Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, February 13, 2014 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Jul 25, 2013

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission About Contacts Created in 1983, this commission serves as a policy advisory body to the Mayor and provides guidance and direction for Issaquah’s Staff Liaison future growth through continued review and improvement to the Trish Heinonen, Planning City’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan and related land use Manager documents. Email

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of November 21, 2013

packet pp.5–8

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Jul 25, 2013

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION MINUTES

3. AGENDA ITEMS

PUBLIC HEARING: 2014 Docket of Proposed Amendment

Review & Recommendation · 30 min · Jason Rogers, Associate Planner · packet pp.9–14

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Jan 23, 2014

Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

No properties are proposed : Annual update New amendment 4 Central Issaquah Plan: Review of Lead: DSD With the adoption of the Central Issaquah Yes Subarea boundaries Plan, review Subareas for changes to boundaries & revisions to Volume 2 Annual update descriptions & other Subarea references New amendment : Carry over from 2008-2013 5 Annexation of the Klahanie PAA Administration In the event the Klahanie PAA is annexed, this Yes (Potential Annexation Area) amendment would update the Comprehensive Plan accordingly. Annual update : New amendment 6 Bike/Pedestrian Plan Lead: DSD Update Comprehensive Plan based on the Yes Team: PWE, OOS Bike/Pedestrian Plan. Annual update See also #1 and #11. New amendment : Carry over from 2013 7 Annexation of Issaquah Middle School DSD Make necessary amendmends to the Land Use Yes Unincorporated Island Element and various maps. The annexation…

PRESENTATION: "Housing 101 and Needs Assessment"

90 min · Arthur Sullivan, ARCH (A Regional Coalition for Housing) Additional information will be available the · packet pp.15–79

Topics: Housing

Open packet at p.15 ↗

Staff report:

III. APPENDIX EXHIBIT TITLE PAGE A. POPULATION A-3 B. HOUSEHOLD TYPES A-4 C. HOUSEHOLD SIZE: C-1. HOUSEHOLDS BY NUMBER OF PEOPLE (CHART) A-5 C-2. HOUSEHOLDS BY NUMBER OF PEOPLE (TABLE) A-6 D. POPULATION AGE: D-1. POPULATION AGE A-7 D-2. POPULATION AGE, 55 YEARS AND OLDER A-8 E. ETHNICITY, NATIVITY, AND LINGUISTIC ISOLATION: E-1. RACE AND ETHNICITY A-9 E-2. FOREIGN-BORN POPULATION A-10 E-3. LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY A-11 F. INCOME: F-1. HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISTRIBUTION A-12 F-2. HOUSEHOLD INCOMES, EAST KING COUNTY CITIES A-12 G. POVERTY: G-1. HOUSEHOLDS BELOW POVERTY LEVEL A-13 G-2. ELDERLY HOUSEHOLDS LIVING BELOW POVERTY LEVEL A-13 G-3. HOUSEHOLDS BELOW POVERTY LEVEL A-14 H. HOUSING COST BURDEN: H-1. COST BURDENED HOUSEHOLDS A-15 H-2. HOUSING COST BURDEN BY INCOME, EAST KING COUNTY CITIES A-15 H-3. HOUSING COST BURDEN BY TENURE A-16 H-4. SEVERELY COST-BURDENED HOUSEHOLDS A-17 I.…

2641 segments .txt ↗

1:14 ↗ thank you

1:26 ↗ February 13th meeting of the planning

1:29 ↗ policy commission

1:31 ↗ the first thing I want to do is a call

1:34 ↗ to action as you all can see there's a

1:36 ↗ lot of empty seats up here and which

1:39 ↗ will be up for some of them not all of

1:41 ↗ them will be up for Renewal and so if

1:44 ↗ you have any interest in joining the

1:45 ↗ planning policy commission would

1:48 ↗ certainly love to see an application

1:50 ↗ from you you will hear a bunch of things

1:53 ↗ this evening on the projects that we're

1:56 ↗ going to be working on if they interest

1:59 ↗ you if you feel you can contribute

2:00 ↗ please do fill out an application the

2:03 ↗ first thing on our agenda is approval

2:06 ↗ minutes from the November 21st meeting

2:09 ↗ of the planning policy commission since

2:11 ↗ we don't have a quorum as of yet but

2:14 ↗ we're expecting that person to arrive

2:16 ↗ we're going to go to

2:20 ↗ um

2:21 ↗ a discussion on the proposed comp plan

2:24 ↗ amendments if you don't if you're out

2:27 ↗ there in television land and you don't

2:30 ↗ have an agenda what's going to happen

2:32 ↗ tonight is Jason is going to make a

2:35 ↗ presentation on what the proposals are

2:38 ↗ for any changes in the comp plan after

2:42 ↗ his presentation we are going to have a

2:44 ↗ public hearing where you get to give us

2:47 ↗ input on any of the comp plan amendments

2:51 ↗ and then we are going to have a

2:53 ↗ presentation from Arthur Sullivan who is

2:56 ↗ going to talk about Arch and housing in

3:00 ↗ the area so Jason why don't you start

3:02 ↗ thanks Joan my name is Jason Rogers I'm

3:05 ↗ an associate planner with the city's

3:07 ↗ development services department

3:09 ↗ so tonight I'll be talking about the

3:12 ↗ docket of proposed Conference of plan

3:14 ↗ amendments this is something we do every

3:16 ↗ year

3:17 ↗ amendments to the conference of plan or

3:19 ↗ rather the growth management act

3:21 ↗ requires that we do a continuing review

3:23 ↗ and evaluation of the comprehensive plan

3:25 ↗ but it only allows amendments once a

3:27 ↗ year and it recommends that cities and

3:30 ↗ counties establish a formal method of

3:34 ↗ taking in all the various review items

3:37 ↗ that we want to do in one year we

3:39 ↗ implement this with the docket of

3:40 ↗ proposed amendments

3:43 ↗ um this year there is a major State

3:45 ↗ mandated update which is uh which must

3:48 ↗ be completed by June 30th 2015 and so

3:51 ↗ we're kicking that off basically right

3:53 ↗ now this is to ensure compliance with

3:55 ↗ the growth management act

3:57 ↗ um which is true and there have been

3:58 ↗ some changes to the growth management

4:00 ↗ act in the last few years that we'll be

4:01 ↗ taking a look at there have also been

4:04 ↗ some court cases interpreting GMA and

4:06 ↗ various land use and planning laws that

4:08 ↗ we'll have to take into account

4:10 ↗ um the New psrc Vision 2040 plan which

4:14 ↗ was adopted fairly recently and then the

4:17 ↗ King County County Planning policies and

4:19 ↗ you can see along the bottom I borrowed

4:20 ↗ this graphic from

4:22 ↗ psrc but this kind of shows the the

4:25 ↗ bigger picture Regional planning process

4:28 ↗ that has happened you know they they've

4:30 ↗ adopted Vision 2040 various Regional

4:32 ↗ plans have updated the county-wide

4:34 ↗ planning policies and that you can see

4:35 ↗ outlined in red update Conference of

4:37 ↗ plan so that's where we're at right now

4:39 ↗ and that's what we're doing in Issaquah

4:42 ↗ so the timeline for this last year we

4:45 ↗ started and early this year we started

4:47 ↗ Gathering potential Conference of plan

4:48 ↗ amendments they can come from from the

4:52 ↗ administration they can come from the

4:53 ↗ public

4:54 ↗ you know anybody can propose one

4:57 ↗ You by code we're supposed to hold the

4:59 ↗ public Hearing in January for this we

5:02 ↗ had to continue the public hearing until

5:04 ↗ today so we're here tonight to review

5:07 ↗ the DACA hold a public hearing and so

5:10 ↗ the the commission can make a

5:11 ↗ recommendation to the city council the

5:13 ↗ city council will consider it in March

5:15 ↗ the landing Shore Committee of the

5:17 ↗ council and the council will formally

5:18 ↗ adopt the docket hopefully in April

5:22 ↗ this is taken from the the land use code

5:25 ↗ and I know it's completely illegible on

5:27 ↗ the screen this just shows what we call

5:30 ↗ the level six

5:31 ↗ review and all these bubbles are

5:34 ↗ different steps in the process showing

5:35 ↗ that we are at the moment all the way

5:38 ↗ back up here at PPC public hearing

5:41 ↗ where PPC will hopefully make a

5:43 ↗ recommendation tonight to the city

5:44 ↗ council and then it'll move on to

5:46 ↗ council decision at the bottom

5:49 ↗ as for code amendments I know

5:51 ↗ historically we have uh provided the the

5:55 ↗ commission at the beginning of the year

5:56 ↗ with a list of code amendments that we

5:58 ↗ plan on working on we haven't done this

6:01 ↗ in recent years for a variety of reasons

6:04 ↗ um

6:04 ↗ we can amend the municipal code at any

6:06 ↗ time there's no limit on how many times

6:08 ↗ per year it's more a question of how

6:10 ↗ heavy our workload is and how heavy the

6:12 ↗ commissions workload is we still plan to

6:15 ↗ do some code amendments this year but

6:16 ↗ we're not going to really discuss them

6:17 ↗ much tonight

6:20 ↗ so this is the next few slides here is

6:23 ↗ just the uh the proposed DACA and you

6:25 ↗ have this in your packet there's three

6:27 ↗ pages to this and I've got some more

6:29 ↗ detail you know in the next few slides

6:31 ↗ but as you can see there's 17 of them

6:34 ↗ which is

6:35 ↗ quite a few many more than we normally

6:37 ↗ do

6:37 ↗ so the first three one two and three are

6:40 ↗ annual amendments we do these every year

6:41 ↗ uh it's the capital facilities and

6:43 ↗ transportation Improvement Updates this

6:46 ↗ is to make sure everything's consistent

6:48 ↗ between our adopted plans and the

6:49 ↗ comprehensive plan population updates we

6:52 ↗ get a revised population estimate from

6:55 ↗ the State Office of Financial Management

6:56 ↗ uh in the middle in the middle of the

6:59 ↗ year we'll utilize that to help

7:01 ↗ determine our level of service with

7:02 ↗ capital facilities and also if the city

7:04 ↗ has bought any property in the last year

7:06 ↗ we would

7:07 ↗ um and assuming we are using it for

7:09 ↗ public purpose we would rezone it and

7:12 ↗ redesignate it on our various Maps

7:16 ↗ there are a few carryover amendments

7:18 ↗ that have been uh on the DACA for a bit

7:20 ↗ one is the centralized plan this has

7:22 ↗ been going for a long time at this point

7:24 ↗ what this number is really intended to

7:26 ↗ cover is just a little bit of cleanup

7:27 ↗ the plan was adopted at the end of 2012.

7:31 ↗ we adopted the development and design

7:33 ↗ standards early last year I know the

7:36 ↗ commission has seen a lot of this over

7:37 ↗ the years

7:39 ↗ this amendment is really just to review

7:40 ↗ the sub-area boundaries which was one of

7:42 ↗ the last tasks in the Central Coast plan

7:45 ↗ um but hasn't been accomplished yet

7:48 ↗ uh number five question yeah when I was

7:51 ↗ on the environmental review study for

7:54 ↗ the Central Area plan it was decided

7:57 ↗ that there was enough space to put all

8:00 ↗ the people and traffic could be

8:02 ↗ manipulated to be reasonable but what

8:06 ↗ they didn't do was divide

8:08 ↗ housing within the 10 sections

8:12 ↗ are are there plans to do that

8:16 ↗ there are certain areas that maybe

8:18 ↗ something can't be built if there's

8:20 ↗ we're figuring 7 500 people were going

8:22 ↗ to need

8:24 ↗ you know we don't want to build four

8:26 ↗ stories for nine

8:28 ↗ parcels and then the tenth one have a

8:30 ↗ 20-story building so how do you divide

8:32 ↗ that right are you looking at that

8:38 ↗ am I on now part of it is we're doing a

8:41 ↗ monitoring report every year as part of

8:43 ↗ the plan and it's part of its monitoring

8:45 ↗ where the housing is going and if we're

8:47 ↗ finding that most of it's going in the

8:49 ↗ core or we're hoping most of it's going

8:51 ↗ to go then that'll be great but if we're

8:53 ↗ finding we're getting just sprinkles of

8:55 ↗ it and we want it to be in a different

8:57 ↗ way we can try to fiddle with the either

9:00 ↗ the regulations or the incentives to

9:02 ↗ make it go more where we would want to

9:04 ↗ go but when we first thought about do

9:06 ↗ you allocate 400 units 400 units we

9:09 ↗ didn't want to mess with the market

9:11 ↗ because if the market wanted it all in

9:12 ↗ the urban core with all the mixed uses

9:14 ↗ we didn't want to put a barrier in the

9:16 ↗ way by saying no you can only have this

9:19 ↗ many so we sort of wanted to see how the

9:21 ↗ market went for the first few years well

9:23 ↗ I I understand that part of it okay

9:25 ↗ there are areas that only so much area

9:28 ↗ exists for building if we're planning to

9:31 ↗ put parks and and other facilities

9:34 ↗ within that

9:35 ↗ space

9:37 ↗ is that Wetlands is you know how much is

9:40 ↗ not available

9:59 ↗ I just think that's important to know

10:02 ↗ where you can build and how much you can

10:05 ↗ build on it

10:11 ↗ okay

10:12 ↗ um

10:14 ↗ the number five for carryover uh the

10:18 ↗ Second carryover Amendment is the is

10:20 ↗ klahani this was put on because at the

10:22 ↗ time we were creating the docket

10:24 ↗ um obviously there's a you know there's

10:26 ↗ an election a couple of nights ago

10:27 ↗ they're still counting the votes we'll

10:28 ↗ see how it turns out but this was a you

10:32 ↗ know if in if necessary Amendment

10:34 ↗ because we didn't want to have to wait a

10:36 ↗ long time to be able to amend our

10:38 ↗ various maps and Conference of plan

10:41 ↗ policies to accommodate Kahani should

10:43 ↗ that be necessary

10:45 ↗ the bacon pedestrian plan is also back

10:48 ↗ we were hoping to get this done toward

10:51 ↗ the end of last year and unfortunately

10:52 ↗ they didn't that did not happen but the

10:55 ↗ development of that plan is ongoing and

10:57 ↗ so when that gets complete we'll be

10:58 ↗ looking to integrate a lot of the

11:00 ↗ recommendations and policies from that

11:02 ↗ into the conference of plan both in the

11:05 ↗ you know mostly the transportation

11:06 ↗ element probably but also in the land

11:07 ↗ use element and possibly in some other

11:08 ↗ places

11:10 ↗ annexation of the is called Middle

11:12 ↗ School unincorporated Island this was

11:13 ↗ actually completed I believe very early

11:16 ↗ this year December yeah in December

11:19 ↗ unfortunately it didn't quite make the

11:21 ↗ cut off for the actual

11:23 ↗ package of amendments from last year so

11:25 ↗ it's an outstanding item but we've

11:28 ↗ already annexed the the island

11:31 ↗ the sustainable indicators project this

11:34 ↗ it would investigate the goals and

11:36 ↗ policies for indicators working building

11:40 ↗ off the work from the uh the indicator

11:42 ↗ sounding board this is something again

11:44 ↗ we were hoping to do last year and

11:46 ↗ unfortunately it didn't get done but now

11:48 ↗ with the major update underway we're

11:49 ↗ hoping to be able to take advantage of

11:50 ↗ that and partner with the office of

11:52 ↗ sustainability to continue moving this

11:54 ↗ forward

11:57 ↗ the brand new amendments is number 9

11:59 ↗ through 17 and this covers an amendment

12:02 ↗ of every element that's in the

12:04 ↗ comprehensive plan so that's land use

12:06 ↗ housing Transportation utilities you

12:08 ↗ know and on down the list

12:10 ↗ um and what we'll be doing through the

12:13 ↗ throughout the year is you know we'll be

12:15 ↗ working on

12:16 ↗ on all these on automating all these

12:18 ↗ elements and and they're all linked

12:20 ↗ together of course into one big

12:21 ↗ Conference of plan but the idea here is

12:24 ↗ we'll be working on on these and we'll

12:26 ↗ be bringing them to planning policy

12:27 ↗ commission throughout the year and so

12:29 ↗ for example we'll work on housing pretty

12:31 ↗ early this year and so we'll bring the

12:33 ↗ housing element you're going to talk

12:34 ↗ about housing later tonight and so

12:36 ↗ you'll get a chance to review every

12:37 ↗ individual element through as the year

12:39 ↗ goes on and then toward the end of the

12:41 ↗ year we're going to bring them all to

12:42 ↗ all together at once that you can review

12:44 ↗ the entire package of amendments in one

12:47 ↗ go and make a recommendation to the city

12:49 ↗ council

12:53 ↗ oops I don't know why that one got on

12:55 ↗ there

12:55 ↗ so tonight excuse me there's the public

12:58 ↗ hearing and we'll ask the commission to

13:00 ↗ make a recommendation to the city

13:01 ↗ council and then again the council will

13:04 ↗ review it in March and hopefully approve

13:05 ↗ it in April

13:07 ↗ all right so

13:15 ↗ and hearing none

13:19 ↗ um

13:20 ↗ just out of curiosity what the latest

13:22 ↗ vote count is on the Kalani annexation

13:24 ↗ as of the update this afternoon

13:27 ↗ um

13:28 ↗ it is 29 votes in favor of not of not

13:31 ↗ annexing

13:33 ↗ is the margin

13:35 ↗ okay thanks

13:38 ↗ with that if Jason if you're done and

13:41 ↗ there's no uh further discussion here

13:43 ↗ I'm going to open the public hearing

13:47 ↗ so I'm going to open the public hearing

13:49 ↗ at six

13:51 ↗ 44.

