Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, August 28, 2014 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Jul 10, 2014

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

Meeting Minutes for August 14, 2014

packet pp.4–7

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Jul 10, 2014

Open packet at p.4 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION MINUTES

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Housing 101

Arthur Sullivan, Program Manager Mike Stanger, Associate Planner

Topics: Housing

Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update: Housing Element

Trish Heinonen, Planning Manager

Topics: HousingLand Use

Human Services Element

Trish Heinonen, Planning Manager · packet pp.8–92

Topics: Equity

Open packet at p.8 ↗

Staff report:

In preparation for the 2015 State mandated update, A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH) prepared an East King County Housing Needs Analysis which includes consistent data and analysis to inform and assist ARCH’s member cities in the updates of their local comprehensive plans.

3495 segments .txt ↗

0:02 ↗ good evening and welcome to the August

0:05 ↗ 28th meeting of the planning policy

0:07 ↗ commission tonight we are going to

0:09 ↗ continue our discussion of the comp plan

0:11 ↗ tonight we're going to talk about

0:13 ↗ the Human Services element and the

0:16 ↗ housing element but before that

0:19 ↗ has everybody read the minutes from the

0:22 ↗ last meeting

0:24 ↗ do I have a motion to approve

0:27 ↗ um

0:30 ↗ any discussion

0:32 ↗ all those all those in favor say aye

0:36 ↗ opposed

0:38 ↗ need a red light there ah there we go

0:42 ↗ so RIT is a partnership formed in the

0:45 ↗ early 90s started with three cities and

0:48 ↗ now is all 14 cities that are within

0:51 ↗ East King County

0:53 ↗ um our job is our board of directors are

0:55 ↗ the chief Executives of all the

0:57 ↗ jurisdictions so we are not a separate

0:59 ↗ legal entity we are instead an entity

1:01 ↗ that is here to support the work of

1:04 ↗ cities to work on a wide range of issues

1:06 ↗ affecting housing and most particularly

1:08 ↗ more times than not affordable housing

1:10 ↗ so tonight I'm sort of here as part of

1:12 ↗ the planning staff and so this is

1:15 ↗ something I've been working with your

1:17 ↗ city and a number of others over the

1:19 ↗ years a couple of contextual points in

1:22 ↗ terms of thinking of the growth

1:23 ↗ management act or what we're doing here

1:25 ↗ tonight

1:26 ↗ and that is we will be looking at under

1:30 ↗ the growth management act which is the

1:33 ↗ originator of the requirements for doing

1:36 ↗ comprehensive plans there is language in

1:39 ↗ there related to housing and affordable

1:42 ↗ housing and so one of those requirements

1:44 ↗ is that cities should be planning for

1:46 ↗ all economic segments of the community

1:48 ↗ they also should be doing a wide range

1:51 ↗ of densities and types and varieties of

1:53 ↗ Housing and they should also look at

1:55 ↗ preserving as well as new housing and so

1:59 ↗ that's the language it's not very much

2:00 ↗ that's in the in the growth management

2:02 ↗ act about housing but it's pretty basic

2:05 ↗ and pretty encompassing information

2:07 ↗ requirements the other part that is very

2:10 ↗ specific about the process is a housing

2:12 ↗ needs analysis and that's the document

2:13 ↗ that your attachment a today what the

2:16 ↗ cities in East King County decided to do

2:17 ↗ this go round of updating comprehensive

2:19 ↗ plans was to do a single housing needs

2:22 ↗ analysis when Arch was formed we drew a

2:25 ↗ circle and that we the people who are

2:27 ↗ involved saying housing issues there's a

2:30 ↗ Citizens task force with a wide range of

2:32 ↗ people from the community and

2:34 ↗ professions saying housing markets are

2:36 ↗ not defined by City boundaries there is

2:38 ↗ a lot of overlap on how housing

2:40 ↗ conditions affect one another in an area

2:42 ↗ and so the our sphere of influence was

2:45 ↗ was drawn as basically what we thought

2:47 ↗ was a housing market area so it goes

2:49 ↗ from the border of King County on the

2:51 ↗ North down to Issaquah Newcastle Mercer

2:54 ↗ Island and from Lake Washington out to

2:56 ↗ the urban growth line so so

2:59 ↗ that's the context of why we formed Arch

3:01 ↗ is there's probably a lot of

3:03 ↗ similarities and this is Mike Stanger

3:04 ↗ who just walked in um he did a lot of

3:06 ↗ the work with your staff on both the

3:08 ↗ needs analysis and on the

3:11 ↗ um on the comprehensive under plan

3:12 ↗ policies so the concept was in doing a

3:16 ↗ needs analysis is there's a lot more

3:18 ↗ similarity than there are differences

3:19 ↗ between the jurisdictions so the

3:21 ↗ document that you had and I'm going to

3:23 ↗ go through some of the information is

3:25 ↗ saying let's look at sort of tell the

3:27 ↗ story of East King County and noting

3:29 ↗ where there are significant differences

3:31 ↗ between cities and that's this first

3:33 ↗ section the second section that you have

3:36 ↗ in there is related to specifically

3:38 ↗ Issaquah every one of the jurisdictions

3:39 ↗ we are writing sort of a subsection say

3:41 ↗ where do you sort of stand out as being

3:43 ↗ different and also one of the other

3:45 ↗ components of that on page 2-4 of the

3:48 ↗ packet of the needs analysis is sort of

3:50 ↗ a summary of some of the things you've

3:51 ↗ done keep in mind that this is an update

3:54 ↗ and that this city has been working on

3:57 ↗ the issue of housing for 20 years and so

3:59 ↗ there's a lot of things you already have

4:01 ↗ been doing and so in that we tried to

4:03 ↗ highlight some of the activities the

4:04 ↗ city has already been undertaking and

4:07 ↗ then the last section is lots of data so

4:10 ↗ we take sort of all the charts and we

4:11 ↗ let you look at your town so you can

4:13 ↗ compare it to those county-wide averages

4:15 ↗ or these King County averages so that

4:17 ↗ you can really see some of the Nuance so

4:19 ↗ so that is a requirement to do a needs

4:22 ↗ analysis that is explicit requiring GMA

4:24 ↗ the way we approach this is meeting the

4:26 ↗ requirement for everybody and we thought

4:28 ↗ it was more cost effective and efficient

4:30 ↗ for us but we also thought it's very

4:31 ↗ helpful for cities to understand the

4:34 ↗ broader Community the broader market

4:35 ↗ area that they're part of

4:38 ↗ um the then the next layer is there are

4:43 ↗ county-wide planning policies so that's

4:44 ↗ where jurisdictions from a county get

4:46 ↗ together and they establish some broad

4:48 ↗ county-wide policies that guide the

4:51 ↗ different elements and so that went

4:53 ↗ through a pretty major update in the

4:55 ↗ last go around a year and a half ago and

4:57 ↗ so part of the statements that are in

4:59 ↗ there and that's where there's more

5:00 ↗ specific language is one local

5:03 ↗ government does have a role in housing

5:04 ↗ it may not be the direct provider of

5:06 ↗ housing but things you do influence your

5:08 ↗ housing markets both indirectly and

5:10 ↗ directly that there are needs for very

5:13 ↗ low low and moderate income before we

5:16 ↗ had low and moderate now we're saying

5:17 ↗ we're recognizing that there's another

5:19 ↗ income category that was sort of folded

5:22 ↗ into one that we realized the

5:23 ↗ differences and we'll come back to that

5:25 ↗ in a minute

5:26 ↗ that we all want to strive to meet a

5:29 ↗ proportion a chair and the main thing

5:31 ↗ that sort of came out of this process is

5:33 ↗ we realized not all the cities are the

5:34 ↗ same so instead of sort of focusing on

5:37 ↗ numbers we say focus on understanding

5:40 ↗ your differences and targeting your

5:42 ↗ efforts to try to meet proportionate

5:44 ↗ needs based on local conditions

5:46 ↗ so that's kind of and then the other

5:49 ↗ part is watch what you do and respond if

5:53 ↗ your first go at it doesn't get all the

5:54 ↗ results you look at go back and look

5:56 ↗ again understand what happened and try

5:58 ↗ to go and update your activities and

6:00 ↗ things and so that's probably where a

6:02 ↗ lot of the cities are now is because

6:03 ↗ they have been planning this is an

6:04 ↗ opportunity to look at this and say

6:06 ↗ where might we go next are we doing the

6:08 ↗ right thing should we modify any or

6:10 ↗ should we move forward and we'll come

6:11 ↗ back to that as well

6:12 ↗ so that gives you the basic context of

6:16 ↗ where you're starting from and now

6:18 ↗ working on your comprehensive plan now

6:20 ↗ I'm going to go into some background

6:21 ↗ data and what I'm going to ask you to do

6:23 ↗ is when I finish going through the data

6:26 ↗ I want you to re one ask questions as

6:29 ↗ we're going along if you want but second

6:31 ↗ I want you to Talk Amongst yourselves

6:33 ↗ what were the two or three things when I

6:35 ↗ go through this information that really

6:37 ↗ stuck most in your mind that maybe seems

6:40 ↗ most relevant and you thinking about

6:41 ↗ addressing housing and especially

6:43 ↗ affordable housing needs in your

6:44 ↗ community so that's what I ask you to do

6:46 ↗ and share after I go through some of

6:48 ↗ these slides here

6:50 ↗ first is what do we mean by

6:52 ↗ affordability in the levels under the

6:55 ↗ growth under the counterweight planning

6:56 ↗ policies we Define three levels of

6:58 ↗ affordability one is defined as thirty

7:01 ↗ percent of median the second and that's

7:02 ↗ very low income uh that's the

7:04 ↗ terminology we use uh in this County low

7:07 ↗ income is fifty percent of median and

7:09 ↗ moderate income is 80. so what you can

7:11 ↗ see in this chart very low income is

7:14 ↗ still an annual income of eighteen to

7:16 ↗ twenty six thousand dollars a year okay

7:18 ↗ so it's not like you're not that's above

7:21 ↗ minimum wage okay so that's something to

7:24 ↗ keep in mind ten dollars an hour

7:26 ↗ translates to about twenty thousand

7:27 ↗ dollars a year

7:29 ↗ um low income and that and then we're

7:31 ↗ showing you rents so for rental units

7:33 ↗ that means a rent of about 450 to 650 a

7:37 ↗ month keep those numbers in your head

7:38 ↗ for a minute when we show you what

7:40 ↗ average rents are

7:41 ↗ um low income and you see the figures

7:43 ↗ are here about 750 for a single person

7:45 ↗ up to about a Thousand Eleven Hundred a

7:47 ↗ month is what they can afford incomes of

7:49 ↗ 30 to 43 000 a year moderate income is

7:53 ↗ 48 to 70 almost 70 000 a year depending

7:56 ↗ on house up size and it means you can

7:58 ↗ afford twelve hundred to Seventeen

8:00 ↗ hundred a month and now you're starting

8:03 ↗ to think about home ownership at that

8:04 ↗ income level maybe 180 to Mid 200s just

8:08 ↗ some context to keep in mind as we're

8:10 ↗ going through here

8:12 ↗ um now what we've done in the county

8:14 ↗ away planning policy says what are the

8:16 ↗ proportion of households in each of

8:18 ↗ those income categories in the account

8:20 ↗ when we look at county-wide and the

8:22 ↗ figure is it's about 12 each and both

8:25 ↗ the low and the very low and low so

8:27 ↗ there's twenty four percent of all

8:28 ↗ households are either very low or low

8:32 ↗ income and there's nothing new that was

8:34 ↗ the case 20 years ago that in our region

8:37 ↗ and in probably most regions you can

8:39 ↗ probably expect at the incomes the way

8:41 ↗ we Define them almost 24 for all percent

8:44 ↗ of all households split evenly will be

8:46 ↗ very low and low income another 17 18

8:49 ↗ are in that moderate income range

8:52 ↗ okay so combined that's just over 40

8:54 ↗ percent of all households are in these

8:57 ↗ definition levels that we consider and

8:59 ↗ focus on when we talk about affordable

9:01 ↗ housing per se

9:03 ↗ um and then you can see the ranges for

9:05 ↗ different income levels okay so that's

9:07 ↗ the starting point that's what we know

9:09 ↗ the household income mix is

9:11 ↗ housing planning is all about trying to

9:13 ↗ find housing that meets the profile of

9:16 ↗ your community yes

9:18 ↗ um does this data take into account

9:20 ↗ those within those income levels that

9:23 ↗ are homeless or is it simply those that

9:25 ↗ are already housed this is the entire

9:27 ↗ population this is all coming from

9:29 ↗ Census Data Census Data attempts to be

9:31 ↗ all-encompassing so it should

9:32 ↗ theoretically include homeless okay

9:36 ↗ um so

9:37 ↗ the thing to keep in mind and then you

9:40 ↗ know so one layer that you're trying to

9:42 ↗ address is income and the other layer is

9:43 ↗ going to be demographics which we go

9:44 ↗ into and ideally you can create a grid

9:48 ↗ and you can figure out how many

9:49 ↗ households there are by income and

9:51 ↗ seniors and families and everything like

9:54 ↗ that and that tells you what your

9:55 ↗ housing needs are okay and that's kind

9:57 ↗ of what the housing needs analysis tries

9:58 ↗ to help a community understand is what

10:00 ↗ is the range of types of needs in your

10:03 ↗ community

10:04 ↗ but that was that range of income splits

10:06 ↗ that's the key of how we try to work in

10:09 ↗ King County is theoretically every

10:11 ↗ County should every city in the county

10:13 ↗ would ideally have housing affordable at

10:16 ↗ about that income mix

10:18 ↗ that would generally be what your needs

10:20 ↗ are okay then we're going to show you

10:22 ↗ some numbers in a few minutes and that's

10:24 ↗ going to show you we're not quite there

10:25 ↗ okay now the first thing we know is well

10:29 ↗ where is all this demand for housing

10:30 ↗ coming from

10:31 ↗ and what we've seen in East King County

10:33 ↗ is it's coming from primarily your

10:36 ↗ Workforce

10:37 ↗ and the starting point that we look at

10:39 ↗ is when we look at our Workforce and

10:41 ↗ this is what this slide is trying to

10:43 ↗ show us we look at our Workforce and we

10:45 ↗ can guesstimate how many housing units

10:48 ↗ your Workforce needs there's about 1.3

10:51 ↗ workers per household okay 1.3 1.4 on

10:54 ↗ average is how many workers per

10:56 ↗ household there are in the in in the

10:58 ↗ area so therefore if you had 140 000

11:02 ↗ jobs you need a hundred thousand housing

11:04 ↗ units okay so what this is showing you

11:07 ↗ is if you were at 1.0 it says you have a

11:09 ↗ number of housing units equal to the

11:11 ↗ demand from your Workforce if you're

11:13 ↗ below which is what we used to all be in

11:15 ↗ East King County it means you have more

11:16 ↗ housing units than there is demand from

11:19 ↗ your Workforce if you go above one it

11:21 ↗ means there's more demand for housing

11:23 ↗ from your Workforce than you have

11:24 ↗ housing units so what this is showing

11:26 ↗ you is we're only going from present to

11:28 ↗ future in this one we're saying and we

11:31 ↗ have several different Geographic areas

11:33 ↗ because it's not just about one city

11:35 ↗ it's about how neighboring cities all

11:38 ↗ add up because if one city had a ton of

11:40 ↗ jobs but all the sounds right next to it

11:42 ↗ didn't then that may be fine so what we

11:45 ↗ try to do is show you here what that

11:48 ↗ balance looks like when you look at

11:49 ↗ first your city and then expanding

11:52 ↗ outward work and so in Issaquah you are

11:56 ↗ currently at about 1.5 you have a lot

11:58 ↗ more jobs and demand for housing than

12:00 ↗ you do housing you're playing the middle

12:02 ↗ bar is showing you based on your growth

12:04 ↗ targets what that ratio would be based

12:06 ↗ on your growth targets and it's a

12:08 ↗ whopping 2.5 you have the highest jobs

12:11 ↗ housing ratio I think from a planning

12:13 ↗ ratio and in the if you look in the

12:14 ↗ needs analysis we have every city so you

12:16 ↗ can look but you're basically and we

12:19 ↗ have references to the page in the

12:20 ↗ appendix where you can find those

12:23 ↗ um and so when you add your growth to

12:25 ↗ what you have today that's what the last

12:27 ↗ bar is where you would land if you grow

12:30 ↗ according to your plan targets and as

12:32 ↗ you can see you go from 1.5 closer to

12:34 ↗ 1.9 now the thing is what we're showing

12:36 ↗ you is what does probably more

12:38 ↗ importantly is what's going on in East

12:39 ↗ King County and you can see in East King

12:41 ↗ County we're about 1.25 1.3 we used to

12:45 ↗ be in about a long time ago in like

12:47 ↗ 1980s we were like 0.8 or 0.7 we went

12:52 ↗ over one at about the early 90s and then

12:54 ↗ we're now at about 1.251.3

12:58 ↗ our plans are to be at 1.5 which means

13:01 ↗ we average out around 1.35 1.4

13:04 ↗ we are planning ourselves to have a

13:07 ↗ higher imbalance than we currently have

13:09 ↗ that's the same

13:11 ↗ and you can see here how that compares

13:13 ↗ to other the county as a whole and even

13:15 ↗ to Seattle and what's interesting here

13:17 ↗ is in the old days like in the 70s and

13:19 ↗ 80s Seattle was the one that had the big

13:22 ↗ imbalance because they were the core of

13:24 ↗ a region okay and what you're seeing is

13:26 ↗ we now have two areas we have Seattle is

13:29 ↗ a core and now we have the east side of

13:31 ↗ the core as well yes so is this we're

13:34 ↗ planning for more jobs in housing then

13:36 ↗ is there a reason why we're doing that

13:38 ↗ I'm just kind of curious well everyone

13:40 ↗ well I um the county the county as you

13:44 ↗ can see here is planned to be somewhat

13:46 ↗ above one because they look at the whole

13:47 ↗ state and this people in the state tell

13:49 ↗ each County what to do and say under GMA

13:52 ↗ you have to plan for this much

13:54 ↗ employment and they're probably looking

13:55 ↗ at history in King County as you can see

13:57 ↗ well it's about Eagle here and so they

14:00 ↗ say well we're expecting more jobs to

14:02 ↗ land in King County it's sort of the

14:03 ↗ projection is that you know the the

14:05 ↗ forecasters at the state level how that

14:08 ↗ gets distributed around the county the

14:10 ↗ focus was more around centers we wanted

14:12 ↗ the growth to occur in the centers

14:15 ↗ um rather than where the transit's being

14:17 ↗ planned for and they didn't Focus as

14:19 ↗ much on sub-regions and so all the

14:21 ↗ cities came up with these figures all

14:23 ↗ the cities get together and say who's

14:25 ↗ willing to take how much and so it's a

14:27 ↗ the process within the county-wide

14:29 ↗ planning policy where all the cities in

14:31 ↗ the county and the Seattle get together

14:32 ↗ and say who's going to take how much

14:34 ↗ growth in the plan for how much

14:36 ↗ one other thing too is when we did the

14:38 ↗ central plan

14:40 ↗ is why we put so much housing in it

14:42 ↗ try to help our balance of jobs and

14:44 ↗ housing house and that's why there's in

14:47 ↗ the Eis versions the two options we

14:50 ↗ chose the one that had more housing job

14:52 ↗ balance than the more jobs even though

14:55 ↗ jobs are really nice for the economics

14:57 ↗ but we realized we were already a little

14:59 ↗ out of balance with housing

15:02 ↗ I don't think I ever would have guessed

15:04 ↗ that just by like

15:06 ↗ just my gut I probably wouldn't have

15:08 ↗ guessed that number I'm just kind of

15:10 ↗ interesting right but again like I said

15:13 ↗ it's important to look at especially on

15:15 ↗ this figure the whole market area and

15:19 ↗ that's why it's when we started seeing

15:20 ↗ these figures 15 10 years ago we've made

15:23 ↗ it something we've really tried to point

15:24 ↗ out the cities because a lot of cities

15:26 ↗ go well we're high but someone it'll

15:28 ↗ work somewhere else

15:30 ↗ and who was driving last night

15:33 ↗ or wasn't driving last night moving last

15:36 ↗ night okay

15:38 ↗ um

15:38 ↗ now so you have jobs

15:41 ↗ the next question is what's the income

15:43 ↗ of your jobs

15:44 ↗ so what this is showing you is

15:47 ↗ yeah there's some pretty nice paying

15:49 ↗ jobs in East King County but there's a

15:52 ↗ whole lot of other jobs that fall in

15:54 ↗ this 50 percent and 80 income range

15:57 ↗ okay which is natural since that's what

15:59 ↗ incomes are there's a lot of jobs that

16:01 ↗ mirror that so we tried to give you

16:03 ↗ examples

16:04 ↗ of jobs that fall in those income ranges

16:07 ↗ retail Medical

16:09 ↗ office support

16:11 ↗ a wide range of types of jobs government

16:15 ↗ official you know police officers

16:17 ↗ teachers people who work for school

16:19 ↗ districts besides the teachers

16:20 ↗ and that sort of demonstrated in this

16:23 ↗ slide

16:24 ↗ somebody from one of the local

