 ↗ Metro for wastewater so would that be a

18:36 ↗ possibility to use something like that

18:38 ↗ to help offset the most housing levy

18:45 ↗ from another bar oh if we have a problem

18:50 ↗ with affordable housing obviously the

18:52 ↗ clientele that's moving into is a cloth

18:54 ↗ has means would be able to pay for

18:59 ↗ mello-roos

19:01 ↗ so rather than put the developer or

19:04 ↗ rather than put the housing levy on

19:10 ↗ current residents put it on the newer

19:13 ↗ residents that are moving into half who

19:15 ↗ have the means to pay for some of that

19:17 ↗ so that would feel like an impact fee

19:20 ↗ and in this state there is legislation

19:24 ↗ under the growth management act as to

19:26 ↗ what type of impact fees can be charged

19:28 ↗ to new developments and affordable

19:31 ↗ housing is explicitly precluded from

19:34 ↗ being able to be having an impact fee

19:37 ↗ that that that is allowed to use for

19:40 ↗ impact fees Melrose would not be able to

19:43 ↗ go the earnest that the state of

19:46 ↗ California thing but the idea of an

19:47 ↗ upfront new development paying some type

19:50 ↗ of impact is allowed with limit

19:53 ↗ in this state and affordable housing is

19:55 ↗ not one of this we might be able to use

19:58 ↗ mello-roos to pay for other things and

20:00 ↗ then the city could then use that money

20:02 ↗ to pay for affordable housing I mean I'm

20:05 ↗ going to avoid the term mello-roos that

20:08 ↗ I'm not exactly if you're saying at the

20:09 ↗ California situation you have to sort of

20:12 ↗ if you're saying new development pay for

20:15 ↗ some of the services or needs of a

20:18 ↗ community resulting from growth if

20:21 ↗ that's what you're referring to let's

20:22 ↗ refer to vector than this stay Pacific

20:24 ↗ we call that impact fees and the things

20:28 ↗ the state legislation is very clear

20:30 ↗ about what they're that can be and

20:32 ↗ there's processes for establishing those

20:34 ↗ and whether or not you can use a

20:37 ↗ financing system where as paid overtime

20:39 ↗ or upfront that I'm not exactly sure for

20:41 ↗ impact fees Metro used it for a utility

20:44 ↗ hookup fee which is a little bit

20:45 ↗ different than an impact fee but the

20:49 ↗ idea of new develop a four things I'm

20:52 ↗ trying to figure out what is the answer

20:54 ↗ is so that we can acknowledge that and

20:56 ↗ how it relates to affordability is when

20:58 ↗ I'm struggling with a little bit cools

21:01 ↗ police to permits schools are allows and

21:04 ↗ police are allowed and fire are allowed

21:06 ↗ and right now the city does for a number

21:09 ↗ of those have impact fees they do waive

21:11 ↗ those for affordable housing that's a

21:13 ↗ current policy of the city state law

21:15 ↗ allows that to be waived for housing

21:17 ↗ that meets certain tests can be waived

21:19 ↗ and those have been waived by a number

21:22 ↗ of cities including ASA qua for a number

21:24 ↗ of those impact fees so we could

21:28 ↗ increase the fees asked on to not the

21:31 ↗ developer passed on to the new resident

21:34 ↗ coming in for some of those impacts and

21:36 ↗ we could take a bucket of money from

21:39 ↗ other funds and move that towards the

21:42 ↗ affordable housing or that's where we'd

21:44 ↗ have to do legal research to see whether

21:46 ↗ or not that would be interpreted as

21:48 ↗ having to fall within the rules of

21:50 ↗ charging impact fees and if so there's a

21:53 ↗ process under state law and about how

21:56 ↗ you can determine you can't just

21:57 ↗ arbitrarily set them wherever you want

21:59 ↗ to set them there's a process that

22:01 ↗ cities have to go through

22:03 ↗ so not to diminish the idea that this

22:07 ↗ can be something that's used I don't

22:09 ↗ know how it translates over to an

22:12 ↗ affordable housing fund other than as

22:15 ↗ you're saying the city is more

22:17 ↗ comfortable using other revenue sources

22:18 ↗ for affordable housing because this is a

22:20 ↗ source of helping to pay for some of

22:23 ↗ those things otherwise pay for out of a

22:26 ↗ source you would tip that you might use

22:27 ↗ from more general fund type sources

22:31 ↗ adding more fees on to new homeowners

22:34 ↗ increases the cost of the housing for

22:37 ↗ those homeowners so when we're talking

22:40 ↗ about affordable housing we also want to

22:43 ↗ make sure that the next layer up is able

22:46 ↗ to afford the house and the more impact

22:49 ↗ fees that you put on to that just going

22:51 ↗ to add an increase in value so you might

22:55 ↗ help them but you're hurting them that

22:56 ↗ can't do that and that could very well

22:58 ↗ be true but that's also a debatable

23:01 ↗ question as to if impact fees are

23:03 ↗ directly translated over to a house cost

23:06 ↗ houses are sold on the market for

23:09 ↗ whatever owner can get for them if if

23:12 ↗ they know up front as I've heard develop

23:14 ↗ it they know up front there is an impact

23:16 ↗ fee they look at what they think they

23:17 ↗ can sell a home for they may offer a

23:19 ↗ little less for a piece of land if they

23:20 ↗ have to but it may get passed through it

23:23 ↗ may not Builders generally will sell a

23:26 ↗ house for whatever the market will bear

23:27 ↗ and when they have cost

23:30 ↗ they won't build unless they can figure

23:32 ↗ out a way to have everything balanced

23:34 ↗ out so it can have some kind of impact

23:36 ↗ on the development in general so that is

23:38 ↗ a consideration that needs to be thought

23:41 ↗ about as well I just wanted to mention

23:45 ↗ that we now get into the details but we

23:48 ↗ do we do have a policy to have new

23:50 ↗ development paid for the impacts and so

23:52 ↗ that is through the impact fee and all

23:53 ↗ those uses or the fire police schools

23:58 ↗ parks even non mobility and another

24:02 ↗ transportation do have impact fees that

24:04 ↗ we just recently went through and did

24:06 ↗ analysis on and have actually raised

24:08 ↗ them and last year and a half and so we

24:12 ↗ can we can have get some information to

24:14 ↗ you and

24:15 ↗ kind of look into that and we'll we'll

24:16 ↗ see if there's anything else again rent

24:18 ↗ around how California does that that

24:20 ↗ would be pertinent here and looks like

24:23 ↗ he's given our development services

24:25 ↗ director is going to say add something

24:27 ↗ to that yes I thought maybe your DSD has

24:31 ↗ both up so Ron I think what this one was

24:34 ↗ is you know the strategy here again was

24:37 ↗ there was no silver bullet right and so

24:39 ↗ if we're going to really deal with this

24:40 ↗ issue you know a certain percentage of

24:45 ↗ the of the incentives need to come from

24:48 ↗ the development community and a certain

24:50 ↗ amount needs to come from the city and

24:53 ↗ this one was really aimed at should a

24:57 ↗ certain amount come from existing

24:58 ↗ residents in a community should the

25:00 ↗ existing community help new people get

25:03 ↗ into the community because of the lack

25:05 ↗ of affordable housing so this one was

25:08 ↗ really intended not to go against the

25:10 ↗ developers but to really go against the

25:13 ↗ existing community kind of like the

25:14 ↗ transportation levee that that was just

25:17 ↗ brought forward last year last year

25:19 ↗ right so so I don't again testing your

25:24 ↗ guys's empathy for this one I mean this

25:26 ↗ one was really should you all help bring

25:29 ↗ down the cost of housing so that they

25:32 ↗ can be more affordable for community

25:37 ↗ this is really loud I am empathetic to

25:42 ↗ pain for that out of my own pocket

25:45 ↗ the idea was Mello Roos might be a

25:49 ↗ strategic tool to further enhance our

25:54 ↗ affordability target additional leverage

25:59 ↗ but that's all is just so with the

26:01 ↗ wonder of the technology world we're

26:04 ↗ able to look at Mello Roos so I have a

26:05 ↗ little more familiarity I would still

26:07 ↗ not want anything said now to not be

26:10 ↗ followed up if you're interested

26:12 ↗ California has a limitation on property

26:14 ↗ taxes and it's a very severe called prop

26:17 ↗ 13 if any of you are familiar with

26:19 ↗ California property tax rules Mello ruse

26:21 ↗ was a way through voter approved

26:23 ↗ initiative to exceed the prop 13 limits

26:26 ↗ and so basically what

26:28 ↗ describing is can we use property taxes

26:30 ↗ somehow to fund something and the answer

26:33 ↗ to that is yes and that's one of the

26:35 ↗ options you have in front of you the

26:36 ↗ rules that govern in this state how you

26:38 ↗ raise property taxes are different we

26:42 ↗ don't you know we have and so your

26:45 ↗ comment is sort of along the lines of

26:47 ↗ the entry gear of do we do a property

26:49 ↗ tax levy which is go to voters to

26:52 ↗ approve something so we have more

26:53 ↗ revenue and it's dedicated for a

26:55 ↗ specific purpose in mello-roos it's

26:57 ↗ dedicated for certain infrastructure and

26:59 ↗ it was a way to get around severe

27:01 ↗ limitations under the general property

27:03 ↗ tax rules because we have those

27:06 ↗ limitations and that's why I was

27:08 ↗ thinking that might be great and what

27:10 ↗ I'm saying is you have also the right

27:12 ↗ through state law to increase property

27:13 ↗ taxes up to a certain amount and your

27:16 ↗ lid is a lot higher than it is in

27:17 ↗ California under prop 13 for base and so

27:20 ↗ you do actually see that idea laid out

27:23 ↗ here and what Keith was describing in

27:25 ↗ that up and that I don't know which

27:27 ↗ number it is number 3 so that's

27:29 ↗ essentially doing what you're describing

27:32 ↗ are there any other thoughts about the

27:34 ↗ housing levy I'm not asking you to vote

27:39 ↗ for house Mojave tonight but any

27:41 ↗ thoughts would it would it be helpful to

27:45 ↗ have something that ties the other

27:46 ↗ number 2 and number 9 I think and a

27:52 ↗ housing levy that kind of pulls them

27:54 ↗ together something along the lines of

27:56 ↗ just throwing this out for an example

27:58 ↗ but something where the city provides

28:00 ↗ funds purchase and released back housing

28:03 ↗ for people that want to age in place

28:04 ↗ that are meant on fixed income then

28:07 ↗ allows people to age in place then also

28:08 ↗ allows the state to acquire housing that

28:11 ↗ then when that resident is no longer

28:13 ↗ renting it from the city can then become

28:15 ↗ mobilizing rather for the people you're

28:18 ↗ getting to exactly the type of detail it

28:20 ↗ would have to define because I don't

28:21 ↗ know how many people would just vote

28:22 ↗ just to give the give somebody money

28:24 ↗ without knowing exactly so that's if we

28:26 ↗ did a housing levy we would use our

28:28 ↗ strategy to really define where how

28:30 ↗ we're going to spend the money and I

28:31 ↗ believe would have to almost define like

28:33 ↗ percentage-wise you know where how that

28:35 ↗ money would be spent in a different

28:36 ↗ category the way I look at you can do

28:38 ↗ three different things with with a

28:39 ↗ housing levy you can build new housing

28:41 ↗ and with for instance similar to stuff

28:43 ↗ we're doing with Tod and then a

28:45 ↗ component of you know up 200% that can

28:48 ↗ be affordable you can preserve existing

28:50 ↗ housing by using vouchers or cutting

28:54 ↗ property taxes so we're the season

28:56 ↗ acquiring the housing but subsidizing so

28:58 ↗ that can become affordable then you can

29:00 ↗ acquire just a housing stock and then

29:03 ↗ becomes city city owned or owned by not

29:05 ↗ for profit

29:06 ↗ I think that whether or not we want to

29:09 ↗ do we know one two three or some

29:12 ↗ combination of them okay any thoughts on

29:15 ↗ that from the Commissioner other

29:17 ↗ commissioners um I would also rely on

29:24 ↗ like big businesses to contribute to

29:26 ↗ this like one aspect is like for if you

29:28 ↗ are an employee of Costco or any other

29:31 ↗ big businesses in Issaquah you want your

29:34 ↗ employees to be residing in Issaquah and

29:36 ↗ make make make today work on time avoid

29:39 ↗ the transportation chaos and whatnot

29:42 ↗ it's an incentive that we are offering

29:44 ↗ these businesses like Costco by

29:45 ↗ providing that affordable home to their

29:47 ↗ employee if they can someway compensate

29:50 ↗ for their employees for affordable

29:54 ↗ houses that the city is providing for

29:55 ↗ them be a good addition on you know get

29:58 ↗ some additional support from big

30:00 ↗ businesses you suggestin perhaps a tax

30:04 ↗ or fee that would be added to that or to

30:07 ↗ business not tax or a fee like let's say

30:11 ↗ the person the employee to which we are

30:14 ↗ giving them and some affordable housing

30:16 ↗ whatever is the market housing price if

30:19 ↗ the employers can offset the provider

30:23 ↗ that really guard it down for them grab

30:25 ↗ it affordable for them okay these big

30:27 ↗ businesses can offset that price okay so

30:29 ↗ it's almost like they have maybe a

30:31 ↗ set-aside number units and they can

30:33 ↗ subsidize to bring their employees in

30:35 ↗ okay yeah I think I think there there

30:37 ↗ should be a conversation around who we

30:40 ↗ target for the affordable housing and I

30:41 ↗ think the example you provided in terms