13:54 ↗ and ask if there's anybody here that

13:56 ↗ wants to make any comments on the comp

13:58 ↗ plan

14:02 ↗ hearing and seeing none

14:05 ↗ I'm going to close the public hearing at

14:08 ↗ 6 45.

14:11 ↗ okay

14:13 ↗ um

14:14 ↗ we now have a majority of

14:19 ↗ Commissioners here

14:21 ↗ so I don't know if we should um

14:24 ↗ vote on this now or does

14:28 ↗ um

14:29 ↗ I'm not sure if you've read the docket

14:31 ↗ of information on the comp plan if

14:33 ↗ you've heard the explanation that Jason

14:36 ↗ has

14:40 ↗ um I'm certainly available to answer

14:42 ↗ questions

14:44 ↗ um

14:46 ↗ I'm not sure quite how to handle that in

14:49 ↗ summary the docket is the list it's not

14:51 ↗ actually the completed projects it's

14:53 ↗ just the list of items that we're

14:56 ↗ working on this year because we can only

14:58 ↗ amend the comprehensive plan once so

15:01 ↗ state law says we have to make a list in

15:03 ↗ the beginning of the year and then we

15:06 ↗ have to hold to that list

15:08 ↗ for the year and we can't add anything

15:10 ↗ new in the middle of the year so that

15:13 ↗ everyone in the community understands

15:15 ↗ what we're working on this year and so

15:17 ↗ the docket is the list that we're going

15:20 ↗ to work on this year so why don't we do

15:22 ↗ it this way let's um

15:24 ↗ let Jason sit down and have Mr Sullivan

15:27 ↗ come up and and talk a little bit about

15:29 ↗ Arch and then give Ray a little time to

15:32 ↗ go over it and then we will vote on on

15:34 ↗ sending it off to the council okay okay

15:37 ↗ does that seem okay and then you can can

15:39 ↗ I just ask a question real quick uh

15:42 ↗ point of order

15:43 ↗ um since we have a quorum here and I may

15:46 ↗ have to leave a little bit earlier to

15:47 ↗ get to an eight o'clock meeting and we

15:49 ↗ still need to approve meeting minutes

15:51 ↗ from prior

15:53 ↗ should we just get this done and

15:55 ↗ okay

15:57 ↗ the suggestion um

15:59 ↗ I mean let's let Ray ask questions or if

16:02 ↗ Jason wants to go just flip back through

16:04 ↗ the slides real quick whatever Ray needs

16:06 ↗ to do to get up to speed I just think we

16:07 ↗ should do it while we've got people here

16:10 ↗ um well let's let's do the uh do the

16:13 ↗ minutes

16:15 ↗ or minutes from the last meeting

16:17 ↗ do I have a motion to approve the minute

16:20 ↗ so moved by the second

16:24 ↗ all those in favor all right minutes are

16:27 ↗ approved so we will continue on with the

16:31 ↗ um with the arch presentation so Mr

16:34 ↗ Sullivan if you'd like to come up

17:04 ↗ good evening so a little context for the

17:07 ↗ conversation here tonight with you

17:09 ↗ um is we're going to be working with

17:11 ↗ your staff and the commission to the

17:13 ↗ update to the housing element and under

17:15 ↗ state law and you're going to see a

17:17 ↗ little bit more in this a second part of

17:19 ↗ that is doing a housing needs analysis

17:21 ↗ which you received in your packet

17:24 ↗ um Issaquah is a member of a partnership

17:26 ↗ through an interlocal agreement with the

17:29 ↗ other cities in East King County so art

17:30 ↗ is that partnership we act as your staff

17:32 ↗ and staff to other cities what we're

17:34 ↗ doing tonight is hopefully providing you

17:37 ↗ some background context all of this

17:38 ↗ information is in the materials you

17:40 ↗ receive but Mike Stanger from our office

17:42 ↗ is going to sort of lead you through a

17:44 ↗ conversation about what are some of the

17:46 ↗ issues and needs and housing supply

17:49 ↗ issues this is all meant to try to help

17:51 ↗ set up the conversation when we come

17:53 ↗ back with staff in a few months to talk

17:55 ↗ about policies and your comprehensive

17:57 ↗ plan in the housing element specifically

17:59 ↗ so this is meant to give you some flavor

18:01 ↗ in context of demographics housing

18:04 ↗ Supply AI things you've maybe done in

18:06 ↗ the past and and we really mean to open

18:08 ↗ this up for you and for this interrupt

18:10 ↗ at any point meant to be sort of a

18:12 ↗ conversation to let you start talking

18:14 ↗ about what you see as housing issues

18:16 ↗ responding to any information we have if

18:18 ↗ something feels like you'd like to see

18:20 ↗ if there is other information but this

18:22 ↗ is hopefully to get you thinking about

18:25 ↗ housing issues more explicitly but also

18:26 ↗ give us a little bit of direction on

18:28 ↗ things that are of interest to you so

18:30 ↗ with that if you don't have any

18:32 ↗ introductory comments Mike's here to

18:35 ↗ sort of help you walk through a variety

18:37 ↗ of kind of information and again as we

18:39 ↗ said please feel free to jump in with

18:41 ↗ questions at any point I'm going to sit

18:43 ↗ up right up front here too and we're

18:45 ↗ here to be a resource to you to sort of

18:47 ↗ explain and give you context

18:52 ↗ art

18:54 ↗ aren't those folks to come up to the I

18:56 ↗ know you're not used to being on TV but

18:59 ↗ you guys will look fabulous on TV and it

19:01 ↗ might be easier for you to discuss and

19:03 ↗ ask questions when you're not sort of in

19:05 ↗ the cheap seats in the back where

19:07 ↗ there's no microphones and no one would

19:08 ↗ be able to hear your comments or

19:10 ↗ questions

19:12 ↗ it's really it's really a happy place up

19:15 ↗ here truly actually while you're getting

19:18 ↗ settled I'm going to ask if Rey is ready

19:22 ↗ to vote on the comp plan

19:26 ↗ so I need a motion to approve the comp

19:31 ↗ plan as presented tonight and November

19:34 ↗ 21st I think we talked about it to send

19:37 ↗ it on to council for review so I need a

19:40 ↗ motion for that so moved do I have a

19:42 ↗ second a second all those in favor

19:45 ↗ aye aye okay

19:46 ↗ welcome to the uh to the planning policy

19:49 ↗ Human Services Commission meeting and

19:53 ↗ because you don't have name tags I'm

19:55 ↗ going to see if I get it bill is that

19:56 ↗ right and and um Leo it's gonna and I've

20:01 ↗ forgotten your name Jennifer okay super

20:04 ↗ and you guys have your name tags up oh

20:06 ↗ good good thank you

20:08 ↗ okay okay

20:09 ↗ thanks and this is Mike

20:11 ↗ my name is Mike I'm happy to be here I'm

20:14 ↗ a planner with Arch and uh let me

20:18 ↗ uh Arthur gave the the best intro to the

20:22 ↗ purpose for us being here but I'd like

20:25 ↗ to step back and address what was in

20:27 ↗ your packet for just a moment this East

20:30 ↗ King County Housing analysis is a

20:33 ↗ project that we undertook at the request

20:36 ↗ of all our cities to do a

20:41 ↗ an East Side wide or a market-wide look

20:45 ↗ at

20:46 ↗ housing conditions and needs for all of

20:50 ↗ our cities and then through the course

20:52 ↗ of when when each city was ready to

20:54 ↗ start their comp plan then we would do a

20:56 ↗ specialized section and look at the

21:00 ↗ needs and conditions of your community

21:02 ↗ so there's going to be an an additional

21:05 ↗ section that you'll receive after we

21:06 ↗ have the the benefit of this discussion

21:08 ↗ tonight that will look a little bit more

21:12 ↗ closely at not only data as it pertains

21:16 ↗ to Issaquah but also neighborhood

21:18 ↗ conditions strategies that you've

21:20 ↗ undertaken and so forth

21:26 ↗ so I do have a lot of information

21:29 ↗ prepared a lot of it's data oriented

21:32 ↗ Arthur is going to make sure that I

21:35 ↗ don't get too geeky with you about it

21:37 ↗ and as he said the most important part

21:39 ↗ of it is that we tried to get a

21:42 ↗ conversation going so because you are

21:44 ↗ the the residents you're the

21:46 ↗ Commissioners you have those

21:47 ↗ perspectives not just as public

21:49 ↗ officials but also as people who use

21:52 ↗ housing and

21:55 ↗ and we want to know what those

21:56 ↗ perspectives are we hope that the data

21:59 ↗ that that I present helps kind of

22:02 ↗ stimulate your thinking a little bit but

22:04 ↗ please again interrupt with questions or

22:08 ↗ comments as we go along

22:14 ↗ oops I forgot to take out the transition

22:17 ↗ things so here's how we've set up the

22:21 ↗ presentation tonight I'll talk a little

22:23 ↗ bit as Jason did up since he covered

22:26 ↗ some of it already I'll I'll Rush run

22:28 ↗ through the context based on the growth

22:33 ↗ management Act and why we're going

22:35 ↗ through this process but then we'll look

22:37 ↗ at the the data that we're calling the

22:40 ↗ housing analysis both from a demand

22:42 ↗ standpoint and a supply standpoint and

22:46 ↗ some interaction between those things

22:47 ↗ and then we'll talk about the various

22:49 ↗ strategies that Issaquah can and has in

22:53 ↗ many cases

22:55 ↗ adopted

23:00 ↗ the reason that we're undertaking this

23:02 ↗ process as Jason said was that all

23:04 ↗ cities are required who are required to

23:06 ↗ plan are required to update Those comp

23:08 ↗ plans within the next year and a half

23:11 ↗ and the goals pertain to housing are

23:16 ↗ that hopefully the planning will help

23:20 ↗ make housing affordable in every

23:21 ↗ Community to all economic segments that

23:24 ↗ it will stimulate in support a variety

23:27 ↗ of different housing types and densities

23:30 ↗ and help preserve the existing housing

23:33 ↗ stock not just for

23:35 ↗ historical sake but because

23:38 ↗ existing housing is often more

23:41 ↗ affordable

23:43 ↗ comp plans are required by the growth

23:45 ↗ management act to have a housing element

23:47 ↗ and they have to include these things

23:50 ↗ that are listed here we have to do the

23:52 ↗ housing analysis which you know this

23:55 ↗ document fulfills

23:57 ↗ you have to through this process and the

24:00 ↗ more specifically in the land use and

24:06 ↗ the land use map ensure that there's

24:10 ↗ sufficient land for the housing that's

24:12 ↗ expected in the future and again that

24:16 ↗ the the plan makes it possible for the

24:20 ↗ city to accommodate housing needs of all

24:22 ↗ economic segments that's a quick

24:24 ↗ question what's your definition of

24:26 ↗ affordable housing we will get right to

24:28 ↗ that shortly I just want to make sure

24:31 ↗ thank you

24:33 ↗ um

24:34 ↗ Jason also mentioned that the

24:36 ↗ county-wide planning policies which are

24:38 ↗ which is a guiding framework if you will

24:42 ↗ for all us the cities in the county

24:45 ↗ have

24:46 ↗ um

24:48 ↗ guidelines for the city's plans and

24:51 ↗ those were re reshaped in this last go

24:55 ↗ around 2012.