16:26 ↗ affordable housing developments whose

16:28 ↗ rents you have to have incomes below

16:30 ↗ anywhere from 30 percent or 50 or 60

16:33 ↗ percent of median so that's the highest

16:36 ↗ income you can have to live there

16:38 ↗ and here is a sort of a profile of

16:41 ↗ people living in that building and where

16:42 ↗ their jobs are

16:44 ↗ okay and this is an East King County

16:45 ↗ development

16:47 ↗ and this is a survey they did of all the

16:49 ↗ people when they moved in where they're

16:51 ↗ working or those who work not everyone

16:52 ↗ works but most of the people do work who

16:55 ↗ live in the building there are some

16:57 ↗ people on disabilities but other people

16:58 ↗ work gives you a sense of the range of

17:01 ↗ types of jobs they have and where they

17:04 ↗ work

17:06 ↗ and this other slide here also is trying

17:08 ↗ to show you similar things at different

17:09 ↗ income levels and 15 an hour translates

17:13 ↗ to thirty thousand dollars a year or

17:15 ↗ fifty percent of median and

17:18 ↗ um forty thousand twenty dollars an hour

17:19 ↗ is 40 000 a year which depending on

17:22 ↗ household size is anywhere just below 50

17:24 ↗ percent to around 60 70 percent of

17:26 ↗ median so this gives you just an idea of

17:28 ↗ the range of we have many people in our

17:31 ↗ community who are earning these salaries

17:33 ↗ that are low in mod that are part of our

17:35 ↗ our economy

17:39 ↗ related to that

17:41 ↗ um we made we had a conversation with

17:44 ↗ the um

17:45 ↗ what's the committee this the economic

17:47 ↗ Vitality committee

17:49 ↗ and they did a survey what was that two

17:51 ↗ years ago now

17:52 ↗ and this is the result of the survey one

17:55 ↗ of the top concerns of employers in this

17:58 ↗ community is retaining and recruiting

18:00 ↗ employment because of housing costs

18:05 ↗ so that's kind of the primary driver of

18:08 ↗ demand in terms of income the secondary

18:11 ↗ or not secondary but the other angle is

18:13 ↗ what's your demographics what's the

18:15 ↗ profile of people in your community the

18:16 ↗ households

18:18 ↗ what we're seeing is in East King County

18:20 ↗ cities are becoming more and more

18:22 ↗ similar and they're becoming more and

18:24 ↗ more similar to county-wide averages 24

18:27 ↗ five years ago when I first showed up

18:29 ↗ here higher proportion of families

18:31 ↗ now the mix of households is very

18:33 ↗ comparable on household sizes to

18:36 ↗ county-wide averages age profile is very

18:39 ↗ similar as a whole

18:42 ↗ um and we're also starting to see that

18:44 ↗ we're not seeing as big a shifts as we

18:46 ↗ saw from like 70 to 80 to 90 in terms of

18:49 ↗ getting closer to that average it's kind

18:51 ↗ of like we got there and we're seeing

18:52 ↗ the area looking more mature communities

18:56 ↗ where the communities have been built

18:58 ↗ people are there and you've always been

18:59 ↗ sort of that way you're one of the older

19:01 ↗ communities on the east side so you've

19:03 ↗ always kind of had some of that profile

19:05 ↗ so your population mix is more similar

19:08 ↗ your household types is more similar

19:11 ↗ home ownership rate is more similar

19:13 ↗ interestingly

19:14 ↗ Issaquah used to have a very low home

19:17 ↗ ownership rate

19:18 ↗ in the mid 40s

19:20 ↗ about 30 years ago this is actually a

19:22 ↗ city that used to have a lot of

19:24 ↗ multi-family proportionately

19:27 ↗ and a lot of rental households more so

19:29 ↗ than almost any other community is King

19:31 ↗ County and in the last 20 years 25 years

19:34 ↗ you're now to a point where your

19:36 ↗ homeownership rates are about 66 percent

19:38 ↗ which is right on Mark with county-wide

19:40 ↗ averages

19:42 ↗ um you also have a little bit more cost

19:45 ↗ burden households and stuff so I'm going

19:47 ↗ to go through a few slides to show you

19:48 ↗ some of that but what we're really

19:50 ↗ seeing is East King County is becoming

19:53 ↗ more more and more like the rest of the

19:54 ↗ county more diverse more kinds of mix of

19:56 ↗ households so what you have

19:58 ↗ is you have

20:00 ↗ 64 percent of households are one or two

20:02 ↗ person households

20:04 ↗ okay

20:05 ↗ um and that's either living alone or

20:08 ↗ married with no children at home

20:11 ↗ okay so the vast you know for the

20:13 ↗ majority of households are one and two

20:15 ↗ person households what does that mean

20:17 ↗ for housing it may mean should we

20:19 ↗ encourage A diversity of forms of

20:21 ↗ housing to accommodate this diversity of

20:23 ↗ household sizes okay

20:28 ↗ um seniors

20:30 ↗ um in general your senior population is

20:33 ↗ similar to the rest of the county but

20:35 ↗ one thing

20:36 ↗ that is noticeable is you have a fair

20:39 ↗ number of seniors over the age of 75.

20:41 ↗ and then maybe because you have a number

20:43 ↗ of housing facilities with services that

20:46 ↗ can take care of seniors who are over 75

20:48 ↗ or any senior who have needs or services

20:52 ↗ um we've also seen things like seniors

20:54 ↗ who rent are more likely to be what we

20:57 ↗ call Cost burden and I'll come back to

20:58 ↗ that in a minute

21:00 ↗ um and as I said use you from a city of

21:04 ↗ your size and there's information on

21:05 ↗ this and the housing needs analysis you

21:07 ↗ have a relatively high amount of senior

21:10 ↗ focused housing in your community

21:14 ↗ so kossberg

21:15 ↗ this is sort of where everything comes

21:17 ↗ together

21:18 ↗ so how much do people have to pay to

21:20 ↗ live in their housing and so we we have

21:23 ↗ two terms that we use cost burden which

21:25 ↗ means you pay more than 30 percent of

21:27 ↗ your income for housing sort of a

21:28 ↗ National Standard if you pay more than

21:30 ↗ 30 percent you're probably potentially

21:33 ↗ starting to struggle with meeting other

21:34 ↗ needs the other is severely cost

21:36 ↗ burdened that means you're paying over

21:38 ↗ half of your income for housing

21:41 ↗ um what we're seeing is we're going to

21:44 ↗ show you some figures that for renters

21:46 ↗ almost half the renters who are cost

21:48 ↗ burdened are severely cost burdened and

21:50 ↗ about a third of homeowners who are cost

21:52 ↗ burdened or severely cost burdened okay

21:55 ↗ so what does that look like

21:57 ↗ and it's getting what we're showing you

21:59 ↗ in this slide is it's getting a little

22:01 ↗ bit higher that the number of households

22:03 ↗ who are cost burden is increasing both

22:04 ↗ county-wide and in East King County

22:08 ↗ and you can see that the proportion of

22:10 ↗ households who are severely cost

22:11 ↗ burdened is also going up both in East

22:14 ↗ King County and in King County and

22:17 ↗ you're right there at the East King

22:18 ↗ County levels if not even a little bit

22:20 ↗ higher a little bit higher okay

22:24 ↗ um one of the things I watched happen in

22:26 ↗ Issaquah

22:28 ↗ is you used to be a town of relatively

22:30 ↗ affordable rents you're now a town of

22:32 ↗ some of the highest rent levels in East

22:33 ↗ King County which means you have some of

22:34 ↗ the highest rent levels period

22:36 ↗ okay

22:37 ↗ the other thing that we've tried to show

22:39 ↗ here is cost burden

22:42 ↗ is much higher proportions of households

22:45 ↗ who are lower and very low income

22:47 ↗ so you can see here over 80 percent of

22:50 ↗ households in the 10 to 20 000 income

22:52 ↗ range are cost burden and it drops down

22:55 ↗ very much as you go as your income goes

22:57 ↗ up so that cost burden is is focused

23:00 ↗ more on the very low and low income

23:02 ↗ households the other is for renters in

23:04 ↗ particular

23:06 ↗ but both ends but especially for renters

23:08 ↗ that the households who are cost per in

23:11 ↗ their young younger or older

23:14 ↗ okay that's where you see higher

23:16 ↗ proportions of those who are cost

23:17 ↗ burdened not necessarily totally

23:19 ↗ surprising but just that's what the data

23:23 ↗ tells us

23:25 ↗ you mentioned homelessness earlier we

23:28 ↗ are trying to address homelessness it's

23:31 ↗ a phenomenon that is not just in the

23:33 ↗ central cities we do one-night counts

23:36 ↗ around here we have service agencies

23:39 ↗ who've been serving homeless for decades

23:41 ↗ in the East King County area

23:43 ↗ and the homeless they're serving are

23:45 ↗ coming from our communities they're not

23:47 ↗ coming from somewhere else in fact if

23:49 ↗ anything

23:50 ↗ you see more of people from other parts

23:52 ↗ of the county who have to go to Seattle

23:54 ↗ because there's nowhere else to get

23:57 ↗ Services okay so

23:59 ↗ um so that's something we've seen we've

24:01 ↗ opened up several winter shelters the

24:02 ↗ last few years Emergency Shelters and

24:06 ↗ those are full and they're primarily

24:09 ↗ people who are from our communities in

24:10 ↗ East King County in East King County we

24:13 ↗ probably have more families who are

24:15 ↗ homeless than on the average for the

24:17 ↗ county as a whole and as you can see

24:20 ↗ that's last bullet this is from a few

24:22 ↗ years ago about 17 percent of homeless

24:24 ↗ single adults are from the East side

24:26 ↗ from that's basically the place that

24:28 ↗ sort of takes all the calls they kind of

24:30 ↗ ask where it was your last place of

24:32 ↗ residence and things like that yes

24:34 ↗ um now working with archer working uh

24:37 ↗ regionally has there been any impact I'm

24:40 ↗ looking specifically at the second to

24:42 ↗ the last bullet point in terms of uh

24:44 ↗ homelessness women in women with

24:46 ↗ children has there been any uh

24:49 ↗ statistics or surveys done in I believe

24:52 ↗ about the last six months to a year on

24:55 ↗ the

24:56 ↗ um count on the Seattle jobs assistance

24:58 ↗ ordinance and the impact on homelessness

25:00 ↗ in that population

25:03 ↗ the job assistance ordinance it was the

25:06 ↗ one put forth by um

25:09 ↗ I cannot remember the name of the

25:11 ↗ organization but it was regarding use of

25:14 ↗ criminal background information

25:16 ↗ in Seattle jobs jobs within the city of

25:20 ↗ Seattle I don't know

25:22 ↗ we'd have to follow up and see if we can

25:24 ↗ find that out but I know the people who

25:25 ↗ might know so we can ask okay

25:28 ↗ okay and was that the question was there

25:31 ↗ really yeah yeah it was something and

25:33 ↗ then a follow-up to that is has there

25:35 ↗ been analysis as as to whether that's

25:37 ↗ holding true within East King County

25:39 ↗ specifically as far as that bullet point

25:41 ↗ about the domestic violence yes and

25:44 ↗ homelessness

25:45 ↗ we have a group

25:47 ↗ um oh darn it lifewire

25:50 ↗ every non-profit out there has changed

25:51 ↗ their name in the last 10 years as I

25:54 ↗ have to formally Eastside domestic

25:55 ↗ violence who runs several homeless

25:58 ↗ programs in East King County in fact we

25:59 ↗ funded their first one through Arch like

26:02 ↗ 20 years ago so we know they have been

26:05 ↗ dealing with homeless families who are

26:07 ↗ experiencing it so I don't know if it's

26:09 ↗ half but we are seeing that the issue of

26:11 ↗ domestic violence and linkage to

26:13 ↗ homelessness for for families and women

26:15 ↗ with children is definitely true here

26:20 ↗ so unfortunately they've been more than

26:22 ↗ busy enough

26:25 ↗ there is hope

26:30 ↗ so what's our housing Supply look like

26:31 ↗ I've alluded to this to some extent

26:34 ↗ county-wide average rents are affordable

26:37 ↗ in the moderate income range and I'm

26:40 ↗ going to show you something I think in a

26:41 ↗ minute that's a little bit of a scary

26:43 ↗ Trend that I hope is a short-term one

26:44 ↗ and rents in East King County

26:48 ↗ are higher in general than rents in the

26:51 ↗ rest of the county so Renton East King

26:53 ↗ County are typically higher

26:56 ↗ um we've seen

26:58 ↗ rents over time seem to go up and down

27:01 ↗ with median income

27:03 ↗ but in the last two years at least we

27:06 ↗ have seen a much higher increase in

27:08 ↗ rents than income and I don't know if I

27:12 ↗ have

27:13 ↗ the slide I'm looking for

27:15 ↗ um maybe the next one but what this

27:16 ↗ slide is trying to show us is

27:18 ↗ how many housing units are there that

27:21 ↗ are affordable at 50 percent of median

27:23 ↗ rental units

27:24 ↗ of your Total Rental Supply are

27:26 ↗ affordable at 50 of media

27:28 ↗ and you can see here

27:30 ↗ the blue is how many units and the green

27:34 ↗ bar is what percent of units so as you

27:37 ↗ can see we have a much lower percentage

27:38 ↗ now might say well how many renters are

27:41 ↗ low income anyway so do some simple math

27:44 ↗ in your head

27:45 ↗ I just told you that over 60 percent of

27:46 ↗ households are homeowners

27:49 ↗ that means about 36 percent of

27:51 ↗ households are renters

27:53 ↗ hey Rick that's simple

27:54 ↗ now I just told you that

27:57 ↗ what percent of households are low in

27:59 ↗ moderate income

28:01 ↗ 42 percent 43.

28:04 ↗ now I'm not trying to say renters are

28:07 ↗ always a lower income range and owners

28:09 ↗ are but it gives you a pretty good idea

28:12 ↗ that the vast majority of renters are

28:15 ↗ going to be low income and moderate

28:16 ↗ income

28:17 ↗ okay I mean that's there's nothing wrong

28:19 ↗ with that that's just the natural curve

28:22 ↗ I mean if 40 of all households are low

28:24 ↗ and moderate

28:25 ↗ and just given what it takes to own a

28:27 ↗ home

28:28 ↗ a very high proportion of renters are

28:30 ↗ incomes at 50 because remember 24 and

28:33 ↗ that 42 are low income

28:35 ↗ so do a little simple math in your head

28:38 ↗ and the point I'm trying to make is a

28:40 ↗ whole lot of the renders are earning low

28:42 ↗ income or moderate income

28:54 ↗ need to go out and take over the rentals

28:57 ↗ which will allow the people who own them

29:00 ↗ to raise the rents well darn it I didn't

29:04 ↗ put that graph where's that graph in the

29:07 ↗ chart in the table

29:08 ↗ the one that shows changes in rent over

29:10 ↗ time

29:13 ↗ and home prices I'm trying to remember

29:15 ↗ where a certain chart is

29:17 ↗ and basically

29:20 ↗ the point that is at 835 I believe

29:24 ↗ thank you

29:31 ↗ that's it and I think we have a graph

29:33 ↗ though in the main body of the report

29:35 ↗ but actually so you can visually see

29:37 ↗ what it looks like

29:42 ↗ um

29:44 ↗ and I want

29:45 ↗ whoever can see it because okay so if

29:47 ↗ you go to page 118

29:50 ↗ you can there's several little charts

29:52 ↗ which is paid 22 of your packet

29:55 ↗ I think is it which is the right numbers

29:58 ↗ to use the one in the lower corner are

29:59 ↗ the ones in the middle uh whichever one

30:01 ↗ because once it's 19 of 85 and the other

30:04 ↗ says 22 of 88 so if you go to the lower

30:06 ↗ corner space 22 and that'll be page 26

30:09 ↗ in the revised packets oh that's right

30:12 ↗ we have the old package sorry

30:14 ↗ so I don't know

30:17 ↗ you say again which page you're on I'm

30:20 ↗ going to let someone who has the current

30:21 ↗ package say the page number the one that

30:23 ↗ you should have I'm off a couple it

30:25 ↗ sounds like

30:26 ↗ and that's

30:28 ↗ it's the one that has these all these

30:30 ↗ little you're on the right one so yeah

30:32 ↗ it's page 1988 1-18 of the actual needs

30:36 ↗ analysis

30:38 ↗ 1-18

30:42 ↗ of the needs analysis so it's about page

30:45 ↗ 20.

30:46 ↗ of the packet

30:49 ↗ so people have that

30:50 ↗ so I can't what you're seeing there and

30:53 ↗ what isn't on here is 2014 and 2014 I

30:58 ↗ saw something I've never seen in 30

31:00 ↗ years

31:01 ↗ the average rent in East King County

31:04 ↗ are at 80 of media

31:07 ↗ if you look back at the history you can

31:09 ↗ see that top light bar is 80 what you

31:11 ↗ can afford for rent at 80 percent of

31:13 ↗ median the second bar is what average

31:15 ↗ rents have been in East King County

31:17 ↗ we just got the 2014 data it's hit the

31:21 ↗ bar I've never seen that in 20 years

31:23 ↗ and I've never seen an average rent

31:25 ↗ that's like at 80 percent of median

31:26 ↗ other than like maybe the Silicon Valley

31:29 ↗ um so what's making that happen is it

31:33 ↗ people coming into the rental market who

31:35 ↗ used to be in the ownership Market is

31:37 ↗ that job growth is it there was no

31:38 ↗ housing growth being built for three

31:40 ↗ years because you can see it also drops

31:43 ↗ pretty quick in some periods when you

31:45 ↗ look back over time

31:47 ↗ but I've never seen it let itself get

31:49 ↗ that high and I don't know what that

31:51 ↗ means I don't know if it's going to drop

31:52 ↗ a lot more or there's just so much more

31:55 ↗ employment over here they can you can do

31:57 ↗ it

31:57 ↗ then we have our job growth they can you

31:59 ↗ know so is it the job growth or people

32:01 ↗ entering the rent I don't know what's

32:03 ↗ the proportion it's all of those things

32:06 ↗ at least I think it's all of those

32:07 ↗ things

32:08 ↗ okay

32:10 ↗ um now

32:13 ↗ let's see let's skip the page so then

32:15 ↗ what's our housing Supply look like and

32:18 ↗ how are we doing towards meeting our

32:20 ↗ goals the main thing is the cities are

32:22 ↗ able to and have been meeting their

32:24 ↗ goals for overall housing growth that's

32:26 ↗ the main and that you have enough land

32:28 ↗ planned to

32:31 ↗ um

32:32 ↗ meet your future planning growth goals

32:34 ↗ so everybody all the jurisdictions

32:36 ↗ theoretically have enough capacity

32:39 ↗ um the other is yeah we saw a drop in

32:41 ↗ home ownership rates for the last three

32:44 ↗ years but we're still above 60 percent

32:46 ↗ which is historically a rate that's when

32:50 ↗ we're generally pretty healthy economy

32:52 ↗ where we've been at

32:54 ↗ um

32:56 ↗ now what is different than when I first

32:59 ↗ showed up here

33:00 ↗ 1990 is many of the cities like

33:04 ↗ yourselves are planning much of your

33:07 ↗ future housing growth for your centers

33:09 ↗ so you're not alone there

33:11 ↗ Bellevue over 80 percent of their

33:14 ↗ capacity is in their centers their mixed

33:16 ↗ use centers primarily downtown in Bel

33:18 ↗ Red Redmond is also at almost 80 percent

33:22 ↗ of their growth is planned for scent

33:24 ↗ downtown breadman and Overlake

33:27 ↗ but many jurisdictions you're in there

33:29 ↗ as well you're right up there Your

33:32 ↗ Capacity is in your centers so you're

33:34 ↗ all planning and very similar now a lot

33:37 ↗ of that's pretty positive in a lot of

33:38 ↗ ways it could be very positive

33:40 ↗ but it also is something to be cognizant

33:42 ↗ of for a couple reasons

33:44 ↗ or things that we've thought about when

33:46 ↗ we when we look at this first

33:48 ↗ it's a mixed use of some of them haven't

33:50 ↗ had housing will the housing really

33:52 ↗ happen

33:53 ↗ they've made more historically

33:54 ↗ commercial or office so is housing going

33:57 ↗ to work

33:58 ↗ the second is that housing as

34:00 ↗ multi-family housing is more expensive

34:03 ↗ to build than the garden style stuff we

34:05 ↗ were building 20 years ago

34:07 ↗ it's more sophisticated buildings fire

34:09 ↗ sprinkler systems structured parking

34:10 ↗ they're more elaborate buildings that

34:13 ↗ have a more expensive envelope to create

34:15 ↗ so how does that affect affordability

34:18 ↗ third is this is where we want all of

34:20 ↗ our growth to go

34:22 ↗ so it doesn't mean just singles which is

34:24 ↗ what everybody talked about 20 years ago

34:25 ↗ is that these are going to stay vibrant

34:27 ↗ communities long term they probably need

34:30 ↗ to address a wide range of your housing

34:32 ↗ needs for families singles all kinds of

34:35 ↗ households if they're going to continue

34:36 ↗ to be vibrant so how do you make sure

34:38 ↗ these neighborhoods are such that the

34:40 ↗ market wants to provide that housing and

34:42 ↗ build it so there's a real challenge

34:44 ↗ here is you're not reserving this land

34:46 ↗ for housing long term

34:49 ↗ you're creating an opportunity and

34:52 ↗ you're hoping that you get a balance in

34:53 ↗ these areas but there's no guarantee

34:55 ↗ through your zoning that you will get

34:56 ↗ that balance

34:57 ↗ okay

35:00 ↗ and we're not saying that's good or bad

35:01 ↗ we're just putting that out there for

35:02 ↗ everyone to keep in mind because a lot

35:04 ↗ of these centers have very little if any

35:06 ↗ housing right now

35:07 ↗ Bel Red I think there's a hundred units

35:10 ↗ okay and they're planning for there to

35:11 ↗ be 5 000.

