Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, May 11, 2017 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3–7

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Economic Vitality Commission About Staff Liaison Created in 2012, this commission provides Jen Davis Hayes, additional expertise – both to the Mayor and City Economic Development Director Council – necessary to enhance and facilitate Email economic development within the City. Regular Members The commission also acts as a catalyst between the 2018 – Amit Bhardwaj City Council, developers, residents and the 2018 – Laura Milikan business community to expand and improve the 2019 – Therese Garcia economic climate of Issaquah within the context of 2019 – Jeff Howlett the City’s commitment to social and environmental 2019 – Ethan Stiles objectives. 2020 – Derek Doke 2020 – Karl Leigh Membership 2020 – Kristi Tripple The Economic Vitality Commission is comprised of 2021 – Saikat Sen ten regular members with four-year terms. 2021 – Lincoln Vander Veen

2. AGENDA ITEMS

Housing Strategy: Problem Statements Refresher from 3/13/17 Council Work Session

Trish Heinonen, Policy Planning Manager · packet pp.9–40

Topics: Housing

Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

A. Housing Strategy - Update: Background

Affordable Housing Strategies and Potential Actions for Issaquah Refresher from 3/13/17 Council Work Session

Topics: Housing

Other Housing Strategies and Potential Actions for Issaquah

Commission Discussion

Topics: Housing

2927 segments .txt ↗

0:02 ↗ I'm just going to once I see the life

0:07 ↗ welcome welcome to all our members the

0:12 ↗ new members of where this is the fourth

0:14 ↗ meeting of the Joint Commission's as we

0:17 ↗ call you economic vitality human

0:19 ↗ services and planning policy Commission

0:21 ↗ where we're all working on the housing

0:23 ↗ strategy and tonight since there are

0:26 ↗ some new members your packet had a lot

0:29 ↗ of background information to try to get

0:31 ↗ you a little bit up to speed but I'm

0:33 ↗ going to run through a refresher course

0:34 ↗ very quickly although you feel free to

0:38 ↗ ask questions and have comments on it

0:40 ↗ because we the other members haven't

0:42 ↗ seen it since January so they may be a

0:44 ↗ little rusty on on these ideas as well

0:46 ↗ so we're going to do a little background

0:48 ↗ we're going to remind the group of the

0:50 ↗ three problem statements that you all

0:52 ↗ came up with we're going to talk about

0:54 ↗ the survey results that no one has seen

0:56 ↗ yet pretty exciting the housing survey

0:58 ↗ that we just did and then we're going to

1:00 ↗ talk about some of the actions and

1:02 ↗ strategies that Issaquah might try to

1:04 ↗ help us with our housing our future

1:06 ↗ housing and then we're going to talk

1:08 ↗ about next steps okay this is one of

1:12 ↗ those great graphics that we throw in

1:14 ↗ every time just so you know that how

1:16 ↗ clever we really are at scheduling this

1:18 ↗ is the whole housing strategy that we're

1:20 ↗ working on the first part of the work we

1:24 ↗ did was looking at the inventory that we

1:26 ↗ have now and what the future might look

1:27 ↗ like if we don't do anything we just let

1:30 ↗ the market continue how it's going what

1:33 ↗ would it look like and we had that

1:34 ↗ presentation in September to the council

1:37 ↗ and we found that we really didn't have

1:39 ↗ the the types of housing and the sizes

1:42 ↗ and cost ranges of housing that we

1:44 ↗ really needed if we kept going the way

1:47 ↗ that we're going so the second part is

1:50 ↗ where you will come in and we're working

1:52 ↗ at trying to figure out what do we want

1:54 ↗ in the future what kinds of homes what

1:57 ↗ is what are the problems that we might

2:00 ↗ face if we don't do some course

2:02 ↗ corrections at this point and so that's

2:05 ↗ where we are right now we're in the very

2:07 ↗ end of the needs analysis and then once

2:11 ↗ we are finished with that then we have

2:13 ↗ start talking about the policy pieces

2:16 ↗ and start talking to even some of the

2:18 ↗ developers on Ron you there's lots of

2:21 ↗ seats Ron on what kinds of what the

2:26 ↗ applet the folks that build affordable

2:28 ↗ housing and housing what do we need to

2:30 ↗ do we need to have a better discussion

2:32 ↗ with them on how can we help them

2:34 ↗ provide the kind of housing in our

2:36 ↗ community that we would like and then

2:38 ↗ the last part is actually wrapping up

2:40 ↗ with the housing strategy that would go

2:42 ↗ to council for their blessing and we're

2:44 ↗ sort of using you three the three groups

2:47 ↗ as sort of part of our public outreach

2:49 ↗ because housing is trickier than a lot

2:53 ↗ of the other pieces and parts that we