24:57 ↗ and um most noteworthy they point out

25:01 ↗ that local governments do have a role

25:05 ↗ responsibility in housing we recognize

25:08 ↗ we don't produce housing but we have a

25:11 ↗ very definite impact on it

25:13 ↗ that cities and their plans should

25:17 ↗ account for the county-wide needs for

25:20 ↗ very low low and moderate income

25:23 ↗ households and housing that's affordable

25:26 ↗ to them and take proactive measures

25:29 ↗ towards a fair share or proportionate

25:33 ↗ share of that need

25:35 ↗ um

25:36 ↗ also recognizing that each city has

25:39 ↗ unique conditions

25:41 ↗ and that certain strategies that may

25:45 ↗ work in one type of community won't work

25:47 ↗ in another type of community so it's not

25:49 ↗ intended to force cities to adopt a

25:52 ↗ one-size-fits-all approach

25:55 ↗ and then to ensure that there's this

25:58 ↗ feedback loop if you will and that

26:02 ↗ there's a four-step process to follow up

26:05 ↗ on the planning to monitor what the

26:08 ↗ results are and then look back at the

26:11 ↗ policies and strategies and see that

26:15 ↗ they're reshaped as necessary to gain

26:18 ↗ the desired results

26:21 ↗ so here we talk about what affordable

26:24 ↗ housing means

26:27 ↗ and what specifically what is very low

26:30 ↗ what's low and what's moderate income

26:33 ↗ housing affordable housing in general it

26:36 ↗ you know kind of begs the question about

26:38 ↗ affordable for who

26:40 ↗ and so when we work in our work with

26:44 ↗ cities we work with this kind of

26:47 ↗ framework based on what is the median or

26:50 ↗ middle income of the community of the

26:52 ↗ county

26:53 ↗ at a given point in time and this shows

26:56 ↗ based on the 2013 median income of

26:59 ↗ eighty six thousand seven hundred that

27:01 ↗ applies to a family of four

27:04 ↗ and

27:06 ↗ eighty percent of that

27:08 ↗ a median income we call moderate income

27:11 ↗ and then low at 50 percent and 30

27:14 ↗ percent is what we call very low income

27:17 ↗ this table shows the um

27:21 ↗ the income as it's scaled down for each

27:23 ↗ case different size households are

27:27 ↗ adjusted accordingly and then what the

27:29 ↗ maximum housing costs are are affordable

27:31 ↗ housing units in each case does this

27:35 ↗ help answer your question

27:43 ↗ so the countywide planning policy said

27:46 ↗ that each Community should try to

27:49 ↗ address a proportionate share of the

27:51 ↗ county-wide need what it what is that

27:54 ↗ need how is how many households are we

27:56 ↗ talking about

27:57 ↗ what this chart shows is that when the

28:02 ↗ the numbers that were examined to base

28:06 ↗ the county right planning policies

28:08 ↗ um showed that 12 and a half percent of

28:11 ↗ households were in that very low income

28:14 ↗ category and eleven percent in the 30 to

28:17 ↗ 50 category low income

28:21 ↗ 16 percent of the households from 50 to

28:23 ↗ 80 percent are moderate income and then

28:27 ↗ upward in the scale

28:30 ↗ so this is not the the income distrib

28:32 ↗ this is the income distribution of the

28:34 ↗ whole County

28:35 ↗ and Issaquah as well as every other city

28:38 ↗ is responsible

28:40 ↗ for planning for in some way to provide

28:44 ↗ housing for that scale it may not all be

28:48 ↗ end up in Issaquah but every Community

28:51 ↗ has a part to play in it

28:56 ↗ Excuse me yes sorry real quick if you go

28:58 ↗ back to that slide that so that's the

29:01 ↗ current makeup well this was in 2009

29:04 ↗ okay and

29:06 ↗ affordable housing need I'm just trying

29:08 ↗ to understand is this a like a projected

29:10 ↗ demand figure or is this the current

29:12 ↗ situation it can be thought of as a

29:15 ↗ demand figure but it we speak we use the

29:18 ↗ word need

29:20 ↗ um these are the people that exist in

29:23 ↗ our County and

29:25 ↗ um

29:25 ↗ and need affordable housing

29:28 ↗ okay

29:41 ↗ it does have enough restoration

29:49 ↗ um

29:50 ↗ they can't hear you so if you I'm trying

29:54 ↗ to give you does that one reach

29:59 ↗ wow look at that

30:05 ↗ so that's a pretty good indication of

30:08 ↗ history and anything we've actually seen

30:11 ↗ a slight increase

30:13 ↗ I can't hear you the mic's not on there

30:16 ↗ we go okay now you need to jump on one

30:18 ↗ foot

30:20 ↗ I'm kidding

30:24 ↗ um that that split when you add to 12

30:26 ↗ and a half and 11.1 percent together

30:28 ↗ that's

30:29 ↗ 23.6 that number if anything has gone up

30:33 ↗ slightly

30:34 ↗ um we were probably a couple percent but

30:36 ↗ that split that you see there has shown

30:37 ↗ to be pretty historically State you know

30:39 ↗ that basic mix so I guess the the reason

30:42 ↗ for my question is if that's the current

30:44 ↗ makeup well my first question is where

30:46 ↗ do they live currently in that housing

30:48 ↗ stock and then second if you add more

30:50 ↗ affordable housing do you

30:53 ↗ do you effectively increase the number

30:55 ↗ of people and affect this distribution

30:58 ↗ and how do you account for that I'm

31:00 ↗ specifically thinking I mean there might

31:01 ↗ be people living outside the county now

31:03 ↗ that would live here if the affordable

31:04 ↗ housing was available

31:05 ↗ so what is that how do you project the

31:07 ↗ influx or immigration from other

31:09 ↗ counties if the housing becomes

31:11 ↗ available

31:13 ↗ uh that's all there's a lot in that

31:16 ↗ instead of questions it's a great

31:18 ↗ question yeah indulge some patients

31:20 ↗ because there's more to the story than

31:22 ↗ just okay yes okay great we may

31:27 ↗ right if we try to address it by the end

31:29 ↗ of the evening

31:30 ↗ so I have one question there what I'm

31:32 ↗ not understanding the uh the colors on

31:35 ↗ the graph renter owner of those numbers

31:36 ↗ like the first one seventy one thousand

31:38 ↗ one hundred and twenty six nine I don't

31:40 ↗ know how that's what those numbers mean

31:42 ↗ so

31:43 ↗ um at this in this snapshot 71 100

31:48 ↗ household renter households made less

31:52 ↗ than 30 percent of the median income

31:54 ↗ that's number of households yes

31:57 ↗ and at 26 900 is those were owner

32:01 ↗ households under that homeowners okay

32:03 ↗ thank you

32:09 ↗ so do what people of all these incomes

32:11 ↗ live in Issaquah

32:13 ↗ uh now well probably but um we want to

32:17 ↗ think about this first in terms of

32:19 ↗ employment we know that people of those

32:21 ↗ incomes work in Issaquah because they

32:24 ↗ have occupations such as these

32:26 ↗ who we depend on every day for various

32:30 ↗ kinds of

32:32 ↗ employment

32:33 ↗ that was generally in the 15 range these

32:37 ↗ are in the 20 range on an annual basis

32:40 ↗ twenty dollars makes forty two thousand

32:43 ↗ a year and for a family of four that's

32:46 ↗ that falls into what we would call low

32:48 ↗ income

32:52 ↗ this is a kind of a

32:54 ↗ Fuller picture to show a range of

32:58 ↗ jobs mostly in the

33:01 ↗ in the low and moderate income groupings

33:08 ↗ it's it's the detail is in your book in

33:12 ↗ this appendix

33:14 ↗ table if you want to go back and look it

33:17 ↗ up but of the the five major categories

33:20 ↗ I think it is that uh wage private

33:23 ↗ sector jobs this was wages tend to run

33:27 ↗ lower than the county-wide average

33:33 ↗ fire stands for finance insurance and

33:35 ↗ real estate

33:37 ↗ wtu stands for wholesale transportation

33:41 ↗ and utilities

33:44 ↗ the other two that aren't here are

33:47 ↗ Services which includes a lot of tech

33:49 ↗ jobs and

33:51 ↗ um

33:54 ↗ what am I forgetting I'll think of the

33:56 ↗ other one later

34:05 ↗ I I

34:08 ↗ would mention that the retail

34:10 ↗ Construction

34:12 ↗ and fires

34:15 ↗ if you add that to the to the government

34:17 ↗ and education

34:19 ↗ which are are not shown here but also

34:21 ↗ tend to be

34:23 ↗ um

34:24 ↗ you know moderate types of incomes those

34:27 ↗ make up 30 over 30 percent of your

34:29 ↗ daytime population

34:35 ↗ so um

34:37 ↗ should supply and demand take care of

34:39 ↗ that in the housing market well the

34:41 ↗ problem is that is the balance between

34:43 ↗ the jobs in the community and the

34:46 ↗ housing in the community often don't

34:48 ↗ match up

34:49 ↗ we calculate what what we call a jobs

34:52 ↗ housing balance and it's meant to show

34:55 ↗ the demand for housing from the jobs

34:58 ↗ that are in your community

35:00 ↗ assuming that each household has 1.4

35:05 ↗ workers on average

35:07 ↗ and

35:08 ↗ back if we look first at the East King

35:11 ↗ County part of it on the far left

35:15 ↗ you see that East King County as a whole

35:17 ↗ stopped being

35:18 ↗ bedroom suburbs

35:21 ↗ in the 1990s or late 80s perhaps because

35:25 ↗ the demand for housing

35:28 ↗ from jobs was higher than the amount of

35:31 ↗ housing that was there that's why that

35:33 ↗ yellow or gold bar is up above one one

35:36 ↗ means that there would be a balance

35:38 ↗ between the demand and the supply

35:43 ↗ in issaquah's case

35:46 ↗ let me see I think the next one

35:49 ↗ in this squad's case it actually started

35:52 ↗ before that

35:54 ↗ this guy hasn't been a bedroom town so

35:56 ↗ to speak since the 70s

36:00 ↗ um

36:02 ↗ but issaquah's number

36:05 ↗ ratio is

36:08 ↗ as of 2006 was 1.5

36:12 ↗ meaning that there's more demand than

36:15 ↗ Supply

36:16 ↗ and

36:17 ↗ the 2031 Target

36:20 ↗ represents the number of jobs and

36:23 ↗ housing units that are

36:27 ↗ prescribed in your existing plans you

36:30 ↗ know part of the the employment and

36:33 ↗ housing targets that are allocated

36:36 ↗ throughout the county

36:37 ↗ and so uh just that segment the change

36:41 ↗ between 2006 and 2031 would represent a

36:47 ↗ jobs housing balance or imbalance if you

36:49 ↗ will 2.5 so it has the effect of pulling

36:53 ↗ up your existing

36:54 ↗ ratio

36:56 ↗ and making it worse if you will

37:00 ↗ or exasperating that that imbalance

37:03 ↗ between demand and supply

37:05 ↗ is that clear can I answer any questions

37:07 ↗ about that

37:11 ↗ just to be clear looks like um according

37:13 ↗ to that Issaquah has the the largest

37:16 ↗ out of balance projected for the future

37:18 ↗ by far of anyone else well there's some

37:21 ↗ other cities are looking the same way

37:23 ↗ yeah I don't I don't have the others all

37:26 ↗ committed to memory but

37:28 ↗ um it's certainly one of the highest

37:32 ↗ so just the rear Mike said earlier if

37:34 ↗ you look on each of these slides you'll

37:36 ↗ see a reference to wherein the document

37:39 ↗ you received has more detail than they

37:43 ↗ will show each City and Redmond's up

37:45 ↗ there too so there are a couple other

37:47 ↗ cities I think yours shows the biggest

37:49 ↗ increase but Redmond's starting higher

37:53 ↗ than you are right now and it actually

37:54 ↗ got a little bit better but

37:56 ↗ um so you're you're not alone but you're

37:59 ↗ pretty far up there yeah on that ratio

38:01 ↗ yes sir I'm just curious I mean I is

38:04 ↗ 2006 the most recent set of data that

38:06 ↗ you can get because I'm curious A lot's

38:09 ↗ happening this across since 2006 as

38:11 ↗ housing and jobs and the whole thing I

38:14 ↗ mean is there a way to get updated data

38:16 ↗ as to how we stand currently

38:18 ↗ really yeah Okay the reason we use 2006

38:22 ↗ is because under state law you're also

38:24 ↗ doing a thing called buildable land

38:25 ↗ report

38:27 ↗ and that is the measuring stick we know

38:29 ↗ how much has been built since 2006 and

38:32 ↗ you've actually probably been going

38:34 ↗ you're getting closer to your 2031

38:36 ↗ Target for housing you're getting there

38:38 ↗ pretty fast but the reason we use 2006

38:41 ↗ is that's a benchmark that all the

38:42 ↗ cities used for doing an analysis of

38:44 ↗ land capacity and then that's also when

38:47 ↗ you start your target time period it's

38:49 ↗ 2006 or 2031. so we're just matching

38:52 ↗ that point in time we do have other data

38:55 ↗ that shows and if anything it's showing

38:56 ↗ issaquah's even going faster to their

38:58 ↗ their housing but also their employment

39:00 ↗ so

39:01 ↗ um so this is the brown bars are based

39:04 ↗ on your planning targets that are in

39:05 ↗ your comp plan okay that's why we use

39:07 ↗ two thousand so are we still around that

39:09 ↗ 1.5 or are we

39:12 ↗ you have we'd have to look more

39:13 ↗ carefully to see today where you are

39:15 ↗ between 1.5 and 2.5 I think the point

39:18 ↗ we're trying to make here is that based

39:19 ↗ on your plans

39:21 ↗ goals

39:22 ↗ it's presumably you could put even more

39:24 ↗ pressure on your system

39:26 ↗ got it

39:29 ↗ so we also have some

39:32 ↗ real world confirmation if you will and

39:35 ↗ you may may be familiar with this report

39:40 ↗ iscoa business Community survey

39:45 ↗ surveyed employers who ranked housing

39:49 ↗ affordability as the top issue regarding

39:52 ↗ retaining an

39:53 ↗ um recruiting employees and asked if

39:56 ↗ they would help recruit and retain

39:58 ↗ employees 62 percent said that more

40:01 ↗ affordable housing would be helpful

40:05 ↗ firms also linked attrition and

40:07 ↗ recruitment difficulties to the commute

40:10 ↗ time so even if they even if they can

40:13 ↗ make it to work

40:14 ↗ they have trouble making it there

40:18 ↗ was also a strengths weaknesses

40:21 ↗ opportunity threat type of analysis done

40:24 ↗ by the economic Vitality committee last

40:26 ↗ year

40:27 ↗ which said that there are some large

40:31 ↗ influences in our community that could

40:32 ↗ negatively affect our future if they

40:34 ↗ were to leave or not support the city's

40:36 ↗ Future Vision and the key players that

40:39 ↗ they named

40:40 ↗ are there

40:46 ↗ um that report went on to say that if

40:48 ↗ employees cannot afford to live in

40:50 ↗ communities in which they work or

40:52 ↗ there's not an adequate supply of

40:53 ↗ housing then they're forced to endure

40:55 ↗ long commutes which are harmful to the

40:56 ↗ environment limit time spent with family

40:59 ↗ and pursuing other interests have access

41:01 ↗ to affordable housing is an issue some

41:03 ↗ decide to leave the area impacting

41:05 ↗ employers who are unable to hire and

41:07 ↗ retain the workers they need to sustain

41:09 ↗ and grow their businesses