35:13 ↗ okay now we are seeing a new building

35:15 ↗ there now this year getting built so

35:16 ↗ that's you know okay looks like it might

35:18 ↗ start happening

35:19 ↗ um

35:21 ↗ affordable housing that's my last point

35:22 ↗ before we get into your policy stuff how

35:25 ↗ are we doing on affordability

35:28 ↗ we've met about 66 percent of our goal

35:30 ↗ and I'm going to have a chart in a

35:32 ↗ second appendix s has some detail for

35:34 ↗ you issaquah's had been meeting about 62

35:37 ↗ percent when we had all the cities

35:39 ↗ together and we had all their goals for

35:40 ↗ affordability up it's about 66 and it's

35:43 ↗ basically your goal is 24 of your growth

35:47 ↗ an amount equal to 24 of your growth you

35:50 ↗ would like to see be affordable to low

35:52 ↗ income

35:52 ↗ and

35:54 ↗ 17 18 of your growth you'd like to see

35:57 ↗ affordable to moderate income that was

35:59 ↗ sort of the old approach the new

36:00 ↗ approach is to say look at all your

36:02 ↗ total housing Supply and if you're not

36:04 ↗ to those percentages you should be

36:06 ↗ trying to get as close to them as you

36:07 ↗ can

36:08 ↗ but these numbers here are based on

36:09 ↗ saying based on your growth projections

36:12 ↗ if you had 20 an amount equal to 24

36:14 ↗ percent

36:15 ↗ then you would have you got 66 percent

36:18 ↗ of the way there

36:20 ↗ um and you I mean I'm sorry for the this

36:22 ↗ is moderate income that's your eight

36:24 ↗ that's your 80 so that's you got 66

36:27 ↗ percent of the way there for the

36:28 ↗ moderate goal

36:30 ↗ for low income for less than a quarter

36:33 ↗ of the goal for low you know at one

36:35 ↗ level that's not bad it's not nothing so

36:37 ↗ that's good but it's a quarter of what

36:40 ↗ the need is based on your growth

36:43 ↗ and that's what this chart which is in

36:44 ↗ your appendix is showing you and the

36:46 ↗ thing that I just want to point out here

36:48 ↗ is to reach low income we use when we

36:53 ↗ work with cities or cities are using a

36:55 ↗ variety of ways to try to create housing

36:57 ↗ affordable to all income levels and in

36:59 ↗ particular low and moderate and that is

37:02 ↗ first the market

37:04 ↗ if you plan right the market you know

37:06 ↗ ideally the market would take care of

37:08 ↗ all our needs that's how we like to do

37:09 ↗ things in this country for housing we

37:11 ↗ like the market to do it okay or

37:13 ↗ everything we can to have the private

37:15 ↗ Market meet the needs and so the first

37:17 ↗ step is what do cities allow I mean you

37:19 ↗ used to hear in the 70s 80s even even

37:21 ↗ recently HUD would go after National

37:23 ↗ Housing Department go after cities

37:25 ↗ because they'd only zone for

37:26 ↗ single-family housing okay and so how

37:29 ↗ are you going to have affordability if

37:30 ↗ everything's single-family this region

37:32 ↗ hasn't been guilty of that for a very

37:33 ↗ very long time well over 50 percent of

37:35 ↗ your capacity has been multi-family for

37:37 ↗ a very long time and that's the first

37:39 ↗ step to having affordability so you've

37:42 ↗ actually managed through the market to

37:44 ↗ create housing that's affordable

37:46 ↗ technically at moderate income now

37:47 ↗ remember I said Market rents are about

37:49 ↗ 80 or less most of these units in new

37:52 ↗ construction and the thing to understand

37:54 ↗ is new construction rents are pretty

37:56 ↗ Common Sense higher than average rents

37:58 ↗ it's just the nature of the beast

38:00 ↗ but you still manage to get almost 2 800

38:04 ↗ units built through the market that met

38:06 ↗ the test of being affordable to moderate

38:08 ↗ income most of them were small

38:10 ↗ apartments one bedroom Studios that were

38:14 ↗ rental very few ownership and how do we

38:16 ↗ know this we survey every new

38:18 ↗ multi-family building built since 1995

38:21 ↗ in East King County when they open up

38:22 ↗ and we say what are your rents or what's

38:24 ↗ your sale price and so we've been

38:26 ↗ tallying that forever the second

38:28 ↗ approach is using incentives

38:30 ↗ something that gets the market to still

38:32 ↗ do it without direct subsidy so that's

38:35 ↗ your MPD your master plan communities

38:37 ↗ that said Builder we're going to let you

38:39 ↗ change a hillside into a developed

38:41 ↗ community in exchange for some

38:43 ↗ percentage of those units must meet an

38:45 ↗ affordability test so that's a major

38:47 ↗ land use incentive more and more cities

38:48 ↗ in East King County are doing that you

38:50 ↗ did that with several other developments

38:52 ↗ now the central Issaquah plan requires

38:55 ↗ in one area

38:56 ↗ incentivizes other areas say more

38:58 ↗ density

38:59 ↗ affordability for a portion of those

39:01 ↗ units accessory dwelling units allowing

39:04 ↗ mother-in-law apartments and units in

39:06 ↗ single-family homes are considered by

39:08 ↗ definition affordable to moderate did

39:10 ↗ you have a question yeah I do looking at

39:13 ↗ exhibit S1

39:16 ↗ um you know it looks like we're we're

39:19 ↗ failing and and having the market bring

39:22 ↗ about affordable housing

39:24 ↗ for for low income for Issaquah yes

39:28 ↗ um

39:29 ↗ what what are Kirkland and Bothell doing

39:32 ↗ that we're not because it seems like the

39:35 ↗ market has been um

39:38 ↗ okay what is Bible done yeah waffles in

39:41 ↗ the right part it's in an area where

39:42 ↗ rents are lower

39:44 ↗ okay they don't have

39:46 ↗ they're they're it's interesting they're

39:48 ↗ North County

39:50 ↗ their housing costs their jobs housing

39:53 ↗ balance is a little more in line I don't

39:54 ↗ know what all the factors are but

39:56 ↗ they're sort of on an edge of the

39:58 ↗ housing market area that in general

40:01 ↗ rents are a little bit more affordable

40:02 ↗ yeah so I guess my question would be

40:03 ↗ more towards Kirkland where the average

40:06 ↗ uh rate is more in line with ekc

40:09 ↗ um in that the rents tend to be higher

40:11 ↗ in Kirkland uh more in line with

40:13 ↗ Issaquah and they've got 43 units

40:16 ↗ created by the market okay so the 43 in

40:19 ↗ that one

40:20 ↗ it's a college

40:22 ↗ that built housing for students

40:26 ↗ so that's why that 43 happened there

40:28 ↗ okay

40:30 ↗ right so those are anomalies that they

40:33 ↗ were both student healthy so is there

40:35 ↗ anything that could be done to bring the

40:38 ↗ market about right so you're that was

40:40 ↗ the point I was just that was my next

40:42 ↗ step which is to get to low income we've

40:46 ↗ always seen now some of these units have

40:48 ↗ land use incentives but land use

40:50 ↗ incentives alone have very rarely

40:53 ↗ allowed us to get to 50 immediate now

40:55 ↗ Kirkland is trying something right now

40:56 ↗ and we'll see in the next few years if

40:58 ↗ it works

41:00 ↗ um it was my last slide before we get to

41:02 ↗ the policies is about range of

41:03 ↗ strategies and approaches Kirkland has

41:06 ↗ attempted to say we're going to give you

41:08 ↗ this we're going to give you this we're

41:09 ↗ going to give you this and we hope that

41:10 ↗ when we do those three things instead of

41:12 ↗ asking for units at 70 or 80 percent of

41:14 ↗ median we're going to tell you we want

41:16 ↗ them at 50 immediate

41:18 ↗ so that's when we're designing programs

41:21 ↗ you can sort of go oh hmm we used to

41:25 ↗ give you for every unit

41:27 ↗ extra we gave you we won in the

41:29 ↗ affordable unit at 80 in Media

41:31 ↗ Sammamish said

41:33 ↗ we'll give you two because we want them

41:35 ↗ at 70 percent of media

41:38 ↗ okay Kirkland has said we're going to

41:40 ↗ give you two and a half and we're going

41:42 ↗ to give you a property tax exemption so

41:45 ↗ we're going to add that all up and

41:47 ↗ that'll get us some units at 50 percent

41:49 ↗ of median so you can take all of these

41:51 ↗ tools and put an economic value on them

41:54 ↗ and how you decide to marry them

41:56 ↗ together and what percent you can either

41:58 ↗ ask for more units that are at a higher

42:00 ↗ rent level or fewer units at a lower

42:03 ↗ rent level okay so that's part of the

42:06 ↗ secret of how Kirkland managed to and

42:09 ↗ that number we hope will go go up some

42:11 ↗ more because they had one building I got

42:15 ↗ one building that's going to give us

42:16 ↗ like three or four units at 50 percent

42:18 ↗ of media we're hoping in the future

42:19 ↗ there'll be some more

42:21 ↗ but most of the time it's still hard to

42:23 ↗ get all the way to 50. it's more likely

42:26 ↗ with the land use incentives and working

42:28 ↗ with the market that you might get to 60

42:30 ↗ or 70 to get all the way to 50 of

42:32 ↗ medians pretty darn hard and right now

42:34 ↗ just looking at M1 the affordable

42:36 ↗ housing stock the 22 10 numbers it looks

42:40 ↗ like we've got a surplus in available

42:43 ↗ housing at 81 to 100 percent of Ami and

42:47 ↗ pretty stable on the 51 to 80 percent

42:49 ↗ the moderate income yes so

42:52 ↗ remember that chart I showed you

42:56 ↗ that showed what proportions of

42:57 ↗ households are paying

43:00 ↗ um actually where's the chart that has

43:01 ↗ the X on it

43:03 ↗ so showing people paying less than 20

43:05 ↗ percent

43:07 ↗ 101.

43:09 ↗ no I took it out of the slideshow

43:11 ↗ because I only had so many slides

43:14 ↗ uh I don't think I did

43:17 ↗ while we're measuring people who are you

43:19 ↗ know I showed you that slide that showed

43:21 ↗ you lower income people 80 or cost

43:22 ↗ burden um

43:24 ↗ we have one slide that we've used I'm

43:27 ↗ sure it's underneath analysis the X okay

43:29 ↗ where we showed how many What proportion

43:31 ↗ of households pay less than 20 percent

43:33 ↗ of their income for housing okay now

43:35 ↗ I've lived here for 24 years

43:38 ↗ don't even begin to ask me what

43:40 ↗ percentage of my income am I now paying

43:42 ↗ for my house that I bought in 1990 and

43:44 ↗ I've never moved

43:45 ↗ okay it's not 30 it's not 20 that as

43:51 ↗ incomes go up a much higher proportion

43:53 ↗ of households pay less than 20 percent

43:55 ↗ of their income on housing so what's

43:57 ↗ happening there is

43:59 ↗ yeah you have housing that's equal there

44:01 ↗ so one the people are lower income are

44:04 ↗ having to flip and pay those units and

44:06 ↗ they're why they're cost burden right so

44:08 ↗ you it's not like all of a sudden those

44:10 ↗ people make more so they're cost burden

44:11 ↗ and then you have some people who are

44:13 ↗ paying a lot less than 30 of their

44:15 ↗ income in those units so that's kind of

44:17 ↗ how when you put the two over on top of

44:20 ↗ one another is yeah you've got to quote

44:22 ↗ a surplus at a hundred but you got a lot

44:25 ↗ of people in the one the 120 who are

44:26 ↗ electing to get that rent at 100 a

44:28 ↗ meeting who could afford more but hey

44:30 ↗ what the heck why not and then you have

44:32 ↗ all those people with lower income they

44:33 ↗ don't have any other choice so they're

44:35 ↗ paying 30 to 50 or more percent of their

44:37 ↗ income to be in that unit

44:39 ↗ okay so the stress on the system is much

44:43 ↗ more on the lower half of the income

44:44 ↗ than the higher half because the higher

44:46 ↗ half benefits by paying less than 30

44:48 ↗ percent of their income

44:49 ↗ that's sort of how it plays out

44:52 ↗ okay so that leads to kind of

44:56 ↗ the last well no before I get into sort

44:58 ↗ of the next steps is well let me do one

45:01 ↗ more and I'll come back to this one

45:03 ↗ so which cities have at their disposal

45:05 ↗ and this is the comment is the

45:07 ↗ comprehensive plan

45:08 ↗ is a community guiding document it's not

45:12 ↗ a land use guiding document it's a

45:13 ↗ community guiding document so when

45:15 ↗ you're looking at the policies that we

45:17 ↗ have here we can be looking at a variety

45:19 ↗ of things we're worried about the

45:21 ↗ overall supply of housing not just for

45:22 ↗ lower income but for all the income

45:24 ↗ levels you have you're worried about

45:25 ↗ having a mixture of housing that

45:27 ↗ profiles the needs in your community the

45:29 ↗ demographic profiles but you're also

45:31 ↗ able to look at Tools in addition to

45:34 ↗ land use yes that's a major tool that

45:36 ↗ cities have at their disposal but

45:38 ↗ there's others you have a budget you

45:40 ↗ have fun in resources you have the

45:42 ↗ ability to provide land use incentives

45:45 ↗ or property tax exemption so this

45:47 ↗ document is not just trying to drive

45:50 ↗ purely land use issues and stuff is

45:54 ↗ trying to say what are the full range of

45:56 ↗ tools that cities have available to

45:58 ↗ itself to address the full range and to

46:02 ↗ do it in a way

46:03 ↗ that you're going to be happy with the

46:05 ↗ community when the when it's done

46:07 ↗ okay so that's what a housing element is

46:10 ↗ about is trying to create a housing

46:12 ↗ stock that makes can helps your

46:14 ↗ community still remain vibrant and sound

46:16 ↗ and whatever else you care about okay so

46:18 ↗ just keep that in mind so with that I'd

46:21 ↗ like to

46:22 ↗ go back

46:23 ↗ and ask you

46:25 ↗ what things

46:28 ↗ from this part of the conversation most

46:30 ↗ stuck in your brains as we go forward

46:33 ↗ and start talking about policies

46:37 ↗ well I think for me it's definitely the

46:38 ↗ uh leveraging the over leveraging that's

46:41 ↗ happening on the lower income

46:44 ↗ markets and trying to

46:46 ↗ find housing

46:49 ↗ and then I think definitely the

46:52 ↗ um

46:53 ↗ what we can do to incentivize as much as

46:56 ↗ we can housing

46:59 ↗ added below 50 percent of Ami

47:06 ↗ my question is is when you incentivize

47:08 ↗ where is it coming from

47:12 ↗ I mean what what does incentivize mean

47:14 ↗ to the cities

47:30 ↗ um the master plan communities those

47:33 ↗ were developments that

47:36 ↗ when they 30 years ago they were

47:39 ↗ hillsides that were allowing one per

47:41 ↗ five acre and the city said

47:43 ↗ we'll work with you we'll let you build

47:45 ↗ much higher density but we want you to

47:47 ↗ put it in one spot and then preserve

47:49 ↗ open space so we don't have a whole

47:50 ↗ Hillside with

47:51 ↗ one home every acre or every half acre

47:53 ↗ will let you concentrate it have more

47:56 ↗ units but have it concentrated but the

47:58 ↗ net was much more housing could be built

48:00 ↗ in that area the city said we want

48:02 ↗ schools we want a number of things but

48:05 ↗ one of the things we want is some

48:06 ↗ affordability in those developments so

48:09 ↗ in exchange for allowing a builder to

48:11 ↗ build more the starting point for any

48:14 ↗ Builder is what am I paying for land

48:16 ↗ if you gave them a piece of land you say

48:18 ↗ I'll give you more you're basically

48:19 ↗ giving them free land

48:21 ↗ so what's the value of that free land

48:23 ↗ it's not totally free but what's the

48:25 ↗ value of that and how can we get some

48:27 ↗ public benefit out of giving you that

48:29 ↗ tool okay I used to work for a company

48:32 ↗ before I came to the public sector we'd

48:34 ↗ go to cities we say you give us a rezone

48:36 ↗ and we're different than the private

48:38 ↗ world

48:39 ↗ when you trash that rezone my boss used

48:42 ↗ to say you rang the cash register the

48:44 ↗ difference with us

48:45 ↗ is we're going to give the money back to

48:46 ↗ you

48:47 ↗ when you created that extra land value

48:49 ↗ we're going to give it back to you in

48:50 ↗ the form of affordability that's a main

48:53 ↗ incentive for cities especially here

48:54 ↗ because of high land costs

48:56 ↗ right so that's a very positive or

48:59 ↗ potentially strong incentive your city

49:01 ↗ has waived impact fees some for new

49:04 ↗ development that for the affordable

49:06 ↗ units part of the theory behind that is

49:08 ↗ there may be more units our fees are

49:12 ↗ based on a certain amount of money being

49:14 ↗ raised we're still getting the same

49:15 ↗ amount of Revenue or whatnot but so

49:17 ↗ waving some fees for affordable units

49:20 ↗ portion or all another is a tool that

49:23 ↗ couple cities have used is offering to

49:26 ↗ relax and not pay property taxes on the

49:28 ↗ Improvement value continue to pay

49:30 ↗ property taxes on the land but for 10

49:32 ↗ years or 12 years or eight years you

49:34 ↗ don't pay property taxes on the new

49:36 ↗ building

49:37 ↗ in exchange for affordability

49:39 ↗ so yeah there's a trade-off in looking

49:41 ↗ at all of those different kinds of

49:42 ↗ options as quote incentives so those are

49:45 ↗ the range of ones two of them have some

49:48 ↗ potential fiscal trade-off conversation

49:51 ↗ the first one isn't necessarily a fiscal

49:53 ↗ trade-off issue it's a

49:55 ↗ we're not going to just free zone like

49:57 ↗ we used to do and not ask for some

49:58 ↗ public benefit and as a result of that

50:01 ↗ okay so those are examples

50:03 ↗ so those are I mean

50:05 ↗ just looking at these numbers from 1993

50:08 ↗ to 2012

50:10 ↗ the low income from land use incentives

50:13 ↗ for the whole East King County looks

50:15 ↗ like it was only 10.