30:43 ↗ of employees but I think also looking at

30:45 ↗ any common examples like schoolteachers

30:47 ↗ mm-hmm they can afford to live here and

30:49 ↗ whether or not we want to take the

30:51 ↗ existing bank of whatever affordable

30:53 ↗ housing that a housing love it would

30:54 ↗ create whether

30:55 ↗ that's just available on a first-come

30:57 ↗ first-serve people that are income

30:58 ↗ eligible or whether you would want to

31:00 ↗ set aside those units specifically for

31:02 ↗ state city employees or school or school

31:03 ↗ employees I think that I think that's a

31:06 ↗ really interesting discussion I wasn't

31:07 ↗ what the community values yeah yeah I

31:10 ↗ was just looking to Arthur so no we had

31:11 ↗ last time talk about fair housing rules

31:14 ↗ around that and I know if there's

31:16 ↗ anything you want to just comment with

31:17 ↗ that to the first comment about

31:20 ↗ employers 15 with housing there's two

31:23 ↗ examples out there that give you sort of

31:26 ↗ a bracket of the range of things that

31:28 ↗ might be talked about one is there some

31:30 ↗ programs a lot in the some in the

31:33 ↗ Chicago area where employers help

31:35 ↗ employees buy homes so they help with

31:38 ↗ the down payment so that it was a way to

31:40 ↗ help bring it down and usually what they

31:42 ↗ find they do it and they do it a lot

31:44 ↗ with hospitals and other employees who

31:46 ↗ have a high training class from turnover

31:48 ↗ and so the the attraction or the appeal

31:52 ↗ the pitch that's made the companies is

31:54 ↗ it saves them money in the long run and

31:56 ↗ then it they use often the company set

31:58 ↗ it up that if you stay in your home ten

31:59 ↗ years or something and you stay with the

32:01 ↗ company ten years they'll forgive that

32:02 ↗ you know sort of it's like a down

32:04 ↗ payment assistance the other example is

32:06 ↗ down in the San Francisco Bay Area

32:09 ↗ there is a public fund like just like

32:10 ↗ you were talking about this levy idea

32:12 ↗ and what they have done is the

32:15 ↗ manufacture it's called the Silicon

32:16 ↗ Valley manufacturing group is the public

32:19 ↗ sector has gotten together with the

32:20 ↗ private sector and the and they've

32:23 ↗ created a fund that is used to fund

32:25 ↗ affordable housing Monday that comes

32:27 ↗ from public sources but some of that is

32:29 ↗ also coming from local companies so they

32:31 ↗ just give the money into that fund

32:33 ↗ source and then there's a board that you

32:35 ↗ know they come up with all the criteria

32:36 ↗ that you're describing to sort a locate

32:38 ↗ those funds so those are a couple of

32:39 ↗ different ways employers have gotten

32:41 ↗ involved with dealing with housing needs

32:44 ↗ in their community and then there's more

32:46 ↗ extreme cases that you go back further

32:47 ↗ where companies actually build housing

32:49 ↗ for employees I mean if you go back

32:51 ↗ England did that in a number of

32:52 ↗ communities and some companies in the

32:55 ↗ u.s. actually did that as well so that's

32:57 ↗ actually an even more extreme case

33:01 ↗ and then when you can speak to this the

33:03 ↗ second half of that so the second one is

33:06 ↗ you definitely have to think about fair

33:09 ↗ housing issues and it gets pretty

33:10 ↗ complex and the other element to is is

33:15 ↗ that if you look at the history of the

33:17 ↗ resources that cities have made

33:18 ↗ available they're a small piece of that

33:21 ↗ overall funding and so when that happens

33:24 ↗ you're using a lot of other funds from

33:26 ↗ federal and national or state sources so

33:29 ↗ there's the challenges at times related

33:32 ↗ to court cases about how explicit you

33:36 ↗ can be about prioritizing or setting

33:38 ↗ aside but we have in times over the

33:41 ↗ years try to you know we try to

33:43 ↗ work with ways like heavy advertising to

33:45 ↗ local employers and things like that and

33:47 ↗ it's a shifting issue and so it's one

33:50 ↗ that I think is worth keeping your eye

33:52 ↗ over time because not a lot of people

33:55 ↗ raise that issue and see that connection

33:59 ↗ if there's something the city provides

34:03 ↗ or it can be looking to because one

34:05 ↗ problem that I keep hearing from friends

34:07 ↗ is that apartment complexes complex

34:10 ↗ places in the city that used to have

34:13 ↗ section 8 families are being sold to new

34:18 ↗ management or owners and then section 8

34:22 ↗ which is affordable housing is being

34:25 ↗ eliminated there's something in the city

34:29 ↗ or in all the discussions we've had that

34:31 ↗ has addressed that so I guess that would

34:34 ↗ I will consider that preserving

34:36 ↗ affordable housing

34:37 ↗ right yeah okay and so I don't know um

34:40 ↗ yeah okay coming up I'm looking at the

34:43 ↗ strategies we've identified so far and I

34:45 ↗ don't believe we have anything

34:46 ↗ specifically to that except for a few

34:48 ↗ would well it doesn't say number two is

34:52 ↗ that's the point and I'm looking trying

34:54 ↗ to look on the strategic matrix that was

34:56 ↗ the black and white copy if there's

34:58 ↗ something more specific but what you

34:59 ↗ just described is it would be addressing

35:01 ↗ number two okay there's two types of

35:04 ↗ vouchers this is federal assistance

35:06 ↗ where residents pay a third of their

35:08 ↗ income and the government pays the

35:10 ↗ difference between that and

35:12 ↗ like that rent one is where it gets tied

35:15 ↗ to a building and it stays with that

35:16 ↗ building over time the other is when a

35:19 ↗ resident gets it and they try to find an

35:21 ↗ apartment in the community for the

35:23 ↗ former that has been the number one

35:25 ↗ priority of the cities in East King

35:27 ↗ County we had about 550 units owned

35:30 ↗ privately in East King County 500 of

35:33 ↗ those have been preserved by getting

35:36 ↗ them sold to nonprofits or getting that

35:38 ↗ owner to refinance with us and other

35:40 ↗ public funders and agreed to keep

35:42 ↗ there's only one building left in all of

35:44 ↗ East King County and it is in Issaquah

35:46 ↗ and we're watching it but that has been

35:49 ↗ a highest priority of the cities in

35:50 ↗ Eaton County for 20 years and we've had

35:52 ↗ overall pretty incredible success we've

35:55 ↗ lost 20 units through sale on the open

35:57 ↗ market

35:58 ↗ out of those 554 the vouchers what might

36:01 ↗ be worth considering and some cities

36:03 ↗ have done this in their preservation

36:04 ↗ language is they acknowledge that the

36:07 ↗ vouchers where residents have to find

36:09 ↗ units can you do things to try to make

36:12 ↗ it so that people can use vouchers in

36:14 ↗ your community because there's usually a

36:16 ↗ cap on how much rent they contain if

36:18 ↗ your rents go up in the community it's

36:20 ↗ harder you know it can be harder for

36:21 ↗ people to find Salters in their

36:23 ↗ community so some cities and their

36:24 ↗ housing strategies in the preservation

36:26 ↗ section have acknowledged explicitly and

36:29 ↗ called out the point you've made more

36:31 ↗ but it's more related to the what are

36:33 ↗ called the mobile vouchers it's not so

36:35 ↗ much the building base points well the

36:37 ↗ the situation's I've been hearing from

36:39 ↗ different families in the community that

36:43 ↗ they're not accepting vouchers anymore

36:45 ↗ at all there I'm not following the

36:50 ↗ question the apartment complex right

36:53 ↗ this X family X Y Z families have

36:57 ↗ vouchers or either of the situations

36:59 ↗ that you just explained from from

37:01 ↗ qingcheng to pay for housing right they

37:03 ↗ sell the complex say 60 units a little

37:07 ↗ bit here and there then they don't

37:09 ↗ accept any more affectionate or vouchers

37:12 ↗ right and they increase the rent right

37:15 ↗ and it's happening more and more

37:16 ↗ intensively

37:18 ↗ correct so well can we do this - ok so

37:21 ↗ those two things you're describing there

37:23 ↗ the first is an owner

37:25 ↗ I just don't want people with vouchers

37:27 ↗ in my building

37:28 ↗ the second is the rent in your community

37:32 ↗ have gone up so high that people with

37:34 ↗ vouchers can't pay they're not allowed

37:37 ↗ to rent in those units because the rents

37:39 ↗ are too high and there's a cap on what

37:40 ↗ they're allowed to pay for the first

37:43 ↗ issue what is out there and some - you

37:46 ↗ may have read about this even it's

37:48 ↗ through in Federal Way and I think all

37:49 ↗ bur in the last year is they're saying

37:52 ↗ they're passing local ordinances that

37:53 ↗ say it's called source of income

37:56 ↗ discrimination and they're passing

37:58 ↗ ordinance that says you can't

38:00 ↗ discriminate with someone because of the

38:02 ↗ source of income they're using ie

38:04 ↗ section aid or other assistance when you

38:07 ↗ are looking at somebody for

38:08 ↗ qualifications to move in now you can

38:11 ↗ and in East King County King County as

38:14 ↗ adopted that kind of ordinance Bellevue

38:16 ↗ Redmen and Kirkland also have adopted

38:18 ↗ those types of ordinances that however

38:20 ↗ doesn't mean that the owners rents are

38:24 ↗ still too high people still won't

38:26 ↗ necessarily get into those units with

38:28 ↗ their vouchers okay so what I'm saying

38:32 ↗ is like one of the things that's out

38:34 ↗ there that we're working with the

38:35 ↗ Housing Authority now is we have tried

38:38 ↗ to find ways to get people with vouchers

38:41 ↗ like when we have a land-use created

38:42 ↗ affordable unit and it's affordable at

38:44 ↗ 80 percent immediate networks and so

38:46 ↗ we're looking at working with the

38:48 ↗ Housing Authority to see if we can get

38:50 ↗ people with vouchers in some of the

38:51 ↗ buildings even new buildings in the

38:53 ↗ units that are at least a little below

38:55 ↗ market because of land use requirements

38:57 ↗ so that's like some of the cities are

38:59 ↗ putting language and can we find some

39:01 ↗ ways to make it a little bit easier for

39:04 ↗ people with vouchers to be in our

39:06 ↗ community and you might leave it at that

39:08 ↗ there and the follow up could be either

39:10 ↗ the source of income or it could be

39:12 ↗ finding ways to get units that have rent

39:15 ↗ levels that are within the means of

39:17 ↗ what's about your people with vouchers

39:19 ↗ compact discs or currently have a

39:22 ↗ discrimination income ordinance I do not

39:25 ↗ believe so

39:28 ↗ would that be good to call out as a

39:30 ↗ specific option and within our within

39:33 ↗ the recommendations where other things

39:41 ↗ and if I remember correctly I think

39:44 ↗ Seattle was also looking at something

39:46 ↗ about you have to accept people in the

39:49 ↗ order that they apply so you can't kind

39:52 ↗ of skip over the first three people that

39:55 ↗ apply with vouchers in order to accept

39:58 ↗ somebody who doesn't have a voucher and

40:01 ↗ that's also discriminatory as well

40:03 ↗ that's intended for all renters not as

40:07 ↗ much for the section eight but that's

40:09 ↗ intended for all renters have sort of

40:11 ↗ level the playing field and maybe it's

40:13 ↗ racial discrimination all forms of

40:14 ↗ discrimination they're trying to avoid

40:18 ↗ alright any other comments on any of

40:21 ↗ these the five that are on the screen

40:22 ↗ here

40:25 ↗ overall I want a little bit of head

40:27 ↗ nodding or wagging this way that if we

40:30 ↗ move forward these you know without

40:32 ↗ hearing to basically take one of these

40:33 ↗ off or arguing for changing it these

40:36 ↗ will end up being developed more and put

40:39 ↗ into the housing strategy we we talked

40:41 ↗ to council about where's exclusionary

40:44 ↗ zoning in bonus density is that on this

40:46 ↗ for details okay thank you I was going

40:54 ↗ to say number four is really important

40:57 ↗ transit oriented development is a way to

41:00 ↗ kind of cut costs for a family household

41:02 ↗ by proximity to transit or other

41:04 ↗ mobility options to either get to their

41:07 ↗ jobs or to other communities or services

41:10 ↗ if any of you who are following the

41:14 ↗ sound transit three discussions it was

41:16 ↗ stated that a individual without having

41:19 ↗ a car and having to be reliant on a car

41:21 ↗ could save annually up to ten thousand

41:24 ↗ dollars well that is obviously a cost

41:26 ↗ saving that could help towards housing

41:28 ↗ and then that multi-family tax exemption

41:32 ↗ is really important to help keep the

41:34 ↗ cost of housing down as new product is

41:36 ↗ developed so I definitely would be in

41:39 ↗ support of something

41:40 ↗ lines up to 12 years because it's a way

41:43 ↗ to bring in additional product to help

41:45 ↗ support that need I'll echo the comments

41:49 ↗ on Tod I think and I'm in the common are

41:52 ↗ the previous meeting for the translation

41:54 ↗ plan I think it might be helpful to put

41:56 ↗ in some language or a comment about

41:58 ↗ working with Sound Transit which there

42:01 ↗ with the news and transit station I

42:02 ↗ think the foundation 3 package

42:04 ↗ specifically includes funding for Tod

42:06 ↗ and given that we have a we have a

42:08 ↗ station coming it might be good to

42:09 ↗ definitely start looking towards that