41:13 ↗ so to kind of sum up this employment

41:15 ↗ piece of the analysis this jobs housing

41:19 ↗ imbalance creates an excess demand for

41:22 ↗ housing relative to a local Supply

41:26 ↗ your local Workforce includes a number

41:29 ↗ of modern lower paying jobs and those

41:32 ↗ have their own demand or needs for

41:35 ↗ certain types of housing that perhaps

41:39 ↗ different uh

41:41 ↗ Market qualities and prices but also

41:46 ↗ those

41:48 ↗ May contribute to the type of commutes

41:51 ↗ that people experience

41:53 ↗ it's noted here that if you look at now

41:58 ↗ this this is a little bit dated but

42:00 ↗ we're trying to get something more

42:02 ↗ current but if you look at the

42:06 ↗ in East King County as a whole

42:08 ↗ geographically about the same size as

42:10 ↗ Seattle

42:11 ↗ in Seattle

42:13 ↗ 75 percent of the workers who were

42:16 ↗ people who work in Seattle live in

42:18 ↗ Seattle

42:19 ↗ but on the east side only 50 percent of

42:22 ↗ the workers live on the east side

42:27 ↗ now it's not

42:29 ↗ geographically comparable but it's

42:31 ↗ interesting that um only 10 percent of

42:34 ↗ the people who work in this squad live

42:35 ↗ in as well

42:38 ↗ when you say East King County do you

42:39 ↗ mean East King County inside the urban

42:41 ↗ growth boundary or all of East King

42:43 ↗ County no inside the urban our cities is

42:46 ↗ basically our 15 cities and

42:48 ↗ unincorporated King County in the urban

42:50 ↗ growth boundary inside the urban growth

42:56 ↗ so if only 50 or 10 percent live in

42:59 ↗ Issaquah where do the other ones live

43:03 ↗ where how far away what is the area that

43:06 ↗ and are is there what's the relationship

43:09 ↗ of affordable housing in those areas

43:12 ↗ that allow people to live there and

43:14 ↗ commute

43:15 ↗ there's a lot of data to answer that

43:18 ↗ perfectly great question I don't have a

43:21 ↗ bad answer for it

43:23 ↗ so what was the last part of your quest

43:25 ↗ I missed the second part of the question

43:27 ↗ I just went in

43:28 ↗ um where do they live what uh

43:32 ↗ what is the the amount of of work for

43:35 ↗ Force housing in the neighboring areas

43:38 ↗ so that allows people to live there

43:42 ↗ instead of Issaquah and commute so so

43:44 ↗ you've raised a really important general

43:47 ↗ question and one of the things that was

43:49 ↗ behind why Arch was created in the first

43:51 ↗ place and why when we did this housing

43:54 ↗ needs analysis

43:55 ↗ one of the reasons for deciding to do a

43:57 ↗ joint one is because it's a market Area

44:00 ↗ Housing markets aren't defined by City

44:03 ↗ boundaries and when Arch was first

44:05 ↗ created 20 some odd years ago we defined

44:09 ↗ the area that we wanted membership to

44:10 ↗ consist of based on what we thought a

44:12 ↗ market area was or there was enough

44:14 ↗ comparability of issues that cities

44:16 ↗ could learn from one another

44:17 ↗ so your question is so when we why we

44:21 ↗ often show you the East King counties

44:23 ↗ because you're kind of part of a

44:24 ↗ marketer so understanding Beyond what's

44:26 ↗ on your body we give you all the data

44:28 ↗ for your city too so you can look at

44:29 ↗ gesture City

44:30 ↗ now if your city had the jobs housing

44:33 ↗ balance that we showed you and all the

44:36 ↗ surrounding towns had a lower ratio then

44:39 ↗ maybe there's no issue at all and that's

44:41 ↗ sort of what you're getting at

44:42 ↗ the point is when you look at that

44:45 ↗ graphic and if you can go back

44:48 ↗ um to back a couple one more

44:53 ↗ is if you were to look in your chart

44:56 ↗ what you would see we have a comparable

44:58 ↗ chart like this that's on page page 111

45:01 ↗ of the report is you would see a pattern

45:05 ↗ like that for almost every city in East

45:07 ↗ King County

45:08 ↗ so that's and that's why you see when

45:10 ↗ you see all these King County and that

45:11 ↗ is including the unincorporated the bars

45:13 ↗ are going up but almost every city

45:14 ↗ you're seeing that Bargo Higher and

45:16 ↗ Higher and Higher and most of them have

45:17 ↗ gone above one okay so

45:21 ↗ what that means is that's one reason we

45:23 ↗ almost don't even talk about the 10

45:25 ↗ living work in Issa clock if it's such a

45:27 ↗ small area that it's when you start

45:30 ↗ realizing there isn't a place right next

45:32 ↗ door for that those workers to go

45:33 ↗ because they're putting similar pressure

45:34 ↗ on the system we also include Seattle in

45:37 ↗ there because what we're showing you is

45:38 ↗ with Seattle that was the historic area

45:41 ↗ you know that was the job center and we

45:43 ↗ were the bedroom community for them it's

45:45 ↗ not like Seattle's gone down so we now

45:47 ↗ have created two

45:49 ↗ centers of two of our three centers of

45:51 ↗ our region that are generating more

45:53 ↗ demand for housing where you should just

45:55 ↗ be one part of the region King Seattle

45:57 ↗ now it's East King County and Seattle

46:00 ↗ so in terms of Workforce housing you

46:03 ↗ know is there places where for some of

46:04 ↗ the workers you're going to see

46:07 ↗ that you're going to see that the the

46:09 ↗ affordability profile is not a whole lot

46:11 ↗ different in the rest of East King

46:12 ↗ County than it is in Issaquah

46:14 ↗ so that's part of the reason why maybe

46:17 ↗ we have traffic issues or you're going

46:18 ↗ to see some other demographic

46:20 ↗ information talks about cost burden so

46:23 ↗ you've asked the perfect question and

46:25 ↗ one reason we're showing you this is

46:26 ↗ we're saying

46:28 ↗ your story isn't a lot different than

46:30 ↗ anyone else in East King County so

46:32 ↗ cumulatively we have a lot of pressure

46:33 ↗ on our system in terms of affordability

46:36 ↗ for a lot of our Workforce

46:38 ↗ actually I knew the answer to the

46:40 ↗ question but I thought I had it right

46:41 ↗ okay no that's great

46:43 ↗ so okay

46:52 ↗ okay we'll move to demographics

46:56 ↗ and we'll kind of start here with the

46:59 ↗ summary and then work backwards into the

47:00 ↗ detail

47:01 ↗ one thing that we found across East King

47:05 ↗ County

47:06 ↗ arth has already alluded to is that the

47:09 ↗ communities are becoming more mature and

47:12 ↗ what we mean by that is that the city

47:15 ↗ demograph the city's demographically

47:18 ↗ um are becoming more like King County as

47:22 ↗ a whole

47:24 ↗ we also find that in terms of household

47:28 ↗ types and population ages and so forth

47:32 ↗ that they're not you know we're not all

47:35 ↗ just young families in our communities

47:38 ↗ anymore that that we have diversities of

47:41 ↗ Ages and household types and so forth

47:45 ↗ with respect to issua

47:49 ↗ well I was you know like Arthur said

47:52 ↗ I've only been here three years I was

47:53 ↗ floored by the growth in Issaquah

47:57 ↗ how much

47:59 ↗ bigger it was than other Eastside

48:01 ↗ communities but what what's happened

48:03 ↗ demographically in the community is that

48:06 ↗ Issaquah was

48:09 ↗ distinct in a number of ways and now

48:11 ↗ it's much more like the rest of the

48:14 ↗ county especially in terms of as I said

48:16 ↗ population age household types and

48:20 ↗ homeownership is much higher than it was

48:22 ↗ in the past these are all the all

48:24 ↗ details that you can find in the report

48:27 ↗ um there still are a couple of

48:28 ↗ distinguishing features one is that the

48:31 ↗ median income in the city is lower from

48:36 ↗ others in the uh in East King County but

48:39 ↗ there's also a lower a rate of poverty

48:41 ↗ at the same time there's a higher

48:43 ↗ incident of housing cost burden I'll

48:45 ↗ Define that for you later

48:49 ↗ but your median income is still higher

48:50 ↗ than county-wide averages we're just

48:52 ↗ saying within East King County yeah

48:57 ↗ so household types

49:00 ↗ we look at five different types if you

49:04 ↗ will of households and

49:06 ↗ um

49:08 ↗ what has happened in Issaquah is that

49:10 ↗ this Married With Children

49:12 ↗ piece of the pie has grown dramatically

49:15 ↗ um

49:16 ↗ and that in combination with the others

49:19 ↗ looks very similar to East King County

49:22 ↗ there's a county pie in in there that

49:24 ↗ you can compare that to

49:26 ↗ another notable thing though is the

49:29 ↗ combination of living alone and married

49:31 ↗ without kids one and two which accounts

49:34 ↗ for most of the one and two person

49:36 ↗ households is um well it's it's 56 here

49:40 ↗ but if you look at actually all the one

49:42 ↗ and two-person households it's over 60

49:45 ↗ percent

49:45 ↗ in Issaquah so

49:48 ↗ um that kind of raises a question about

49:50 ↗ what kind of housing those people

49:53 ↗ um

49:54 ↗ uh really desire and would is there a

49:59 ↗ latent need out there for other types of

50:02 ↗ smaller units like accessory dwelling

50:04 ↗ units or Cottages or you know some some

50:07 ↗ other types of Innovative housing if you

50:10 ↗ will

50:11 ↗ so what do you draw go ahead I was just

50:13 ↗ going to say so if that's the well

50:16 ↗ somewhat current snapshot of Issaquah do

50:18 ↗ you have a similar snapshot for what you

50:20 ↗ think the demand would be for affordable

50:22 ↗ housing meaning

50:25 ↗ the the folks that fall into the

50:27 ↗ affordable housing categories are they

50:28 ↗ going to be matching that or is it more

50:33 ↗ families with children or do you have

50:36 ↗ any we we do have some information on

50:38 ↗ that

50:39 ↗ um

50:40 ↗ thank you

50:41 ↗ yeah

50:42 ↗ we'll bring some of that out and see if

50:44 ↗ you still have questions about okay

50:46 ↗ no I I have one you talked about the

50:48 ↗ different different kinds of

50:50 ↗ units have you looked is it is there any

50:53 ↗ inclination to look at the pods that are

50:57 ↗ being built in Seattle to move anything

50:58 ↗ like that for affordable housing out

51:02 ↗ here we haven't uh we haven't

51:06 ↗ heard of any in Issaquah per se but yes

51:09 ↗ in Redmond there are two projects

51:11 ↗ already

51:12 ↗ and in Kirkland there are two on the

51:14 ↗ drawing board I think more are you

51:16 ↗ looking at that type of construction for

51:20 ↗ affordable housing is that something

51:22 ↗ that that works and is part of what you

51:26 ↗ think it should be

51:29 ↗ so so I'd like to make two comments one

51:32 ↗ is a general

51:33 ↗ what you're asking now is perfect

51:35 ↗ because what we're making connections

51:38 ↗ between this and housing issues is what

51:40 ↗ we're trying to get your thoughts and

51:41 ↗ inputs on so this is the perfect line of

51:44 ↗ questioning and commenting that we're

51:45 ↗ looking for so keep it up that's good

51:46 ↗ stuff on the on the pods everyone know

51:49 ↗ what the pods are

51:52 ↗ okay no actually no so we'll pods are

51:56 ↗ very small efficiency units you may only

51:59 ↗ have a microwave as a cooking and you

52:01 ↗ might have a small down the hallway

52:02 ↗ kitchen that people share and your unit

52:05 ↗ will be

52:06 ↗ 200 square feet maybe 300 square feet

52:09 ↗ very very small efficient they usually

52:12 ↗ do come with a complete bath but the

52:14 ↗ sink may be your kitchen sink too very

52:17 ↗ very small units

52:19 ↗ um their rent from a development point

52:21 ↗ of view they're an interesting mix per

52:23 ↗ square foot they get the highest rent

52:24 ↗ per square foot of anything in Redmond

52:26 ↗ but per unit they're most they're the

52:28 ↗ most affordable units the ones in

52:31 ↗ Redmond there's a digipen everyone here

52:34 ↗ the Japan there's they're a tech college

52:36 ↗ or I don't know post high school college

52:39 ↗ program and they know a lot of people

52:41 ↗ from that program are living there but

52:42 ↗ other people live there as well so the

52:45 ↗ answer is the person who built the first

52:46 ↗ one in Redmond is the same person who

52:48 ↗ built the second one in Redmond

52:50 ↗ so that's telling you there's a market

52:51 ↗ response and he's the same person trying

52:53 ↗ to build them in Kirkland and my guess

52:55 ↗ is he'll be in your town within four or

52:57 ↗ five years proposing something in your

52:59 ↗ town too

53:00 ↗ so it does seem to have a market

53:02 ↗ response so

53:04 ↗ and does it answer all of them no but

53:07 ↗ for some needs it's a way that the

53:09 ↗ market can be I know they're popping up

53:10 ↗ and up and down exactly

53:16 ↗ here we're looking at changes in

53:18 ↗ population age

53:20 ↗ um

53:21 ↗ again this is all of East King County

53:22 ↗ but issaquah's is very similar and if

53:27 ↗ I think it's interesting that this

53:29 ↗ change here from 90 to 2000

53:33 ↗ in in this age group moved up to this

53:37 ↗ exact thing

53:38 ↗ change here in the next 10 years and we

53:42 ↗ probably expect to see

53:45 ↗ 65 to 75 increase in essential patterns

53:50 ↗ there was some increase

53:53 ↗ uh

53:54 ↗ in those already in the 55 and up group

53:58 ↗ and actually issquad has a little bit

53:59 ↗ higher

54:04 ↗ probably because of existing

54:08 ↗ elderly housing senior housing

54:16 ↗ so we know that we can expect a

54:19 ↗ proportion of seniors

54:21 ↗ to grow as well as the number in fact

54:24 ↗ that the figure that I keep hearing over

54:25 ↗ and over is that the number of seniors

54:27 ↗ is going to double in 30 years so we

54:31 ↗ expect them to increase proportion as a

54:36 ↗ percentage also

54:38 ↗ um

54:39 ↗ but seniors who rent

54:42 ↗ are relatively cost burdened meaning

54:45 ↗ they spend more than they can afford on

54:48 ↗ housing

54:49 ↗ some seniors especially the most elderly

54:52 ↗ have specialized housing needs as you

54:55 ↗ probably know and

54:58 ↗ um

55:01 ↗ what you may also know is that senior

55:06 ↗ specialty housing or housing options are

55:09 ↗ fairly plentiful on a proportionate

55:11 ↗ basis in Issaquah already so you know a

55:15 ↗ question to think about especially when

55:17 ↗ we get into the policy discussions is to

55:21 ↗ what extent do you want to continue to

55:23 ↗ address are you uh

55:25 ↗ or give priority to senior housing um I

55:28 ↗ guess it's always good to take into

55:30 ↗ account

55:31 ↗ um the more popular notion of Aging in

55:34 ↗ place too so not out building

55:37 ↗ the care facilities

55:40 ↗ because there's quite