50:16 ↗ so I mean why don't we just where are

50:20 ↗ you getting that figure from let me go

50:22 ↗ back S1 from S1

50:25 ↗ exhibit S1 affordable housing created

50:29 ↗ where's the 10th

50:33 ↗ oh yeah oh for land use you're right

50:35 ↗ that's what I'm saying it's very hard to

50:37 ↗ get land use incentives all the way down

50:40 ↗ so why don't just increase the

50:43 ↗ incentives what's what's saying but what

50:47 ↗ I'm is and that's what I'm saying

50:48 ↗ Kirkland is one of the few and a lot of

50:50 ↗ times because

50:51 ↗ a lot of the city said getting them at

50:53 ↗ 80 that's good that I mean when we first

50:56 ↗ started doing it it was like that's hey

50:57 ↗ it's different that's good we're

50:59 ↗ starting to say yeah but now let's look

51:01 ↗ at the real you know we're getting all

51:02 ↗ this data and we're going hmm let's try

51:04 ↗ to maybe get to 70 or 60 if we can and

51:06 ↗ that's a city choice

51:08 ↗ so when did Kirkland start their program

51:10 ↗ about right about when the recession

51:13 ↗ started foreign

51:18 ↗ so sometimes that's and that's I think

51:19 ↗ I'm sort of glad you asked that

51:23 ↗ downtown Redmond made a provision that

51:26 ↗ all new development in downtown Redmond

51:27 ↗ must have 10 affordable but it was at 80

51:29 ↗ it's an 80 immediate okay and they made

51:32 ↗ that in 1996 95 or 96.

51:37 ↗ nothing happened for 10 years now

51:39 ↗ sometimes people say oh you you blew it

51:41 ↗ you killed the market because you had

51:42 ↗ this affordability requirement which is

51:44 ↗ what often cities here you're trying to

51:46 ↗ create a new form of housing so if you

51:48 ↗ make this through affordability we're

51:49 ↗ not going to be able to build it's going

51:51 ↗ to ruin the economics of deals everybody

51:53 ↗ driven the downtown Redmond recently

51:56 ↗ right it's happening it's not stopping

51:59 ↗ stuff part of the times it's because and

52:02 ↗ I'm saying this is I've seen many cities

52:04 ↗ make plans for urban centers that are 10

52:07 ↗ years ahead of the market no matter what

52:09 ↗ the some agree it takes time sometimes

52:12 ↗ for things to get to where you need to

52:14 ↗ go now what Redmond did is they said

52:17 ↗ okay we get it Pioneers will Define

52:20 ↗ affordability a little looser for the

52:22 ↗ first two projects

52:23 ↗ to sort of say for the guys who are

52:25 ↗ willing to jump in first we'll make it a

52:27 ↗ little bit easier for you

52:28 ↗ and then but they don't but Kirkland and

52:31 ↗ a flip side when their downtown was

52:33 ↗ being free to you know replanned

52:35 ↗ they went oh my gosh the developer's

52:37 ↗ saying if we put an affordability

52:38 ↗ requirement

52:40 ↗ they'll not have anything happen so they

52:42 ↗ wrote their rules a little bit

52:43 ↗ differently and now it's going

52:45 ↗ gangbusters in downtown Kirkland there's

52:47 ↗ no affordability

52:48 ↗ and they have no ability to go back

52:50 ↗ later and say wait a minute we should

52:52 ↗ have asked for some affordability

52:53 ↗ because of the way zoning works it would

52:57 ↗ now be considered the taking to go back

52:58 ↗ and say we gave you something back in

52:59 ↗ the mid 90s and geez we didn't get how

53:02 ↗ hot this Market would get so we want to

53:04 ↗ go back now and ask for some

53:05 ↗ affordability because we changed types

53:07 ↗ both cities did the same thing increased

53:09 ↗ Heights

53:10 ↗ one said ah it's going to Kill Devil the

53:13 ↗ first the first guys are going to get

53:15 ↗ killed so we're not going to do it the

53:17 ↗ second one said okay that might be true

53:20 ↗ we'll just make it easier for them but

53:21 ↗ then it'll automatically kick in

53:23 ↗ and that works legally to do that

53:25 ↗ and have you seen aside from you know

53:28 ↗ the program that Kirkland's trying

53:30 ↗ anything outside of East King County

53:31 ↗ Seattle or South King

53:34 ↗ um or even anything that's been

53:37 ↗ happening within your purview Nationwide

53:39 ↗ if you've seen it you see a lot more of

53:41 ↗ this stuff in California which is

53:43 ↗ happened to be where I came from

53:46 ↗ um Seattle what they've done that's why

53:49 ↗ I mentioned the layering approach

53:50 ↗ Seattle has a very

53:53 ↗ very vibrant

53:55 ↗ property tax exemption program

53:58 ↗ and they're starting to do land use

53:59 ↗ incentive programs but I'm not sure I've

54:02 ↗ been reading all their materials I don't

54:04 ↗ think they've thought to layer them

54:06 ↗ together

54:07 ↗ so the affordability requirements are 65

54:10 ↗ to 85 percent of median for the

54:12 ↗ multi-family tax exemption and there are

54:14 ↗ 80 percent of median for the land use

54:16 ↗ and I don't think they ever I haven't

54:18 ↗ seen it and I've read all the reports

54:19 ↗ and I'm trying to find out from did they

54:21 ↗ ever think they go but what if there's a

54:22 ↗ place that's using both tools at the

54:24 ↗ same time

54:25 ↗ did is are you going to account for that

54:27 ↗ somehow and saying well wait a minute

54:29 ↗ you you in this neighborhood your

54:31 ↗ multi-family tax extension you got to be

54:33 ↗ down another five ten percent of media

54:35 ↗ because you're already getting something

54:36 ↗ else

54:37 ↗ so I haven't seen it

54:39 ↗ um and but you have I have seen it more

54:42 ↗ in California where they will set

54:45 ↗ um requirements for land use incentives

54:47 ↗ or requirements for new developments as

54:49 ↗ low as 50

54:50 ↗ I'm not quite sure how they do that

54:52 ↗ because it takes other subsidies to make

54:54 ↗ that happen and and I think I could go

54:57 ↗ into a lot more and explain why I think

54:58 ↗ they did it but they're sort of trying

55:01 ↗ to make some Partnerships happen to use

55:03 ↗ some financing that was available and so

55:06 ↗ they said we don't care if our

55:08 ↗ incentives don't provide enough value

55:10 ↗ because there's something over there

55:12 ↗ that we just want people to use so we're

55:15 ↗ going to set our requirements at a level

55:16 ↗ that requires you to almost go use that

55:19 ↗ other resource are there any programs

55:21 ↗ within King County HUD that maybe

55:25 ↗ provides

55:27 ↗ I don't know Grant programs not the

55:29 ↗ right word but something outside of

55:30 ↗ Section 8 they could that could be an

55:32 ↗ additional layer in these well we've

55:34 ↗ that's

55:36 ↗ that's here

55:38 ↗ um the cities have one of the unique

55:41 ↗ things the cities have done is a Housing

55:42 ↗ Trust Fund where they share resources

55:46 ↗ and in the report there's information on

55:48 ↗ that the resources from the cities that

55:51 ↗ help fund these almost well about 3 000

55:54 ↗ units

55:56 ↗ about 15 or less of the money for those

55:59 ↗ developments came from cities

56:01 ↗ another equal amount came from the

56:03 ↗ County Housing fund another equal amount

56:06 ↗ came from a state housing fund and the

56:08 ↗ other 45 to 60 percent came from private

56:11 ↗ sources or some federal loan programs so

56:15 ↗ we're using our resources to bring in

56:18 ↗ people who are able to bring in all

56:21 ↗ those other resources otherwise this

56:23 ↗ unit count for the dollars we put in

56:24 ↗ would be a quarter of that number

56:28 ↗ okay and my only my only thought there

56:30 ↗ was you know for taking all those

56:32 ↗ resources federal state county and

56:35 ↗ whatever private programs exist and then

56:37 ↗ combining them with these incentives we

56:40 ↗ may be able to leverage those dollars to

56:42 ↗ make them go further

56:43 ↗ that is something we're trying to talk

56:46 ↗ about with communities as new

56:48 ↗ communities look at these kind of

56:49 ↗ programs is can we use this to try to

56:52 ↗ trigger some other sources that are out

56:55 ↗ there to be layered with your right land

56:57 ↗ use incentives or other incentives so

56:58 ↗ it's exactly the great point and it's

57:00 ↗ something we're trying to figure out how

57:02 ↗ to do more of

57:07 ↗ no

57:11 ↗ um

57:12 ↗ I don't think any of the affordable

57:14 ↗ housing can be built without incentives

57:16 ↗ and they have to be specific and and

57:19 ↗ pretty darn good

57:22 ↗ um I don't particularly think it's a

57:26 ↗ whole lot of the value to build a big

57:27 ↗ complex and have two or three affordable

57:30 ↗ housing units in there you know you need

57:33 ↗ more than that in order to to get to

57:36 ↗ that 24 percent

57:38 ↗ what concerns me is you get the Builder

57:43 ↗ gets the incentive and he builds the

57:45 ↗ house but because

57:47 ↗ he has the low in the affordable housing

57:50 ↗ units that he raises the rent or the

57:53 ↗ price of the other units which makes

57:56 ↗ medium to low-income housing more

58:00 ↗ expensive okay so are there restrictions

58:03 ↗ on on that when you see

58:07 ↗ I'm kind of glad you brought that up

58:09 ↗ because it's one of my major pet peeves

58:12 ↗ put on your common sense hats and ask is

58:15 ↗ that really true I don't know it did

58:18 ↗ okay so I'm going to give you some

58:19 ↗ stories to maybe help you see and decide

58:22 ↗ whether or not you think that's true

58:23 ↗ because you will hear that I've heard it

58:25 ↗ for 30 years I'm a former developer so

58:28 ↗ one of my stories is I had a project

58:32 ↗ we were working on a lot of community

58:34 ↗ opposition we had half market rate half

58:36 ↗ affordable all ownership even there's

58:38 ↗ just some affordable condos and some

58:40 ↗ single-family homes and neighbors

58:42 ↗ weren't happy because it was big and

58:44 ↗ they didn't want the traffic Etc

58:46 ↗ so we got delayed we had got all ready

58:49 ↗ to get all our approvals we had all our

58:51 ↗ budgets figured out

58:52 ↗ and so we knew what we had to sell the

58:54 ↗ homes for for the project to work

58:57 ↗ it was a long time ago so maybe two

58:58 ↗ hundred thousand dollars for home

59:01 ↗ and because of who we were something

59:04 ↗ happened and we agreed to something that

59:06 ↗ caused the one-year delay in our start

59:07 ↗ of construction of the project to go

59:09 ↗ through more neighborhood process we

59:11 ↗ didn't have to but we agreed to

59:13 ↗ our costs went up during that year 5000

59:15 ↗ a unit

59:17 ↗ the market went up 20 000 a unit did we

59:20 ↗ sell the homes for 205 000 or 220 000.