2:55 ↗ work on but you really kind of have to

2:57 ↗ get into the guts of it so we've been

2:59 ↗ using youth regroup the three groups

3:01 ↗ because you all come from different

3:02 ↗ areas of expertise and just to get you

3:06 ↗ guys to help us because you're sort of

3:07 ↗ the mini community here so we rely on

3:10 ↗ you to help us move forward with this

3:14 ↗ the first thing you all did the ones

3:17 ↗ that were that we're here but the ones

3:19 ↗ the new ones is you figured out a

3:20 ↗ mission statement to help you with this

3:22 ↗ huge task of creating a housing strategy

3:25 ↗ and this is what you came up with and it

3:28 ↗ seems to cover sort of the whole body of

3:30 ↗ work that you're working towards because

3:33 ↗ it is so big we wanted to be sure we

3:34 ↗ weren't going down the rabbit holes as

3:36 ↗ we as we were working through things

3:39 ↗ once we were done with the mission

3:41 ↗ statement we started narrowing it down

3:43 ↗ to what are the what are the problems

3:45 ↗ we're trying to solve for the future and

3:47 ↗ these were the reasons that you all came

3:50 ↗ up with problem statements to sort of

3:51 ↗ help guide you guide us as we put some

3:54 ↗ packages of strategies together and now

3:58 ↗ drum roll this was the first problem

4:00 ↗ statement and it might not be a surprise

4:03 ↗ to you all overall housing affordability

4:05 ↗ in Issaquah has decreased for households

4:08 ↗ at all level missed isn't just our issue

4:10 ↗ it's the region the regional issue and

4:12 ↗ in your packet there are tons tons of

4:17 ↗ charts and graphs and data all that good

4:20 ↗ stuff but I thought for the public that

4:23 ↗ we would just make it very general on

4:26 ↗ the fact

4:26 ↗ that we found to support this problem

4:29 ↗ statement the second one the second

4:33 ↗ problem statement you all came up with

4:34 ↗ as individuals and families cannot

4:36 ↗ afford to choose to work and live in

4:38 ↗ Issaquah and again there was a lot of

4:41 ↗ data and charts in your packet that

4:43 ↗ supports this problem statement or

4:45 ↗ supports that that this is a finding and

4:49 ↗ this is one that we're working on as

4:51 ↗ well for the future the third one is the

4:54 ↗ housing types are not meeting the

4:56 ↗ diversity of demand and the data

4:59 ↗ supported that by showing that the sizes

5:01 ↗ of homes that it seems that we're

5:03 ↗ building are not really the sizes that

5:05 ↗ seem to be what folks are looking for

5:08 ↗ and so that's another issue that we're

5:10 ↗ working on another I should have

5:12 ↗ mentioned in addition to working with

5:15 ↗ you all we've also had seven different

5:17 ↗ focus groups that we've met with from

5:21 ↗ large businesses in town smaller

5:22 ↗ businesses in town school district

5:26 ↗ supportive services senior services the

5:31 ↗ realtor's I'm probably missing some very

5:34 ↗ important group but they've been great

5:37 ↗ helping us from their niche of the

5:40 ↗ housing that they see that's needed the

5:43 ↗ groups that they're servicing and the

5:45 ↗ different issues that are presented by

5:48 ↗ the smaller group so that's that

5:50 ↗ information has been funneled in as well

5:53 ↗ the survey the survey says the survey

5:57 ↗ was open for almost four weeks ten

6:01 ↗ questions hopefully you all were able to

6:03 ↗ perhaps answer the survey I know that

6:06 ↗ the members that were already on it I

6:08 ↗ sent a few emails hey check out the

6:11 ↗ housing survey

6:11 ↗ there were 171 responses and I'm just

6:15 ↗ going to go through real fast

6:16 ↗ I wish we would had the results before

6:18 ↗ the packet went out so you could kind of

6:20 ↗ ponder it but but we'll get that to you

6:22 ↗ as well the first one was when you're

6:24 ↗ looking for a place to live what are

6:26 ↗ your top five factors daily being near

6:31 ↗ daily services was a high one thing cost

6:35 ↗ is a high one price rent

6:39 ↗ quality schools which we're very lucky

6:41 ↗ to have so that was I think the answers

6:45 ↗ weren't too surprising and if you want

6:48 ↗ to stop me and ask follow-up questions

6:50 ↗ feel free the second question which of

6:54 ↗ these statements reflect is the quad

6:56 ↗ today so we were trying to figure out

6:58 ↗ how do people feel about what they think

7:00 ↗ is out there now and these weren't too

7:03 ↗ surprising there's a lack of very small

7:06 ↗ houses people seem to agree with that

7:09 ↗ there seems to be demolition of existing

7:11 ↗ housing a lot of people were neutral on

7:14 ↗ that that they weren't really sure if we

7:15 ↗ were getting rid of of housing we talked

7:20 ↗ about seniors do folks think that

7:21 ↗ seniors are able to live in their homes

7:24 ↗ most people agreed with that although

7:26 ↗ still a lot we're neutral this is the