55:42 ↗ as somewhat of a shift and I'd say

55:44 ↗ probably more significant shift toward

55:47 ↗ Aging in place

55:49 ↗ in the future

55:51 ↗ great thank you so that's a again we

55:54 ↗ just had a conversation in another city

55:55 ↗ and so and trying to get policy

55:58 ↗ direction from them one of the items was

56:01 ↗ there are different kinds of senior

56:03 ↗ needs and therefore instead of just

56:06 ↗ having one policy for seniors and the

56:09 ↗ two themes seem to be specialized forms

56:11 ↗ of housing that may be done by seniors

56:13 ↗ but the other is ability to age in place

56:15 ↗ and and encouraging that as well so two

56:17 ↗ very different approaches and what I

56:19 ↗ would point out is in the age data

56:22 ↗ that's in the report one thing that

56:25 ↗ we've noticed in the last 25 years is

56:28 ↗ that the proportion of seniors who are

56:31 ↗ over age 75 has gone up significantly so

56:35 ↗ where it used to be one-third were over

56:38 ↗ age 75 and two-thirds between 65 and 75

56:41 ↗ it's now an even split and those who are

56:43 ↗ over 75 may find themselves needing more

56:46 ↗ specialized forms of housing short term

56:48 ↗ or long term and so that's one Trend

56:50 ↗ that we have seen that may have some

56:53 ↗ level of impact on senior needs is that

56:55 ↗ balance of you know the 65 to 75 may

56:58 ↗ have a little bit different mixture of

57:00 ↗ needs between those two kinds versus

57:02 ↗ those 75 and over

57:04 ↗ speaking of demographic shifts have you

57:07 ↗ seen any as Baby Boomers start to retire

57:09 ↗ in massive numbers now generally

57:11 ↗ downsizing has that had any impact at

57:14 ↗ all on housing stock need or changes are

57:18 ↗ they now consuming more of the smaller

57:20 ↗ housing stock that normally we would say

57:22 ↗ would go to a starter family or a lower

57:24 ↗ income family

57:26 ↗ I haven't posed the question I don't

57:28 ↗ know yeah I haven't seen any you know

57:30 ↗ statistic based conclusions on that

57:34 ↗ um

57:34 ↗ just you know experientially or

57:36 ↗ anecdotally it seems to be both just

57:39 ↗ like the question of you know whether

57:41 ↗ people want to age in place or find a

57:44 ↗ senior service supported communities or

57:47 ↗ things like that it's

57:48 ↗ you know it depends on the person

57:50 ↗ looking for is one floor units whether

57:54 ↗ they're single-family homes or

57:57 ↗ elevator accessible are you talking

58:00 ↗ about boomers are seniors both Boomers

58:03 ↗ when they become seniors yeah both so

58:05 ↗ yeah that's what I'm finding in my

58:07 ↗ business so so it's more of a I want a

58:11 ↗ single level because I want to stay here

58:13 ↗ I don't want to move and and I don't

58:16 ↗ like Steps so so there's a lot of

58:19 ↗ answers to your question and that which

58:21 ↗ is essentially building on what

58:22 ↗ commissioner Aaron was saying that

58:25 ↗ um a lot of seniors

58:27 ↗ they want to stay in their homes or

58:29 ↗ whatever and or they want to stay in

58:31 ↗ their neighborhoods and so there's a

58:32 ↗ certain amount who want to age in place

58:33 ↗ I was developing senior housing in the

58:36 ↗ 80s and we made the mistake the

58:38 ↗ development Community made the mistake

58:40 ↗ of saying I came up with a model for

58:41 ↗ putting seniors in housing with services

58:43 ↗ and they look at the wealth they had and

58:46 ↗ everything and they assumed okay we're

58:47 ↗ going to be able to get 25 30 percent of

58:49 ↗ all seniors to go into these kind of

58:51 ↗ housing

58:52 ↗ and because they said they got the money

58:53 ↗ they got this so why wouldn't they do it

58:55 ↗ and the mistake we all made back then

58:58 ↗ was because that home equity they had

59:01 ↗ was their nest egg to take care of

59:02 ↗ emergencies not to pay for their

59:03 ↗ day-to-day living and so in the end

59:05 ↗ maybe only 15 instead of the assumed 30

59:07 ↗ percent went to that different kind of

59:09 ↗ housing but the Market's out there

59:11 ↗ watching really carefully and you are

59:13 ↗ you your community has the number of

59:15 ↗ communities targeted for seniors and so

59:18 ↗ there is a whole industry out there who

59:20 ↗ is trying to tailor the needs and so

59:23 ↗ again this is sort of now one of the

59:25 ↗ implications for housing questions is

59:28 ↗ the comment I would make is it's hard to

59:32 ↗ say exactly as a city what that demand

59:35 ↗ is going to be now but there are a group

59:37 ↗ of people out there who make a living

59:39 ↗ out of responding to Market and changing

59:42 ↗ markets and that's your development

59:43 ↗ community and so one of the questions

59:45 ↗ that we raise in general with

59:47 ↗ commissions and thinking about how you

59:49 ↗ deal with it instead of always saying

59:51 ↗ we're going to plan precisely about what

59:53 ↗ we think each need is instead it's maybe

59:56 ↗ thinking about it is do we leave enough

59:58 ↗ flexibility to allow the market to

1:00:01 ↗ respond to changing needs and make it so

1:00:03 ↗ that we don't become too big of a burden

1:00:05 ↗ to the market responding to what is

1:00:08 ↗ working out in the market and so what

1:00:10 ↗ can we do to get the market to be the

1:00:13 ↗ you know this country relies primarily

1:00:15 ↗ on the market to create its housing yet

1:00:17 ↗ we have challenges it might be a demo

1:00:19 ↗ you know are they building to the right

1:00:20 ↗ needs or are they building the right

1:00:22 ↗ affordability

1:00:24 ↗ but one of the first steps I always say

1:00:26 ↗ for city is

1:00:28 ↗ try to have the market be able to take

1:00:29 ↗ as much care of the needs in your in

1:00:32 ↗ your community as absolutely possible so

1:00:34 ↗ for example accessory dwelling units

1:00:36 ↗ doesn't cost public money to do it it

1:00:38 ↗ creates very affordable forms of housing

1:00:40 ↗ it may allow someone to age in place

1:00:42 ↗ because they have someone on their

1:00:44 ↗ property with them and so it can be a

1:00:47 ↗ way to allow very flexibly but still

1:00:49 ↗ done in a way that fits into the

1:00:51 ↗ community so I think that's one of the

1:00:53 ↗ messages we like for people to think

1:00:55 ↗ about is it isn't always about

1:00:56 ↗ regulating to success it might be giving

1:00:59 ↗ enough flexibility to have a good

1:01:01 ↗ Community but allowing that market to do

1:01:03 ↗ some shifting around as changes as needs

1:01:06 ↗ change

1:01:11 ↗ let's take a quick look at race

1:01:14 ↗ ethnicity and so forth because although

1:01:17 ↗ it's not really clear

1:01:19 ↗ always what impact this will have on

1:01:22 ↗ housing as Arthur just said that we try

1:01:27 ↗ and take the approach that cities should

1:01:28 ↗ be

1:01:29 ↗ sensitive to and accommodating

1:01:33 ↗ when Market needs to shift and

1:01:36 ↗ ethnicity may have an impact on that so

1:01:39 ↗ you know as well as I do from the

1:01:42 ↗ numbers that the ethnic profile has

1:01:45 ↗ changed in Issaquah just as it has

1:01:48 ↗ throughout the county

1:01:50 ↗ and this illustrates that in a couple of

1:01:52 ↗ ways including the the percentage of

1:01:55 ↗ people who are born outside the U.S

1:02:01 ↗ so is becoming more diverse and Human

1:02:06 ↗ Services programs and housing you know

1:02:09 ↗ being related to that

1:02:11 ↗ we want to try and be sensitive and

1:02:15 ↗ responsive to those things especially if

1:02:19 ↗ those uh characteristics that I just

1:02:22 ↗ showed you have some impact on the

1:02:26 ↗ English language proficiency of the

1:02:28 ↗ people involved and what kind of needs

1:02:31 ↗ may

1:02:33 ↗ you know appear because of that

1:02:37 ↗ um and what and then there's the kind of

1:02:39 ↗ open question about whether or not uh

1:02:42 ↗ different we'll see demands for

1:02:44 ↗ different types of housing

1:02:49 ↗ okay I mentioned housing cost burden a

1:02:52 ↗ couple of times let me Define that more

1:02:55 ↗ explicitly so

1:02:57 ↗ long-standing definition of housing cost

1:02:59 ↗ burden is any household but particularly

1:03:03 ↗ lower income households is they pay more

1:03:07 ↗ than 30 percent of their gross income

1:03:09 ↗ and housing costs including utilities

1:03:11 ↗ and the reason why I say particularly

1:03:14 ↗ lower paying because

1:03:16 ↗ there's a belief that if you're making

1:03:20 ↗ less than middle income say that

1:03:24 ↗ more your uh

1:03:27 ↗ the more of your housing costs that go

1:03:30 ↗ to housing or more of your income that

1:03:31 ↗ goes to housing

1:03:33 ↗ the more the harder it is for you to

1:03:35 ↗ afford other Ascension

1:03:37 ↗ Necessities like food and clothing and

1:03:40 ↗ so forth

1:03:42 ↗ it's not such a threat at 30 percent of

1:03:46 ↗ income if you're already making

1:03:49 ↗ more than middle income

1:03:53 ↗ we found that a large portion of the

1:03:56 ↗ people who are cost burned are or sorry

1:03:59 ↗ other way around large portions of lower

1:04:02 ↗ and uh

1:04:05 ↗ very low income people our house are

1:04:07 ↗ cost burdened

1:04:08 ↗ but looking at the profile of cost

1:04:11 ↗ burden households they tend to be

1:04:13 ↗ younger you know people are just

1:04:14 ↗ starting out

1:04:16 ↗ or older and in particular renters

1:04:21 ↗ and then

1:04:23 ↗ more concerning thing of is what's known

1:04:27 ↗ as severe cost burden that's when people

1:04:28 ↗ are actually paying more than half of

1:04:30 ↗ their incomes on housing

1:04:32 ↗ um

1:04:34 ↗ half of the cost burden renters and a

1:04:37 ↗ third of cost burdened homeowners

1:04:40 ↗ pay more than half of their incomes

1:04:43 ↗ on housing

1:04:51 ↗ this chart is meant to illustrate that

1:04:55 ↗ the the relationship between income and

1:04:57 ↗ cost burden so it's it's pretty dramatic

1:04:59 ↗ to show that when your income's really

1:05:02 ↗ low on the left hand side there's a

1:05:05 ↗ great likelihood that your cost burdened

1:05:08 ↗ and when your income is much higher

1:05:10 ↗ there's a much lower likelihood

1:05:17 ↗ and here going back to the comment about

1:05:19 ↗ renters we see that uh

1:05:23 ↗ renters tend to be

1:05:26 ↗ more likely to be cost burned although

1:05:28 ↗ there was through the recession a real

1:05:32 ↗ uptick in cost burden among homeowners

1:05:39 ↗ Issaquah residents

1:05:42 ↗ on the whole

1:05:44 ↗ are have a higher percentage of cost

1:05:47 ↗ burden compared to the rest of East King

1:05:49 ↗ County

1:05:50 ↗ I believe it's it's similar to the

1:05:53 ↗ county average but it's a little more

1:05:56 ↗ common in issquad than other cities

1:05:59 ↗ around you and going back to the

1:06:01 ↗ homeowner comment it went up quite a bit

1:06:04 ↗ I think third something like 13 to 21

1:06:07 ↗ percent

1:06:08 ↗ of the homeowners became cost burden

1:06:17 ↗ the thing about the 50 that's the fear

1:06:20 ↗ that cost burden

1:06:22 ↗ that's when they say that you're right

1:06:24 ↗ on the edge of becoming homeless so we

1:06:27 ↗ also

1:06:28 ↗ um

1:06:28 ↗ want to be

1:06:29 ↗ aware and attentive to homelessness

1:06:32 ↗ which is um

1:06:35 ↗ common in East King County as it is

1:06:37 ↗ throughout the county

1:06:39 ↗ this has some statistics that have kind

1:06:43 ↗ of held up over time

1:06:46 ↗ throughout the county in the various

1:06:47 ↗ one-night counts and so forth again this

1:06:50 ↗ year more than 8 000 people were counted

1:06:53 ↗ as homeless and

1:06:55 ↗ um actually 3 100 people just last month

1:07:00 ↗ were counted outdoors in King County on

1:07:04 ↗ the east side the number went down a

1:07:06 ↗ little bit but it's still higher than it

1:07:09 ↗ was

1:07:10 ↗ in the past

1:07:12 ↗ also we have in the report data on

1:07:15 ↗ homeless children as reported by school

1:07:18 ↗ districts and um

1:07:21 ↗ so you can see in there specifically

1:07:23 ↗ about the Issaquah school district

1:07:25 ↗ fortunately that number went down last

1:07:27 ↗ year but um

1:07:29 ↗ at 124 counted throughout the year

1:07:34 ↗ it's still noteworthy

1:07:38 ↗ and then the um

1:07:40 ↗ East King County has a homelessness plan

1:07:43 ↗ that is part of the bigger County

1:07:46 ↗ homelessness plan and this

1:07:49 ↗ plan included the needs projected

1:07:53 ↗ back in 2005 and this shows what's been

1:07:57 ↗ added since then so

1:08:00 ↗ um

1:08:01 ↗ there's been a lot of progress but still

1:08:04 ↗ um

1:08:05 ↗ short of what the

1:08:08 ↗ estimated needless in all three of these

1:08:10 ↗ categories and I just like to jump in

1:08:13 ↗ with a quick comment on the homeless on

1:08:15 ↗ two quick comments on the homeless data

1:08:17 ↗ you know I've been in some meetings

1:08:20 ↗ earlier today with groups who work on

1:08:21 ↗ homelessness in East King County and

1:08:24 ↗ going back one slide is that the one

1:08:28 ↗ night count was just done where they go

1:08:31 ↗ out during the evening and count people

1:08:33 ↗ who are

1:08:34 ↗ in no form of shelter they're either in

1:08:36 ↗ a car or camping out and things and we

1:08:39 ↗ know we're not getting Complete because

1:08:40 ↗ we can't go up on Tiger Mountain and get

1:08:41 ↗ all the folks there but there were

1:08:43 ↗ several hundred people counted in East

1:08:45 ↗ King County on during that count who are

1:08:48 ↗ in East King County who were Without

1:08:49 ↗ Shelter we also have a number several

1:08:52 ↗ shelters for families and and singles

1:08:54 ↗ and young and young adults as well so

1:08:56 ↗ when we're talking about homelessness

1:08:58 ↗ and it's a county-wide issue it isn't

1:09:00 ↗ because we don't have homelessness in

1:09:01 ↗ East King County and similarly we don't

1:09:04 ↗ have a slide on it but there is slides

1:09:05 ↗ about households who are in supplemental

1:09:09 ↗ security income and so there is another

1:09:11 ↗ percentage of our community that have

1:09:13 ↗ special needs or other things that make

1:09:15 ↗ it difficult for them to live day to day

1:09:17 ↗ without some kind of support services

1:09:18 ↗ and again we have that in East King

1:09:20 ↗ County just as we do and you know in

1:09:22 ↗ other parts of the county so that

1:09:24 ↗ information is in the part that Mike was

1:09:26 ↗ referencing some more detail and

1:09:28 ↗ information on that so and I think

1:09:30 ↗ you're probably missing uh some huge

1:09:32 ↗ data too on people that are homeless

1:09:35 ↗ that are Couchsurfing

1:09:37 ↗ right because there's quite a bit of