42:11 ↗ and providing the city side of funding

42:13 ↗ or to maximize that benefit if a when

42:16 ↗ that gets built yes we're actually

42:18 ↗ planning a Tod right now okay that one's

42:21 ↗ for that one no one's adjacent to the

42:22 ↗ current Pterodactylus that are exactly

42:24 ↗ but yeah so we waited after them and

42:26 ↗ trying to a continue on that and be with

42:29 ↗ the Larios it makes a lot of sense once

42:30 ↗ we know where that station will be that

42:31 ↗ stationary planning disaster until 2024

42:34 ↗ so but we but obviously doing a little

42:37 ↗ bit of the work now around Tod will

42:40 ↗ become expert scible you know

42:41 ↗ potentially has additional product yeah

42:44 ↗ I also wanted to suggest with Tod is

42:50 ↗ there any way the city can pressure

42:51 ↗ metro to give us an orca card machine

42:55 ↗ for the city there is not one in our

42:57 ↗ city people who want to have an orca

42:59 ↗ card or load money onto it they can't do

43:01 ↗ it at transit center they have to go to

43:03 ↗ a grocery store first

43:04 ↗ how are they going to get to the grocery

43:06 ↗ store when they live right next to the

43:07 ↗ Transit Center it just doesn't work but

43:10 ↗ is there anything the city can do to

43:11 ↗ pressure Metro for that well well look

43:14 ↗ at that as part of Tod again yeah

43:16 ↗ useless if you can't get a card to get

43:18 ↗ on the bus

43:19 ↗ yeah so we can also maybe look at the

43:21 ↗ Tod that we're working with the

43:22 ↗ developers key that makes sense and in

43:25 ↗ their thoughts every second on one day a

43:29 ↗ lot of the things we pointed out is you

43:31 ↗ know the rents have increased quite a

43:33 ↗ lot and rents are really high in this

43:35 ↗ area and between the point came on the

43:39 ↗ action items between one and nine they

43:41 ↗ helped me understand how which one

43:43 ↗ specifically

43:45 ↗ addresses ghrelin pour the rent so so

43:53 ↗ number one could it's not a guarantee

43:56 ↗ but accessory dwelling units against

43:58 ↗ typically smaller size so it would be

44:00 ↗ some lower rent right support

44:04 ↗ preservation of existing affordable

44:06 ↗ housing so then those rents in whatever

44:08 ↗ method we do wouldn't raise us quickly

44:10 ↗ or be as expensive as other rental units

44:13 ↗ I think probably I think the first five

44:16 ↗ deal with with affordable housing and so

44:24 ↗ I think all of those would because

44:26 ↗ inclusionary zoning basically says that

44:28 ↗ you must include a certain percentage of

44:30 ↗ affordable housing and as Keith

44:33 ↗ mentioned before not one of these

44:34 ↗ strategies is going to be a silver

44:36 ↗ bullet we're not going to be able to

44:38 ↗ solve the problem with one or two or

44:39 ↗ even ten or twenty but it's looking at

44:42 ↗ different different stakeholders that

44:44 ↗ can help be part of the conversation and

44:46 ↗ part of the solution and so that that is

44:49 ↗ more on the developments developers side

44:52 ↗ so allowing them to build maybe another

44:55 ↗ level if they provide some affordable

44:56 ↗ housing they worked on a plan to provide

45:00 ↗ yeah and I know I think the number eight

45:05 ↗ which is on the third page talking about

45:08 ↗ diverse housing models to college

45:10 ↗ cottages and duplexes and multiplexers

45:12 ↗ again having smaller different size

45:15 ↗ units you know potentially you think

45:18 ↗ turns into or relates to how much they

45:22 ↗ can even charge but again it's not

45:24 ↗ guaranteed to be affordable housing but

45:26 ↗ it's a it gives a spectrum of

45:28 ↗ affordability

45:32 ↗ Oh have you thought about gun control at

45:35 ↗ all I know Washington State used to have

45:37 ↗ it it got repealed in 1981 because we

45:40 ↗ had a Republican Senate and the

45:43 ↗ lobbyists paid money it's not completely

45:47 ↗ outside real most discussion right good

45:50 ↗ I'm looking at Arthur for rent control

45:52 ↗ or we I know we talked about this last

45:54 ↗ time as well

45:55 ↗ prohibited is prohibited by the state

45:58 ↗ yeah so I guess he's saying go in just

45:59 ↗ state and get unperson to actually allow

46:02 ↗ it again and that's something we could

46:04 ↗ look at you know I think it's a pretty a

46:06 ↗ pill battle and but that's my personal

46:09 ↗ opinion not my legal lobbying opinion so

46:14 ↗ I've got one question here for number

46:16 ↗ nine we're supporting housing options

46:20 ↗ and services to enables seniors to stay

46:22 ↗ in their homes and neighborhoods also

46:24 ↗ they're potentially asking seniors to

46:27 ↗ move to condos as a step maybe as a

46:32 ↗ shutdown most of the contact I think all

46:38 ↗ condo is now being developed in Issaquah

46:40 ↗ our multiple story and seniors have

46:43 ↗ struggled with stairs so maybe we want

46:45 ↗ to have a percentage of this a

46:47 ↗ single-story units for those with

46:50 ↗ disabilities well I would I would

46:54 ↗ disagree on that one I mean I want to

46:56 ↗ live in a condo it has an elevator and I

46:58 ↗ would say half the people in my building

46:59 ↗ are people that have retired and and

47:01 ↗ I've have have moved down and then I

47:04 ↗ think also I would I don't think if you

47:08 ↗ have an opportunity to build a

47:09 ↗ multi-story building and you really know

47:10 ↗ one story buildings if someone doesn't

47:11 ↗ have to walk up the stairs I think

47:13 ↗ that's a missed opportunity that not

47:14 ↗ referring to the actually building being

47:17 ↗ single story

47:18 ↗ oh just hang on units on the ground for

47:20 ↗ Wow okay so I'm sorry but not having a

47:23 ↗ townhome stacked you could have a

47:25 ↗ townhome stack as long as you have maybe

47:27 ↗ an elevator or something or or high-rise

47:30 ↗ but single storey units sure sure yeah

47:35 ↗ yes

47:37 ↗ thank you so you have on here

47:41 ↗ legislation to support condominiums and

47:44 ↗ those that conversation was focusing

47:47 ↗ right now the market is building

47:50 ↗ townhomes you know in terms of a

47:51 ↗ building type and not building flat

47:54 ↗ multi-story flats and your comments when

47:57 ↗ I clarify if there were multi-story

47:59 ↗ buildings that are condominiums but they

48:01 ↗ are like elevators sort of common entry

48:03 ↗ would that address the point you're

48:05 ↗ making okay so then I would sort of

48:07 ↗ argue that the condominium legislation

48:09 ↗ we're talking about is to support the

48:12 ↗ forms of condos that we haven't been

48:14 ↗ seen which are the stats flat types

48:16 ↗ which would have the side beneficial

48:19 ↗ beneficiate beneficiary of maybe serving

48:21 ↗ seniors who want to move out would that

48:23 ↗ cover your comment okay number six up

48:27 ↗ there and what we discussed before and

48:30 ↗ you can read a little more that the

48:31 ↗ several years ago the liability laws

48:34 ↗ changed and there's quite a few entities

48:38 ↗ that are continuing to talk to our

48:40 ↗ legislators about changing that because

48:42 ↗ it has resulted in again townhomes and

48:45 ↗ multifamily rental versus ownership

48:48 ↗ opportunities so I have a general

48:52 ↗ question I don't see in any of the nine

48:55 ↗ homelessness showing up specifically and

49:00 ↗ maybe it's not exactly the right place I

49:01 ↗ think in a previous meeting we did talk

49:03 ↗ about sort of the soul and of a full

49:04 ↗ range of everybody everybody in it it

49:09 ↗ might be so maybe just maybe one

49:11 ↗ question maybe it is in there and I'm

49:12 ↗ just not seeing it and maybe a solution

49:15 ↗ would be I noticed on the strategy

49:16 ↗ matrix there's you know category of that

49:22 ↗ like special needs and seniors or

49:25 ↗ address kind of in one place so maybe

49:28 ↗ nine could actually be it if needed nine

49:30 ↗ could be expanded to kind of just deal

49:32 ↗ with special needs generally including

49:35 ↗ seniors and homelessness could be

49:36 ↗ addressed in there I don't know it's

49:37 ↗ just an idea but maybe it's in there

49:41 ↗ somewhere else Chris I'm not sure yeah I

49:44 ↗ don't think we are addressing

49:45 ↗ homelessness and

49:46 ↗ or categories specifically do you think

49:48 ↗ Martha it would be problem statement

49:53 ↗ three though just worry about using our

49:58 ↗ dollars leverage of the public dollars

50:00 ↗ those often come with requirements or

50:02 ↗ you get more points so we increase

50:04 ↗ likelihood of funding if you designate a

50:07 ↗ certain percentage of units for folks

50:09 ↗ exiting or coming out of homelessness

50:11 ↗ but so we wouldn't see that level of

50:13 ↗ detail at the strategy level but still

50:18 ↗ additional idea to point furniture

50:26 ↗ yeah then I drink or everything so I

50:31 ↗ know I know Trish Mensa number three

50:33 ↗ which is a levy and again could be in

50:35 ↗ and out there

50:36 ↗ no problem statement three oh that's a

50:38 ↗ housing diversity that right address

50:42 ↗ that as well right or is a funding

50:44 ↗ resource so what if folks about think

50:48 ↗ about number nine and so I know we have

50:52 ↗ a comment from one of our commissioners

50:55 ↗ about expending resources support more

51:00 ↗ housing options specifically for seniors

51:02 ↗ doesn't believe that makes sense and I

51:04 ↗ think we just learned and I just learned

51:06 ↗ today that's actually the percentage

51:08 ↗ wise of our community seniors as a

51:10 ↗ percentage have decreased so while we

51:12 ↗ see a lot of senior housing and I think

51:14 ↗ wow there's a lot more seniors here

51:16 ↗ there are more seniors here but there's

51:18 ↗ also a lot more other people here so so

51:21 ↗ what he worried that folks think about

51:23 ↗ expanding number nine to include not

51:25 ↗ just seniors but special needs

51:27 ↗ homelessness another seems to kind of be

51:30 ↗ broader and again we're not getting down

51:32 ↗ to the details of what exactly and how

51:34 ↗ tonight but it will address that that

51:37 ↗ broader population that you're right

51:38 ↗ that in problem statement number three

51:40 ↗ addresses excuse me could that include

51:45 ↗ assistant leaving for disabled and

51:47 ↗ handicaps

51:59 ↗ well yeah as you noticed numbers seven

52:02 ↗ eight and nine are in red because those

52:03 ↗ were added at last meetings so they

52:05 ↗ haven't been as vetted and you know

52:06 ↗ maybe maybe not have had as much time do

52:09 ↗ you think about those so let's look at

52:10 ↗ those directly so number seven is

52:15 ↗ looking at looking at zoning codes to

52:18 ↗ accommodate single room occupancy SROs

52:21 ↗ or mini suites and multi-family zones

52:23 ↗ and so this is a little bit of the

52:26 ↗ shared spaces

52:27 ↗ oddments those type of things I'm going

52:30 ↗ to folks think about that concept so I

52:34 ↗ think if we're looking at thirty percent

52:35 ↗ of our residents currently living alone

52:39 ↗ we have to question whether or not

52:42 ↗ they're living alone in current housing

52:45 ↗ stock which only eight percent is single

52:47 ↗ bedroom if they're choosing to live in a

52:50 ↗ two-bedroom unit because they want the

52:53 ↗ extra space or whether they're choosing

52:55 ↗ to live in it because they want to live

52:57 ↗ in Escalon not the only housing stock if

52:59 ↗ it's the former than creating SROs and a

53:04 ↗ pod mints and things like that isn't

53:06 ↗ really going to appeal to the type of

53:08 ↗ person who is currently living in

53:11 ↗ Issaquah necessarily so I'm not sure how

53:14 ↗ much that I would choose as a direction

53:20 ↗ to go but I think tying that in or at

53:23 ↗ least being associated with the bonus

53:27 ↗ density and the ACLU's inclusionary

53:29 ↗ zoning in five and just encouraging

53:33 ↗ smaller units in that way rather than

53:36 ↗ necessarily SROs would be one way to

53:41 ↗ look at it what others think

53:47 ↗ I think I'd argue that the kind of

53:49 ↗ people that want to live in an SRO are

53:51 ↗ not currently living in Issaquah because

53:53 ↗ it's just not an option to so I think

53:54 ↗ even if a lot of the people that are

53:56 ↗ living in vital um by themselves and

53:59 ↗ perhaps the detached house because they

54:01 ↗ own it I think I think the people that

54:03 ↗ would be taking advantage of the SRO is

54:04 ↗ moving into equi rather than people

54:07 ↗ currently us because moving from one

54:09 ↗ type of housing talk to the other I

54:11 ↗ think either way I think it's a good

54:12 ↗ thing because I think we need we need to

54:14 ↗ president any things regionally we need

54:16 ↗ to be adding more housing stock of all

54:18 ↗ times and after I was simply one of many

54:20 ↗ types of housing that that that the city

54:23 ↗ needs to be adding what kind of

54:26 ↗ incentive could be provided for seniors

54:28 ↗ because some of them live in a two or

54:31 ↗ three-bedroom house because they've been

54:33 ↗ living there all their lives in ISA for

54:35 ↗ when he was affordable but what kind of

54:38 ↗ what kind of incentive could be offered

54:40 ↗ to them to me moving to smaller

54:43 ↗ apartments making those houses available

54:46 ↗ for bigger families okay because there's

54:48 ↗ an abundance in other places or programs

54:51 ↗ that have encouraged seniors to

54:53 ↗ basically downsize so I think then you

54:55 ↗ you have to have the opportunity to that