59:27 ↗ before 220 because people would pay it

59:30 ↗ people who are buying or renting don't

59:33 ↗ give it they don't care what your costs

59:34 ↗ were why do you think so many Builders

59:36 ↗ went under the last five years when the

59:38 ↗ market went down they couldn't say my

59:40 ↗ very first job was in in this industry

59:44 ↗ was in 1974 mowing lawns for a local

59:46 ↗ realtor Builder who had two

59:48 ↗ single-family homes in my neighborhood

59:49 ↗ had been sitting on for nine months in

59:51 ↗ 1974. the oil embargo period and he

59:54 ↗ finally goes as helped mow the lawn and

59:56 ↗ he says I gotta unload these things I'm

59:57 ↗ going to lose 20 000 a unit but I got to

59:59 ↗ unload them because I can't hold them

1:00:00 ↗ anymore so I'm just going to get what I

1:00:02 ↗ can get and move on in life

1:00:04 ↗ Builders take the risk of trying to

1:00:08 ↗ figure out what the market will be at

1:00:10 ↗ when they're done and work backwards to

1:00:12 ↗ decide how much they will pay for land

1:00:13 ↗ if they get it wrong they can't just

1:00:16 ↗ tell consumers you pay me more

1:00:19 ↗ you don't influence the final price

1:00:21 ↗ point based on your actual costs you

1:00:24 ↗ will get whatever the market will pay

1:00:26 ↗ you whether or not it's more than your

1:00:27 ↗ cost or less than your costs

1:00:30 ↗ now supply and demand can have effects

1:00:32 ↗ so if a city cuts Supply like crazy and

1:00:34 ↗ there's a lot of job growth that will it

1:00:36 ↗ potentially affect that thing but just

1:00:38 ↗ because we're saying you have affordable

1:00:40 ↗ units in your building doesn't mean you

1:00:42 ↗ can transfer that quote cost okay on to

1:00:46 ↗ the consumers of the rest of the

1:00:48 ↗ building

1:00:49 ↗ doesn't work that way

1:00:52 ↗ never has and I don't think it ever will

1:00:59 ↗ sorry I've been hearing Builders say

1:01:01 ↗ that for 25 years and I finally decided

1:01:03 ↗ I'm gonna let's in the last five years I

1:01:05 ↗ think has proven this because it's not

1:01:07 ↗ about raising it they had to lower their

1:01:09 ↗ pricing

1:01:11 ↗ because that's what the consumers would

1:01:13 ↗ do and they didn't keep their product

1:01:15 ↗ off the market they rented for what they

1:01:17 ↗ could get

1:01:18 ↗ and that's why it's such a risky

1:01:20 ↗ business I'm not saying it's not hard

1:01:22 ↗ I'm not saying City should be incredibly

1:01:24 ↗ understanding and understand the

1:01:26 ↗ economics and designing these kind of

1:01:27 ↗ programs because they take a huge amount

1:01:30 ↗ of risk

1:01:31 ↗ okay that's why they want fairly decent

1:01:33 ↗ profit margin they've got to because

1:01:34 ↗ they don't always get what they predict

1:01:36 ↗ right right now the guys who started

1:01:38 ↗ building two years ago

1:01:40 ↗ they're pretty happy

1:01:42 ↗ but the guys who are building right now

1:01:43 ↗ I'm not so sure where they'll be at in

1:01:45 ↗ two years with the rental market

1:01:47 ↗ they don't know for sure

1:01:52 ↗ anybody else

1:01:57 ↗ do you have more

1:01:58 ↗ we were ready to talk policies I guess I

1:02:00 ↗ think we're ready

1:02:02 ↗ thank you so much for another

1:02:04 ↗ outstanding presentation

1:02:07 ↗ and hopefully you all

1:02:11 ↗ learns a lot

1:02:15 ↗ Trish are you going there oh Mike oh I

1:02:18 ↗ think it's Mike we're just here now to

1:02:20 ↗ be a resource for you guys

1:02:22 ↗ okay

1:02:26 ↗ okay then but we're still here

1:02:30 ↗ you don't have a microphone there though

1:02:33 ↗ favorite

1:02:39 ↗ isn't quite how I planned it but okay

1:02:54 ↗ perfect

1:02:59 ↗ so we're doing the housing element first

1:03:01 ↗ yes we are

1:03:08 ↗ hang on

1:03:12 ↗ oh

1:03:13 ↗ foreign

1:03:32 ↗ okay we have the housing element and the

1:03:34 ↗ Human Services element

1:03:36 ↗ what are you doing

1:03:37 ↗ um

1:03:40 ↗ so

1:03:42 ↗ and I

1:03:43 ↗ I'm assuming that you all have read this

1:03:46 ↗ and I don't want to go through every

1:03:49 ↗ piece of it so for example the

1:03:51 ↗ introduction

1:03:52 ↗ so so I would just make one General

1:03:54 ↗ observation so how this is organized how

1:03:57 ↗ you've organized it is and it sort of

1:04:00 ↗ gets at the point I was making earlier

1:04:02 ↗ you can see that one section is just

1:04:04 ↗ basically on neighborhood characters so

1:04:06 ↗ that's the quality of the housing in

1:04:08 ↗ your community and they and this is

1:04:10 ↗ pretty similar to whatever not exactly

1:04:12 ↗ what other cities have done but it's

1:04:13 ↗ pretty common to see cities say we want

1:04:15 ↗ to deal with our quality and our

1:04:17 ↗ neighborhoods and so that's what the

1:04:18 ↗ first section is then you get into

1:04:20 ↗ Supply and affordability in another

1:04:24 ↗ section

1:04:25 ↗ then you get into a section that deals

1:04:28 ↗ with special needs households who need

1:04:30 ↗ something different than just housing in

1:04:33 ↗ order to manage so it's usually persons

1:04:35 ↗ with disabilities and persons who are

1:04:37 ↗ homeless maybe and persons seniors who

1:04:40 ↗ need assistance so that's a very common

1:04:42 ↗ thing to break out again it sort of

1:04:44 ↗ comes out of that needs analysis it's

1:04:45 ↗ pretty logical to have that and then

1:04:48 ↗ there is policies you have one on safety

1:04:50 ↗ that's sort of a unique one for you I

1:04:53 ↗ think it was driven by you have some

1:04:54 ↗ floodplains and things like that in your

1:04:55 ↗ community in steep slopes and then

1:04:58 ↗ Regional your part I've heard a lot of

1:05:00 ↗ the comments maybe about you're part of

1:05:02 ↗ a region and some of the work in the

1:05:03 ↗ area of housing is done through Regional

1:05:06 ↗ conversations and Regional cooperation

1:05:07 ↗ you mentioned the funding right we're

1:05:09 ↗ putting up funds but so is King County

1:05:10 ↗ in the state so especially around the

1:05:13 ↗ funding area there's a lot of everybody

1:05:14 ↗ working together stuff and learning from

1:05:17 ↗ each other and watching what's happening

1:05:19 ↗ on the regional level so those are the

1:05:21 ↗ basic sections

1:05:23 ↗ um and and sort of how they're kind of

1:05:25 ↗ organized so is that sort of is a

1:05:27 ↗ precursor to you going through it can I

1:05:29 ↗ just ask a quick question sure

1:05:31 ↗ um I know the

1:05:33 ↗ economic Vitality put together you the

1:05:37 ↗ uh human resource

1:05:39 ↗ Human Services element who put together

1:05:42 ↗ the housing element is it all put

1:05:43 ↗ together did it was it was a group

1:05:45 ↗ effort it was the four of us

1:05:48 ↗ yes

1:05:49 ↗ many phone conversations

1:05:52 ↗ it's back and forth so so I know

1:05:54 ↗ on emails yes so is the four of us so

1:05:56 ↗ this is a group effort right now right

1:05:57 ↗ and so one of the filters especially

1:05:59 ↗ Mike puts on that we we put on is that

1:06:03 ↗ the people who review housing Elements

1:06:05 ↗ which is psrc and the state they've put

1:06:09 ↗ out a lot of like guidelines of what you

1:06:12 ↗ should address and so we go through all

1:06:14 ↗ of them and we go okay are all the boxes

1:06:16 ↗ getting checked off so that's one of the

1:06:17 ↗ tasks we bring in that process as well

1:06:20 ↗ as

1:06:21 ↗ I've been working in this town almost as

1:06:23 ↗ long as you have right I've been working

1:06:25 ↗ on stuff in Issaquah for 20 plus years

1:06:27 ↗ so we're trying to balance making sure

1:06:29 ↗ you cover your bases but do it in a way

1:06:31 ↗ that's reflective of your community

1:06:35 ↗ okay so we have our uh introduction and

1:06:38 ↗ mention our continued work with Arch

1:06:40 ↗ then

1:06:42 ↗ move on and then we move on to the

1:06:44 ↗ vision Vision preserve and enhance

1:06:46 ↗ neighborhoods while improving housing

1:06:47 ↗ opportunities for the city's diverse

1:06:49 ↗ population and local Workforce

1:06:52 ↗ so I'm just going to kind of go through

1:06:54 ↗ some of these things highlight them and

1:06:55 ↗ see if you have any comments or thoughts

1:06:56 ↗ changes and we'll do what we did with

1:06:58 ↗ the land use element and transportation

1:06:59 ↗ elements and just kind of talk through

1:07:00 ↗ it in here and make changes I think

1:07:02 ↗ it'll be easier tonight

1:07:07 ↗ okay

1:07:08 ↗ all right so we said this that this is

1:07:11 ↗ set up just like the other ones so it

1:07:12 ↗ starts with uh you have goals and

1:07:13 ↗ policies start with the growth

1:07:15 ↗ management act their goals then

1:07:17 ↗ discussions if necessary and then the

1:07:19 ↗ policies

1:07:21 ↗ so Arthur already went through the

1:07:24 ↗ growth management act requirements that

1:07:27 ↗ we have in here in his presentation

1:07:30 ↗ so Neighborhood Housing and neighborhood

1:07:33 ↗ character

1:07:34 ↗ achieve a variety of neighborhoods

1:07:36 ↗ housing types and densities throughout

1:07:38 ↗ the city

1:07:45 ↗ okay

1:07:50 ↗ can I throw in something absolutely one

1:07:53 ↗ piece that we realized we left out of

1:07:55 ↗ this section is monitoring we have a

1:07:59 ↗ monitoring policy for affordable housing

1:08:01 ↗ but we don't have a monitoring policy

1:08:03 ↗ for all of our housing that fell out

1:08:05 ↗ when we put it in the affordable housing

1:08:07 ↗ so that one will get added into the

1:08:10 ↗ first goal goal a and the monitoring

1:08:12 ↗ will be of all of them housing stock

1:08:14 ↗ housing types number of housing units

1:08:16 ↗ rentals and sales that would be the type

1:08:18 ↗ of that would be the information

1:08:19 ↗ included right

1:08:21 ↗ and the monitoring

1:08:25 ↗ you know so that that will be added it's

1:08:27 ↗ not here

1:08:30 ↗ so number one is to maintain that

1:08:32 ↗ maintain the distinct characteristics of

1:08:34 ↗ the existing neighborhoods

1:08:37 ↗ and ensure compatibility with infill

1:08:41 ↗ so how do you take the Central Area plan

1:08:46 ↗ and completely redevelop that and keep

1:08:48 ↗ the character well it's existing

1:08:50 ↗ neighborhoods so I mean there's not

1:08:52 ↗ really an existing housing neighborhood

1:08:54 ↗ in there those are retail thing it's

1:08:57 ↗ going to be a completely different thing

1:08:58 ↗ but if you're going to build in say next

1:09:00 ↗ to

1:09:01 ↗ developments up on squawk Mountain

1:09:03 ↗ that would be where you have existing

1:09:05 ↗ residential neighborhoods where you want

1:09:07 ↗ to maintain the character but Central

1:09:09 ↗ Central is across kind of a blank slate

1:09:11 ↗ I mean things are going to be torn down

1:09:13 ↗ and rebuilt it's a different a different

1:09:15 ↗ environment

1:09:17 ↗ but that's why for Old Town for the

1:09:18 ↗ neighborhoods of Old Town we have design

1:09:20 ↗ standards and bulk kind of Standards so

1:09:25 ↗ that we try and keep the character at

1:09:28 ↗ least the scale and the they don't all

1:09:30 ↗ have to look the same

1:09:31 ↗ but they have to they should try to be

1:09:33 ↗ we're trying to get them to be in the

1:09:35 ↗ same Balkan scale and that kind of thing

1:09:36 ↗ I understand that but you know some of

1:09:39 ↗ the

1:09:40 ↗ the areas consider themselves

1:09:42 ↗ neighborhoods that are already in there

1:09:44 ↗ it's just you know you're going to rip

1:09:46 ↗ them all down and build something

1:09:47 ↗ different they just but the first

1:09:50 ↗ central part too there are standards

1:09:52 ↗ that people have decided you know kind

1:09:54 ↗ of decided what they wanted it to look

1:09:55 ↗ like so we developed standards for

1:09:56 ↗ Central Issaquah and that's what it will

1:09:58 ↗ become

1:10:00 ↗ is is a question because it's something

1:10:04 ↗ like what you say came up in some other

1:10:06 ↗ cities is especially in the area where

1:10:09 ↗ change is planned and they said sort of

1:10:13 ↗ coming well and so we actually tweaked

1:10:16 ↗ the language sum to sort of acknowledge

1:10:18 ↗ that some areas change as planned and

1:10:22 ↗ there's a balancing act between that and

1:10:23 ↗ you're not going to use this policy to

1:10:26 ↗ say to something oh see you can't allow

1:10:29 ↗ this new development because it's not

1:10:30 ↗ going to keep the character and so we

1:10:32 ↗ did a little bit of tweaking of the

1:10:33 ↗ language to make it clear that area is

1:10:35 ↗ planned for growth

1:10:37 ↗ will grow and the thing is that will be

1:10:40 ↗ compatible it isn't you know it's not

1:10:42 ↗ incompatible doesn't mean the same kind

1:10:44 ↗ of thing so I don't know if that's

1:10:45 ↗ something that's in here that's

1:10:48 ↗ specifically called out in here like

1:10:50 ↗ what you just said I'm not sure what I'm

1:10:53 ↗ saying is we had this conversation in

1:10:54 ↗ another city and I remember we ended up

1:10:57 ↗ tweaking the language in that other City

1:10:58 ↗ to so that I'm just trying to see if

1:11:01 ↗ that's the concern you have yeah and if

1:11:03 ↗ so then maybe we can look at the

1:11:04 ↗ language and see if we can tweak that so

1:11:07 ↗ that because I've read this like 12

1:11:08 ↗ times and I didn't see right now right

1:11:11 ↗ yeah it's not in here and that's

1:11:13 ↗ something that should be we'll if you'd

1:11:15 ↗ like we can take as we call out the

1:11:17 ↗ older plots knowing that that's usually

1:11:19 ↗ the place that people want to be

1:11:20 ↗ consistent and compatible with the scale

1:11:22 ↗ that's why the older plants are

1:11:24 ↗ mentioned first

1:11:27 ↗ but not that the new the new stuff like

1:11:30 ↗ Central Issaquah has to look like

1:11:32 ↗ anything that's out there already okay

1:11:34 ↗ we can let me show you like itself

1:11:35 ↗ people can find what we did for that I

1:11:37 ↗ can't remember which city it was but I

1:11:38 ↗ just remember we had that conversation

1:11:40 ↗ yeah remember we're doing this with

1:11:41 ↗ about 10 or 12 cities this summer

1:11:43 ↗ because somebody's going to come back

1:11:44 ↗ and say it says you have to keep this

1:11:46 ↗ and and you know know right yeah right

1:11:49 ↗ okay so we'll see if we can find

1:11:51 ↗ something

1:11:53 ↗ okay

1:11:56 ↗ how did the urban out of the urban

1:11:58 ↗ Villages crank into this

1:12:00 ↗ how do the villages crank into this yeah

1:12:02 ↗ the villages are under there well

1:12:04 ↗ I mean

1:12:05 ↗ I mean they have their own development

1:12:07 ↗ agreements so they have their own

1:12:08 ↗ regulations but they still have to

1:12:10 ↗ comply with the vision of the city which

1:12:12 ↗ is the comprehensive plan

1:12:14 ↗ I don't see them mentioned anywhere in

1:12:16 ↗ here of The Villages themselves

1:12:21 ↗ a couple years ago the council tried to

1:12:25 ↗ told us in our amendments to try not to

1:12:28 ↗ call them out so much because they

1:12:30 ↗ wanted us to be all one city and they

1:12:32 ↗ and so we try not to call them out

1:12:34 ↗ unless it's a specific

1:12:36 ↗ something that's attributable to them or

1:12:39 ↗ that's different about them and so we

1:12:42 ↗ don't say the city and the urban

1:12:43 ↗ villages

1:12:45 ↗ because we used to say that quite often

1:12:47 ↗ when they were new and so maybe that's

1:12:49 ↗ why you're not seeing them we're trying

1:12:50 ↗ to um

1:12:52 ↗ sort of mush everything together when we

1:12:55 ↗ talk about housing or jobs or whatever

1:12:57 ↗ it is is there something that you wanted

1:12:59 ↗ to see them well in a separate way

1:13:02 ↗ when you start picking out Old Town

1:13:05 ↗ overdale squawk Mountain well those are

1:13:07 ↗ the the

1:13:14 ↗ Island's been there a long time now

1:13:15 ↗ they're not new

1:13:17 ↗ so I don't know I I okay

1:13:22 ↗ seems like we're almost

1:13:24 ↗ my opinion we're eliminating them from

1:13:26 ↗ consideration I

1:13:28 ↗ I don't know

1:13:30 ↗ so in other words the comment almost is

1:13:32 ↗ well if we're willing to call us clock

1:13:33 ↗ nape mountain is a neighborhood why

1:13:35 ↗ can't we call out some of the other MPD

1:13:37 ↗ areas as well

1:13:39 ↗ then they'll be like the rest of the

1:13:40 ↗ city

1:13:42 ↗ what is the character of Squirtle

1:13:47 ↗ of overdale lots of trees lots of open

1:13:51 ↗ space around the houses

1:13:53 ↗ it's a professional assistance

1:13:58 ↗ okay

1:14:02 ↗ okay speed bumps yeah

1:14:05 ↗ and you know to Echo that concern we

1:14:09 ↗ talk about neighborhoods specifically

1:14:11 ↗ but maybe if under the Paul the main

1:14:13 ↗ heading of the policy itself we added

1:14:14 ↗ the word neighborhoods and Villages

1:14:16 ↗ under policy A1

1:14:20 ↗ um that may put a little emphasis on the

1:14:22 ↗ villages themselves and allow us to

1:14:25 ↗ maybe even eliminate bullet point a if

1:14:28 ↗ we're making sure that the village

1:14:29 ↗ characteristics are maintained

1:14:48 ↗ who said that Justin did you say that

1:14:50 ↗ yeah that was me Justin sorry

1:14:58 ↗ okay because there's so many policies

1:15:00 ↗ I'm going to say

1:15:04 ↗ policies A2 through A5 I guess I'm

1:15:08 ↗ provide access from every neighborhood

1:15:11 ↗ to the adjacent Trail systems and

1:15:13 ↗ Facilities Parks and Recreation

1:15:14 ↗ facilities

1:15:15 ↗ promote housing different housing types

1:15:17 ↗ lots and sizes row houses

1:15:20 ↗ Lots on smaller than six thousand square

1:15:23 ↗ feet

1:15:24 ↗ encourage plan developments which would

1:15:26 ↗ be the urban villages

1:15:28 ↗ to integrate different housing types and

1:15:30 ↗ densities within these areas

1:15:32 ↗ encourage housing in mixed use areas

1:15:34 ↗ that support pedestrian activity and

1:15:36 ↗ densities that support Transit and

1:15:38 ↗ reduce single occupancy vehicle trips

1:15:41 ↗ promote various

1:15:43 ↗ positive attributes of mixed use housing

1:15:45 ↗ such as focal places plazas pedestrian

1:15:49 ↗ and bike paths access to Transit

1:15:53 ↗ allow building I'm just stop me let me

1:15:56 ↗ go back allow Building height loss and

1:15:59 ↗ lot size flexibility

1:16:01 ↗ and add new higher density housing that

1:16:03 ↗ should be located within walking

1:16:04 ↗ distance of of commercial centers

1:16:06 ↗ transportation services

1:16:09 ↗ and Commercial

1:16:11 ↗ between commercial and lowered into

1:16:12 ↗ single family housing so

1:16:15 ↗ thoughts comments on those so I I just

1:16:18 ↗ working with

1:16:21 ↗ several clients who want a one floor

1:16:24 ↗ condo unit

1:16:26 ↗ there are a lot of one floor condo units

1:16:29 ↗ but why do you want on one floor

1:16:32 ↗ so you don't have to go upstairs

1:16:34 ↗ so all most of the ones in in Issaquah