1:09:40 ↗ those people now especially in the last

1:09:41 ↗ two months of unemployment being cut off

1:09:43 ↗ there's yeah and and some numbers that

1:09:46 ↗ might be getting picked up on with the

1:09:49 ↗ um School data because the school data

1:09:51 ↗ definition of homeless sometimes

1:09:52 ↗ includes that but you're right it's you

1:09:55 ↗ know when we're doing the one night

1:09:57 ↗ count those are the people who've gotten

1:09:58 ↗ all the way to the circumstance where

1:10:00 ↗ they're not in a heated space during the

1:10:03 ↗ night on a cold night in January and

1:10:06 ↗ there's still other people who are

1:10:07 ↗ finding other ways to skimp by that

1:10:09 ↗ really isn't a housing unit for family

1:10:11 ↗ but sharing or other shelters or things

1:10:15 ↗ along those lines so good thank you

1:10:23 ↗ so we have a few observations about on

1:10:27 ↗ the supply side of things

1:10:28 ↗ and to No Surprise

1:10:32 ↗ rents in East King County are relatively

1:10:35 ↗ High average rents tend to be in line

1:10:40 ↗ with moderate incomes but and rents also

1:10:45 ↗ often follow the pattern of

1:10:50 ↗ um

1:10:51 ↗ changes in income and you'll see there

1:10:54 ↗ are some charts in the report that

1:10:56 ↗ illustrate that nicely but

1:10:59 ↗ um

1:11:00 ↗ in East King County just in the last

1:11:04 ↗ couple of years rents have gone up quite

1:11:07 ↗ a bit more than income and that probably

1:11:11 ↗ reflects the catching up that the

1:11:13 ↗ multifamily industry has been trying to

1:11:16 ↗ do

1:11:21 ↗ this chart is meant to show the

1:11:26 ↗ the differences in different areas of

1:11:29 ↗ the county Seashore means Seattle and

1:11:32 ↗ Shoreline East is the East Side South

1:11:35 ↗ County and then also showing some Rural

1:11:38 ↗ and unincorporated areas but um

1:11:42 ↗ this is showing that East King County

1:11:46 ↗ has a low proportion of rental housing

1:11:48 ↗ affordable and very low

1:11:50 ↗ and ownership sorry rail housing and

1:11:53 ↗ ownership

1:11:55 ↗ at lower income so the the dot or the

1:11:58 ↗ line shows the percentage of units

1:12:01 ↗ rental units that are affordable

1:12:04 ↗ and the bar shows

1:12:07 ↗ the um the actual number of units

1:12:12 ↗ when you um

1:12:14 ↗ you put together the

1:12:16 ↗ the

1:12:17 ↗ when you're looking at the the rising

1:12:19 ↗ cost of rents do you take into

1:12:22 ↗ consideration

1:12:24 ↗ um you know it's going up because the

1:12:27 ↗ higher end is going up do you separate

1:12:29 ↗ how much the lower end is actually going

1:12:31 ↗ up a lot of you know the higher end

1:12:34 ↗ uh

1:12:37 ↗ homes or rentals are based for people

1:12:41 ↗ who can afford them and there's a lot of

1:12:44 ↗ rents going on now because housing

1:12:46 ↗ inventory is so low they have to rent

1:12:50 ↗ do you separate the two or do you find

1:12:52 ↗ that that Medium number based on

1:12:55 ↗ everything put together

1:12:57 ↗ the median when we show median numbers

1:13:00 ↗ it's everything put together but the

1:13:03 ↗ median being the middle kind of helps

1:13:05 ↗ control for

1:13:08 ↗ um you know the extreme highs as well as

1:13:11 ↗ the extreme lows whereas if we took an

1:13:14 ↗ average that would be that would be more

1:13:17 ↗ distorted I I just like to know if you

1:13:21 ↗ know the lower rents are going up higher

1:13:23 ↗ than the higher so there is

1:13:26 ↗ there right so

1:13:29 ↗ um

1:13:31 ↗ this is taking your lower end and

1:13:33 ↗ showing you proportionately in East King

1:13:36 ↗ County how much of our housing is

1:13:38 ↗ affordable rental housing's affordable

1:13:39 ↗ at 50 that's not giving you the time

1:13:41 ↗ change but it is showing you

1:13:43 ↗ proportionally have a pretty low

1:13:44 ↗ percentage of ours to your question the

1:13:47 ↗ closest in terms of the data is not

1:13:50 ↗ again A Time snapshot but we do at a

1:13:54 ↗ point in time snapshot figure out how

1:13:57 ↗ much of the rental housing is Affordable

1:13:58 ↗ at each income level and how much

1:14:00 ↗ housing is affordable rent ownership

1:14:02 ↗ housing is Affordable at different

1:14:03 ↗ income levels and so we will be tracking

1:14:06 ↗ that because that's now become one of

1:14:07 ↗ the key measures we will keep tracking

1:14:10 ↗ that over time

1:14:11 ↗ so while the graph that he was

1:14:13 ↗ describing doesn't distinguish lower and

1:14:16 ↗ higher we have another table that shows

1:14:18 ↗ how much of our housing is Affordable at

1:14:19 ↗ each income level which I think is a

1:14:21 ↗ different way that gets similar to that

1:14:23 ↗ your question yeah

1:14:25 ↗ but

1:14:27 ↗ can I ask you a quick question one I

1:14:29 ↗ apologize I have to leave in a second

1:14:31 ↗ but I just I wanted to ask a probably a

1:14:34 ↗ very oversimplified question is this

1:14:37 ↗ whole topic purely just a a supply and

1:14:40 ↗ demand issue in East King County

1:14:44 ↗ in the market

1:14:46 ↗ I mean is that really at the root of

1:14:48 ↗ what we're talking about because I'm I'm

1:14:49 ↗ looking at this thinking there's this

1:14:51 ↗ huge demand and all this need for

1:14:53 ↗ affordable housing how come the market

1:14:56 ↗ you know adding a thousand units of

1:14:58 ↗ market rate apartment living in every

1:15:01 ↗ city in East King County wouldn't that

1:15:03 ↗ bring Supply up with demand and

1:15:04 ↗ effectively bringing rates down I'm just

1:15:06 ↗ wondering what's missing in the market

1:15:08 ↗ that isn't causing that to happen

1:15:10 ↗ yeah a lot of good questions

1:15:12 ↗ sorry about that no that's

1:15:15 ↗ um I'd say it's partially yes

1:15:18 ↗ but I wouldn't say it's completely yes

1:15:20 ↗ you would find that probably even in

1:15:23 ↗ areas where you have more balance you're

1:15:25 ↗ still going to have caught like

1:15:27 ↗ the proportion of cost burden households

1:15:29 ↗ doesn't go way down in other parts of

1:15:30 ↗ the county

1:15:31 ↗ because the housing supply has a general

1:15:33 ↗ in this region for whatever reason

1:15:35 ↗ doesn't seem to do well and the lower

1:15:37 ↗ end is often cost burdened in almost any

1:15:39 ↗ Market

1:15:40 ↗ so this and that's the imperfection of

1:15:42 ↗ the market so some of its imperfection

1:15:44 ↗ in the market the other question that

1:15:47 ↗ could still be a gap even if you

1:15:48 ↗ increase Supply is is it matching

1:15:53 ↗ um what the demand is necessarily so

1:15:56 ↗ what the market and that's why I say

1:15:58 ↗ flexibility Market the market if it over

1:15:59 ↗ builds something it will some people get

1:16:02 ↗ smart about it and correct so the pods

1:16:04 ↗ somebody figured out in the marketplace

1:16:06 ↗ there's a demand there and they were

1:16:08 ↗ smart enough to say it hasn't been built

1:16:10 ↗ before but I'm going to do it and hope

1:16:12 ↗ it works the building industry in

1:16:15 ↗ general

1:16:15 ↗ for a lot of good reasons

1:16:17 ↗ it's hard to do

1:16:19 ↗ the risk to take on the future need

1:16:22 ↗ because they're generally looking at

1:16:23 ↗ what happened four years ago or two

1:16:25 ↗ years ago that's what you get financing

1:16:27 ↗ for it's hard to get financing for where

1:16:29 ↗ the world's going to

1:16:30 ↗ so you so what we sometimes do with

1:16:33 ↗ communities is you take all this

1:16:34 ↗ information that we're doing and what

1:16:36 ↗ you do is you could create a grid of

1:16:39 ↗ different household types and different

1:16:40 ↗ income levels and ideally what you would

1:16:43 ↗ do in the end is you have a housing

1:16:45 ↗ stock that completely matched type of

1:16:47 ↗ households and income levels

1:16:50 ↗ that's hard to do so what we found like

1:16:53 ↗ when you look we're about to get to a

1:16:55 ↗ slide on creating of affordable units

1:16:57 ↗ and you're going to see Bellevue created

1:17:00 ↗ a fair number

1:17:01 ↗ of moderately priced units through the

1:17:03 ↗ market

1:17:04 ↗ they're all small rentals

1:17:07 ↗ or the vast majority are yet in that

1:17:10 ↗ income profile this goes to the earlier

1:17:12 ↗ question well is that the need it's like

1:17:14 ↗ no the need is pretty much similar to

1:17:16 ↗ the demographic profiles we've been

1:17:18 ↗ showing you there are families there are

1:17:20 ↗ people who want to rent there are people

1:17:21 ↗ who want to own so while it's still good

1:17:24 ↗ that through the market we created that

1:17:26 ↗ it wouldn't necessarily if you just

1:17:28 ↗ increased everything naturally be a fit

1:17:31 ↗ okay

1:17:32 ↗ so it's more complicated but it is a

1:17:36 ↗ starting point to the conversation no

1:17:37 ↗ doubt about it but it doesn't get you to

1:17:39 ↗ the end to just say increase the number

1:17:42 ↗ yeah no I understood and I knew I was

1:17:43 ↗ oversimplifying it when I asked the

1:17:45 ↗ question it was just the thought of my

1:17:46 ↗ head I'd be curious to ask a bunch of

1:17:48 ↗ developers or apartment building

1:17:49 ↗ builders and just say why not so so for

1:17:53 ↗ example I was talking to an apartment

1:17:55 ↗ Builder who's looking at some property

1:17:58 ↗ and a little more of an outlying area

1:18:00 ↗ and his unit mix he is again these are

1:18:03 ↗ the smart developers he goes we're

1:18:05 ↗ putting in more three bedrooms in this

1:18:07 ↗ development much more than we normally

1:18:09 ↗ do because we think in this community

1:18:10 ↗ that's where there will be interest and

1:18:13 ↗ demand for it okay

1:18:16 ↗ um one of the big issues that cities

1:18:19 ↗ faced 10 years ago this is my point

1:18:21 ↗ about flexibility to allow the market to

1:18:23 ↗ sort of pick up on this stuff is a lot

1:18:25 ↗ of cities forever use density for

1:18:27 ↗ defining how much you could build 20

1:18:29 ↗ years of the acre 30 is the acre and in

1:18:32 ↗ our centers the builders could say no

1:18:34 ↗ give us far area ratio

1:18:37 ↗ because if you're based on density the

1:18:40 ↗ market forces doesn't allow them to

1:18:42 ↗ build small units you've got to build

1:18:43 ↗ bigger units because you're paying per

1:18:45 ↗ land cost by not a square foot number

1:18:47 ↗ but a unit number so if you build

1:18:49 ↗ smaller units which get less Revenue

1:18:51 ↗ you're hurting it's harder to make the

1:18:54 ↗ economics work so they have to sit

1:18:55 ↗ around and not maybe build as much

1:18:58 ↗ because the landowner says I want this

1:18:59 ↗ much per unit where if you go by per

1:19:01 ↗ square foot

1:19:02 ↗ the Builder can say I can do bigger I

1:19:04 ↗ can do smaller okay so that was a big

1:19:07 ↗ push in almost all jurisdictions do that

1:19:08 ↗ now outside you know in this in the

1:19:11 ↗ communities we work with in parts of

1:19:12 ↗ their Community that's an example of how

1:19:15 ↗ you use your city controls to still

1:19:18 ↗ leave flexibility and we and it took the

1:19:22 ↗ builders telling communities that

1:19:24 ↗ before they started to get it and now we

1:19:26 ↗ all do or most of them do and so now you

1:19:29 ↗ are seeing the product but now they all

1:19:31 ↗ went really small so now our summer

1:19:33 ↗ saying well we can't all go really small

1:19:35 ↗ we have to figure out some balance to

1:19:37 ↗ that right so okay the challenge of the

1:19:40 ↗ market well as I departed I thought I'd

1:19:42 ↗ leave you with a very complex question

1:19:44 ↗ thank you very much so you you're not

1:19:46 ↗ going to get

1:19:50 ↗ a thousand units of affordable housing

1:19:52 ↗ right without them making a profit

1:19:55 ↗ they're not going to build anything that

1:19:57 ↗ they're going to lose money on right and

1:19:59 ↗ what the cities have to do is work with

1:20:01 ↗ the builders in order to somehow get

1:20:05 ↗ impact fees eliminate or something in

1:20:07 ↗ order to get that and so that's where

1:20:09 ↗ you're going to get the cost I mean

1:20:11 ↗ Builders will build them but they have

1:20:14 ↗ to make money I mean right that's the

1:20:15 ↗ way and your city has so right so again

1:20:18 ↗ this is where the policy conversation

1:20:20 ↗ comes in is it may be and my guess is

1:20:23 ↗ and you guys have a pretty good comp

1:20:25 ↗ plan right now I mean what we're finding

1:20:27 ↗ is and looking at policies is you first

1:20:30 ↗ wrote this in the early 90s and there's

1:20:32 ↗ certain issues out there that aren't

1:20:34 ↗ really addressed much because people

1:20:35 ↗ weren't talking about it much one is

1:20:37 ↗ homelessness

1:20:39 ↗ um some might be around senior and maybe

1:20:40 ↗ just had a generic statement and not

1:20:42 ↗ something that's a little more refined

1:20:43 ↗ another is sustainability

1:20:46 ↗ right

1:20:47 ↗ um principles and Concepts weren't

1:20:49 ↗ around and

1:20:51 ↗ um and so and the other is mixed juice

1:20:53 ↗ centers which most plants so but you but

1:20:56 ↗ having policies that say things just

1:20:59 ↗ like what you were just saying is what

1:21:00 ↗ can the city do to help incent and make

1:21:03 ↗ the economics work better for a builder

1:21:05 ↗ so that maybe they can have some

1:21:06 ↗ affordability and if they do give those

1:21:09 ↗ things then we want something in

1:21:10 ↗ exchange so just like you're doing in

1:21:13 ↗ your central Issaquah plan that plan

1:21:15 ↗ says here's your base Zone you want to

1:21:17 ↗ go higher great but we want some of that

1:21:19 ↗ extra height

1:21:21 ↗ to be for affordability in other words

1:21:23 ↗ we don't want all the expert development

1:21:25 ↗ capacity to go to the landowner as value

1:21:28 ↗ increase land values we want some back

1:21:30 ↗ in public benefits so in central

1:21:31 ↗ Issaquah you ask for some open space

1:21:34 ↗ benefits and some affordability benefits

1:21:37 ↗ but hopefully it doesn't necessarily

1:21:40 ↗ hurt their economics because it's it's

1:21:42 ↗ it's sensitive to economics because

1:21:43 ↗ you're absolutely right they can't just

1:21:45 ↗ build it because we ask them to

1:21:52 ↗ okay I'll uh I'll try and pick it up

1:21:54 ↗ here

1:21:56 ↗ but the the question the discussion's

1:21:58 ↗ excellent

1:22:00 ↗ um so the good news is that Issaquah and

1:22:04 ↗ um all East Side cities have kept pace

1:22:06 ↗ with the housing targets the general

1:22:10 ↗ housing targets and uh have uh appear to

1:22:15 ↗ be plenty of capacity for to meet the

1:22:18 ↗ goals through 2031.