54:57 ↗ unit that works for them as we talked

54:58 ↗ about with single story or single living

55:01 ↗ story living space or maybe having that

55:05 ↗ extra bedroom still so that family can

55:07 ↗ come visit but not four extra bedrooms

55:08 ↗ right so we can look at what programs

55:11 ↗ exist for that we haven't done that

55:14 ↗ research to know I think that makes a

55:16 ↗ really good point and it's not

55:18 ↗ necessarily I think something I would

55:19 ↗ envision the city doing but maybe

55:21 ↗ there's an opportunity with the local

55:23 ↗ nonprofit that you know you see online

55:25 ↗ the volunteer connection sites

55:27 ↗ perhaps there's a way to connect

55:30 ↗ roommate because if you think about if

55:32 ↗ you are senior citizen or living on your

55:34 ↗ own there's a lot of potential fear and

55:37 ↗ a lot of work or just not understanding

55:38 ↗ what the rules are to finding a roommate

55:42 ↗ and it's there was a group that could

55:43 ↗ facilitate and make that easy and safe I

55:46 ↗ think a lot more people if it was

55:48 ↗ visible might take advantage of that so

55:50 ↗ that's a way to open up households that

55:52 ↗ have rooms it could be used in

55:54 ↗ benefit from that merit accommodation

55:56 ↗ good actually second or she almost took

56:00 ↗ the words out of my mouth my next

56:03 ↗ comment was on as far as the single the

56:05 ↗ SROs if we build too many SROs if not as

56:09 ↗ the efficient use of space as a

56:11 ↗ two-bedroom necessarily because a

56:12 ↗ two-bedroom has one sometimes a one bath

56:16 ↗ and one kitchen the two people living in

56:19 ↗ it so you could have roommate situation

56:23 ↗ which didn't gives you a more a better

56:25 ↗ affordable housing because if you're

56:27 ↗ paid or rents of us a thousand dollars a

56:30 ↗ month for a studio or single single room

56:34 ↗ and you're paying 1,500 a month for a

56:36 ↗ two-bedroom rent the two-bedroom up to a

56:40 ↗ roommate split the right and you're

56:41 ↗ actually no more affordable

56:43 ↗ clarification on that though but on sros

56:46 ↗ that's different than a studio though an

56:48 ↗ SRO is where you might have

56:50 ↗ oh just a room and then you're still

56:52 ↗ having in common space where the shower

56:54 ↗ and the kitchen is correct that's their

56:57 ↗ SS rows are different because you're

56:59 ↗ correct to make a studio you're

57:00 ↗ repeating bathrooms and you're repeating

57:02 ↗ ovens but if in an SRO it's literally

57:05 ↗ just a room with a bed in a closet yeah

57:08 ↗ yeah correct much more much more of a

57:10 ↗ dorms types with exact I was almost more

57:12 ↗ of a co-op along those lines

57:16 ↗ and although NRS Row is currently

57:18 ↗ allowed in the square so what would let

57:22 ↗ me put this another way what's that

57:23 ↗ what's the current cap on bedrooms you

57:25 ↗ can have in a common ended in a single

57:28 ↗ dwelling unit I don't know that we know

57:30 ↗ that off oh maybe he knows yeah I know

57:32 ↗ we we include I think five or six

57:37 ↗ unrelated people of the group home right

57:39 ↗ so the odds are most cities you could

57:44 ↗ probably find a way to build them it

57:46 ↗ just might get really expensive to deal

57:49 ↗ with all the codes and everything that

57:51 ↗ go with them and so it may make it

57:53 ↗ impractical from a marketing you know

57:58 ↗ from like what you're going to rent the

57:59 ↗ units for so it's it can be a subtle

58:03 ↗ kind of thing is to what you might do to

58:06 ↗ accommodate an SRO

58:07 ↗ but most cities I think have provisions

58:11 ↗ that allow various forms of you know

58:14 ↗ that do allow but we find the actual s

58:17 ↗ where you've described the market

58:18 ↗ generally isn't doing they are doing

58:21 ↗ more maybe the kitchen is shared but

58:23 ↗ there's still a microwave in the unit

58:25 ↗ and so people might not need it and

58:27 ↗ that's what we're seeing built on the

58:28 ↗ east side right now is they aren't

58:31 ↗ considered exactly studio units but each

58:36 ↗ unit you don't have a microwaving of a

58:39 ↗ very small bathroom and you might only

58:41 ↗ have one sink for both the bathroom in

58:43 ↗ the kitchen kind of space and that's

58:45 ↗ what we're seeing the market at least

58:46 ↗ the one person who's building them in

58:48 ↗ these King County the way they're doing

58:50 ↗ it the pure SRO where you just have a

58:52 ↗ room and then you share a bathroom and

58:54 ↗ you share that's something we have to

58:56 ↗ look into to see if that to what extent

58:58 ↗ that's allowed and the way that one

59:01 ↗ builder first started doing it is

59:03 ↗ essentially he did make it like a six

59:05 ↗ bedroom house and you're allowed to have

59:08 ↗ up to six people and so you can do it

59:10 ↗ that way

59:12 ↗ and so that's another route that people

59:14 ↗ can go but we're finding that when

59:17 ↗ someone is building something explicitly

59:19 ↗ they're not doing something quite like

59:22 ↗ what you described they're doing

59:25 ↗ something that's a morph between a

59:26 ↗ studio and what you described a couple

59:29 ↗ comments whispering rapid I think one I

59:30 ↗ think it might be helpful along this

59:32 ↗ that I think the city should look at

59:34 ↗ what not make sense to clarify or zoning

59:36 ↗ try to explicitly allow or not allow

59:38 ↗ that I because I know I mean there's

59:40 ↗ there's little apartment boom and

59:42 ↗ Seattle to three years ago there's

59:44 ↗ basically they figured out the loopholes

59:45 ↗ and the loopholes got closed

59:47 ↗ I would actually are going to ever think

59:48 ↗ it's going to go the other way

59:49 ↗ specifically allow us or rose but then

59:52 ↗ make sure that's very clear what we mean

59:54 ↗ by it what we what we want to allow and

59:56 ↗ about what scale and and what so I

59:59 ↗ wanted just to add to your conversation

1:00:01 ↗ at the last meeting what I believe I

1:00:03 ↗ heard saying is if you are looking at

1:00:05 ↗ that the idea was not necessarily

1:00:07 ↗ universally in the city but if it is

1:00:10 ↗ something where it's a special kind of

1:00:11 ↗ zoning look at where you do it to make

1:00:13 ↗ sure it's very transit rich it's like oh

1:00:16 ↗ yeah definitely no I think SROs is

1:00:19 ↗ generally think

1:00:21 ↗ I'm generally squeamish when I say oh we

1:00:23 ↗ only want a certain cap hasn't one spot

1:00:24 ↗ I think this is very much something

1:00:26 ↗ where it's appropriate to allow it only

1:00:27 ↗ in specific sections of the city I think

1:00:30 ↗ will be great there within transit which

1:00:32 ↗ parts the cities we clarify our zoning

1:00:35 ↗ and make it very clear to developers

1:00:36 ↗ that yes this is welcome because I think

1:00:38 ↗ in to wander into cliche I think I read

1:00:42 ↗ a lot about how Millennials of which I'm

1:00:43 ↗ one are very much into that kind of like

1:00:46 ↗ coal living space and you see it a lot

1:00:47 ↗ of places like Chicago New York and I

1:00:49 ↗ don't see why I don't see why is it well

1:00:52 ↗ couldn't have I mean it's not something

1:00:54 ↗ you would see built everywhere I think

1:00:55 ↗ it certainly it would be booked a piece

1:00:57 ↗ of the puzzle I think it's something

1:00:58 ↗ that we should explore and perhaps

1:01:00 ↗ embrace I'm sorry I imagine think one

1:01:04 ↗ point on that is so it's a great thought

1:01:08 ↗ and and here's the deal is most builders

1:01:10 ↗ don't like to be guinea pigs and so just

1:01:14 ↗ allowing it doesn't necessarily and

1:01:17 ↗ likely won't mean it's going to happen

1:01:19 ↗ because what's going to happen is most

1:01:21 ↗ builders will say well there's no tested

1:01:23 ↗ market and is a quad to do an SRO so I'm

1:01:26 ↗ not going to go ahead and finance that

1:01:27 ↗ kind of project because I don't know

1:01:28 ↗ what kind of return I'm going to get on

1:01:30 ↗ my investment so if if this group really

1:01:33 ↗ thinks that's an important piece of the

1:01:34 ↗ puzzle then it goes beyond just look

1:01:37 ↗ making sure that the code would allow it

1:01:39 ↗ it's how do you then facilitate one to

1:01:42 ↗ happen so that the rest of the builders

1:01:44 ↗ can then see whether or not it's

1:01:46 ↗ marketable or not right I mean because

1:01:48 ↗ that's part of the puzzle is they're

1:01:50 ↗ going to look and see what kind of

1:01:51 ↗ return as Arthur mentioned there's been

1:01:54 ↗ there's been I think from last time you

1:01:56 ↗ said there was a builder in Bellevue

1:01:57 ↗ that did one and then there's the one in

1:01:59 ↗ Redmond that's currently working on on a

1:02:01 ↗ version but if we see this as being a

1:02:04 ↗ housing type that's truly important for

1:02:07 ↗ our diversity needs and desires then

1:02:11 ↗ it's going to go beyond just making sure

1:02:13 ↗ the code allows it it's how do you then

1:02:14 ↗ facilitate getting somebody to actually

1:02:16 ↗ try it yeah but I think the first tip is

1:02:19 ↗ to make sure that the code allows it I

1:02:21 ↗ think you that that needs come first and

1:02:22 ↗ then I think I'd also argue that if it

1:02:25 ↗ works in Bellevue in Redmond it's going

1:02:27 ↗ to come to Issaquah as long as the

1:02:29 ↗ region keeps growing it's going to

1:02:31 ↗ happen eventually and I don't I don't

1:02:32 ↗ think I'm

1:02:34 ↗ some are going to disagree with you

1:02:35 ↗ Keith I don't think the city means

1:02:36 ↗ actually go out it's way to facilitate a

1:02:37 ↗ certain type of development a message

1:02:40 ↗ needs to allow it and as long as the

1:02:42 ↗ region keeps growing at the pace it's

1:02:43 ↗ growing eventually some developer is

1:02:45 ↗ going to say well if it works in Bothell

1:02:47 ↗ it works in Kirkland it's going to work

1:02:48 ↗ in Issaquah because the cities aren't

1:02:49 ↗ that different and once those are the

1:02:52 ↗ ones those students get built out the

1:02:53 ↗ growth the growth is the growth is

1:02:55 ↗ coming here one way or another I think

1:02:57 ↗ you're right that going forward a

1:02:59 ↗ facilitator might have might accelerate

1:03:01 ↗ it and have that type of housing stock

1:03:02 ↗ being built a few years earlier but I

1:03:04 ↗ think simply allowing and clarifying I

1:03:06 ↗ think if you allow it they will come

1:03:09 ↗ I think John did my in my opinion Arthur

1:03:13 ↗ a quick question for you about you

1:03:15 ↗ talked a lot about the developer in

1:03:17 ↗ Redmond doing this time and time and

1:03:19 ↗ time and these basically finishing one

1:03:21 ↗ starting another there's something in

1:03:23 ↗ Redmon's ordinances that has enticed him

1:03:27 ↗ to do that that we could do here maybe

1:03:29 ↗ bring him here so I guess the question

1:03:32 ↗ I'm going to put out to the group

1:03:33 ↗ tonight given your overall goal is the

1:03:38 ↗ purpose of what you're doing here is

1:03:39 ↗ setting things to be researched in more

1:03:41 ↗ detail so whether or not we answer every

1:03:43 ↗ question tonight if that's relevant the

1:03:45 ↗ key is is it important enough we should

1:03:46 ↗ look at it now the quick answer is I

1:03:48 ↗ believe probably a primary thing that

1:03:51 ↗ was important for them is parking but

1:03:54 ↗ I'm not absolutely positive but when I

1:03:56 ↗ talk to city staff recently to clarify

1:03:57 ↗ what's the difference between a studio

1:03:59 ↗ what they're building and what's the

1:04:01 ↗ difference in the code one of their

1:04:03 ↗ comments was how they look at parking

1:04:04 ↗ there might be other things too but

1:04:07 ↗ that's and I'm not sure how far they

1:04:08 ↗ went with that but just to illustrate

1:04:10 ↗ it's been let me rephrase my comments I

1:04:12 ↗ do think would be worthwhile as Key says

1:04:14 ↗ to look into what we could do to

1:04:15 ↗ facilitate SRO construction okay okay do

1:04:21 ↗ any opinions against or counter to that

1:04:25 ↗ again we're researching and part of

1:04:28 ↗ maybe it's completely we have the same

1:04:30 ↗ codes and it's just not happening yet

1:04:31 ↗ and so talking having those

1:04:32 ↗ conversations okay

1:04:33 ↗ sir please thank you thank you voice yes

1:04:39 ↗ so that so as I mentioned to Lincoln

1:04:41 ↗ under the housing type says he says that

1:04:43 ↗ again linking it to the Tod should be

1:04:46 ↗ pursued and maybe even going farther and

1:04:48 ↗ incentivize and then I'm actually a

1:04:51 ↗ Ethan's comment was more about he and I

1:04:54 ↗ we believe it it's like he would be

1:04:55 ↗ opposed and I think part of it is

1:04:58 ↗ changing his comments are about changing

1:04:59 ↗ the character and if we talk about

1:05:00 ↗ keeping in a more urban dense areas it's

1:05:03 ↗ the quad versus haven't been go out into

1:05:05 ↗ you know a space that's currently more

1:05:08 ↗ rural and unattached amenities he might

1:05:12 ↗ have a different a little slightly

1:05:13 ↗ different perspective on that nor play

1:05:16 ↗ devil's advocate and say that SRO is I

1:05:19 ↗ think because it's a really new thing it

1:05:21 ↗ could be a fad and we should got that by

1:05:24 ↗ researching whether or not people who

1:05:27 ↗ live in our sorrows actually like them

1:05:29 ↗ before we bring them into our towns we

1:05:32 ↗ may be bringing something into our town

1:05:33 ↗ that isn't sustainable

1:05:35 ↗ okay well gotten and look at that as a

1:05:37 ↗ as far as research as a trend as well