1:16:38 ↗ are either town homes or if they are one

1:16:40 ↗ story they have outdoor outside steps so

1:16:44 ↗ it eliminates a huge part of the people

1:16:47 ↗ especially the older citizens and so it

1:16:51 ↗ would be nice to somehow encourage

1:16:54 ↗ I don't know how to do that or where to

1:16:56 ↗ put it but you know when you're looking

1:16:58 ↗ at

1:16:59 ↗ at building and and and you know we have

1:17:04 ↗ what's the one calcari is great because

1:17:07 ↗ it has an elevator

1:17:09 ↗ it's still outside units but it has the

1:17:11 ↗ elevator most of the other ones don't so

1:17:14 ↗ that's something you'd really need to

1:17:16 ↗ look at in your so that could be

1:17:19 ↗ something here because it's a form of

1:17:21 ↗ housing

1:17:23 ↗ um if the motivation feels like if it

1:17:26 ↗ falls under special needs it could also

1:17:28 ↗ I think we have a policy about trying to

1:17:30 ↗ do things to make housing

1:17:32 ↗ to a point where Aging in place Etc

1:17:35 ↗ works better for people so it could be

1:17:38 ↗ it so it could it could be anywhere it

1:17:40 ↗ could be just you know the people who

1:17:42 ↗ are in charge of development or whatever

1:17:44 ↗ to really look at that that problem and

1:17:47 ↗ I think it is a problem okay

1:17:49 ↗ um

1:17:50 ↗ are you is that something that you think

1:17:52 ↗ belongs in this section versus I'm

1:17:54 ↗ trying to figure out which subsection we

1:17:55 ↗ should address that pick one I don't

1:17:57 ↗ know I just okay if it could be adjusted

1:18:01 ↗ in there somewhere it would be really

1:18:02 ↗ great

1:18:04 ↗ I just have two comments um one buy all

1:18:08 ↗ of these encouraging policies

1:18:11 ↗ are we discouraging

1:18:15 ↗ single-family housing developments in

1:18:18 ↗ Issaquah is is that

1:18:21 ↗ what we're saying here

1:18:23 ↗ um no I think that's part of the all and

1:18:26 ↗ the having all sorts of types and kinds

1:18:30 ↗ for all different folks and families

1:18:33 ↗ yeah but if you read through these uh

1:18:36 ↗ they're all encouraging dense housing

1:18:41 ↗ multi-family structures

1:18:44 ↗ town homes

1:18:45 ↗ but the very dense housing the very

1:18:47 ↗ first policy that we talked about A1 and

1:18:50 ↗ talks about maintaining the distinct

1:18:52 ↗ characteristics of the existing

1:18:54 ↗ neighborhood of the existing

1:18:55 ↗ neighborhoods which have right the

1:18:57 ↗ existing neighborhoods what what about

1:18:59 ↗ new single family neighborhoods okay

1:19:03 ↗ I don't see that anywhere here in in the

1:19:07 ↗ housing element well if you if you look

1:19:09 ↗ at policy A3 promoting a variety of

1:19:12 ↗ housing types and lot sizes including

1:19:15 ↗ smaller single-family homes on small

1:19:17 ↗ lots and multi-family so it's

1:19:19 ↗ encouraging single-family homes as part

1:19:21 ↗ of that I believe

1:19:23 ↗ we'll never see another neighborhood

1:19:26 ↗ like South Cove we'll never see another

1:19:28 ↗ neighborhood

1:19:30 ↗ um

1:19:34 ↗ so I guess the question is when you look

1:19:37 ↗ at your overall need is that a good or a

1:19:39 ↗ bad thing

1:19:41 ↗ in other words you have a lot of you

1:19:42 ↗ have single family net so when you take

1:19:44 ↗ this is about your increment of what you

1:19:46 ↗ will have in the future and I'm not sure

1:19:48 ↗ what the answer is but some may say

1:19:51 ↗ that's I mean given how much land we do

1:19:54 ↗ or don't have

1:19:55 ↗ and I don't know if the issue is

1:19:56 ↗ ownership or rental and you know because

1:19:59 ↗ one of the things we saw is that even

1:20:02 ↗ though the in East King County the

1:20:06 ↗ amount of new housing was over 50

1:20:10 ↗ percent was multi-family we saw

1:20:13 ↗ ownership rates go from like 60 to 65

1:20:16 ↗ percent

1:20:17 ↗ which implies and I don't know what you

1:20:19 ↗ know it's varied from cities but almost

1:20:21 ↗ half the quote attached housing that's

1:20:23 ↗ being built is owner occupied housing

1:20:25 ↗ now so I'm not sure what the dynamic is

1:20:28 ↗ about saying we need single found more

1:20:30 ↗ single family if you have a lot of

1:20:32 ↗ single family you're trying to make you

1:20:34 ↗ know what's the balance you want when

1:20:35 ↗ you add it all together in the end so I

1:20:37 ↗ would think in asking that question

1:20:38 ↗ don't look at just oh my growth but look

1:20:41 ↗ at what you have

1:20:42 ↗ and say what would we have in the end

1:20:44 ↗ when we have up all the different uses

1:20:46 ↗ and is that a good mix in the end

1:20:49 ↗ I don't think she's looking at condos

1:20:52 ↗ being single family homes just right no

1:20:55 ↗ I know right so I've heard different

1:20:57 ↗ reasons why people say they want

1:20:59 ↗ single-family homes sometimes like

1:21:01 ↗ because we want to keep ownership going

1:21:02 ↗ and say well that's a change

1:21:04 ↗ you may want it from a land use point of

1:21:06 ↗ view then I'd be saying you saw the

1:21:08 ↗ graphic that we showed you that showed

1:21:10 ↗ the cross-section of household types I

1:21:14 ↗ live on a cul-de-sac in Redmond that the

1:21:16 ↗ single family and four of the eight of

1:21:18 ↗ us have no kids at home and do I need my

1:21:21 ↗ three if I could be in that neighborhood

1:21:22 ↗ in a smaller unit or in even a town I

1:21:26 ↗ probably love that okay so that's I

1:21:28 ↗ think the question what I said in the

1:21:29 ↗ very beginning

1:21:31 ↗ yes in the 60s and the 70s single-family

1:21:35 ↗ homes was the Prime minute what we

1:21:37 ↗ thought was the right form of Housing

1:21:38 ↗ and the question now is looking 30 years

1:21:41 ↗ down the road when you add everything

1:21:43 ↗ you have today plus what's in the plans

1:21:45 ↗ what's the right mix and I'm not saying

1:21:47 ↗ maybe you still need more single family

1:21:49 ↗ but some communities in the suburbs are

1:21:52 ↗ saying we need primarily to be other

1:21:54 ↗ forms of housing so we have a balance in

1:21:56 ↗ the end

1:21:57 ↗ and well if you look at the latest

1:21:59 ↗ statistics when a house single family

1:22:04 ↗ house goes up for sale in a neighborhood

1:22:07 ↗ they end up having bidding wars over

1:22:09 ↗ that house right doesn't that tell us

1:22:11 ↗ something

1:22:14 ↗ sure what does that tell us

1:22:17 ↗ an inventory

1:22:18 ↗ that there's a lack of houses for sale

1:22:22 ↗ for people who want single-family homes

1:22:24 ↗ that's what it says to me anyway

1:22:27 ↗ and I'm not sure you wouldn't hear some

1:22:29 ↗ other stories for other profile but

1:22:31 ↗ you're right but also what are the

1:22:34 ↗ prices of those homes too

1:22:36 ↗ increasingly I mean that's that's the

1:22:37 ↗ balancing act you need to sort of look

1:22:39 ↗ at

1:22:40 ↗ and so that's what you as a community

1:22:43 ↗ with all the things all this information

1:22:45 ↗ so I'm not saying right or wrong it may

1:22:47 ↗ be a statement word that is good to

1:22:49 ↗ emphasize

1:22:51 ↗ um

1:22:52 ↗ so I'm just saying think about add

1:22:55 ↗ existing plus new and see what your

1:22:57 ↗ total looks like

1:23:01 ↗ so I I haven't seen in the this is kind

1:23:03 ↗ of changing changing the subject I

1:23:05 ↗ didn't see in the policy here of con

1:23:09 ↗ kind of connection connecting the houses

1:23:11 ↗ to Street frontages

1:23:13 ↗ I think that's important I know there's

1:23:15 ↗ some there's a street I drive down in

1:23:17 ↗ Issaquah that um it's a multi-family

1:23:20 ↗ building and it has absolutely no

1:23:23 ↗ Frontage no connection to the street

1:23:26 ↗ that it's on and you kind of have to get

1:23:29 ↗ around to the entrance and it just it

1:23:31 ↗ just doesn't seem right to me so I don't

1:23:33 ↗ see a policy in here that would suggest

1:23:36 ↗ connecting the building to the street

1:23:41 ↗ that's more of a design standard for

1:23:43 ↗ Builders but we could put it but I think

1:23:46 ↗ it's I think as a policy when it comes

1:23:48 ↗ to achieving a variety of neighborhoods

1:23:50 ↗ just encouraging connectivity of housing

1:23:54 ↗ to the streets

1:23:56 ↗ you're talking specifically about

1:24:00 ↗ vehicular access no because there

1:24:03 ↗ there's a two that talks about

1:24:05 ↗ connecting every neighborhood with

1:24:09 ↗ trails to parks and talk about like that

1:24:12 ↗ street yeah yeah yeah around so when you

1:24:15 ↗ walk out your door I think there should

1:24:18 ↗ you should have some connection to the

1:24:21 ↗ street well there's a eight higher

1:24:24 ↗ density housing now this doesn't address

1:24:25 ↗ single family but higher density housing

1:24:28 ↗ should be walkable to Commercial Center

1:24:30 ↗ Services

1:24:31 ↗ you're talking about specific building

1:24:33 ↗ designs yeah I mean like the old town

1:24:35 ↗ all those buildings front a street right

1:24:38 ↗ and they have an alley in the back and I

1:24:40 ↗ yeah

1:24:42 ↗ kind of

1:24:44 ↗ so

1:24:46 ↗ I have a proposed solution up there but

1:24:49 ↗ promote various positive attributes of

1:24:52 ↗ mixed-use housing such as focal places

1:24:54 ↗ private or public connections to the

1:24:55 ↗ street pedestrian and bike paths yes

1:24:57 ↗ access to Transit and public Outdoors

1:25:00 ↗ try and clarify that how's that look

1:25:02 ↗ yeah yeah just somewhere I mean it's not

1:25:05 ↗ I just think something that I think will

1:25:08 ↗ this the neighborhoods that we really

1:25:10 ↗ like and what really make Issaquah

1:25:12 ↗ Issaquah are those

1:25:14 ↗ neighborhoods that connect that have

1:25:17 ↗ buildings that connect to the street

1:25:24 ↗ flying by the seat of our pants right

1:25:25 ↗ here we'll make it prettier later okay

1:25:28 ↗ all right

1:25:30 ↗ are we good with those

1:25:32 ↗ um

1:25:33 ↗ I think this is where we ended

1:25:35 ↗ new

1:25:37 ↗ nope

1:25:38 ↗ ensure that the city's programs

1:25:40 ↗ regulations and Landis practices provide

1:25:42 ↗ equal access for people of recognized

1:25:44 ↗ protected classes

1:25:46 ↗ encourage Energy Efficiency and other

1:25:48 ↗ sustainability sustainability measures

1:25:52 ↗ and support and encourage Innovative and

1:25:54 ↗ creating creative Housing Solutions to

1:25:56 ↗ meet issaquah's needs for affordability

1:25:58 ↗ and diversity for a variety of household

1:26:00 ↗ sizes income types and ages going back

1:26:03 ↗ to 810 sustainability

1:26:07 ↗ um

1:26:08 ↗ I'd maybe want to see a sustainability

1:26:10 ↗ and conservation measures so making sure

1:26:14 ↗ that we're upcycling recycling in the

1:26:17 ↗ process where we are as opposed to just

1:26:18 ↗ looking at energy and other

1:26:20 ↗ sustainability issues

1:26:22 ↗ okay

1:26:24 ↗ anything else on those three

1:26:31 ↗ okay

1:26:33 ↗ last two in this section Provo promote

1:26:36 ↗ the development of accessory dwelling

1:26:37 ↗ units within new and existing

1:26:39 ↗ single-family developments and explore

1:26:41 ↗ opportunities to promote adus

1:26:43 ↗ and encourage individual homeowners to

1:26:45 ↗ reinvest in their homes by providing

1:26:47 ↗ information and referrals to other

1:26:49 ↗ appropriate agencies such as the King

1:26:51 ↗ County home repair program

1:26:58 ↗ moving on

1:27:01 ↗ all right

1:27:03 ↗ you're right Joan it's much quieter

1:27:05 ↗ um housing Supply and affordability

1:27:09 ↗ realize livable ownership and Rental

1:27:11 ↗ opportunity

1:27:12 ↗ opportunities

1:27:14 ↗ throughout the city for households of

1:27:16 ↗ all income levels through the promotion

1:27:17 ↗ and preservation of affordable housing

1:27:29 ↗ Arthur went over these numbers with Hugh

1:27:34 ↗ in the discussion

1:27:35 ↗ so it

1:27:37 ↗ comes out to the city would be aiming

1:27:40 ↗ for 12 percent of the very low income 12

1:27:43 ↗ percent low income and 16 percent of

1:27:46 ↗ moderate income are used to be 17 and 29

1:27:48 ↗ 29 and 17 percent so it just changed it

1:27:51 ↗ up a little bit right and just to sort

1:27:53 ↗ of clarify a little bit here because

1:27:55 ↗ where there was a change in the Conway

1:27:56 ↗ policies is that's what you're trying to

1:28:00 ↗ get to

1:28:01 ↗ and it's sort of like

1:28:03 ↗ and the reason we took this approach is

1:28:05 ↗ now understanding how the whole County

1:28:06 ↗ works is there are some areas like in

1:28:08 ↗ South King County where housing is a lot

1:28:09 ↗ more affordable where they were saying

1:28:12 ↗ we already have a percentage of housing

1:28:14 ↗ probably have close to 20 25 affordable

1:28:17 ↗ to low income so as we grow why do we

1:28:20 ↗ have to do even more we've already got a

1:28:22 ↗ lot our issue isn't about creating more

1:28:25 ↗ it's about taking good care of all that

1:28:27 ↗ we have a lot of low-income people and

1:28:29 ↗ they're in very poor condition housing

1:28:30 ↗ so maybe for us it's about preserving

1:28:32 ↗ what we have and making it more

1:28:34 ↗ affordable like get it down to 30

1:28:35 ↗ percent of median not about just take a

1:28:37 ↗ growth number and automatically say

1:28:39 ↗ that's how much new we have to do and so

1:28:42 ↗ it was a recognition that whereas in

1:28:43 ↗ East King County our percentages in all

1:28:46 ↗ the cities are much below that and it

1:28:48 ↗ sort of was a way and this is where I

1:28:49 ↗ made the comment about tailoring your

1:28:52 ↗ efforts to your circumstances so in

1:28:54 ↗ South County their emphasis might be not

1:28:57 ↗ about growing the supply but making

1:28:59 ↗ what's their better condition more

1:29:01 ↗ affordable to the incomes and focusing

1:29:04 ↗ more in that philosophy where with us

1:29:06 ↗ it's about trying to grow The Pie as

1:29:08 ↗ well you know so we should look at like

1:29:10 ↗ new opportunities as in addition to

1:29:13 ↗ preservation preservation is a good

1:29:14 ↗ approach we can use too but we need to

1:29:17 ↗ think given the context of what our

1:29:19 ↗ communities currently are at so that's

1:29:21 ↗ so this is sort of saying based on what

1:29:23 ↗ your numbers look like compared to this

1:29:25 ↗ it gives you an idea of the kind of

1:29:27 ↗ strategies you should pursue to try to

1:29:29 ↗ get closer to that number but you're not

1:29:31 ↗ going to be oh you're you didn't get

1:29:32 ↗ your 5 000 units so you're wrong it's

1:29:35 ↗ did you use all the tools in your power

1:29:37 ↗ to try to get to that given your

1:29:40 ↗ constraints in your community

1:29:41 ↗ okay economic or otherwise so did you

1:29:44 ↗ ever discuss putting timetables on any

1:29:47 ↗ you know reaching a certain level so

1:29:49 ↗ that uh you know the city is actually

1:29:51 ↗ working and striving to reach those

1:29:54 ↗ goals so like

1:29:59 ↗ so the idea is that like at least every

1:30:02 ↗ five years you update your data we'll

1:30:04 ↗ actually get on a very regular basis

1:30:06 ↗ what's your overall so that's where

1:30:08 ↗ we'll do and if you look at the needs

1:30:10 ↗ analysis we'll be doing two levels of

1:30:13 ↗ work we have for a long time and we will

1:30:14 ↗ continue one is what's the overall

1:30:17 ↗ affordability of housing in your

1:30:19 ↗ community

1:30:20 ↗ okay so that's the first test and then

1:30:23 ↗ the second is we'll keep doing those

1:30:25 ↗ what's the affordability of the new

1:30:26 ↗ market what incentives have you used

1:30:29 ↗ what is your what have you done with

1:30:31 ↗ funding land donate whatever you're

1:30:33 ↗ doing so that we can document for the

1:30:36 ↗ cities it's kind of like now there's a

1:30:39 ↗ list of strategies and you're going to

1:30:40 ↗ see that you have one now a strategy

1:30:42 ↗ plan and if you're a city that says

1:30:45 ↗ we're just not going to do that we're

1:30:47 ↗ not going to allow accessory dwelling

1:30:48 ↗ units we don't like them

1:30:49 ↗ forget state law for me we don't like

1:30:52 ↗ them

1:30:53 ↗ and and you have numbers like your

1:30:55 ↗ cities numbers

1:30:57 ↗ then somebody might come in you can say

1:30:58 ↗ wait a minute

1:31:00 ↗ you're not even closer why aren't you

1:31:01 ↗ allowing accessible give us a reason why

1:31:03 ↗ you're not doing something

1:31:05 ↗ because if you did accessory dwelling

1:31:07 ↗ units you'd be creating more

1:31:08 ↗ affordability opportunities so when we

1:31:10 ↗ get to the strategy plan which we'll

1:31:11 ↗ talk about later

1:31:13 ↗ that's where you take these ideas and

1:31:16 ↗ what you've learned from your needs

1:31:17 ↗ assessment and say okay what things

1:31:18 ↗ should we attempt to do

1:31:20 ↗ and it may not get you exactly to your

1:31:22 ↗ number because but you'll say we should

1:31:26 ↗ look at this strategy really hard and we

1:31:27 ↗ better have a reason not to use it

1:31:29 ↗ because of where our numbers are at

1:31:31 ↗ so is this strategy plan you're talking

1:31:33 ↗ about in addition to this or is it

1:31:35 ↗ something that you put together every

1:31:37 ↗ year

1:31:38 ↗ or five years whatever there we go

1:31:42 ↗ the the big the big problem I have with

1:31:44 ↗ this is the words promote encourage

1:31:47 ↗ cooperate right it's like

1:31:50 ↗ what is that mean to promote I mean what

1:31:54 ↗ is the city going to do actually to do

1:31:56 ↗ that

1:31:57 ↗ and that's where I'm saying that for the

1:31:59 ↗ strategy plan comes into play and your

1:32:01 ↗ actions come into play The Dilemma that

1:32:03 ↗ we have in this country and dealing with

1:32:06 ↗ housing is very little of it is built by

1:32:09 ↗ you

1:32:10 ↗ so you've been asked to plan for it and

1:32:12 ↗ try to make it happen but you don't

1:32:13 ↗ create it and you don't own it you don't

1:32:15 ↗ operate it you don't right you don't

1:32:16 ↗ Finance it or you do a little bit I mean

1:32:18 ↗ we solve some of that and we would you

1:32:22 ↗ know so there are and so we have

1:32:24 ↗ generally a market driven housing market

1:32:27 ↗ economy and there's a lot of

1:32:30 ↗ complexities what if interest rates

1:32:32 ↗ change you can't affect it right we had

1:32:34 ↗ interest rates I mentioned 74. interest

1:32:37 ↗ rates went through the roof because we

1:32:38 ↗ had an oil issue going on in this

1:32:40 ↗ country so that's what we mean and so

1:32:43 ↗ what we've always told cities for years

1:32:44 ↗ and this is why we say the strategy plan

1:32:46 ↗ is very important because this is where

1:32:48 ↗ you can list these are all the things we

1:32:49 ↗ could do

1:32:51 ↗ and you start saying okay we tried all

1:32:53 ↗ these things

1:32:54 ↗ and if you've tried them and they