1:22:23 ↗ one of the things that we try and look

1:22:25 ↗ closely at though is the

1:22:29 ↗ how much of that residential growth

1:22:31 ↗ capacity is in mixed use type of zoning

1:22:35 ↗ and in issaquah's case there's a lot of

1:22:38 ↗ it that's the green portion at the

1:22:40 ↗ bottom of each of the bars and so on the

1:22:44 ↗ left access the the vertical axis

1:22:48 ↗ shows the housing Target

1:22:50 ↗ and this shows that

1:22:54 ↗ um including what some of the housing

1:22:57 ↗ that's already built the city has

1:23:00 ↗ capacity for 150 percent of its Target

1:23:02 ↗ and then there's still mixed use

1:23:06 ↗ capacity for almost 100 percent of the

1:23:09 ↗ target so lots of capacity there and

1:23:13 ↗ mixed use capacity

1:23:16 ↗ is good

1:23:17 ↗ because it often creates opportunities

1:23:21 ↗ for other goals that the city wants to

1:23:24 ↗ meet

1:23:25 ↗ related to sustainability

1:23:28 ↗ and affordability and so forth could you

1:23:31 ↗ go back yes slide real quick

1:23:34 ↗ this is also the reason we put this out

1:23:36 ↗ here and we highlight this is again it's

1:23:39 ↗ sort of the very first story I say it's

1:23:41 ↗ not just you by yourself

1:23:43 ↗ but when you look at East King County

1:23:45 ↗ and many of the jurisdictions are taking

1:23:48 ↗ a very very similar approach to how to

1:23:51 ↗ accommodate growth which is in mixed-use

1:23:53 ↗ centers

1:23:54 ↗ and there is no guarantee in a mixed use

1:23:56 ↗ Center what you're going to get they can

1:23:57 ↗ do office commercial or housing and so

1:24:01 ↗ the reason we bring that up is and in

1:24:03 ↗ fact Trisha's comment at the very

1:24:05 ↗ beginning of the meeting

1:24:06 ↗ about measuring every year how much

1:24:09 ↗ housing is being created in the

1:24:10 ↗ centralistical area

1:24:12 ↗ part of that is because you're assuming

1:24:14 ↗ you're going to get a certain amount of

1:24:15 ↗ housing in that Central area and if that

1:24:18 ↗ doesn't happen

1:24:19 ↗ remember that jobs housing balance we

1:24:22 ↗ were showing what does it do if some of

1:24:24 ↗ those areas intended for housing don't

1:24:26 ↗ go housing

1:24:28 ↗ okay and the other issue that comes up

1:24:31 ↗ here often and look at how many cities

1:24:34 ↗ are at 50 percent or higher Bellevue

1:24:36 ↗ Redmond where it's over 70 percent of

1:24:38 ↗ their capacity for growth is in these

1:24:40 ↗ mixed use centers this I'm not saying

1:24:42 ↗ it's a bad thing but we have set

1:24:45 ↗ ourselves up as a region to really rely

1:24:48 ↗ on this to meet a lot of our housing

1:24:50 ↗ growth so one is it really going to

1:24:52 ↗ happen and do we watch it and some

1:24:54 ↗ cities have taken the step of ensuring

1:24:56 ↗ it will happen in other words they've

1:24:58 ↗ layered on some extra rules Issaquah

1:25:01 ↗ made a decision with Central Issaquah

1:25:03 ↗ not to do that at this point but rather

1:25:06 ↗ monitor let's see how well the market

1:25:07 ↗ does it but the reason for monitoring is

1:25:10 ↗ if they don't then maybe you have to do

1:25:12 ↗ like Redmond did in overlay and they

1:25:14 ↗ created a neighborhood where far for

1:25:16 ↗ commercial development and one part of

1:25:19 ↗ it is very low but far if you have

1:25:21 ↗ housing is a lot higher in other words

1:25:24 ↗ we're saying you can stay how you are

1:25:26 ↗ but if you redevelop in this small

1:25:28 ↗ quarter we want housing and they didn't

1:25:31 ↗ want to take the risk of that not

1:25:32 ↗ happening because a lot of these mixed

1:25:34 ↗ use centers don't have a lot of housing

1:25:36 ↗ today so it is a shift you know Bellevue

1:25:39 ↗ didn't have it when I first got here in

1:25:41 ↗ downtown Redmond didn't have it 10 years

1:25:43 ↗ ago so it can't happen but we're really

1:25:46 ↗ relying on that the other part of that

1:25:48 ↗ is if we're really relying on this

1:25:51 ↗ also we're also relying on this meeting

1:25:54 ↗ a lot of needs different kinds of needs

1:25:56 ↗ and not just the single person

1:25:57 ↗ necessarily so are these going to be

1:26:00 ↗ communities that are vibrant long term

1:26:01 ↗ from a market point of view because they

1:26:04 ↗ can meet a variety of different needs so

1:26:05 ↗ we've been emphasizing this for about

1:26:07 ↗ five years with cities the first when

1:26:09 ↗ the 2006 report came out and we just saw

1:26:12 ↗ this data and again not a bad story but

1:26:16 ↗ it's one to really be conscious of

1:26:18 ↗ because all the other cities are using a

1:26:20 ↗ similar approach

1:26:28 ↗ so remember at the beginning when we

1:26:30 ↗ looked at the chart with the blue

1:26:33 ↗ and red stacked bars and how the um the

1:26:37 ↗ needs were distributed by different

1:26:39 ↗ household incomes

1:26:41 ↗ and we said that countywide planning

1:26:44 ↗ policy calls for every city to try to

1:26:46 ↗ address a proportionate share of those

1:26:49 ↗ needs

1:26:51 ↗ well East Side cities overall

1:26:54 ↗ have are on a pace for

1:26:59 ↗ 66 percent of the moderate income part

1:27:02 ↗ of that goal

1:27:04 ↗ and Issaquah in particular has hit 62

1:27:08 ↗ percent of that modern income segment

1:27:11 ↗ on the low income side that is below uh

1:27:15 ↗ 50 percent

1:27:17 ↗ of median income the achievements are

1:27:20 ↗ lower so we're only on track there for

1:27:24 ↗ about a quarter across the east side and

1:27:26 ↗ 16 percent in Issaquah

1:27:30 ↗ almost all of those low-income units

1:27:34 ↗ require some kind of

1:27:36 ↗ financial assistance

1:27:38 ↗ we do a lot of tracking of this kind of

1:27:41 ↗ stuff as well

1:27:42 ↗ and these These are the figures that

1:27:45 ↗ um support

1:27:47 ↗ the percentages that I was just talking

1:27:49 ↗ about this for also in your appendix

1:27:53 ↗ but it breaks it down according to how

1:27:55 ↗ those units were created or what what

1:27:58 ↗ the public sector at least did to create

1:28:00 ↗ them direct assistance means some kind

1:28:02 ↗ of financial support either

1:28:04 ↗ cat in cash form or fee waivers or land

1:28:09 ↗ grants things of that nature land use

1:28:12 ↗ incentives are could be density bonuses

1:28:16 ↗ or other forms and then Market we

1:28:20 ↗ actually go and Survey the all the

1:28:22 ↗ multi-family units that have been

1:28:27 ↗ opened each year and find out what

1:28:29 ↗ they've sold at or what rents they're

1:28:31 ↗ they're charging

1:28:38 ↗ to record any real estate

1:28:42 ↗ thing a deed whatever does any of that

1:28:46 ↗ money come directly to you

1:28:49 ↗ no but it goes to projects that week

1:28:52 ↗ that cities are funding

1:28:53 ↗ so because we don't build any housing

1:28:55 ↗ okay okay so when people come to RH and

1:28:58 ↗ get funding it's an agency like imagine

1:29:00 ↗ housing or hope link they're getting

1:29:04 ↗ money from us the county and the state

1:29:06 ↗ often for the capital and then some of

1:29:09 ↗ that capital is from that reporting fee

1:29:11 ↗ and then they have ongoing services and

1:29:13 ↗ there they apply to the county for the

1:29:14 ↗ service dollars and a lot of that is

1:29:16 ↗ from that recording fee in fact that's

1:29:18 ↗ the highest proportion

1:29:19 ↗ so what I'm seeing in this is that

1:29:21 ↗ there's a huge inequality in incentives

1:29:25 ↗ whether that's I'm sorry assistance in

1:29:28 ↗ general between low income and moderate

1:29:32 ↗ I'm clarified I'm not quite sure I'm

1:29:34 ↗ following the comments well when you

1:29:35 ↗ look at the numbers and I'm not even

1:29:37 ↗ doing any math there's almost a 50

1:29:39 ↗ percent difference between

1:29:42 ↗ um

1:29:43 ↗ providing that incentive or direct

1:29:45 ↗ assistance to someone that's in a low

1:29:47 ↗ income bracket as opposed to someone

1:29:48 ↗ that's in a moderate income right

1:29:50 ↗ so that's inequality to me in in regards

1:29:53 ↗ to

1:29:54 ↗ to not only available stock obviously

1:29:57 ↗ there's an inequality there but there's

1:29:58 ↗ an inequality in how much uh the two

1:30:03 ↗ get assistance or incentives

1:30:05 ↗ so are you saying it's too skewed to

1:30:08 ↗ lower income

1:30:10 ↗ what I'm saying is it's very much

1:30:12 ↗ favoring moderate income

1:30:15 ↗ okay so you're correct now here's the

1:30:19 ↗ thing

1:30:20 ↗ let me sort of tell a little story on

1:30:23 ↗ these on these in a different little

1:30:26 ↗ spin in your right but you'll see with

1:30:28 ↗ direct assistance

1:30:29 ↗ we are skewing that towards the low

1:30:31 ↗ income and for the moderate almost all

1:30:34 ↗ the direct assistance units okay

1:30:36 ↗ remember low income is zero to fifty

1:30:38 ↗ percent of median yeah this is a great

1:30:40 ↗ question or comment and so and moderate

1:30:42 ↗ income is from 50 all the way to 80

1:30:44 ↗ percent of median

1:30:45 ↗ the direct assistance in the moderate

1:30:47 ↗ are almost all at sixty percent of

1:30:49 ↗ median and below and then the direct

1:30:50 ↗ assistance are 30 40 50 homeless all

1:30:53 ↗ kinds developmentally disabled

1:30:55 ↗ what we what we're trying to show here

1:30:58 ↗ is that

1:31:00 ↗ back to your economics thing

1:31:02 ↗ um you can't make money is what we're

1:31:04 ↗ trying to say is that

1:31:07 ↗ when we allow and that that furthest to

1:31:09 ↗ the right column which is the market

1:31:12 ↗ the first step as a community is cannot

1:31:14 ↗ can we help the market just on its own

1:31:16 ↗ create housing that's relatively

1:31:18 ↗ affordable

1:31:19 ↗ and what we're saying is we've managed

1:31:21 ↗ to and most of these are in centers and

1:31:23 ↗ they're smaller homes and stuff that

1:31:25 ↗ just through our land use regulations

1:31:27 ↗ with no helping the private sector has

1:31:29 ↗ managed to create

1:31:31 ↗ 2790 units that are affordable to

1:31:33 ↗ moderate okay now when you look at that

1:31:35 ↗ price chart that we showed you in the

1:31:37 ↗ very beginning to think that the

1:31:38 ↗ Market's going to come in now we might

1:31:40 ↗ add because of the a pod mint we might

1:31:43 ↗ add in the next survey market rate units

1:31:46 ↗ under law we might for the first time

1:31:48 ↗ you can see we have 43 from Kirkland and

1:31:51 ↗ guess what that was Northwest University

1:31:54 ↗ um so that was the school so what I was

1:31:57 ↗ hinting at is that incentive and we're

1:31:58 ↗ going back to the comprehensive plan and

1:32:00 ↗ what the policy commission does as well

1:32:02 ↗ as our our officials in the city you

1:32:05 ↗ know there's a huge inequality right

1:32:07 ↗ there to me right but let me finish the

1:32:09 ↗ explanation here is this middle column

1:32:13 ↗ are the you know so to think that the

1:32:15 ↗ market is going to get all the way down

1:32:16 ↗ to low ink down to 50 of median with new

1:32:19 ↗ these are only new units this is an

1:32:21 ↗ overall Supply

1:32:22 ↗ um that we're showing history is in East

1:32:25 ↗ King County and probably almost anywhere

1:32:27 ↗ the market without any kind of

1:32:29 ↗ assistance it just doesn't really happen

1:32:31 ↗ okay but what we're saying is we can at

1:32:34 ↗ least try to get some in the moderate I

1:32:36 ↗ mean that's an accomplishment if we

1:32:37 ↗ probably hadn't done a lot of the

1:32:39 ↗ planning we'd done in the last few years

1:32:40 ↗ that number would be even lower

1:32:42 ↗ the land use incentives has a similar

1:32:45 ↗ story which is that we find it because

1:32:49 ↗ of what the rent levels are at the value

1:32:52 ↗ of the land use incentives we can offer

1:32:55 ↗ make it difficult to ask a private

1:32:57 ↗ Builder without cash assistance but just

1:32:59 ↗ through density bonuses to get all the

1:33:01 ↗ way down to 50 immediate now what we are

1:33:04 ↗ having conversations with cities about

1:33:06 ↗ is that you're raising a good point is

1:33:08 ↗ we're having more conversations with

1:33:10 ↗ cities to say okay in the past in the

1:33:13 ↗ beginning we would do

1:33:15 ↗ a density bonus for every density extra

1:33:18 ↗ unit we want one unit at eighty percent

1:33:20 ↗ of media okay now in Kirkland right now

1:33:23 ↗ what we've done is we've added two

1:33:27 ↗ different programs together and we're

1:33:29 ↗ saying we'll give you a three to one

1:33:31 ↗ bonus and we'll give you another

1:33:34 ↗ incentive like fee waivers and we want

1:33:36 ↗ you to be at sixty percent of media and

1:33:39 ↗ it's a pure economic we are trying to

1:33:41 ↗ see if we can use incentives to get to a

1:33:44 ↗ more get lower at the moderate range and

1:33:47 ↗ stuff so that's part so you raise a good

1:33:51 ↗ question is given the economics for a

1:33:54 ↗ private Builder and the incentives you

1:33:56 ↗ have on the table do you try to get more

1:33:58 ↗ at one level or fewer at a more

1:34:01 ↗ affordable level and when you do so how

1:34:03 ↗ far do you go down is it worthwhile

1:34:05 ↗ doing and so we had that conversation in

1:34:07 ↗ central Issaquah and I can't remember

1:34:09 ↗ off the top of my head but we are below

1:34:11 ↗ eight we're at 70 or 60 percent of

1:34:13 ↗ median instead of the 80 so you raise a

1:34:16 ↗ very valid point and again that could be

1:34:17 ↗ a policy question when you're looking at

1:34:19 ↗ the comp plan is do you say in your

1:34:22 ↗ incentives moderate or say strive to try

1:34:24 ↗ to do a balance of income levels when we

1:34:27 ↗ do these incentives but you can't forget

1:34:28 ↗ the economics you can't just sort of say

1:34:31 ↗ we need them at 50. so you do them at 50

1:34:33 ↗ and we're not going to give you anything

1:34:34 ↗ more so that's a trade-off conversation

1:34:36 ↗ cities have to make

1:34:37 ↗ and and this is sort of an ad for me

1:34:41 ↗ um or for RH we're having a workshop I

1:34:43 ↗ think did they get the invitations

1:34:45 ↗ yes yes okay so we're doing a workshop

1:34:48 ↗ in like three weeks and we're going to

1:34:50 ↗ talk about what some cities have done

1:34:51 ↗ and we will be illustrating the Kirkland

1:34:54 ↗ example

1:34:55 ↗ or others will be talking about how

1:34:57 ↗ different people have tried to layer in

1:35:00 ↗ order to try to accomplish something

1:35:01 ↗ more affordable than just at 80 so it's

1:35:04 ↗ a very good point but also have to

1:35:06 ↗ balance it against those other

1:35:07 ↗ considerations

1:35:08 ↗ and so what the message we usually say

1:35:10 ↗ when we say this is cities

1:35:13 ↗ don't forget about your land use and

1:35:16 ↗ don't forget about incentives those are

1:35:18 ↗ all different tools money alone is not

1:35:20 ↗ going to get us there we need to try to

1:35:22 ↗ look at a wide range of tools to address

1:35:24 ↗ this full range of needs that are in

1:35:26 ↗ your community so don't just think it's

1:35:28 ↗ money don't think it's just markets and

1:35:31 ↗ what we're saying is in East King County

1:35:32 ↗ the most expensive Market in the region

1:35:35 ↗ we're still finding that these other

1:35:37 ↗ tools can still work to meet some of the

1:35:40 ↗ affordability things as defined under

1:35:42 ↗ GMA

1:35:44 ↗ and a lot of people would say oh that's

1:35:46 ↗ not even possible but we're saying no

1:35:47 ↗ you have a history of doing that

1:35:53 ↗ I'll skip the summary there and go on to

1:35:56 ↗ housing strategies so we have

1:35:59 ↗ um and we've already broached this topic

1:36:02 ↗ um before main categories as far as this

1:36:06 ↗ presentation goes

1:36:08 ↗ um

1:36:10 ↗ one set aimed at uh diversifying the

1:36:14 ↗ housing stock

1:36:15 ↗ another set

1:36:17 ↗ for affordable housing and then we also

1:36:21 ↗ address special housing needs