1:05:39 ↗ yeah I was just going to say the same

1:05:42 ↗ thing this kind of research what you

1:05:45 ↗ know with the turnover how long do they

1:05:47 ↗ actually stay there or you know just I

1:05:50 ↗ feel like there just needs to be a

1:05:51 ↗ little bit more data to support that

1:05:53 ↗ because a part of me does feel that it

1:05:55 ↗ could be a trend just kind of like these

1:05:57 ↗ time homes and everything where is it

1:05:59 ↗ really going to sustain in the long run

1:06:01 ↗ economically or is it just because we

1:06:04 ↗ have such a need for affordable housing

1:06:06 ↗ the businesses soaring to that so I'd

1:06:09 ↗ like to just put something out there for

1:06:10 ↗ you to be aware of on that front

1:06:12 ↗ Bellevue helped to build or build 125

1:06:14 ↗ years ago and the person who built them

1:06:18 ↗ the logic he used he was a California

1:06:20 ↗ developer who noticed that in many urban

1:06:23 ↗ areas you have old hotels that get

1:06:25 ↗ converted to housing for low cost of

1:06:27 ↗ employees with low salaries and when he

1:06:30 ↗ looked at where growth was occurring now

1:06:31 ↗ and job growth was occurring you don't

1:06:34 ↗ have old hotels and so he saw this as a

1:06:37 ↗ model towards creating a form of housing

1:06:40 ↗ especially for retail workers and other

1:06:42 ↗ types of workers single workers and

1:06:44 ↗ communities that fills a void that will

1:06:48 ↗ be that probably there a long term and

1:06:50 ↗ he's been doing this for over 30 years

1:06:51 ↗ so I think it's good the research is

1:06:53 ↗ like you know but in general it's

1:06:56 ↗ creating a form of housing that an urban

1:06:58 ↗ area is sort of created naturally that's

1:07:00 ↗ to do in an area like if the quad

1:07:02 ↗ because you don't have older hotels or

1:07:04 ↗ old houses being split up into five or

1:07:06 ↗ six units and things like that so just

1:07:08 ↗ put that out there for some perspective

1:07:11 ↗ um I also just wanted to add I think

1:07:14 ↗ that it would be important to do the

1:07:17 ↗ research about if there any sort of

1:07:19 ↗ research to support whether it's a fad

1:07:21 ↗ or not but also SRO is a new term but

1:07:25 ↗ there even in the wording of the of the

1:07:29 ↗ strategy it covers other terms that have

1:07:31 ↗ been around a lot longer like boarding

1:07:33 ↗ home or co-op so it's another it's a new

1:07:37 ↗ term but I think the concept has been

1:07:39 ↗ around and been in communities a long

1:07:41 ↗ time good point can I Segway to number

1:07:47 ↗ eight yeah there something maybe to look

1:07:49 ↗ into in terms of whether or not the city

1:07:52 ↗ once to allow what it would look like to

1:07:53 ↗ allow conversion of detached homes into

1:07:57 ↗ a boarding house type set up and debate

1:07:59 ↗ you know taking Oh two or three story to

1:08:01 ↗ poem and turn it into a duplex triplex

1:08:03 ↗ whether that's allowed of where we want

1:08:05 ↗ to allow that in particular like old

1:08:08 ↗ town where there's a lot of

1:08:09 ↗ single-family homes one ought to make

1:08:11 ↗ sense to you know enable converting

1:08:13 ↗ those to more of an apartment size set

1:08:14 ↗ up and this might just be clarifying

1:08:17 ↗ question duplex multiplex does that

1:08:19 ↗ include row houses would that be a

1:08:21 ↗ distinct building type I'm looking to my

1:08:24 ↗ planners again it just means more than

1:08:26 ↗ to like a triplex or you know I read a

1:08:32 ↗ lot about Monroe houses as being a part

1:08:33 ↗ of the missing middle is there any value

1:08:35 ↗ and adding that to numerators that

1:08:36 ↗ covered by multiplex I think well and I

1:08:39 ↗ think it's the same thing okay if you if

1:08:41 ↗ you find some distinction there there's

1:08:44 ↗ no reason not to if you would like to

1:08:47 ↗ seems like multi plus duplex is the

1:08:50 ↗ number and then grow home is more how

1:08:51 ↗ they're okay yeah yeah yeah Barbara yeah

1:08:55 ↗ from a row house is just more than a

1:08:57 ↗ triplex why I was just curious as I've

1:08:59 ↗ seen them used and not quite an agenda

1:09:01 ↗ bleah but if you guys think they're to

1:09:02 ↗ change loyal seniors mad it I think what

1:09:05 ↗ we see is you know also townhomes that

1:09:07 ↗ were kind of like could be like row

1:09:08 ↗ homes I mean so again yeah we can look

1:09:10 ↗ in the terminology but but in general

1:09:13 ↗ we're looking at

1:09:14 ↗ to allow a more diverse type of family

1:09:18 ↗ homes who infill in single-family areas

1:09:20 ↗ right so doing a little bit of increased

1:09:24 ↗ density in those single-family areas

1:09:26 ↗ what if folks think about that my mom

1:09:29 ↗ lives in downtown ring and downtown

1:09:31 ↗ Wheaton has a lot of older homes I'm

1:09:33 ↗ specifically close to the Cedar River

1:09:34 ↗ and a lot of those have been converted

1:09:38 ↗ from the single-family home of four or

1:09:40 ↗ five bedrooms into duplexes either maybe

1:09:44 ↗ they were a split-level with an

1:09:45 ↗ up-and-down

1:09:45 ↗ or some of them they literally divide

1:09:47 ↗ the house in half the sense of both

1:09:50 ↗ sides haven't opened it down but they've

1:09:53 ↗ done really well with that and it

1:09:54 ↗ doesn't add a whole lot of extra you

1:09:57 ↗ know parking issues and that sort of

1:09:59 ↗ thing because they're also very narrow

1:10:01 ↗ streets there's a lot of one way is in

1:10:03 ↗ downtown right and the traffic is

1:10:05 ↗ definitely an issue down there too and

1:10:07 ↗ it's been really successful so I would

1:10:10 ↗ encourage to at least the duplex model

1:10:12 ↗ for that

1:10:13 ↗ that's conversion more than building

1:10:15 ↗ right

1:10:16 ↗ converting an existing ones into smaller

1:10:18 ↗ units two of them thank you any other

1:10:23 ↗ thoughts of strong reaction for against

1:10:26 ↗ for this concept you know I guess with

1:10:29 ↗ regards to doing so especially you know

1:10:32 ↗ in Old Town I'd be for it and the fact

1:10:36 ↗ that I think it would aside from adding

1:10:39 ↗ affordability would add more traction

1:10:41 ↗ and foot traffic to downtown correct I

1:10:44 ↗ mean that's what the vision is for Old

1:10:47 ↗ Town so I mean in order for it to

1:10:49 ↗ flourish you kind of have to entice

1:10:51 ↗ people to live there in order to walk

1:10:54 ↗ and have it pedestrian friendly so I

1:10:56 ↗ think it's kind of a positive more than

1:10:59 ↗ anything yeah I think you'll be helpful

1:11:01 ↗ to buttress the comment that talks about

1:11:03 ↗ well if you add more housing traffic's

1:11:05 ↗ going to get worse in Old Town I think

1:11:06 ↗ it's finding it's really important to

1:11:07 ↗ counteract that with ADA that says I'm

1:11:11 ↗ exactly to point out adding the housing

1:11:14 ↗ coop that's with an walkable walking of

1:11:16 ↗ Old Town and you know improves as you

1:11:19 ↗ put it put the the foot traffic

1:11:25 ↗ different topics like about the same

1:11:28 ↗ point I mean I know when we use the word

1:11:30 ↗ diverse here we are referencing to the

1:11:32 ↗ housing models and whatnot but the other

1:11:35 ↗ aspect of it is like how do we encourage

1:11:38 ↗ more diverse population to move into

1:11:40 ↗ Issaquah you know I mean I'll just use

1:11:45 ↗ individual homes as an example to you

1:11:48 ↗ know come by my point of point across

1:11:49 ↗ but we can use that model for use it for

1:11:52 ↗ ton homes or apartments or whatnot we

1:11:56 ↗ talk about like it a couple of points

1:11:59 ↗ I've seen encouraging developers to

1:12:02 ↗ develop more right like the example like

1:12:06 ↗ if developer is selling a individual

1:12:09 ↗ home for like 900 K or more than a

1:12:11 ↗ million and whatnot is it a way that we

1:12:14 ↗ can you know encourage them to sell a

1:12:18 ↗ house that they would potentially sell

1:12:20 ↗ for 600 K or something to sell it for

1:12:22 ↗ like 350 K what a person was able to

1:12:25 ↗ afford afford a 900k home 1 million 1.1

1:12:29 ↗ million might not be a stretch bar but

1:12:32 ↗ for somebody who can only afford a home

1:12:33 ↗ at 350 K 500 K or 6 in the cases which

1:12:38 ↗ stretch so if these developers can come

1:12:42 ↗ up with plans or if city can you know

1:12:44 ↗ increase them to come up with plans

1:12:46 ↗ where the sell you know higher you know

1:12:49 ↗ houses that you're selling at a premium

1:12:51 ↗ for a more prices so you can offset some

1:12:55 ↗ prices for it lower you know you can use

1:12:58 ↗ that model for you know condos or

1:13:00 ↗ townhomes or whatever so so so a

1:13:02 ↗ developer would build say 10 houses and

1:13:05 ↗ we would require one or two or certain

1:13:07 ↗ numbers be affordable they for every

1:13:09 ↗ house you sell more than a union would

1:13:11 ↗ say you need to sell another house for

1:13:12 ↗ 350 so that is what inclusionary zoning

1:13:15 ↗ is about I'm not looking to my planners

1:13:18 ↗ again cuz I'm not a planner but so

1:13:21 ↗ that's a requirement to require a

1:13:24 ↗ certain number of units that are more

1:13:26 ↗ affordable and you can define that so

1:13:28 ↗ the challenge of if it does you know if

1:13:31 ↗ a developers building a house because it

1:13:32 ↗ could sell for nine hundred why would

1:13:33 ↗ they sell for six or why would they sell

1:13:35 ↗ six or 350 there has to be

1:13:36 ↗ for them a reason to do that because

1:13:38 ↗ they're wise it wouldn't build it in the

1:13:40 ↗ first place so along with those lights

1:13:42 ↗ we do have to be required that you do it

1:13:44 ↗ which is inclusionary zoning or there's

1:13:46 ↗ an incentive and that usually is

1:13:48 ↗ reducing costs reducing you know it may

1:13:50 ↗ be times that it does reduce costs or

1:13:53 ↗ providing a subsidy so I would increase

1:13:55 ↗ the city to make it more of a

1:13:57 ↗ requirement for the developers to do

1:13:58 ↗ that because I mean let's face it right

1:14:00 ↗ like I mean if you say if a developer is

1:14:03 ↗ going to not gonna develop that property

1:14:04 ↗ in it's a call where are they going to

1:14:06 ↗ go develop it right okay go beyond

1:14:08 ↗ Redmond is already developed and no colm

1:14:10 ↗ Meaney is already getting there so

1:14:14 ↗ they're not going to say no to money

1:14:16 ↗ which they're going to eventually get

1:14:17 ↗ right quick so I say make it a

1:14:19 ↗ requirement for them to do that okay so

1:14:21 ↗ so we'll put a little star number number

1:14:23 ↗ five which is again the Klusener zoning

1:14:25 ↗ and I think Joan's comment before the

1:14:26 ↗ more requirements you put on that it

1:14:28 ↗ does kind of create the cost increases

1:14:31 ↗ the cost was also increased you know

1:14:32 ↗ potentially could increase the cost for

1:14:34 ↗ the end-user but I definitely think that

1:14:38 ↗ what you're talking about

1:14:39 ↗ fits into number five you have something

1:14:41 ↗ else just make one yeah I mean this kind

1:14:43 ↗ of a model was used in Columbia City

1:14:45 ↗ Columbia City is getting gentrified more

1:14:47 ↗ I mean that's different but they use

1:14:49 ↗ that kind of a model where they have

1:14:51 ↗ been newer communities are coming up

1:14:54 ↗ there you know for every house that you

1:14:55 ↗ sell for you know X higher dollar amount

1:14:57 ↗ you need to sell a house which you know

1:15:00 ↗ other than must have been required so

1:15:01 ↗ much sure about what Seattle has done

1:15:03 ↗ around Columbia City or it was a more of

1:15:04 ↗ a nonprofit that was doing that so but

1:15:08 ↗ you know specifically but that's alright

1:15:11 ↗ I mean it didn't you want to talk about

1:15:12 ↗ it or so if you're reading the Seattle

1:15:19 ↗ newspapers of lately you'll see that

1:15:21 ↗ they are doing razones

1:15:23 ↗ where they're giving more development

1:15:25 ↗ capacity in exchange for some of the

1:15:27 ↗ units have to be at a certain price

1:15:28 ↗ point you've done that for 25 years in

1:15:32 ↗ your master plan communities ESCA

1:15:34 ↗ Highlands and there where there were

1:15:36 ↗ requirements of the Vale alerts that

1:15:38 ↗ provide units at certain price points so

1:15:40 ↗ so you have been doing that other cities

1:15:42 ↗ have been doing as well usually what's

1:15:43 ↗ linked to that is some explicit

1:15:46 ↗ increased value to the developer of the

1:15:50 ↗ property by City action either by

1:15:53 ↗ allowing more units to be built than

1:15:55 ↗ otherwise we were allowed or by reducing

1:15:58 ↗ parking or waiving fees so there is a

1:16:02 ↗ quid pro quo and state legislation sort

1:16:05 ↗ of implies there should be some type of

1:16:07 ↗ quid pro quo but you and Sammamish and

1:16:11 ↗ Newcastle and Bellevue and Redmond and

1:16:13 ↗ Kirkland all are doing things like that

1:16:15 ↗ and the question is do we try to do it

1:16:18 ↗ more but you do have examples of it in

1:16:20 ↗ your community and a number of other

1:16:22 ↗ communities and Seattle is looking at

1:16:24 ↗ doing it and as many neighbourhoods as

1:16:26 ↗ they can and so and the city in our

1:16:29 ↗ Eastside who does it the most probably

1:16:31 ↗ Redmond they do it in almost every

1:16:33 ↗ neighborhood and Kirkland does it in

1:16:36 ↗ about half their neighborhoods and then

1:16:37 ↗ others do it more sporadically and

1:16:39 ↗ you've done it in like three you've done

1:16:41 ↗ it in two neighborhoods or three and so