1:32:56 ↗ haven't worked then you go back and you

1:32:58 ↗ say Why didn't it work did we design it

1:33:00 ↗ wrong did we put too many constraints or

1:33:02 ↗ is it the market conditions just made it

1:33:04 ↗ impossible to work

1:33:06 ↗ the one city I've seen who was brought

1:33:08 ↗ forth into the courts

1:33:10 ↗ under GMA

1:33:12 ↗ that was sort of the test the courts

1:33:14 ↗ used

1:33:15 ↗ was

1:33:16 ↗ they looked at their numbers but they

1:33:18 ↗ weren't concerned with the absolute

1:33:19 ↗ numbers they looked at the numbers

1:33:21 ↗ relative to their goals and then they

1:33:23 ↗ said what have you been doing to try to

1:33:25 ↗ make your numbers better

1:33:26 ↗ have you used all the different

1:33:28 ↗ strategies a city like yours could be

1:33:30 ↗ expected to use and so what we're

1:33:32 ↗ telling cities is

1:33:34 ↗ almost all of our members you better

1:33:36 ↗ look at the full list

1:33:38 ↗ and you better have reasons to or not to

1:33:41 ↗ use them and if you don't that's

1:33:43 ↗ potentially fine

1:33:44 ↗ but have a reason why you say that tool

1:33:47 ↗ is inappropriate so if someone ever

1:33:48 ↗ comes and challenges you and says you're

1:33:50 ↗ not at your percentage and they use the

1:33:51 ↗ growth management act then you're in a

1:33:53 ↗ position to say well here's all and

1:33:55 ↗ that's what this city did who was

1:33:56 ↗ brought to the courts here's all the

1:33:57 ↗ things we tried to do and the court said

1:33:59 ↗ okay you're really giving it as you know

1:34:03 ↗ do more but okay you're at least

1:34:05 ↗ defensible

1:34:07 ↗ so this is where trying to layer my

1:34:09 ↗ experience of how GMA actually plays

1:34:11 ↗ itself out

1:34:12 ↗ against this here so this is more

1:34:14 ↗ guidance on helping steer your ship and

1:34:18 ↗ how aggressive and how broad strategies

1:34:20 ↗ you need to make so I have two quick

1:34:23 ↗ things one is that um the one of the

1:34:26 ↗ council's 2015 goals was for us to do an

1:34:28 ↗ annual monitoring report for affordable

1:34:30 ↗ housing so that will happen annually as

1:34:33 ↗ part of this another thing is way back

1:34:36 ↗ in the beginning when we started talking

1:34:37 ↗ about the comprehensive plan and we

1:34:39 ↗ talked about we started with the landing

1:34:40 ↗ settlement we went over goals policies

1:34:42 ↗ and implementation goal is I want to

1:34:43 ↗ lose weight policies are change diet

1:34:45 ↗ plan exercise more and the

1:34:47 ↗ implementation piece of that is get down

1:34:51 ↗ to the really specific things like

1:34:52 ↗ you're saying the action items not just

1:34:54 ↗ encourage or promote but the action

1:34:55 ↗ items that can be changed more regularly

1:34:59 ↗ in your strategic plan so with each of

1:35:03 ↗ these elements we you may notice at the

1:35:05 ↗ bottom there's implementation and that's

1:35:07 ↗ that's the more that's the how you're

1:35:09 ↗ actually going to do it if they don't

1:35:10 ↗ think that they have to meet this in

1:35:12 ↗ three years right it's not going to be

1:35:14 ↗ done in three years because that's the

1:35:16 ↗ way government works things come up this

1:35:18 ↗ happens things aren't put together in

1:35:19 ↗ the right way right that's all I'm

1:35:21 ↗ getting at okay okay

1:35:25 ↗ um and and we're hoping actually because

1:35:27 ↗ we said there's this process that we're

1:35:29 ↗ creating you know evaluate create

1:35:32 ↗ monitor react

1:35:34 ↗ okay that wasn't in the old county-wide

1:35:36 ↗ planning policies

1:35:37 ↗ and we had goals we had very black and

1:35:40 ↗ white goals the last 20 years

1:35:42 ↗ right we're hoping that by defining the

1:35:44 ↗ process you were expected to use and

1:35:46 ↗ what you're supposed to do that

1:35:47 ↗ absolutely right that's the hope

1:35:50 ↗ and so yeah that um Arthur called today

1:35:53 ↗ and said where's the plant where's the

1:35:55 ↗ policy that says you're going to have a

1:35:56 ↗ strategy plan I said it's in there and

1:35:57 ↗ you said it's not and I said but it is

1:35:58 ↗ we went back and forth we left it out so

1:36:00 ↗ that's another one that's going to go

1:36:01 ↗ back in here yeah

1:36:03 ↗ so

1:36:05 ↗ um okay

1:36:07 ↗ I need to move through this kind of

1:36:08 ↗ quickly sort of I don't want to skip

1:36:10 ↗ anything though

1:36:11 ↗ uh B1 develop plans and strategies to

1:36:14 ↗ address issaquah's proportionate amount

1:36:16 ↗ of the county-wide need

1:36:19 ↗ B2 promote affordable housing throughout

1:36:21 ↗ the community

1:36:23 ↗ three encourage adaptive reuse of

1:36:25 ↗ suitable buildings and repair and

1:36:27 ↗ Rehabilitation of existing affordable

1:36:28 ↗ units

1:36:29 ↗ any thoughts comments on those three

1:36:35 ↗ okay

1:36:37 ↗ next three

1:36:39 ↗ cooperate with non-profit organizations

1:36:41 ↗ and Regional efforts to get more

1:36:43 ↗ affordable housing monitor strategy

1:36:48 ↗ and develop strategies yes monitor which

1:36:51 ↗ we've talked about and consider the

1:36:52 ↗ impacts

1:36:53 ↗ that changes to land use development

1:36:55 ↗ capacity will have on the city's overall

1:36:57 ↗ ability

1:36:58 ↗ to achieve a jobs housing balance

1:37:03 ↗ are we good

1:37:05 ↗ okay

1:37:08 ↗ goal C encourage the development of

1:37:10 ↗ affordable housing through incentives

1:37:12 ↗ and by removing regulatory barriers

1:37:14 ↗ which is something Arthur talked about

1:37:16 ↗ in his presentation

1:37:19 ↗ consider acquiring affordable housing

1:37:22 ↗ when evaluating rezones

1:37:25 ↗ offer a variety of incentives

1:37:29 ↗ under C2 I do have some suggested edits

1:37:32 ↗ there okay we talk about lot coverages

1:37:35 ↗ fees density parking building Dimensions

1:37:39 ↗ but I'd like to see added in their tax

1:37:42 ↗ incentives and then also a possibility

1:37:46 ↗ of subsidization using external funds or

1:37:50 ↗ Regional funds which I get to under C5

1:37:53 ↗ as well use local and then increase that

1:37:55 ↗ to Regional and national resources to

1:37:58 ↗ make sure that we're capturing all the

1:38:00 ↗ available monies available to us

1:38:03 ↗ to do that

1:38:04 ↗ so C2 and C5

1:38:25 ↗ so yeah under C5 would be local Regional

1:38:28 ↗ and national resources sorry yeah

1:38:36 ↗ okay

1:38:44 ↗ okay

1:38:49 ↗ all right

1:38:50 ↗ um

1:38:51 ↗ allow affordable housing sites to be

1:38:52 ↗ receiving sites for transfer development

1:38:54 ↗ rights

1:38:56 ↗ to assist with the development of

1:38:57 ↗ additional uses

1:38:59 ↗ that would support affordable housing we

1:39:01 ↗ just talked about the using local and

1:39:03 ↗ Regional and national resources to

1:39:06 ↗ leverage other Public Funding and

1:39:08 ↗ private funding

1:39:09 ↗ C6 give priority to affordable housing

1:39:12 ↗ on Surplus public purpose city-owned

1:39:13 ↗ land

1:39:14 ↗ if it is suitable for housing

1:39:18 ↗ um

1:39:19 ↗ ensure that affordable housing achieved

1:39:22 ↗ through public incentives or assistance

1:39:23 ↗ remains affordable for the longest term

1:39:25 ↗ possible currently pardon me what does

1:39:28 ↗ that mean longest term positive there

1:39:30 ↗ are covenants that are attached to

1:39:31 ↗ affordable housing units and I think the

1:39:34 ↗ longest they can go is 50 years no no

1:39:36 ↗ but ownership is a little different than

1:39:39 ↗ um rental so the reason we don't just

1:39:41 ↗ say 75 years or life of the building

1:39:44 ↗ rental we've gone life of the building

1:39:46 ↗ often but ownership we've had to

1:39:48 ↗ sometimes go 30 or 50 years because of

1:39:51 ↗ the financing world okay

1:39:58 ↗ um

1:40:00 ↗ maintain an adequate supply of

1:40:03 ↗ appropriately zoned land to accommodate

1:40:05 ↗ the projected housing needs and existing

1:40:07 ↗ housing needs

1:40:10 ↗ inch

1:40:15 ↗ ensure that regulations and processing

1:40:17 ↗ requirements are reasonable and make

1:40:19 ↗ sure that you're efficient what does

1:40:21 ↗ reasonable mean make sure that you're uh

1:40:25 ↗ that there's no

1:40:26 ↗ excessive unnecessary waiting for an

1:40:30 ↗ applicant

1:40:31 ↗ that everything that you're doing you're

1:40:33 ↗ doing

1:40:34 ↗ efficiently and doing what needs to be

1:40:36 ↗ done without taking more time than is

1:40:37 ↗ necessary but affordable housing when

1:40:40 ↗ they come into the city they act they

1:40:42 ↗ get priority review

1:40:44 ↗ their projects too

1:40:50 ↗ so that

1:40:54 ↗ I guess it's a I guess it's a definition

1:40:56 ↗ thing it seems too fuzzy to me I'm not

1:41:00 ↗ sure what that means reasonable to me

1:41:04 ↗ as a developer

1:41:07 ↗ may not be reasonable to the

1:41:10 ↗ neighborhood

1:41:11 ↗ that the development's going into

1:41:15 ↗ what would you like to say yeah I I

1:41:17 ↗ don't know I

1:41:19 ↗ did you like her description of what it

1:41:22 ↗ meant

1:41:31 ↗ I would almost say it may be a better

1:41:34 ↗ um

1:41:35 ↗ wording would be efficient and

1:41:36 ↗ streamlined

1:41:39 ↗ um so it kind of emphasizes that cutting

1:41:41 ↗ the red tape

1:41:44 ↗ and efficiencies I I know the same

1:41:46 ↗ problem you know one of the big problems

1:41:48 ↗ we have in law is reasonable is whatever

1:41:49 ↗ 13 people think it is that's right and

1:41:53 ↗ I'm not sure substituting you know

1:41:55 ↗ efficient

1:41:57 ↗ I don't I don't know

1:42:00 ↗ I think that would at least give a

1:42:01 ↗ pointer though if that's what we're

1:42:03 ↗ looking at as far as what what we're

1:42:05 ↗ aiming for with reasonableness

1:42:08 ↗ I think the only way to get rid of

1:42:10 ↗ ambiguity like on you know like

1:42:13 ↗ reasonable says is you have to you have

1:42:15 ↗ to give it some measurable constraint

1:42:17 ↗ and I don't know if Carl if that's what

1:42:19 ↗ you're looking for but I don't think in

1:42:22 ↗ this type of document we can say within

1:42:24 ↗ three months within six months or

1:42:26 ↗ whatever I go on the land use code right

1:42:29 ↗ and the state and the state does say the

1:42:31 ↗ state does have requirements and we

1:42:33 ↗ actually

1:42:34 ↗ try to not beat those but

1:42:37 ↗ do better than that so is that maybe a

1:42:41 ↗ thing to do is that regulations and

1:42:42 ↗ permit processing meter exceed the state

1:42:45 ↗ requirements related to time timeliness

1:42:48 ↗ Etc you know something that references

1:42:50 ↗ that state law okay

1:42:52 ↗ certainly specific

1:42:54 ↗ I don't like more efficient

1:42:57 ↗ you don't like efficient well it's just

1:42:59 ↗ me whatever I was just throwing them out

1:43:01 ↗ streamline meat seeds

1:43:04 ↗ I don't know if I got an answer I just

1:43:05 ↗ didn't like the term reasonable

1:43:10 ↗ this is I think is better okay

1:43:16 ↗ okay special needs housing

1:43:18 ↗ achieve a cheat were we done there

1:43:20 ↗ sorry

1:43:23 ↗ the other one

1:43:25 ↗ special needs housing achieve housing

1:43:27 ↗ opportunities for residents with

1:43:28 ↗ disabilities or other special housing

1:43:30 ↗ needs

1:43:31 ↗ I'm going to skip over the discussion

1:43:35 ↗ allows you could put the one level

1:43:37 ↗ condos or one level as an example maybe

1:43:40 ↗ I put it up above too okay just for

1:43:43 ↗ regular housing but we could we could

1:43:45 ↗ put it there or here the one level that

1:43:48 ↗ you were talking about in the

1:43:49 ↗ accessibility right goodness bears

1:43:53 ↗ um allow small scale group homes foster

1:43:55 ↗ care facilities and other special needs

1:43:57 ↗ housing in all areas of the city

1:44:00 ↗ consider incentives to developers who

1:44:01 ↗ volunteer to designate a portion of new

1:44:03 ↗ housing or mixed-use developments as

1:44:05 ↗ special needs housing

1:44:07 ↗ support a range of housing options and

1:44:11 ↗ services to move homeless persons and

1:44:12 ↗ families to long-term Financial

1:44:14 ↗ Independence

1:44:16 ↗ support Regional efforts to prevent

1:44:17 ↗ homelessness and support housing options

1:44:19 ↗ programs and services that allow seniors

1:44:21 ↗ to stay in their homes or neighborhoods

1:44:23 ↗ promote awareness of Universal Design

1:44:25 ↗ improvements that increase housing

1:44:27 ↗ accessibility and that's something that

1:44:28 ↗ came out of Human Services discussion

1:44:31 ↗ as well

1:44:36 ↗ thoughts

1:44:37 ↗ you're waiting and we're not you're not

1:44:40 ↗ you're usually much more talkative I'm

1:44:41 ↗ not used to this

1:44:44 ↗ okay

1:44:45 ↗ all right housing safety

1:44:48 ↗ and then Arthur was right he mentioned

1:44:50 ↗ this one was it's kind of unique but

1:44:52 ↗ it's because of all of our flooding and

1:44:54 ↗ making sure that we can protect the

1:44:55 ↗ existing housing that's there and

1:44:58 ↗ control any new housing that might go

1:45:01 ↗ near the area so how does that new 300

1:45:04 ↗ and some unit complex where Lombardi's

1:45:08 ↗ was

1:45:09 ↗ effect I mean that's the flood plain it

1:45:12 ↗ is and they're I think the design

1:45:15 ↗ standard is permitted the design

1:45:17 ↗ standards per minute

1:45:18 ↗ there are things that they have that

1:45:20 ↗ yeah they're requirements that they have

1:45:21 ↗ to have

1:45:23 ↗ that would I mean I wasn't that involved

1:45:25 ↗ in the project but that you know right

1:45:28 ↗ but the waters go under it's like it's

1:45:30 ↗ like right on Issaquah Creek the same

1:45:32 ↗ idea that the water would go in the

1:45:34 ↗ parking structure versus the homes

1:45:37 ↗ yeah I know it's just yeah yeah

1:45:45 ↗ okay

1:45:47 ↗ yeah

1:45:49 ↗ it's okay if the car gets a little water

1:45:51 ↗ but

1:45:54 ↗ so prohibit new housing within the

1:45:55 ↗ floodway protect property and

1:45:57 ↗ inhabitants of housing that exists

1:45:58 ↗ within the hundred year flood plain and

1:46:01 ↗ Implement implement or support programs

1:46:03 ↗ to move existing homes out of unsafe

1:46:05 ↗ areas

1:46:09 ↗ okay

1:46:10 ↗ Regional resources cooperate with other

1:46:13 ↗ jurisdictions to address our Region's

1:46:15 ↗ housing needs

1:46:18 ↗ uh that's what the first one says work

1:46:21 ↗ to increase the base of both public and

1:46:23 ↗ private dollars on a regional level

1:46:26 ↗ which is something that we do through

1:46:27 ↗ Arch

1:46:29 ↗ cooperate with King County and other

1:46:31 ↗ providers to achieve a geographic

1:46:32 ↗ balance

1:46:34 ↗ support housing legislation at the

1:46:36 ↗ county state and federal levels that

1:46:38 ↗ promote goals and policies of the

1:46:40 ↗ housing element and work with King

1:46:42 ↗ County and other jurisdictions to

1:46:43 ↗ establish GMA targets for jobs and

1:46:44 ↗ housing that seeks to create a jobs

1:46:46 ↗ housing balance

1:46:49 ↗ the only change that I'd like to see is

1:46:51 ↗ to policy F2

1:46:53 ↗ making sure that we're not closing off

1:46:55 ↗ the option for local dollars as well so

1:46:58 ↗ making it available on a local and

1:47:00 ↗ Regional level

1:47:01 ↗ and under F2

1:47:16 ↗ all right

1:47:19 ↗ that is it the housing element

1:47:23 ↗ thank you all

1:47:25 ↗ so just describe the strategy plan oh

1:47:28 ↗ yeah go ahead so the idea is it's sort

1:47:31 ↗ of a evolution of Act of action this is

1:47:34 ↗ your broad map you know document

1:47:37 ↗ then hopefully within a year you know

1:47:40 ↗ when you're done with all the complaint

1:47:42 ↗ and stuff we come back with a strategy

1:47:44 ↗ plan and the idea is is to looking at

1:47:46 ↗ these policies what kind of strategies

1:47:48 ↗ could you work on over the next three to

1:47:50 ↗ five years that would actually start

1:47:52 ↗ making implementing the policies and the

1:47:55 ↗ idea is is that you prioritize them so

1:47:58 ↗ you don't necessarily say these are the

1:47:59 ↗ three we're going to do you have the

1:48:00 ↗ whole list you say these are the top

1:48:02 ↗ priorities here's medium and here's low

1:48:04 ↗ and you start working and you've done a

1:48:07 ↗ lot of things already as I said in the

1:48:08 ↗ past but you go through that exercise

1:48:11 ↗ and that gives us then the city kind of

1:48:15 ↗ a road map of what are the specific

1:48:16 ↗ things we want to work on and then

1:48:19 ↗ you'll and then that will go won't be in

1:48:22 ↗ comp plan but you have a policy that is

1:48:24 ↗ from the comp plan and it will be

1:48:26 ↗ something most cities have the

1:48:27 ↗ commission help create it but then it

1:48:29 ↗ also goes to council for ratification

1:48:30 ↗ and it becomes kind of the city's work

1:48:32 ↗ program for doing then now specific

1:48:35 ↗ areas of activity

1:48:37 ↗ okay so that's sort of how this keeps

1:48:39 ↗ moving forward it helps starts

1:48:41 ↗ translating to some real some real

1:48:43 ↗ activities

1:48:48 ↗ any questions for Arthur or Mike

1:48:52 ↗ oh we have them

1:48:56 ↗ all right thank you

1:49:00 ↗ I want all this done tomorrow

1:49:04 ↗ also there were two letters that I

1:49:07 ↗ forwarded to you all I've sent emails

1:49:10 ↗ from

1:49:11 ↗ um supporting Arch

1:49:13 ↗ and the work that they do and the work

1:49:15 ↗ that we do with Arch

1:49:16 ↗ um did everybody get a hold of those

1:49:19 ↗ um

1:49:23 ↗ thank you art

1:49:26 ↗ thank you

1:49:31 ↗ so I haven't done this this way before

1:49:35 ↗ but this will be great Human Services we

1:49:38 ↗ had a lot of help with this element from

1:49:41 ↗ the Human Services Commission of which

1:49:42 ↗ bill is a member so this will be similar

1:49:45 ↗ to what we did last week with the

1:49:47 ↗ cultural plan that Joan helped us with

1:49:49 ↗ because she's on the Arts commission so

1:49:50 ↗ Bill will help us translate the intent

1:49:53 ↗ of the Human Services Commission when

1:49:55 ↗ they helped us with this I think I was

1:49:57 ↗ there

1:49:58 ↗ at least two or three times the

1:50:00 ↗ beginning of the year with different

1:50:02 ↗ drafts and getting comments and um

1:50:05 ↗ they're a super group we've had them

1:50:10 ↗ just to start out Human Services isn't a

1:50:14 ↗ required element from growth management

1:50:15 ↗ but Issaquah felt very strongly that we

1:50:18 ↗ needed a human services element to pull

1:50:21 ↗ in all those special pieces of the

1:50:24 ↗ community that help our Human Services

1:50:27 ↗ whether it be for food Child Care

1:50:30 ↗ affordable housing

1:50:33 ↗ helping those that are ethnically

1:50:36 ↗ diverse you know second language issues

1:50:39 ↗ so that's where this came in and I think

1:50:42 ↗ we've had this element since okay since

1:50:44 ↗ 1997.