1:36:25 ↗ let's see how many of these we've

1:36:26 ↗ already talked about

1:36:28 ↗ we talked about floor area ratios

1:36:31 ↗ instead of units Breakers zoning

1:36:35 ↗ um

1:36:35 ↗ you know we talked about cluster

1:36:38 ↗ subdivisions or Cottages so much we did

1:36:41 ↗ talk about the mini suites so these are

1:36:44 ↗ a couple categories of efforts to

1:36:47 ↗ diversify housing types and some

1:36:50 ↗ examples of cities where they've already

1:36:51 ↗ taken place whoops

1:36:56 ↗ in terms of affordability we've talked

1:36:58 ↗ about a number of incentives

1:37:01 ↗ um

1:37:03 ↗ in Kirkland Redmond and Sammamish the

1:37:06 ↗ city proactively

1:37:09 ↗ increased the development capacity and

1:37:12 ↗ settled along with that

1:37:14 ↗ you're going to give us some degree of

1:37:16 ↗ affordability

1:37:18 ↗ in other places Bellevue Mercer Islands

1:37:22 ↗ we have sammamished twice

1:37:26 ↗ I don't know if that's a mistake or if

1:37:27 ↗ it's in both parts

1:37:30 ↗ but it's a voluntary it's the choice of

1:37:32 ↗ the developer whether to ask for the

1:37:35 ↗ increased capacity and offer though of

1:37:37 ↗ affordability

1:37:41 ↗ accessory dwelling units I could also go

1:37:43 ↗ under the

1:37:45 ↗ diversification but we consider them

1:37:48 ↗ affordable on their face and Mercer

1:37:51 ↗ Island in particular has been really

1:37:53 ↗ good at

1:37:54 ↗ getting

1:37:56 ↗ permitted adus

1:37:59 ↗ Kirkland and Mercer Island

1:38:02 ↗ and also Kenmore

1:38:06 ↗ which dropped off has a multi-family

1:38:08 ↗ property tax exemption

1:38:11 ↗ um

1:38:11 ↗ and Arthur mentioned how that that's

1:38:14 ↗ coupled in Kirkland in particular with

1:38:16 ↗ the um uh with the

1:38:20 ↗ increased capacity incentives

1:38:25 ↗ impact fee waivers are are getting more

1:38:28 ↗ common and have been made easier to

1:38:31 ↗ adopt with recent State legislation

1:38:35 ↗ oops

1:38:38 ↗ and then as far as direct support

1:38:41 ↗ we have our Arch Housing Trust Fund

1:38:45 ↗ which cities contribute to in a variety

1:38:49 ↗ of mean some with General Revenue some

1:38:50 ↗ with Community Development block grant

1:38:54 ↗ money and

1:38:56 ↗ um

1:38:57 ↗ the goal as adopted by the executive

1:39:01 ↗ board which all the chief Executives of

1:39:04 ↗ Our member cities is to have a

1:39:08 ↗ geographic balance

1:39:11 ↗ and this has produced over 2 800 units

1:39:16 ↗ in the last almost 20 years

1:39:28 ↗ what did you have two percentages

1:39:34 ↗ no right

1:39:42 ↗ I forgotten what that is okay the first

1:39:45 ↗ number is what the long-term goal was

1:39:47 ↗ intended to be or is based on analysis

1:39:50 ↗ and lots of different input the second

1:39:53 ↗ which is in parentheses is what we've

1:39:55 ↗ done and this is resource it's not

1:39:56 ↗ number of units it's percentage of

1:39:58 ↗ resources

1:39:59 ↗ so

1:40:01 ↗ um and as you noted the one that we're

1:40:03 ↗ most short on is senior and special

1:40:06 ↗ needs now seniors we think we're going

1:40:09 ↗ to be right about back on par very soon

1:40:11 ↗ on some proposals that are in front of

1:40:12 ↗ us the

1:40:15 ↗ special needs and the homeless are

1:40:17 ↗ difficult ones to distinguish from one

1:40:19 ↗ another

1:40:20 ↗ we often find depending on the time

1:40:23 ↗ period that and so I almost add those

1:40:26 ↗ two together because they're both forms

1:40:29 ↗ of housing where people need help with

1:40:30 ↗ day-to-day needs so like friends of

1:40:32 ↗ Youth was under special needs but

1:40:34 ↗ they're also homeless I mean they're

1:40:36 ↗ serving homeless Youth and stuff so

1:40:38 ↗ we've been short there but you can see

1:40:41 ↗ we've been above on the homeless and

1:40:42 ↗ transitional

1:40:44 ↗ and so but part of the dilemma with the

1:40:46 ↗ special needs is there's only so much

1:40:49 ↗ service style all homeless and special

1:40:52 ↗ needs need service dollars in order for

1:40:55 ↗ them to work we don't have service

1:40:56 ↗ dollars so when somebody comes to the

1:40:58 ↗ cities and asks for Capital funds for

1:41:00 ↗ any of the last two categories we say

1:41:02 ↗ how are you going to pay for the

1:41:03 ↗ services

1:41:04 ↗ and so they're relying on being able to

1:41:07 ↗ bring the services component to the

1:41:09 ↗ table as well so we don't see large

1:41:11 ↗ developments per se we've done a lot of

1:41:13 ↗ group homes for development disabled

1:41:14 ↗ which I know you're aware of and but

1:41:17 ↗ they're done one home at a time by

1:41:19 ↗ agencies because that's what they're

1:41:20 ↗ able to pull funding together for so we

1:41:23 ↗ at least feel a little bit better that

1:41:24 ↗ when we take those two together we're

1:41:27 ↗ pretty close to the long-term goal

1:41:29 ↗ because there's a lot of overlap between

1:41:31 ↗ those two categories

1:41:33 ↗ do you have any data on the

1:41:38 ↗ the future needs

1:41:40 ↗ for particularly uh special needs people

1:41:44 ↗ with developmental disabilities in adult

1:41:46 ↗ family homes on the east side

1:41:49 ↗ for example uh DSHS

1:41:52 ↗ data shows that in the uh

1:41:56 ↗ two zip codes here in Issaquah that

1:41:59 ↗ there's about 200 families

1:42:02 ↗ that had that are parents of 60 65 or

1:42:06 ↗ older and have a developmentally delayed

1:42:09 ↗ person living with them right and as you

1:42:12 ↗ mentioned earlier the seniors want to

1:42:15 ↗ stay in their communities and it really

1:42:17 ↗ want to have the people with

1:42:19 ↗ developmental disabilities be able to

1:42:22 ↗ stay in the communities when either

1:42:24 ↗ their parents can't take care of them or

1:42:27 ↗ they're gone and if they're on the DSHS

1:42:30 ↗ rules in art as you pointed out there

1:42:32 ↗ needs to be service dollars there is

1:42:35 ↗ service dollars

1:42:36 ↗ but you know how are we planning here in

1:42:39 ↗ Issaquah

1:42:42 ↗ to accommodate this need and there's

1:42:46 ↗ Federal

1:42:47 ↗ lawsuit about 10 years ago the Olmstead

1:42:51 ↗ a lawsuit in and said that people in the

1:42:54 ↗ institutions

1:42:56 ↗ have the right to live in the

1:42:58 ↗ communities and because of that a number

1:43:00 ↗ of the States including the state of

1:43:02 ↗ Washington are downsizing their

1:43:05 ↗ institutions

1:43:06 ↗ so there has to be a place for those

1:43:08 ↗ people to go in the communities

1:43:11 ↗ I don't see it being and I'm not being

1:43:15 ↗ critical but just overall Statewide I

1:43:18 ↗ don't see that being addressed or looked

1:43:20 ↗ at it's a it's a small group but it's a

1:43:23 ↗ very very vulnerable group and as you

1:43:25 ↗ said you know sometimes they're counted

1:43:27 ↗ as the homeless and

1:43:29 ↗ it could be in 10 years they're going to

1:43:31 ↗ be the homeless just to piggyback on

1:43:34 ↗ your comment I think that was great you

1:43:36 ↗ know for them to go back and and stay

1:43:38 ↗ within their communities and and

1:43:39 ↗ shutting some of those institutions down

1:43:41 ↗ but the lack of funding that occurred to

1:43:45 ↗ be redirected to the communities to you

1:43:48 ↗ know follow up and nurture and support

1:43:50 ↗ individuals is pretty much none so the

1:43:54 ↗ funding for the housing isn't there the

1:43:56 ↗ funding for support is there

1:43:58 ↗ so the so here's great comment

1:44:02 ↗ and one I first want to point out

1:44:05 ↗ special needs is not only

1:44:06 ↗ developmentally disabled that's right

1:44:08 ↗ there's more there's people with AIDS

1:44:10 ↗ there's you know that all it was meant

1:44:12 ↗ to mean anyone who would need help with

1:44:15 ↗ daily living assistance that's why I'm

1:44:17 ↗ saying homeless and transitional versus

1:44:19 ↗ special needs can sometimes you're sort

1:44:21 ↗ of defining similar groups

1:44:24 ↗ similarly because it's the assistance

1:44:26 ↗ with daily service daily needs in order

1:44:28 ↗ to be able to live wherever you're

1:44:30 ↗ living and so it's not just developing

1:44:32 ↗ disabled so that's one thing to keep in

1:44:35 ↗ mind when you're looking at that the

1:44:37 ↗ other is you tell a very compelling

1:44:38 ↗ story if we went back to the homeless

1:44:40 ↗ slide you'll see what our goal was and

1:44:43 ↗ you'll see what our numbers are at a

1:44:45 ↗ fraction of what the needs are if you

1:44:48 ↗ look at the other thing we told you our

1:44:50 ↗ Target was

1:44:52 ↗ whatever the number was and we're at

1:44:54 ↗ less than 25 percent of trying to

1:44:56 ↗ achieve those needs

1:44:58 ↗ um The Dilemma I've had in my lifetime

1:45:00 ↗ of 35 years of working in this industry

1:45:03 ↗ is there's so many needs out there that

1:45:05 ↗ we're challenged to meet the housing

1:45:06 ↗ needs for

1:45:08 ↗ um what Mike was describing here is we

1:45:12 ↗ could take anyone in fact

1:45:13 ↗ we bring together councils once in a

1:45:15 ↗ while and the last time we came together

1:45:17 ↗ it was right when the homeless plan was

1:45:19 ↗ starting and we said you know you could

1:45:21 ↗ take any one of these four categories

1:45:22 ↗ and say spend every dime that you have

1:45:24 ↗ in any one of those four you could spend

1:45:25 ↗ all your money there and you still might

1:45:28 ↗ not meet the need for that category

1:45:30 ↗ and so what do we do we have a choice we

1:45:33 ↗ can focus on one particular need or we

1:45:36 ↗ can say that we're going to try to

1:45:38 ↗ address the range of needs that our

1:45:40 ↗ needs analysis are identified

1:45:42 ↗ and one of the comments I made to the

1:45:45 ↗ councils when I made that comment is if

1:45:47 ↗ you go back to the very very first slide

1:45:49 ↗ it said under the growth management act

1:45:51 ↗ cities are supposed to identify the full

1:45:54 ↗ range of needs and then they're supposed

1:45:55 ↗ to come up with strategies to try to

1:45:57 ↗ help address the full range of needs

1:45:59 ↗ so in working for cities I'm saying yeah

1:46:02 ↗ if I were a foundation I could say I'm a

1:46:04 ↗ foundation who wants to work on senior

1:46:05 ↗ housing

1:46:06 ↗ okay but your cities who were now

1:46:08 ↗ dispensary an hour and a half going

1:46:10 ↗ through a wide range of needs do you

1:46:12 ↗ take this one resource that we've shown

1:46:14 ↗ is the only thing you got to have that

1:46:16 ↗ to get to the lower income

1:46:18 ↗ do you and say we want to do a variety

1:46:22 ↗ of kinds of needs or are we going to

1:46:23 ↗ focus on one and because of all the

1:46:26 ↗ background a lot of people say in the

1:46:29 ↗ agencies when we get all the agencies

1:46:30 ↗ around the table and ask them that

1:46:31 ↗ question they're all looking at each

1:46:32 ↗ other they realize oh okay you're doing

1:46:34 ↗ good stuff too so that's our dilemma is

1:46:36 ↗ we're trying to address a range of needs

1:46:38 ↗ and we've never fully addressed any one

1:46:39 ↗ of them

1:46:40 ↗ adequately because we're trying to

1:46:42 ↗ address a wide range and we're coming up

1:46:44 ↗ unfortunately short on all of these

1:46:47 ↗ um but we're at least trying to address

1:46:49 ↗ them all to some extent as hopefully as

1:46:52 ↗ part of documenting for a community that

1:46:55 ↗ you're following the growth management

1:46:56 ↗ Act kind of thing so that's why when

1:46:58 ↗ land use incentives can work with

1:47:00 ↗ moderate we skew our money part because

1:47:03 ↗ it's a comprehensive approach to the

1:47:05 ↗ lower income okay but now we're starting

1:47:08 ↗ to learn in the last 10 years maybe

1:47:10 ↗ there's ways to even try to get more

1:47:11 ↗ lower by using some of those those other

1:47:13 ↗ two columns sometimes because we're

1:47:15 ↗ coming up so short on the low can we

1:47:17 ↗ push some of those other areas to try to

1:47:20 ↗ get to that lower need that's our

1:47:22 ↗ ongoing dilemma it's choices and

1:47:23 ↗ balancing okay and so that's kind of

1:47:26 ↗ where we've been at and about every five

1:47:28 ↗ years ago so we kind of go back to

1:47:31 ↗ councils we have them together and we

1:47:32 ↗ say is it is this the right basic

1:47:34 ↗ approach a balanced approach so no right

1:47:38 ↗ answer but that's kind of where we've

1:47:40 ↗ been at

1:47:43 ↗ I don't know if there's much need to

1:47:47 ↗ um

1:47:49 ↗ cover these but uh

1:47:51 ↗ because we've already talked about them

1:47:53 ↗ but that's our

1:47:55 ↗ last couple slides

1:47:59 ↗ thank you for this I think it was really

1:48:01 ↗ great and as a as a huge uh supporter of

1:48:05 ↗ of low very low income affordable

1:48:08 ↗ housing I know that I was a pain in the

1:48:10 ↗ butt to a lot of my co-commissioners

1:48:12 ↗ when we went through the central

1:48:12 ↗ Issaquah plan

1:48:14 ↗ um that there wasn't enough units on

1:48:16 ↗ there uh listed uh for building so

1:48:21 ↗ um I I really do thank you I think the

1:48:24 ↗ numbers really speak loudly to not only

1:48:26 ↗ the east side but Issaquah and I look at

1:48:28 ↗ it from from coming from a social

1:48:30 ↗ service and a Human Service perspective

1:48:33 ↗ but I also look at it from an economic

1:48:35 ↗ development and the Vitality of our city

1:48:37 ↗ and growing that we cannot grow as a

1:48:40 ↗ city if we don't accommodate for that

1:48:42 ↗ growth which means we have to have a

1:48:44 ↗ variety of housing available and by

1:48:47 ↗ growing I mean not only maintaining

1:48:49 ↗ those major employers that you listed

1:48:51 ↗ but really attracting more major

1:48:53 ↗ employers to our region which then

1:48:55 ↗ builds our community and and supports

1:48:58 ↗ the different levels of people that live

1:48:59 ↗ in community

1:49:01 ↗ well I want to thank all of you for for

1:49:03 ↗ your questions and attention and and

1:49:06 ↗ really good discussion I hope that

1:49:09 ↗ you'll

1:49:09 ↗ this gives you a good reason to go back

1:49:11 ↗ and and study the report a little bit

1:49:14 ↗ more and and welcome you to

1:49:17 ↗ um

1:49:17 ↗ to contact us again of course we'll be

1:49:20 ↗ back when when it's time it's

1:49:22 ↗ appropriate time to talk about what this

1:49:24 ↗ means in terms of your comp plan

1:49:26 ↗ policies going forward

1:49:34 ↗ of housing

1:49:35 ↗ and the economic not only the economic

1:49:40 ↗ stability for the developers but the

1:49:42 ↗ economic stability for the community and

1:49:45 ↗ this is something that we really have to

1:49:48 ↗ think about and it it all goes together

1:49:51 ↗ you can't have a Vibrant Community

1:49:53 ↗ without

1:49:54 ↗ uh the housing to go with it and the

1:49:57 ↗ housing building the housing provides

1:50:00 ↗ jobs which allow people to buy houses

1:50:03 ↗ that will stimulate the economy which is

1:50:05 ↗ what we all want so

1:50:07 ↗ um good luck and and thank you so much

1:50:10 ↗ for your good luck to you we just do the

1:50:13 ↗ background you have to make the hard

1:50:14 ↗ choices and figure out what policies

1:50:15 ↗ will work for your future well that that

1:50:17 ↗ brings up a point and I started with

1:50:20 ↗ saying that we have a few uh openings on

1:50:22 ↗ our planning policy commission so if

1:50:24 ↗ you've heard anything tonight that you'd

1:50:26 ↗ like to get interested that interests

1:50:28 ↗ you that you'd like to be part of in

1:50:30 ↗ planning for the future of the of

1:50:32 ↗ Issaquah please fill out that

1:50:35 ↗ application it's online and let's see if

1:50:38 ↗ we can't get you to help us do this so

1:50:41 ↗ if there's nothing else

1:50:44 ↗ um I'm going to call the meeting too

1:50:46 ↗ close at 8

1:50:48 ↗ 25 close enough thank you

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.