1:16:44 ↗ that's something that it's more of a

1:16:46 ↗ expansion of something you've done when

1:16:47 ↗ you can but there's usually a trade-off

1:16:49 ↗ process that goes with that that needs

1:16:51 ↗ to come with it and there's certainly an

1:16:53 ↗ opportunity to do that as part of the

1:16:54 ↗ centrist come moratorium right right you

1:16:59 ↗ do have right in the urban quarries and

1:17:00 ↗ a third neighbor so it is so it is

1:17:02 ↗ already covered and then that it's only

1:17:04 ↗ covered in the core not in the entire

1:17:06 ↗ Central listicle area just the core area

1:17:09 ↗ I'm more thinking in the context of the

1:17:11 ↗ moratorium review the city could

1:17:13 ↗ consider further increase in capacity

1:17:16 ↗ yeah exactly so that okay so that yes

1:17:19 ↗ that does meant by identified by but

1:17:21 ↗ identity so I was that was exactly what

1:17:24 ↗ I was going to say as far as I really

1:17:25 ↗ think we should look at expanding that

1:17:27 ↗ boundary for the inclusionary zoning and

1:17:30 ↗ I would also very much encourage rather

1:17:32 ↗ than waiving impact fees for us to

1:17:36 ↗ increase density because we've already

1:17:40 ↗ heard from everybody in the city that we

1:17:44 ↗ want to make sure that transportation

1:17:47 ↗ and services and schools and all of

1:17:49 ↗ those are funded and if we're

1:17:50 ↗ eliminating the or waiving the impact

1:17:53 ↗ fees those areas are just going to get

1:17:56 ↗ worse and I think we would improve

1:17:59 ↗ affordability and

1:18:01 ↗ smaller housing if we're increasing

1:18:03 ↗ density in order to have more housing in

1:18:06 ↗ the same area along with the

1:18:09 ↗ inclusionary zoning requirement is there

1:18:14 ↗ anything in the zoning or the codes

1:18:16 ↗ about we have carriers in Issaquah with

1:18:19 ↗ houses that have big lots divide those

1:18:22 ↗ Lots

1:18:23 ↗ the city buys half of the lot bills

1:18:26 ↗ affordable housing in Bavaria so we have

1:18:30 ↗ to have some resources and I think

1:18:31 ↗ that's where number two or number three

1:18:34 ↗ rather the housing levy or some other

1:18:36 ↗ source but we have to have resources to

1:18:37 ↗ do that the city hasn't purchased

1:18:40 ↗ housing hasn't been a housing developer

1:18:41 ↗ in the past there are nonprofit

1:18:44 ↗ developers who do that but that's

1:18:45 ↗ definitely a partnership we could

1:18:47 ↗ explore more but part of it is how do

1:18:49 ↗ how do we afford to do that so that

1:18:52 ↗ would have that could be one of the

1:18:53 ↗ things that we look at for the proposing

1:18:56 ↗ the housing levy is to actually buy land

1:18:59 ↗ and then say to a nonprofit housing

1:19:01 ↗ developer please come and build tell us

1:19:03 ↗ what you can build on this potentially

1:19:07 ↗ maybe a new 0.2 ad while we're all

1:19:11 ↗ looking at affordable housing we're

1:19:13 ↗ forgetting that we need to have

1:19:15 ↗ affordable capacity for affordable

1:19:17 ↗ service providers so what do you mean by

1:19:20 ↗ that I was like oh if we have affordable

1:19:24 ↗ housing options for say people with

1:19:27 ↗ disability where are those service

1:19:30 ↗ providers going to set up shop to

1:19:32 ↗ support those seniors or those people

1:19:35 ↗ who have disabilities you talk about

1:19:37 ↗ commercial more commercial spaces is

1:19:40 ↗ that we're talking because their target

1:19:42 ↗ audience we're inviting more of the

1:19:44 ↗ target audience and but if our retail

1:19:47 ↗ which is getting very expensive they

1:19:50 ↗ can't afford to be here to support this

1:19:52 ↗ demographic that we're inviting into our

1:19:55 ↗ town we're going to be basically

1:19:56 ↗ abandoning the demographic that we're

1:19:59 ↗ trying to serve Derrick looks like he

1:20:01 ↗ has a comment okay I was just a I agree

1:20:04 ↗ I think the you know something that we

1:20:06 ↗ see is the the footprint of some of

1:20:09 ↗ those providers this is not that common

1:20:11 ↗ in Issaquah so many folks some

1:20:14 ↗ you know services in general maybe or

1:20:15 ↗ too few to support people that are

1:20:18 ↗ transitory between houses good whatever

1:20:21 ↗ that might be but uh

1:20:22 ↗ our city in particular doesn't have a

1:20:26 ↗ lot of work and mortar support locations

1:20:28 ↗ and so I agree with the idea of weaving

1:20:32 ↗ that in and I think AJ you made us might

1:20:34 ↗ have said you know the combination of

1:20:35 ↗ nine and two how those would have sort

1:20:37 ↗ together I was thinking about a number

1:20:39 ↗ nine it talks about you know services to

1:20:42 ↗ enable seniors we talked about expanding

1:20:43 ↗ that to go beyond seniors I would maybe

1:20:46 ↗ suggest expanding the dive into more

1:20:50 ↗ info to look at what those services

1:20:52 ↗ might be not just housing per se but the

1:20:55 ↗ service is a compliment folks to be able

1:20:57 ↗ to move into low income house great yeah

1:21:00 ↗ you're right so idea number nine

1:21:01 ↗ specifically calls it again for seniors

1:21:03 ↗ we talked about increasing that so it

1:21:05 ↗ doesn't mention see the service as well

1:21:06 ↗ so I think that's covered there we've

1:21:09 ↗ seen years ago you took a loss exploring

1:21:12 ↗ areas to build a complex where all the

1:21:16 ↗ services could be provided like it has

1:21:18 ↗ in Redmond yes should any of these

1:21:22 ↗ developers include such structure in

1:21:27 ↗ their dwellings that way they could be

1:21:31 ↗ accommodated all the services to the

1:21:33 ↗ surrounding meetings and I think again

1:21:35 ↗ that's that's going to be addressed in

1:21:37 ↗ number nine I believe so so we're kind

1:21:39 ↗ of going a little episode although it's

1:21:41 ↗ connected we're kind of you know looking

1:21:43 ↗ at a little broader than just housing

1:21:45 ↗ strategy here but obviously there's some

1:21:48 ↗ connections we want to make sure we

1:21:49 ↗ don't miss because all those points are

1:21:50 ↗ right on where if you have housing our

1:21:54 ↗ population that needs some services we

1:21:56 ↗ need to make sure they're successful no

1:21:57 ↗ sir in those housing spaces so comment

1:22:01 ↗ not on that I was kind of chime it's

1:22:03 ↗ something different on number two are we

1:22:05 ↗ looking into putting it any language

1:22:08 ↗ that looks at discouraging and

1:22:11 ↗ preventing redevelopment that reduces

1:22:13 ↗ the number of dwelling units I'm

1:22:17 ↗ thinking specifically where you take it

1:22:18 ↗ that's like a duplex or tour triplex and

1:22:21 ↗ you tear it down and you build a large

1:22:22 ↗ home I know there's been some language I

1:22:26 ↗ think it was in Portland

1:22:27 ↗ where they looked at preventing that

1:22:30 ↗ kind of development that you can't have

1:22:33 ↗ new construction that reduces the total

1:22:35 ↗ that reduces the aggregate density I

1:22:37 ↗ think that was that were perhaps

1:22:38 ↗ qualifying a number two okay I made a

1:22:41 ↗ note of that and and then I think I'm in

1:22:45 ↗ the same thing but in the other

1:22:47 ↗ direction would we want to consider

1:22:48 ↗ looking into capping the size of

1:22:52 ↗ development I think this kind of goes

1:22:53 ↗ off when cyntha was trying to try and

1:22:55 ↗ get it earlier where if you have a

1:22:56 ↗ developer that's going to be building

1:22:58 ↗ say a large 4 bedroom home on a lot you

1:23:02 ↗ would still allow the same total amount

1:23:04 ↗ of developable space but you would

1:23:06 ↗ prohibit building a single-family home

1:23:08 ↗ and say okay with you're going to build

1:23:09 ↗ a structure that large it has to be say

1:23:11 ↗ a duplex or has to incorporate an ad you

1:23:14 ↗ I think I'm not sure this has been

1:23:16 ↗ implemented but I've definitely seen

1:23:18 ↗ this in like a think piece that says the

1:23:20 ↗ fact that basically prevents you from

1:23:22 ↗ building giant houses saying that we the

1:23:25 ↗ city will require developer to build the

1:23:27 ↗ same volume of living space but they

1:23:30 ↗ would require to be broken up into

1:23:32 ↗ smaller living units whether that sum

1:23:36 ↗ that we would want to require

1:23:38 ↗ particularly within the central plan so

1:23:40 ↗ the zoning would preclude single-family

1:23:42 ↗ housing exactly.you you were yeah but

1:23:45 ↗ yeah but then yes yeah basically I think

1:23:49 ↗ I don't know if there's any zone to

1:23:50 ↗ preclude explicitly single-family

1:23:51 ↗ housing

1:23:54 ↗ okay urban core because there's a

1:23:56 ↗ minimum that they are so there's we do

1:23:58 ↗ so basically our highest density air you

1:24:01 ↗ have to meet a certain floor area ratio

1:24:03 ↗ so meaning how much of building per the

1:24:06 ↗ actual lot size and so that would

1:24:08 ↗ preclude you from building a

1:24:09 ↗ single-story or a house a single-family

1:24:13 ↗ how okay what we want to consider with

1:24:17 ↗ all this talk about building the

1:24:20 ↗ affordable housing and boosting the

1:24:21 ↗ diversity of the housing stock of saying

1:24:24 ↗ outside of the epicenters took up trying

1:24:27 ↗ to discourage single-family home

1:24:29 ↗ construction and still building family

1:24:32 ↗ housing but but the requirement would be

1:24:34 ↗ broken up into smaller units you think

1:24:37 ↗ there's only room for 45

1:24:40 ↗ no family homes left-leaning else's

1:24:43 ↗ identity

1:24:44 ↗ I think they most of our zoning left is

1:24:46 ↗ tends to more high-density so but we can

1:24:51 ↗ we can look at also if there are in the

1:24:53 ↗ current zoning if there's anything that

1:24:54 ↗ kind of concludes that's the other

1:24:56 ↗ pieces remember we want to have

1:24:57 ↗ diversity of housing stock right so we

1:25:01 ↗ know a single-family house is not bad

1:25:02 ↗ obviously we're only getting all

1:25:04 ↗ single-family housing we want to shift

1:25:06 ↗ it this way but we also don't want to do

1:25:07 ↗ something that discourages that's what

1:25:10 ↗ was usually so like there's a lot of

1:25:12 ↗ subdivisions are still under

1:25:13 ↗ construction in its core would you say

1:25:14 ↗ that but that at pipeline is pretty much

1:25:17 ↗ exhausted in terms of greenfield space

1:25:19 ↗ and I'm thinking I think the developer

1:25:21 ↗ that that's filing to put what seventy

1:25:23 ↗ homes right out of Newports way so

1:25:25 ↗ instigating that the city in theory

1:25:26 ↗ could have said well no you have to

1:25:29 ↗ build 140 duplexes rather than 70

1:25:31 ↗ single-family homes I mean it's a guess

1:25:33 ↗ there's Pryor on a thousand more

1:25:36 ↗ single-family houses could get built in

1:25:38 ↗ in the city if you include the Highlands

1:25:40 ↗ and Mallard Bay and Bergsma and

1:25:43 ↗ Silverado and I mean so there's there's

1:25:46 ↗ but it's it's a it's a finite quantity

1:25:48 ↗ that amount of that amount of product

1:25:52 ↗ left in our future has an end that's

1:25:55 ↗ coming and there could be other things

1:25:58 ↗ that happen in the meantime where the

1:26:00 ↗ city might change the zoning on some of

1:26:01 ↗ those parcels to up zone them that's not

1:26:04 ↗ in the cards right now but ten years

1:26:06 ↗ from now who knows right so but

1:26:09 ↗ multifamily the thing is there's a

1:26:12 ↗ there's a huge scale differential

1:26:14 ↗ between the multifamily in the

1:26:16 ↗ single-family so all of the

1:26:18 ↗ single-family that's left may may get

1:26:21 ↗ you to a thousand but you look at Atlas

1:26:23 ↗ and Gateway and you're at a thousand you

1:26:27 ↗ know what I mean so so it's just there's

1:26:29 ↗ there's a disproportionate amount of

1:26:31 ↗ what's coming down both pipes when pipes

1:26:33 ↗ little um pipes pretty big in terms of

1:26:36 ↗ our housing stock so you'd say trying to

1:26:39 ↗ manipulate the thousand sing the family

1:26:41 ↗ homes to get 1,400 homes instead isn't

1:26:45 ↗ really worth fighting rather than trying

1:26:47 ↗ to get a couple of six-story apartment

1:26:48 ↗ buildings built in central Sukhois

1:26:49 ↗ because you get more bang for your buck

1:26:51 ↗ that way I guess my concern is I don't

1:26:53 ↗ know enough

1:26:54 ↗ about our future - no I mean so you're

1:26:56 ↗ coming at it from the perspective of we

1:26:59 ↗ have enough single-family housing you

1:27:01 ↗ know we really want to increase our

1:27:03 ↗ density overall and and you know 20

1:27:07 ↗ years from now if all we're building is

1:27:09 ↗ multifamily we may all be sitting here

1:27:11 ↗ or the next group of us will be sitting

1:27:13 ↗ here saying how do we get more

1:27:14 ↗ single-family housing right so I just

1:27:17 ↗ don't know the answer to that it's a

1:27:18 ↗ complicated question AJ and I'm going to

1:27:20 ↗ just say I don't Mike I don't have a

1:27:22 ↗ crystal ball for that one yeah so on

1:27:27 ↗ that multifamily idea I think one of the

1:27:30 ↗ things that the data really heavily

1:27:31 ↗ showed was that if we were getting any

1:27:35 ↗ of the affordability it was all in the

1:27:37 ↗ 80% range and so on number four and

1:27:42 ↗ number five I would really encourage if

1:27:44 ↗ there's a way to shift that more to the

1:27:47 ↗ 50% ami it seems like when we have given

1:27:52 ↗ the option for 60 to 80%

1:27:56 ↗ everything's ended up at 80% and that's

1:27:58 ↗ not giving us as much movement in the

1:28:01 ↗ direction linnaeus okay Oh God