1:50:46 ↗ so we were one of the first I think if

1:50:48 ↗ not the first in the state to have this

1:50:51 ↗ element

1:50:52 ↗ so the vision is we strive to be

1:50:54 ↗ sustainable and healthy Community where

1:50:56 ↗ every person is important and we're

1:50:58 ↗ meeting basic human needs is a shared

1:51:00 ↗ responsibility between individuals in

1:51:03 ↗ the community

1:51:06 ↗ any comments on that

1:51:10 ↗ the basic human needs is the first goal

1:51:13 ↗ create a community in which all members

1:51:15 ↗ have the ability to meet their basic

1:51:17 ↗ physical economic and social needs and

1:51:20 ↗ the opportunity to enhance their quality

1:51:22 ↗ of life

1:51:24 ↗ um this mentions Arch although

1:51:27 ↗ um in the latest draft that went to

1:51:30 ↗ Human Services element

1:51:33 ↗ turn on track changes

1:51:37 ↗ yeah right and that's what I'm trying to

1:51:38 ↗ do in this because I pulled this over

1:51:40 ↗ before track changes

1:51:44 ↗ on

1:51:48 ↗ oh there it is

1:51:50 ↗ um this came I think yesterday I got

1:51:53 ↗ this from David that you had changed

1:51:54 ↗ this and so we didn't have this in the

1:51:56 ↗ draft the reason that they wanted this

1:51:58 ↗ out is because

1:52:00 ↗ um we haven't worked with habitat I

1:52:02 ↗ think for a while I know there's a new

1:52:04 ↗ one though up in the highlands and of

1:52:05 ↗ course there's one right here on Front

1:52:07 ↗ Street

1:52:09 ↗ um but is the rest of the commission

1:52:11 ↗ okay with that with removing the

1:52:12 ↗ reference to Habitat

1:52:15 ↗ anything else you wanted to say about

1:52:17 ↗ that bill or about the most recent

1:52:26 ↗ ly

1:52:28 ↗ you're right

1:52:38 ↗ right

1:52:40 ↗ it does say Human Services

1:52:42 ↗ organization so it covers everything

1:52:45 ↗ right

1:52:49 ↗ the policies there's only the one

1:52:53 ↗ although it has a list with it support

1:52:55 ↗ and facilitate the community's basic

1:52:58 ↗ human needs for food clothing shelter

1:53:00 ↗ primary health and dental care and

1:53:03 ↗ protection from abuse and neglect

1:53:04 ↗ including but not limited to the

1:53:06 ↗ following actions

1:53:08 ↗ existing programs Regional Housing

1:53:12 ↗ Organization with Section 8 looks like

1:53:15 ↗ our font is bigger on that one because

1:53:16 ↗ that's important

1:53:18 ↗ programs for Primary Health Care

1:53:21 ↗ parenting classes and emerging emergency

1:53:24 ↗ and transitional shelters for the

1:53:27 ↗ homeless which we also had another

1:53:29 ↗ policy for shelters because the Human

1:53:32 ↗ Services thought that was a an important

1:53:34 ↗ addition yeah in any going back to both

1:53:38 ↗ the goal and the policy itself I'm

1:53:40 ↗ seeing physical in there a couple times

1:53:43 ↗ and and Primary Health but I would like

1:53:46 ↗ to see mental health broken out into

1:53:48 ↗ both of those is that's a huge area of

1:53:51 ↗ Human Services needs and I think it it's

1:53:54 ↗ worth

1:53:55 ↗ separating out

1:53:57 ↗ okay

1:53:59 ↗ and where would you would we put it in

1:54:02 ↗ the bottoms

1:54:04 ↗ um I think it it would need to be

1:54:05 ↗ included I think Primary Health slash

1:54:08 ↗ mental health slash Dental Care

1:54:11 ↗ and then maybe a separate bullet point f

1:54:15 ↗ I'm directly talking about

1:54:18 ↗ mental health component I don't know how

1:54:21 ↗ that would look though

1:54:29 ↗ okay

1:54:31 ↗ good one that is good

1:54:34 ↗ actually I will do like Kristen says and

1:54:36 ↗ put your name there

1:54:39 ↗ so we can remember exactly the context

1:54:42 ↗ of of our notes anyone else on this one

1:54:45 ↗ this first one

1:54:48 ↗ okay

1:54:49 ↗ B is supportive sustainable and healthy

1:54:52 ↗ community in which each individual has

1:54:54 ↗ access to Community Resources and

1:54:56 ↗ services

1:54:58 ↗ there's just a few policies in this one

1:55:01 ↗ address the needs of people with

1:55:03 ↗ disabilities

1:55:05 ↗ Housing Services and transportation

1:55:08 ↗ support job training programs encourage

1:55:11 ↗ a stable job base

1:55:14 ↗ through our land use planning support

1:55:17 ↗ affordable and quality care facilities

1:55:19 ↗ for working families and for seniors and

1:55:22 ↗ other individuals with disabilities

1:55:25 ↗ work with the Human Services Commission

1:55:27 ↗ and others to promote increased

1:55:29 ↗ awareness of local needs for Human

1:55:30 ↗ Services

1:55:32 ↗ and promote Healthy Lifestyles through

1:55:34 ↗ positive opportunities for physical

1:55:36 ↗ activity healthy eating and healthy

1:55:37 ↗ behaviors

1:55:39 ↗ any comments on on those

1:55:43 ↗ so if you go back to B2

1:55:46 ↗ one of the pro you know it says job

1:55:49 ↗ training but the the thing that I see

1:55:52 ↗ missing in this

1:55:53 ↗ is language

1:55:57 ↗ it says they're going to support people

1:55:59 ↗ who cannot understand the language in

1:56:03 ↗ their language

1:56:04 ↗ but

1:56:06 ↗ I think there is a need to in order for

1:56:09 ↗ them to get a good job they need to

1:56:11 ↗ learn English they need to to be

1:56:15 ↗ they need to know it and so I think that

1:56:18 ↗ should be somehow in there in the job

1:56:20 ↗ training okay language support a

1:56:23 ↗ language I don't know if you call it out

1:56:25 ↗ there or call it out in because then

1:56:27 ↗ later following section we talk about

1:56:29 ↗ um I'm not sure how far down but we

1:56:32 ↗ talked about

1:56:33 ↗ language English as a second language

1:56:35 ↗ that there's

1:56:36 ↗ a goal eye there's a specific goli

1:56:39 ↗ related to non-english speakers so it

1:56:41 ↗ may be a good policy under there

1:56:43 ↗ okay so I'll see I'll see

1:56:52 ↗ I'll add it here because this is where

1:56:54 ↗ we heard Jones comment

1:56:58 ↗ s

1:56:59 ↗ older adults to agent I'm in the wrong

1:57:02 ↗ thing

1:57:04 ↗ see

1:57:07 ↗ f

1:57:09 ↗ g h i there it is

1:57:16 ↗ well that doesn't that doesn't answer my

1:57:19 ↗ question it doesn't discuss jobs

1:57:21 ↗ specifically

1:57:24 ↗ and and yeah you're right it also does

1:57:26 ↗ say it in Gold C and I actually had a

1:57:27 ↗ note under goal C

1:57:30 ↗ um f where we're talking about for

1:57:32 ↗ special populations and non-english

1:57:34 ↗ speaking populations I had it down as as

1:57:37 ↗ something that would read facilitate

1:57:39 ↗ Communications and access to those

1:57:42 ↗ non-speaking

1:57:44 ↗ um

1:57:44 ↗ in our population but maybe it would be

1:57:47 ↗ facilitate Communications access and

1:57:50 ↗ training or language training language

1:57:52 ↗ training

1:57:53 ↗ and see

1:57:55 ↗ policy C2 and it would be a new bullet

1:57:58 ↗ point F oh I haven't written down there

1:58:01 ↗ twice so either way and could you say it

1:58:04 ↗ again it would be facilitate

1:58:05 ↗ Communications access and language

1:58:09 ↗ training to our non-english speaking

1:58:12 ↗ population

1:58:14 ↗ oh I can't type as fast as Kristen

1:58:17 ↗ facilitate communication and language

1:58:19 ↗ access and language training oh

1:58:31 ↗ training to our non

1:58:35 ↗ -native English speaking population

1:58:42 ↗ okay good one

1:58:49 ↗ anything else on this one this is good

1:58:55 ↗ okay

1:58:57 ↗ so actually we just anything else on B

1:59:00 ↗ before we completely jump to C

1:59:04 ↗ okay we're jumping

1:59:06 ↗ C is maintain and enhanced quality of

1:59:08 ↗ life for all issquare residents by

1:59:10 ↗ supporting programs that enhance

1:59:12 ↗ personal and community living for

1:59:15 ↗ special populations older adults people

1:59:17 ↗ with disabilities and non-english

1:59:18 ↗ speaking populations

1:59:20 ↗ actually that hs3 is there because

1:59:22 ↗ that's what it replaced in the existing

1:59:26 ↗ document

1:59:28 ↗ and as we all know quality of life is

1:59:31 ↗ difficult to Define but that doesn't

1:59:33 ↗ stop anybody from talking about quality

1:59:35 ↗ of life so we try to Define it you know

1:59:38 ↗ Loosely of course because it it doesn't

1:59:41 ↗ really have a definition but these are

1:59:43 ↗ the pieces that in human services We

1:59:45 ↗ Believe add to your someone's quality of

1:59:48 ↗ life are there other pieces that anyone

1:59:50 ↗ would want to see added here or

1:59:53 ↗ described in a different way

2:00:00 ↗ okay jumping to D

2:00:04 ↗ um public transportation and one thing

2:00:06 ↗ that um and Bill can speak to this as

2:00:08 ↗ well is is human this Human Service

2:00:10 ↗ Commission talked about a lot of the

2:00:12 ↗ elements that are in the comp plan that

2:00:15 ↗ you need Transportation you need housing

2:00:17 ↗ you need your land uses to allow for

2:00:19 ↗ special needs housing

2:00:21 ↗ um and and so they wanted to mention all

2:00:24 ↗ the pieces that connect knowing though

2:00:26 ↗ that they're fully they're fully

2:00:29 ↗ described in those elements but they

2:00:31 ↗ didn't want to be silent on them and so

2:00:32 ↗ that's why there's a little bit of

2:00:34 ↗ repetition in the Human Services element

2:00:36 ↗ as it calls out other pieces that are

2:00:39 ↗ needed for for a good Human Service

2:00:41 ↗ provision and one of them is public

2:00:43 ↗ transportation expand and encourage

2:00:45 ↗ local and Regional public transportation

2:00:47 ↗ systems

2:00:49 ↗ um and we talk a little bit about that

2:00:51 ↗ there

2:00:52 ↗ access to public transportation for

2:00:55 ↗ employment health care and Human

2:00:56 ↗ Services

2:00:57 ↗ support Transportation programs that

2:01:00 ↗ provide financial assistance for elderly

2:01:02 ↗ low income and other populations and

2:01:04 ↗ increase Mobility for seniors and

2:01:07 ↗ individuals with disability all good

2:01:10 ↗ things all pieces that we're working on

2:01:13 ↗ as Metro starts to cut Services we're

2:01:16 ↗ scrambling to make sure that we're still

2:01:18 ↗ covered as much as we can be

2:01:21 ↗ um are there other items that we missed

2:01:23 ↗ or that you'd want to say in a different

2:01:25 ↗ way

2:01:29 ↗ okay

2:01:31 ↗ affordable housing which we talked about

2:01:33 ↗ already tonight again this is one of

2:01:35 ↗ those overlaps that the commission Human

2:01:37 ↗ Service Commission didn't want to be

2:01:39 ↗ silent on so that's very short there's

2:01:41 ↗ not even a policy it's just the goal

2:01:44 ↗ ensure that affordable housing targets

2:01:45 ↗ established in the housing element and

2:01:47 ↗ Central Issaquah plan are being achieved

2:01:51 ↗ and again the centralist club plan is

2:01:53 ↗ where our next growth targets are set to

2:01:56 ↗ be met that are 2006 to

2:02:00 ↗ 2031 are focused in the central Issaquah

2:02:04 ↗ area

2:02:06 ↗ comments on that one

2:02:09 ↗ shelters

2:02:10 ↗ is the next goal support the location of

2:02:13 ↗ permanent and Emergency Shelters for men

2:02:15 ↗ for women and children and for teens

2:02:17 ↗ throughout the region to address local

2:02:19 ↗ and Regional homelessness

2:02:22 ↗ as Arthur said

2:02:24 ↗ um

2:02:25 ↗ I know he came to speak to the Human

2:02:27 ↗ Services Commission about the region

2:02:29 ↗ trying to locate permanent shelters they

2:02:32 ↗ don't have locations yet they're they're

2:02:35 ↗ talking to all the jurisdictions about

2:02:36 ↗ the issues with homelessness and and

2:02:38 ↗ permanent shelters so this is one that

2:02:41 ↗ Human Services felt strongly that we

2:02:44 ↗ wanted this policy in there I think it's

2:02:45 ↗ a good one

2:02:48 ↗ any additions to this one

2:02:54 ↗ okay just the one the one policy

2:02:58 ↗ okay financial goals always a big one in

2:03:02 ↗ all of the elements

2:03:03 ↗ creating a sustainable funding mechanism

2:03:05 ↗ for Human Services this is the one

2:03:08 ↗ policy I think that is the most

2:03:10 ↗ different from our existing plan and

2:03:12 ↗ that it calls out that we need some kind

2:03:15 ↗ of a sustainable mechanism to continue

2:03:18 ↗ to fund our Human Services we talked to

2:03:20 ↗ a couple of different jurisdictions on

2:03:23 ↗ how they fund things every year some

2:03:26 ↗ jurisdictions would go by taxes some

2:03:29 ↗ would go by the economy so that in the

2:03:32 ↗ last few years they didn't have hardly

2:03:34 ↗ any funding for Human Services which you

2:03:37 ↗ know is pretty bad way to do it although

2:03:38 ↗ in the glory years you have a lot to

2:03:41 ↗ spend and so we went with bellevue's

2:03:44 ↗ mechanism which is policy G1 consider a

2:03:48 ↗ per capita funding goal for the annual

2:03:51 ↗ Human Service funding and incorporate

2:03:53 ↗ funding methodology as part of our

2:03:55 ↗ financial policies per capita is because

2:03:58 ↗ you always have pretty much the same

2:04:00 ↗ amount of people as you did the year

2:04:02 ↗ before so your funding is stable and is

2:04:05 ↗ not the Peaks and valleys of you know

2:04:07 ↗ interest rates or anything like that

2:04:09 ↗ that could be cyclical

2:04:11 ↗ and so we're hoping that Council will

2:04:14 ↗ will like the Bellevue way of doing this

2:04:18 ↗ are there any comments on this on

2:04:20 ↗ funding we talk about the Community

2:04:22 ↗ Development block grant funds that we

2:04:24 ↗ use for needed Community projects we've

2:04:27 ↗ been lucky to get those

2:04:28 ↗ um every year how is it done now

2:04:31 ↗ I mean how is the money provided now is

2:04:33 ↗ it a at the end of the financial cycle

2:04:37 ↗ the council says how much should go in

2:04:40 ↗ and sometimes it's they try to go per

2:04:42 ↗ capita but I remember was it last year

2:04:44 ↗ you all the whole com Human Services

2:04:46 ↗ Commission came back into the Council

2:04:48 ↗ budget sessions and said

2:04:51 ↗ you we need some more you know because

2:04:53 ↗ you have there's all sorts of groups

2:04:55 ↗ that we fund through the Human Services

2:04:57 ↗ Grant programs and the council that was

2:04:59 ↗ one of the things they cut at the very

2:05:01 ↗ end of the budget cycle was

2:05:04 ↗ um gosh and and then you guys were great

2:05:06 ↗ yeah so it was basically it's kind of

2:05:08 ↗ the whim of the council really I mean is

2:05:11 ↗ the way it's been so we're trying to get

2:05:12 ↗ some some stable base like it was it was

2:05:15 ↗ it started at like you know eight

2:05:17 ↗ dollars a per citizen or something like

2:05:19 ↗ that but it would but they had nothing

2:05:21 ↗ to guide themselves they'd start there

2:05:22 ↗ and if budget was tight they they cut

2:05:24 ↗ that one year in trying to match this

2:05:27 ↗ budget the budget went up and down and

2:05:29 ↗ up and down and we're trying to you know

2:05:30 ↗ build something and it got really kind

2:05:32 ↗ of crazy so that's where we kind of get

2:05:35 ↗ it to to be stable if there's a small

2:05:37 ↗ increase in population you'd you kind of

2:05:39 ↗ have some small increases with that

2:05:40 ↗ answer

2:05:45 ↗ that that was that was a good session

2:05:47 ↗ though because what is it every year you

2:05:50 ↗ get or is it every two years you get the

2:05:52 ↗ applications from right we just went to

2:05:54 ↗ a two-year cycle so okay and then how

2:05:57 ↗ many applications do you usually get

2:05:58 ↗ we're reviewing them right now we have

2:06:00 ↗ 58 applications for various grants of

2:06:03 ↗ some type or another that are getting

2:06:04 ↗ reviewed and and then evaluate them for

2:06:07 ↗ and score them and decide how much of

2:06:09 ↗ their requests they're going to get and

2:06:11 ↗ how how much money do we have 288

2:06:15 ↗ 000 this year to give out in those

2:06:17 ↗ grants and the requests are for 435

2:06:20 ↗ 000 I believe

2:06:22 ↗ so you know that's that's probably no

2:06:24 ↗ but there's some of those that you know

2:06:25 ↗ aren't at good quality application

2:06:27 ↗ anyway so there's some of those right

2:06:28 ↗ yeah that would fall out as well but

2:06:30 ↗ certainly a lot of work that you all do

2:06:32 ↗ to rate them all and I know I was happy

2:06:35 ↗ to get into your meetings before you

2:06:37 ↗ started having to look through them all

2:06:39 ↗ because that's that's quite a lot of

2:06:41 ↗ meetings at work so I'm glad you do that

2:06:43 ↗ we're doing that right now

2:06:46 ↗ um any other comments on the funding the

2:06:48 ↗ funding goal

2:06:52 ↗ Aging in place is H support the ability

2:06:56 ↗ of older adults to age in place and

2:06:59 ↗ continue to live in the community

2:07:02 ↗ um

2:07:05 ↗ that's has anybody ever looked into what

2:07:08 ↗ the um

2:07:09 ↗ biggest barrier is to

2:07:13 ↗ people staying in their homes at a

2:07:15 ↗ certain age

2:07:16 ↗ um yes there's actually several part of

2:07:18 ↗ it is transportation getting them to the

2:07:21 ↗ doctor is to have some kind of a

2:07:23 ↗ transportation service other other thing

2:07:25 ↗ is meals

2:07:27 ↗ to have they're either like Meals on

2:07:29 ↗ Wheels or something like that where they

2:07:30 ↗ don't have to actually do the whole

2:07:32 ↗ nutrition all by themselves that they

2:07:34 ↗ have some help with that the other is

2:07:36 ↗ sometimes it's just daily someone to

2:07:38 ↗ check on them to make sure that they're

2:07:41 ↗ taking their medication that they're you

2:07:43 ↗ know doing okay that they nobody you

2:07:45 ↗ know they haven't fallen or you know

2:07:46 ↗ something like that but it's it's sort

2:07:48 ↗ of a collection of services that you

2:07:51 ↗ might have the transportation but if you

2:07:52 ↗ don't have the meals or if you've got

2:07:55 ↗ the nurses that can check in on you you

2:07:57 ↗ don't have the you know it's sort of a

2:07:59 ↗ net if you will that um

2:08:02 ↗ and some of them we have in the city and

2:08:04 ↗ some of them we just I think need to

2:08:06 ↗ hopefully beef up a little bit so that

2:08:08 ↗ the seniors are still able to because I

2:08:10 ↗ think it adds so much to the quality of

2:08:13 ↗ their life to be where they're used to

2:08:15 ↗ being and that whole Comfort piece and

2:08:18 ↗ so um Studies have shown that they're a

2:08:21 ↗ lot happier and they stay a lot

2:08:22 ↗ healthier if they're able to stay in

2:08:24 ↗ their home that they're used to and and

2:08:26 ↗ one of the things I see you know when we

2:08:28 ↗ talk about the policy it meets half the

2:08:31 ↗ goal so it meets them living in place

2:08:33 ↗ but it doesn't really

2:08:34 ↗ I'd like to see an addition of a policy

2:08:37 ↗ um

2:08:38 ↗ encouraging

2:08:40 ↗ continued integration into the community

2:08:42 ↗ Through you know social and interaction

2:08:50 ↗ so to make sure that we're not just

2:08:52 ↗ leaving our seniors sitting in their

2:08:53 ↗ home and delivering them meals right and

2:08:56 ↗ that's so the beauty of our senior

2:08:58 ↗ center is we get seniors from all over

2:09:00 ↗ because we have you know such a neat

2:09:02 ↗ senior and such an active senior

2:09:04 ↗ population that uses the senior center

2:09:07 ↗ that's a good one

2:09:15 ↗ anything else for this one

2:09:20 ↗ okay

2:09:21 ↗ eliminate service barriers for diverse

2:09:23 ↗ populations and non-english speaking

2:09:25 ↗ populations in the community

2:09:28 ↗ we can try to cross the job training

2:09:31 ↗ piece on this one as well are there

2:09:34 ↗ other pieces though that we forgot with

2:09:36 ↗ just the yeah I've actually got a lot to

2:09:39 ↗ say on this one

2:09:41 ↗ um and this stems from a very recent as

2:09:44 ↗ in the Judgment was just granted

2:09:48 ↗ Friday

2:09:49 ↗ on a case out of Yakima on the Voting

2:09:52 ↗ Rights Act and in that case it involved

2:09:55 ↗ the growing Hispanic population within

2:09:57 ↗ the city but the facts of the case are

2:10:00 ↗ equally applicable to any incoming

2:10:03 ↗ minority population

2:10:05 ↗ um so what I'm I'm not seeing within the

2:10:07 ↗ plan is kind of monitoring of those

2:10:10 ↗ aspects that would come into play in

2:10:12 ↗ those kind of cases so things like we

2:10:16 ↗ say supporting accessibility to services

2:10:19 ↗ but we don't talk about

2:10:21 ↗ identifying and monitoring needs access

2:10:25 ↗ to Services access to amenities

2:10:28 ↗ and other factors that would come in

2:10:31 ↗ under this case and the only reason it

2:10:33 ↗ brings a large concern for me is at the

2:10:36 ↗ legislature right now is a state Voting

2:10:38 ↗ Rights Act which provides a very short

2:10:41 ↗ time frame for people to be to have to

2:10:44 ↗ come up with a decision on redistricting

2:10:46 ↗ based on these factors

2:10:48 ↗ before they're sued and rack up lots of

2:10:51 ↗ attorneys fees I think the attorney's

2:10:53 ↗ fees in the Yakima case are going to be

2:10:55 ↗ upwards of a million dollars

2:10:57 ↗ and they spent you know several hundred

2:10:59 ↗ thousand dollars finding the case

2:11:02 ↗ um so

2:11:04 ↗ you know it's things like identifying

2:11:06 ↗ the populations identifying gaps and

2:11:09 ↗ services

2:11:10 ↗ making sure we're analyzing voting

2:11:13 ↗ districts but but it we just basically

2:11:16 ↗ say take a look at Montez V City of

2:11:19 ↗ Yakima and and look through that because

2:11:22 ↗ we want to make sure that we have those

2:11:24 ↗ things in place up front so that when

2:11:26 ↗ this law is coming down we don't get

2:11:28 ↗ kind of Blindsided 15 years down the

2:11:30 ↗ road if we have a you know if our Latino

2:11:33 ↗ population grows or

2:11:35 ↗ um

2:11:36 ↗ non-native English speaking

2:11:38 ↗ Asian population grows

2:11:42 ↗ I'll ask you to send me the link of the

2:11:46 ↗ of the decision if you could I actually

2:11:49 ↗ have a copy that I've already read so I

2:11:51 ↗ can actually hand that off well there

2:11:52 ↗ you go

2:11:56 ↗ there's a few copies of decisions with

2:11:58 ↗ them

2:11:59 ↗ I will share it with you all

2:12:06 ↗ and I think

2:12:08 ↗ um also you know just when you start

2:12:09 ↗ seeing websites that now you can

2:12:11 ↗ translate in the um you know I think the

2:12:13 ↗ city wants to go that way that that it's

2:12:16 ↗ just a lot more in different languages

2:12:19 ↗ so that it's a lot easier for people to

2:12:21 ↗ figure out what's going on but but

2:12:22 ↗ that's certainly a good one is just to

2:12:24 ↗ identify the gaps because I'm sure we're

2:12:27 ↗ we're way far away from that yeah and I

2:12:29 ↗ know one of the things they were even

2:12:30 ↗ looking at in the Yakima case were

2:12:32 ↗ things as

2:12:34 ↗ um parks in the Latino districts versus

2:12:37 ↗ parks in the white District so if we're

2:12:39 ↗ not monitoring those things and making

2:12:41 ↗ sure that our various populations are

2:12:42 ↗ taken care of in respect to all of our

2:12:44 ↗ services and amenities then we could get

2:12:47 ↗ caught off guard

2:12:53 ↗ good good one

2:12:56 ↗ anything else for for this one

2:13:01 ↗ utility assistance Safeguard easily

2:13:05 ↗ accessible utility assistance programs

2:13:07 ↗ for low-income households

2:13:10 ↗ this is a good one this is an important

2:13:12 ↗ one that we are part of now

2:13:16 ↗ um

2:13:17 ↗ anything to add to this one it's support

2:13:19 ↗ and Implement utility assistance for low

2:13:21 ↗ income including financial assistance

2:13:23 ↗ weatherization and conservation programs

2:13:27 ↗ any additions to this one

2:13:31 ↗ okay and then the last what is usually

2:13:33 ↗ the last in all the elements is is

2:13:35 ↗ regional the regional approach to issues

2:13:38 ↗ that we have because it Human Service

2:13:41 ↗ issues don't stop at City boundaries

2:13:44 ↗ and so this talks about all the

2:13:46 ↗ different groups that we work with and

2:13:48 ↗ how we all work together and

2:13:51 ↗ um not only do we provide services

2:13:54 ↗ regionally but we want to be sure that

2:13:58 ↗ the facilities are cited so that the

2:14:00 ↗ local service is as accessible and that

2:14:03 ↗ we have enough of everything to go

2:14:05 ↗ around for all the people that need it

2:14:09 ↗ um

2:14:10 ↗ talk about Partnerships with school

2:14:12 ↗ districts and colleges as well as

2:14:14 ↗ Partnerships with businesses and making

2:14:18 ↗ sure that if there's anything at the

2:14:20 ↗ legislative

2:14:22 ↗ level that we're promoting that as much

2:14:25 ↗ can happen at the state level as well

2:14:29 ↗ any additions to to those to the

2:14:32 ↗ regional approach

2:14:36 ↗ okay

2:14:37 ↗ and again the implementation on this one

2:14:39 ↗ will be similar to what we talked about

2:14:41 ↗ with the others in that it'll be a

2:14:43 ↗ separate document that's like the work

2:14:44 ↗ plan that actually has the things that

2:14:46 ↗ the programs and plans or programs and

2:14:50 ↗ um

2:14:50 ↗ to actually check off you know that we

2:14:53 ↗ did this program we did this action we

2:14:56 ↗ funded this that wouldn't be in the comp

2:14:58 ↗ plan but it would actually be that that

2:15:00 ↗ work plan that's the action kinds of

2:15:01 ↗ things

2:15:03 ↗ any other comments or any other comments

2:15:06 ↗ from Bill since you helped Usher this

2:15:08 ↗ through at Human Services Commission

2:15:11 ↗ yeah it looks good and added comments

2:15:12 ↗ are great

2:15:14 ↗ good

2:15:15 ↗ anything else for tonight

2:15:19 ↗ okay in two weeks what are we doing in

2:15:22 ↗ two weeks is it land use land use

2:15:26 ↗ the final wow the final review final

2:15:28 ↗ review of the maps and

2:15:32 ↗ graphs and tables and numbers

2:15:35 ↗ and we have discussions we have some

2:15:37 ↗ work to do next week to get that ready

2:15:40 ↗ and I think that's the only one that

2:15:41 ↗ night right because we're not doing the

2:15:43 ↗ sustainability elements transportation

2:15:45 ↗ is on the 25th okay we were going to do

2:15:47 ↗ the sustainability uh

2:15:50 ↗ um

2:15:51 ↗ indicators but that got bumped to

2:15:53 ↗ October because they're almost done with

2:15:55 ↗ those well good job guys you did another

2:15:58 ↗ super super job with your review and

2:16:00 ↗ your comments

2:16:02 ↗ I think we're done if you guys are done

2:16:05 ↗ we are done

2:16:08 ↗ um and the meeting will officially close

2:16:11 ↗ at 8 50.

2:16:13 ↗ P.M

2:16:15 ↗ thank you Phil Hawks

2:16:20 ↗ Kristen you just saved your edits and

2:16:23 ↗ then we

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Recommendations & actions (2)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

MOVED BY WALSH, SECONDED BY SWEDBERG, that minutes of the PPC meeting on August 14, 2014, be approved as presented.
Heinonen noted two letters supporting ARCH were received and forwarded to the Commission prior to tonight’s meeting.