1:28:05 ↗ yeah so I've been thinking out the house

1:28:07 ↗ and levy and the impact fees and you

1:28:10 ↗ know I really don't like the idea of

1:28:12 ↗ passing more east existing a new

1:28:14 ↗ residence right any person of the city's

1:28:19 ↗ income already comes from probably taxes

1:28:22 ↗ I think there's better ways to funders

1:28:25 ↗ like 3% of the income comes only from

1:28:27 ↗ investment income rate and what I ran

1:28:30 ↗ was on the financials so the investment

1:28:33 ↗ income for Donnie can we you can

1:28:35 ↗ increase that multiple fold yes yeah

1:28:40 ↗ okay so we we want to make sure we do

1:28:43 ↗ have one more thing about gender tonight

1:28:45 ↗ and know it says till 8:30 but I think

1:28:46 ↗ we really were till here till 8 that's

1:28:49 ↗ already two hours and it kind of gets a

1:28:50 ↗ little tiring after a while but we are

1:28:54 ↗ there any other strategies so I we have

1:28:58 ↗ a lot of notes - it seems like the then

1:29:00 ↗ nine here are good we're going to tweak

1:29:03 ↗ some we're going to adjust some then do

1:29:05 ↗ some more research on some of them

1:29:07 ↗ are there any other strategies that are

1:29:08 ↗ on these searches matrix so see exhibit

1:29:13 ↗ see that you feel are important to

1:29:16 ↗ include in the strategy final document

1:29:20 ↗ moving forward and again thinking about

1:29:22 ↗ that with what problem statement does it

1:29:24 ↗ address this is currently a strategy is

1:29:26 ↗ not addressing or doesn't address in the

1:29:28 ↗ way you believe should so are these all

1:29:33 ↗ currently included or these all not no

1:29:36 ↗ these are the ones that are Ike options

1:29:38 ↗ so that that of other other cities are

1:29:41 ↗ doing other things that we could do with

1:29:43 ↗ them and so these are these are options

1:29:45 ↗ that are not currently and yes yes

1:29:46 ↗ that's why we reprinted the our recent

1:29:50 ↗ this because in the packet it had these

1:29:53 ↗ included and so to make it simpler to

1:29:55 ↗ look at we remove the ones that are

1:29:57 ↗ ready in the what we're calling the

1:29:59 ↗ final working draft so I I think next

1:30:04 ↗ slide is let's take a look at number

1:30:06 ↗ yeah

1:30:09 ↗ number nine we're focusing a lot on the

1:30:11 ↗ seniors but I would like to propose that

1:30:13 ↗ we change that from seniors seniors and

1:30:17 ↗ people with disabilities yes we are

1:30:19 ↗ planning to do that and looking at if

1:30:20 ↗ it's a living and homelessness and

1:30:22 ↗ expanding that a bit hmm thank you

1:30:31 ↗ so one other on the strategy matrix c-17

1:30:35 ↗ the interjurisdictional program such as

1:30:38 ↗ arch that isn't listed I know it's

1:30:42 ↗ something that we participate in is

1:30:44 ↗ there is there a way that we could

1:30:47 ↗ expand that or use that as a racial

1:30:51 ↗ focus so looking at more in regional

1:30:55 ↗ efforts as a strategy what is folks

1:31:03 ↗ think about that

1:31:12 ↗ important to work together regionally

1:31:14 ↗ because the problem of housing is a

1:31:17 ↗ regional problem we house people who

1:31:23 ↗ work elsewhere in the community in the

1:31:28 ↗ region and who live elsewhere in the

1:31:31 ↗ region work in Issaquah there's

1:31:34 ↗ definitely overlap we're not working

1:31:38 ↗ together our solutions may not work out

1:31:42 ↗ the way we plan good point I won't say

1:31:46 ↗ exactly what Arthur is safe is the mic

1:31:48 ↗ but that's I think that's one of the

1:31:49 ↗ concepts of arch is that the efforts

1:31:51 ↗ together benefit us all versus I want

1:31:54 ↗ five units here and you get five units

1:31:56 ↗ there and so realizing that folks don't

1:32:00 ↗ have that don't think about city

1:32:01 ↗ boundaries all that often from that so

1:32:05 ↗ and the other any other so when you're

1:32:07 ↗ looking at this problem statement sheet

1:32:09 ↗ so you've got three problem statements

1:32:10 ↗ is there anything you're feeling is

1:32:12 ↗ really lacking and then maybe that helps

1:32:14 ↗ you drive to exhibit see if there's

1:32:15 ↗ anything additional I don't know bring

1:32:19 ↗ up one more point so yeah even looking

1:32:21 ↗ at everything through the lens of income

1:32:25 ↗ have we talked about making special

1:32:28 ↗ considerations for it's a public

1:32:31 ↗ servants people that work in nonprofits

1:32:33 ↗ I mean it's a different lens they're not

1:32:37 ↗ necessarily correlated and I think that

1:32:39 ↗ gets a little bit to the house at making

1:32:41 ↗ sure you're looking at fair housing and

1:32:43 ↗ so Arthur mentioned before about how we

1:32:46 ↗ can market specifically to you know

1:32:48 ↗ those segments of the population if we

1:32:51 ↗ had some affordable options but I think

1:32:53 ↗ people always think about the teachers

1:32:54 ↗ and the firefighters and police officers

1:32:56 ↗ and public sector employees and

1:32:58 ↗ nonprofit employers are definitely kind

1:33:00 ↗ of in that mix as well and so I think

1:33:02 ↗ that's kind of captured there it would

1:33:03 ↗ have some of that the marketing would be

1:33:05 ↗ the way to do that yeah unless a

1:33:08 ↗ specific organization again like builds

1:33:11 ↗ housing for their employees it's kind of

1:33:13 ↗ hard to just say you can only put you

1:33:17 ↗ know teachers in this building

1:33:21 ↗ yeah I was just going to add that uh

1:33:24 ↗ going through this you know some of the

1:33:26 ↗ the prevention efforts to know Tennant

1:33:28 ↗ prevent protections from a thank you

1:33:31 ↗ letter numbers and the source of income

1:33:35 ↗ in anti-discrimination ordinances I was

1:33:37 ↗ looking for example of c22 that's a

1:33:40 ↗ state legislation piece but one of the

1:33:42 ↗ examples are efforts to protect tenants

1:33:45 ↗ from as the example was given earlier

1:33:49 ↗ from you know income or source of income

1:33:50 ↗ discrimination you know just cause

1:33:51 ↗ evictions so the addiction prevention

1:33:54 ↗ efforts my guess is that is on one tier

1:33:57 ↗ down from this discussion but I just

1:33:59 ↗ wanted to call that out as something

1:34:00 ↗ that I think is important

1:34:03 ↗ thank you also on C 22 the MFT statute

1:34:09 ↗ right now we're given away 12 years

1:34:13 ↗ worth of impact fees or taxes are

1:34:16 ↗ protected yeah if there's a way that we

1:34:18 ↗ can reduce that since we're only

1:34:21 ↗ requiring 20% of 20 or 25% to be

1:34:27 ↗ affordable housing or low-income housing

1:34:30 ↗ looking at reducing that and then I

1:34:33 ↗ believe that the cities the

1:34:35 ↗ jurisdictions themselves define that

1:34:37 ↗ percentage of it within the development

1:34:40 ↗ right there the cities have the

1:34:42 ↗ flexibility on defining the

1:34:44 ↗ affordability levels they're looking for

1:34:46 ↗ so emailing it quote 20% but you can

1:34:49 ↗ make it at 50% of median and again it's

1:34:52 ↗ the same comment I made earlier it's a

1:34:53 ↗ quid pro quo thing is how much is the

1:34:55 ↗ value of the property taxes versus what

1:34:57 ↗ you get in exchange so the percentage is

1:34:59 ↗ that but you can also do eight years

1:35:01 ↗ there's an 8 and a 12 year I not require

1:35:06 ↗ jurisdiction to provide for bonds that

1:35:08 ↗ we could so the state law says if you

1:35:10 ↗ give a property tax exemption you must

1:35:12 ↗ get public you're supposed to get public

1:35:13 ↗ benefit at 8 year they leave that

1:35:16 ↗ totally up to the local jurisdictions to

1:35:18 ↗ find local benefit public benefit at 12

1:35:21 ↗ years the government says the state

1:35:23 ↗ legislations that you must have as one

1:35:25 ↗ of the public benefits it's not all

1:35:27 ↗ affordable housing now in asean county

1:35:30 ↗ Kirkland has an eight-year benefit and

1:35:31 ↗ they require affordable housing so you

1:35:34 ↗ can also

1:35:35 ↗ included at the public benefit you're

1:35:36 ↗ looking for so you can also ask for

1:35:40 ↗ other types of things would Emmett with

1:35:41 ↗ the tax incentive program since we're

1:35:45 ↗ looking I'm looking at d7 okay it's

1:35:51 ↗ worth changing on this uh the eleven by

1:35:55 ↗ sevens team now print out number nine

1:35:58 ↗ and where it talks about singers so

1:36:00 ↗ include disabled shouldn't we also

1:36:02 ↗ change it in v7o so in kelowna this is

1:36:06 ↗ not going to move further than today so

1:36:08 ↗ if it comes off of this list and onto

1:36:10 ↗ here then we would talk about so these

1:36:12 ↗ are ideas so if it doesn't fit what we

1:36:14 ↗ want to put on our working document

1:36:17 ↗ that's going to move forward we don't

1:36:18 ↗ need to change the wording but the

1:36:19 ↗ concept you're talking about in d7 we

1:36:21 ↗ can look at for when we we readjusted to

1:36:26 ↗ the broader audience so okay thank you

1:36:30 ↗ so if we're looking at c-17

1:36:34 ↗ interjurisdictional programs I think we

1:36:37 ↗ should also be looking at C 21 Regional

1:36:39 ↗ Housing Finance strategy okay she's 17

1:36:45 ↗ thank you because I gets the more

1:36:48 ↗ regional options to look at that okay

1:36:55 ↗ um so Arthur in this meeting and in the

1:36:58 ↗ previous meeting mentions this developer

1:37:00 ↗ that was converting the hotels into SRO

1:37:04 ↗ and very successful with that so I

1:37:07 ↗ wonder about including wording from c7

1:37:11 ↗ into our SRO to potentially increase the

1:37:16 ↗ so the c7 is allow flexible use of

1:37:19 ↗ larger sites so I imagine and that would

1:37:21 ↗ be something like a hotel that wasn't

1:37:25 ↗ opened early an SRO but had potential to

1:37:30 ↗ be an SRO thank you

1:37:37 ↗ so it feels like we have for our 10 or 9

1:37:41 ↗ now 10 with the regional efforts it

1:37:44 ↗ feels like we have captured the broader

1:37:47 ↗ kind of approach and then these are the

1:37:50 ↗ ones we're wrenching now we're kind of

1:37:51 ↗ refining it a bit more is that is that

1:37:53 ↗ safe to say so the 9 that we have here

1:37:55 ↗ and then the regional efforts would be

1:37:57 ↗ our strategy that staff are going to go

1:38:00 ↗ back do some more research gather more

1:38:02 ↗ data think about long-term short-term

1:38:04 ↗ because obviously we can't do everything

1:38:06 ↗ all at once and how that how that would

1:38:08 ↗ play out to have a discussion with

1:38:11 ↗ council is that fair now if you are you

1:38:14 ↗ know at home brush your teeth tonight

1:38:15 ↗ whatever you can email your Commission

1:38:18 ↗ liaisons or some brilliant solid idea

1:38:20 ↗ you read something the paper tomorrow

1:38:21 ↗ this is a still working document but it

1:38:24 ↗ seems like we're we're kind of to the

1:38:25 ↗ place where we we have a good set of

1:38:27 ↗ strategies and kind of moving on is that

1:38:32 ↗ all right people all right so our next

1:38:34 ↗ step is actually as so this is in the

1:38:38 ↗ packet it is the final report if you

1:38:49 ↗ forgot to use doing a baby mouth

1:38:51 ↗ we had a trade to hell in Souls yeah

1:38:53 ↗ yeah that is exactly run all right so

1:39:01 ↗ Exhibit A in our package is a draft

1:39:03 ↗ document for what's going to be what's

1:39:07 ↗ meant to capture the work thus far and

1:39:08 ↗ the work of these Commission's to bring

1:39:10 ↗ forward to council that is correct and

1:39:12 ↗ so I think what we're looking for this

1:39:14 ↗ evening is not you know word smithing or

1:39:17 ↗ getting to you know what the final

1:39:19 ↗ version this document looks like put

1:39:21 ↗ some input to help staff kind of build

1:39:24 ↗ out what's currently kind of an outline

1:39:27 ↗ for that document that sent to capture

1:39:29 ↗ the work that you've done aren't any

1:39:33 ↗ excess yeah

1:39:46 ↗ yes a page

1:39:48 ↗ 26:53 in the packet outlines the

1:39:51 ↗ component of the document the report to

1:39:55 ↗ go to council so providing some

1:39:56 ↗ background why we're doing this work the

1:40:00 ↗ process we undertook and refer back to

1:40:05 ↗ the housing element of our comprehensive

1:40:07 ↗ plan and the mission statement that was

1:40:09 ↗ developed for our work and then each of

1:40:12 ↗ the three steps that we've worked

1:40:14 ↗ through since we started back in

1:40:16 ↗ December or earlier which included a

1:40:21 ↗ route view of comprehensive data meaning

1:40:26 ↗ with focus groups to get more input from

1:40:28 ↗ different segments of the community or

1:40:30 ↗ joint meetings a Housing Survey those

1:40:34 ↗ are all inputs right this process that

1:40:37 ↗ we then use to develop our three problem

1:40:40 ↗ statements and then this process of you

1:40:45 ↗ know pulling out discussing strategies

1:40:48 ↗ for potential inclusion and our ultimate

1:40:52 ↗ housing strategy so are there pieces

1:40:55 ↗ that are missing from that outline

1:40:57 ↗ modifications yes clarification in fact

1:41:02 ↗ up the problem statement would also

1:41:04 ↗ lists lists of our strategies that we

1:41:07 ↗ come up with or under each problem

1:41:09 ↗ statement or so that would be indy okay

1:41:13 ↗ right and so step through the policy

1:41:15 ↗ conversation yeah one comment I would

1:41:21 ↗ make there is like if we can be more

1:41:24 ↗ detail about like I mean like an

1:41:25 ↗ explicit section where items that are

1:41:27 ↗ actionable by the city itself to me

1:41:30 ↗ those are low-hanging fruits if you know

1:41:32 ↗ we asked it because it's within the

1:41:34 ↗ control of the city so if we are trying

1:41:36 ↗ to come up with the strategy for our

1:41:37 ↗ city so you know clearly delineate them

1:41:41 ↗ because it's in our hand right right

1:41:44 ↗ right so what city versus or one of the

1:41:46 ↗ regional strategies right order

1:41:48 ↗ or other other parties okay when Tom and

1:41:53 ↗ I have is under step 3

1:41:56 ↗ I guess well rather it's D 3 so

1:41:59 ↗ considerations and moving forward that's

1:42:02 ↗ sort of the implementation phase of it

1:42:04 ↗ and I'm wondering if it would be worse

1:42:06 ↗ kind of pulling that out into its own

1:42:08 ↗ step is like an implementation step and

1:42:10 ↗ then sort of a question is it also is

1:42:14 ↗ this an appropriate place to also kind

1:42:17 ↗ of briefly describe you know metrics or

1:42:21 ↗ benchmarking for the future to see if

1:42:24 ↗ the strategies are working or that would

1:42:27 ↗ that be somewhere else or I'm talking

1:42:29 ↗ about high-level check-ins in for

1:42:33 ↗ clarification for myself and yeah this

1:42:37 ↗ is considerations moving forward even

1:42:39 ↗ just to get to September distribute to

1:42:42 ↗ counter since these are the kind of

1:42:45 ↗ initial set but I think that's a really

1:42:46 ↗ great point about the kind of

1:42:49 ↗ measurement and accountability for this

1:42:51 ↗ process and then ultimately for the

1:42:52 ↗ strategy one point I would make is the

1:43:01 ↗ population of Mexico is 34,000 and the

1:43:04 ↗ number of responses I'm seeing has less

1:43:06 ↗ than half a percent a lot of the

1:43:09 ↗ deductions he might be making from the

1:43:10 ↗ survey are probably not statistically

1:43:12 ↗ significant so maybe a limitations kind

1:43:15 ↗ of together you never want to get more

1:43:17 ↗ data plans for the the concretions with

1:43:22 ↗ meaningful we want to get more data

1:43:25 ↗ points I had a similar comment just

1:43:30 ↗ about so there was some data also about

1:43:32 ↗ household income and how long people

1:43:34 ↗ have lived or if they live and work in

1:43:36 ↗ this class so I thought it would also be

1:43:38 ↗ good to say not only what percent is

1:43:41 ↗ represented but how how well that scales

1:43:44 ↗ with the what a comparison of

1:43:46 ↗ demographics of folks who answered

1:43:47 ↗ versus our community yes yeah so

1:43:50 ↗ explicitly point out differences in

1:43:52 ↗ terms of who responded versus who's

1:43:54 ↗ actually in the community can

1:43:58 ↗ another the other typical point is you

1:44:01 ↗ want also representative sample so you

1:44:04 ↗ know what I mean

1:44:05 ↗ yes examples we're not a statistic like

1:44:07 ↗ yes this is not an example of the

1:44:10 ↗ population wasn't it I apologize for not

1:44:18 ↗ being here I had the wrong meeting on my

1:44:20 ↗ calendar and went to the wrong place on

1:44:23 ↗ D 9 did we discuss that at all support

1:44:30 ↗ development of emergency transitional

1:44:32 ↗ and permanent supportive housing itself

1:44:35 ↗ really did it homelessness yes yeah so

1:44:44 ↗ we actually are going to add that to

1:44:45 ↗ number 9 of the strategies and we're

1:44:50 ↗ going to broaden that again and

1:44:52 ↗ homelessness is one this thing was

1:44:53 ↗ specifically mentioned so thank you well

1:44:55 ↗ what are you going to refer to that yeah

1:44:58 ↗ let me go look at the details of other

1:45:03 ↗ comments recommendations yeah so I'm

1:45:07 ↗ looking at the idea of this C step 2

1:45:11 ↗ problem statements and then the related

1:45:14 ↗ data there was a lot of data that was

1:45:16 ↗ presented that I mean doesn't

1:45:21 ↗ necessarily fit into those three

1:45:24 ↗ categories of the problem statements but

1:45:27 ↗ the paints a larger picture of you know

1:45:32 ↗ some of the things that we're facing say

1:45:33 ↗ in condo statutes and you know not being

1:45:37 ↗ able to build those that I wouldn't

1:45:39 ↗ necessarily fit into any of the three of

1:45:41 ↗ those there may need to be another area

1:45:43 ↗ that just talks about a broader picture

1:45:46 ↗ of the data so maybe building out like

1:45:48 ↗ the what we covered in so it's here like

1:45:52 ↗ beef or melon yeah a one yeah but make

1:45:54 ↗ sure that that's comprehensive got a so

1:46:00 ↗ wha D step three I see rationale for

1:46:04 ↗ strategies it's a summary to data

1:46:06 ↗ linkages right you know when I was going

1:46:09 ↗ through the notes for

1:46:10 ↗ prior meetings we're in a lot of data is

1:46:13 ↗ based on the survey conducted like from

1:46:15 ↗ 2000 to 2010 that's right like you know

1:46:18 ↗ the population you know what kind of

1:46:22 ↗ what percentage of the population is

1:46:25 ↗ there and whatnot are we going to link

1:46:28 ↗ to those data so qualitative and and

1:46:44 ↗ American Community Survey and census

1:46:47 ↗ data I mean my point is like if it is

1:46:49 ↗ only bad it would concern me because

1:46:51 ↗ things have progressed way differently

1:46:54 ↗ over the last three or four years

1:46:55 ↗ compared to how it was even earlier in

1:46:59 ↗ this decade right time in

1:47:06 ↗ anything else if we do all that we'll

1:47:09 ↗ have a a solid document to bring forward

1:47:13 ↗ okay and again and condense point if

1:47:16 ↗ you've got you know a great idea that

1:47:17 ↗ comes to you be sure to you know reach

1:47:20 ↗ out to one of your staff liaisons

1:47:23 ↗ okay comments are due June first

1:47:27 ↗ recording yeah yeah so we've just been

1:47:30 ↗ talking about you know based on the

1:47:31 ↗ outline what your recommendations would

1:47:33 ↗ be but there some of that document is

1:47:35 ↗ then built out in Exhibit A so take a

1:47:37 ↗ closer look let us know you've got a

1:47:39 ↗ week just to take a look and I think

1:47:43 ↗ that's our last I have a little question

1:47:48 ↗ I haven't had time to look at all the

1:47:50 ↗ detail quizzes but I made a comment in

1:47:54 ↗ previous meetings where non English

1:47:57 ↗ speakers included in this survey at all

1:48:03 ↗ this survey was not translated provided

1:48:07 ↗ in other languages and I think we might

1:48:09 ↗ be missing an important part of the

1:48:11 ↗ population I agree it's right so a

1:48:15 ↗ limitation of that survey joke thank you

1:48:21 ↗ noted you know one thing I would love to

1:48:25 ↗ learn more about is what some of the

1:48:27 ↗ other cities have done recently or what

1:48:31 ↗ they're planning to do what's what's the

1:48:33 ↗ best way to find that out write this in

1:48:42 ↗ the background data yeah

1:48:47 ↗ and that would have been in your first

1:48:49 ↗ packet from last week the report card

1:48:51 ↗ from I think was two years ago where we

1:48:54 ↗ had what all the other cities have been

1:48:55 ↗ trying and there are a couple other

1:48:58 ↗ cities who are going through similar

1:49:00 ↗ processes working on housing strategies

1:49:02 ↗ so that might be a point of a future

1:49:04 ↗ connection so for the Commission so that

1:49:22 ↗ chart that matrix of what the other

1:49:25 ↗ cities was doing was very valuable so

1:49:27 ↗ that's not included in this I would

1:49:30 ↗ definitely recommend that organizers

1:49:31 ↗ know conceal so I think we'll conclude

1:49:36 ↗ this portion of it however we'd still

1:49:38 ↗ like to open it up for public comments

1:49:40 ↗ so if anyone would like to come up and

1:49:42 ↗ speak please do so and just give us your

1:49:44 ↗ name and your address

1:49:56 ↗ hi my shirt it's a good time the city

1:49:58 ↗ staff knows me before I even come up

1:49:59 ↗ introduce myself

1:50:00 ↗ Steve Pereira 170 northeast I would

1:50:02 ↗ street a couple thoughts I heard one was

1:50:04 ↗ I would like to comment from those

1:50:06 ↗ sitting try to connect the seniors to

1:50:08 ↗ see if there's a way we're coming senior

1:50:10 ↗ housing I know my own experience with my

1:50:12 ↗ mom once you give us our nature get set

1:50:14 ↗ in a certain ways it's hard to look at

1:50:15 ↗ that so I think that's a great

1:50:16 ↗ opportunity for outreach in connection

1:50:18 ↗ whether it's affordable housing or just

1:50:20 ↗ connecting with a segment of the

1:50:22 ↗ population another thought was I know

1:50:25 ↗ when we looked at density per housing

1:50:28 ↗ try to incentivize builders increasing

1:50:35 ↗ the height limit have a certain number

1:50:39 ↗ of rooms maybe that could be looked at

1:50:40 ↗ putting money into a fund or to a kitty

1:50:43 ↗ to use for affordable housing not just a

1:50:45 ↗ unit but having built it more energy

1:50:48 ↗ efficient or someplace else rather than

1:50:50 ↗ on-site another thought was to look at

1:50:54 ↗ I'm going to use the word downzoning

1:50:57 ↗ in the sense of you have the right to

1:50:59 ↗ use your land for the best possible use

1:51:01 ↗ and I think of Pickering the state's

1:51:03 ↗ word initial is going to be smaller size

1:51:04 ↗ lots and the Builder decided to build

1:51:06 ↗ larger size homes more property take

1:51:10 ↗ away that ability or limit that ability

1:51:12 ↗ to have larger size Lots larger size

1:51:15 ↗ houses to afford more chance for

1:51:19 ↗ affordable on the scale of less

1:51:20 ↗ expensive done necessary for affordable

1:51:24 ↗ housing is a relative term these days

1:51:26 ↗ where even small Lots get a high price

1:51:29 ↗ my last thought was one of the comments

1:51:32 ↗ that came up was I think and see it

1:51:36 ↗ Seattle anyway you have to as if you're

1:51:38 ↗ a landlord you have to take the first

1:51:40 ↗ person that comes up I don't know if I

1:51:43 ↗ have a duplex I don't know if I like

1:51:44 ↗ that idea as much from the standpoint I

1:51:47 ↗ and I'm not trying to say look at me I'm

1:51:50 ↗ done something great I tried to kept low

1:51:52 ↗ so that people can afford to live there

1:51:53 ↗ and I choose maybe some people that

1:51:55 ↗ wouldn't be able to afford to live there

1:51:57 ↗ otherwise and so I don't like taking

1:51:59 ↗ away that incentive from people who are

1:52:01 ↗ trying to do the right thing by saying

1:52:02 ↗ you have to take the first person that

1:52:03 ↗ comes in if we try to talk

1:52:05 ↗ incentivizing things for teachers and

1:52:06 ↗ firefighters and policemen have some

1:52:10 ↗ lease discrepancy where the owners can

1:52:12 ↗ try to do the right thing so I would

1:52:13 ↗ just like that just wanted to share that

1:52:15 ↗ perspective with each of you thank you

1:52:17 ↗ for struggling with this with this with

1:52:19 ↗ this issue and giving me a chance to

1:52:21 ↗ learn about what you all are doing thank

1:52:23 ↗ you

1:52:35 ↗ hello my name is Arya Mohajir oh um I

1:52:38 ↗ don't live in a Sequoia I live in

1:52:39 ↗ Spanish but I am pretty secluded

1:52:42 ↗ advisory board and I had to come here to

1:52:45 ↗ just observe what the three Commission's

1:52:49 ↗ are doing and I find interesting about

1:52:53 ↗ another thoughts about how I know that

1:52:56 ↗ it's a pretty the decisions are based on

1:52:59 ↗ like data-driven things and I'm just

1:53:01 ↗ going to stress the point that um if the

1:53:04 ↗ survey has such a small percentage that

1:53:05 ↗ will return like such a small sample

1:53:07 ↗ size isn't like that good for making a

1:53:10 ↗ decision and could lead to some

1:53:11 ↗ misconceptions of community and just

1:53:13 ↗ want to stress that it's important that

1:53:15 ↗ when you're trusting in data that the

1:53:16 ↗ data is good and then there's beep

1:53:19 ↗ besides that what I really anything else

1:53:22 ↗ add thank you for letting me listen in

1:53:28 ↗ thank you okay

1:53:31 ↗ before we leave we have two sets of

1:53:34 ↗ minutes to approve so we have hmm

1:53:37 ↗ they're not a poop because they're not a

1:53:39 ↗ first yeah we're no we don't bear minds

1:53:41 ↗ because there's three groups and so we

1:53:44 ↗ chose not to have an official so do we

1:53:46 ↗ do anything oh the reason they're in

1:53:48 ↗ there's people that were new to see what

1:53:50 ↗ everyone had talked about and that was

1:53:52 ↗ in the direction so change of course

1:53:54 ↗ there are two sets of minutes here we

1:53:57 ↗ have January 26 in May 11 right last

1:54:01 ↗ time they had asked for that because

1:54:02 ↗ they don't know what had happened before

1:54:03 ↗ so I've cut again for missing a meeting

1:54:05 ↗ sorry

1:54:06 ↗ so but they're just in there for

1:54:08 ↗ newcomers and to see what's going on and

1:54:10 ↗ it might help you when you're brushing

1:54:11 ↗ your teeth and come up you know come up

1:54:13 ↗ with something else and you email a

1:54:15 ↗ spreadsheet first so there we go

1:54:17 ↗ excellent otherwise I think we are

1:54:19 ↗ excuse me thing on I don't thank you so

1:54:22 ↗ much for your participation in all of

1:54:23 ↗ these meetings and keep in touch thank

1:54:28 ↗ you very much for putting this whole

1:54:29 ↗ thing together we realize the hard work

1:54:32 ↗ and the hours that go into preparing for

1:54:33 ↗ this and then we grill you to death so

1:54:36 ↗ thank you and welcome

1:54:38 ↗ Thanks my office is trying to say you

1:54:40 ↗ don't I got his neighbors getting

1:54:42 ↗ commissioner

Minutes for this meeting haven't been published yet. Council and committee minutes are approved at the next meeting and embedded as a consent-calendar attachment in that meeting's agenda packet — they will appear here once that next packet is processed.