7:30 ↗ same list are there opportunities for

7:32 ↗ families a lot of people agreed that

7:35 ↗ there aren't that as many housing

7:37 ↗ opportunities for families and

7:38 ↗ especially younger families that was

7:41 ↗ interesting

7:41 ↗ lack of affordable housing scored very

7:44 ↗ high that folks agree with that and then

7:47 ↗ lack of housing with access to good

7:50 ↗ transit that seemed to be most folks

7:52 ↗ agreed with that lack of homes that

7:56 ↗ accommodate extended families a lot of

8:00 ↗ neutral kind of on either side and

8:03 ↗ overall housing stock

8:04 ↗ most folks agreed with that question

8:07 ↗ three have you or anyone you know had

8:09 ↗ trouble finding a place to live yes the

8:12 ↗ majority said yes they knew somebody in

8:14 ↗ the last five years and what kept you

8:18 ↗ from finding or someone you know it was

8:20 ↗ mostly cost so that was we're telling as

8:24 ↗ well this then we were having people

8:29 ↗ looking to the future what would be

8:31 ↗ successful in their idea in their mind

8:33 ↗ for the future of housing and the first

8:37 ↗ one you know as a good mom and apple pie

8:39 ↗ one that it's all stages of life that

8:42 ↗ you should be able to live here all your

8:44 ↗ life whether you're you know right out

8:45 ↗ of school college first-time family

8:48 ↗ empty nester the whole gamut

8:51 ↗ most people agree that that's that would

8:53 ↗ be a really good thing aging-in-place

8:55 ↗ scored really well that people would

8:57 ↗ like that in the future local employees

9:00 ↗ we were trying to get the live work

9:02 ↗ bound so more people can work and live

9:04 ↗ here cuts down on the traffic as well

9:08 ↗ would they like that to happen and most

9:11 ↗ of the folks are in the agree part still

9:15 ↗ in question five would people think the

9:17 ↗ future should have housing affordable to

9:21 ↗ a range of incomes including lower it

9:23 ↗ was more spread out there the next one

9:27 ↗ the city helps stabilize neighborhoods

9:29 ↗ by preserving existing housing that one

9:32 ↗ was pretty spread out as well the city

9:35 ↗ helps increase home ownership

9:37 ↗ opportunities with a wider range of

9:39 ↗ household types mostly agree but still

9:42 ↗ pretty pretty balanced this still is the

9:49 ↗ same future question do you this should

9:52 ↗ the city include higher density housing

9:53 ↗ opportunities I was pretty balanced

9:57 ↗ throughout the housing should fit and

9:59 ↗ preserve the character of the existing

10:02 ↗ community and protect critical

10:04 ↗ environmental features that one would

10:06 ↗ strongly agree that one all of a sudden

10:09 ↗ we we went out of balance and that was a

10:10 ↗ strongly agree young households students

10:14 ↗ entry-level workers that seemed to be

10:17 ↗ pretty balanced and there is more

10:19 ↗ single-family housing for families that

10:23 ↗ was agree and neutral do you work in his

10:27 ↗ cloth most had no but some said yes for

10:33 ↗ how many years ten five to ten seem to

10:37 ↗ be the biggest category and then your

10:39 ↗ annual income pretty balanced foot to

10:44 ↗ the higher and then how much do you pay

10:49 ↗ in mortgage and rent and then which of

10:52 ↗ the following best describes your

10:54 ↗ current residents and most of the folks

10:56 ↗ are owning a single-family home or condo

10:59 ↗ and those were the survey any questions

11:02 ↗ on there we'll make sure you get a copy

11:05 ↗ the same kind of ponder but I was it was

11:10 ↗ kind of fun to see that the results we

11:12 ↗ were we were pretty happy that we got so

11:15 ↗ many folks yes was it

11:17 ↗ in terms of the balance of homeowners to

11:23 ↗ renters does the survey reflect the

11:28 ↗ distribution in the community or is it

11:31 ↗ out of it can tell us that by who

11:35 ↗ registered but we didn't have the time

11:37 ↗ to to try to correlate different things

11:40 ↗ because we just received so you don't

11:42 ↗ know what percentage of the people in

11:44 ↗ Issaquah rent as opposed to own oh not

11:48 ↗ of the survey I mean just about how does

11:50 ↗ the I'm sure that I'm sure we know that

11:52 ↗ I don't know I don't know that right off

11:54 ↗ the top of my head does that might tell

11:56 ↗ us something about the answers right I

12:03 ↗ just don't know what off the top of my

12:05 ↗ head you might get slightly different

12:08 ↗ answers from people who own than you

12:11 ↗ might get from renters right absolutely

12:14 ↗ and that's why we were trying to send a

12:15 ↗ survey out to not only folks that lived

12:18 ↗ here but to folks that worked here

12:19 ↗ thinking that they met they would have a

12:21 ↗ really some really good ideas on perhaps

12:23 ↗ how to make their chances better of

12:25 ↗ being able to live here if they wanted

12:27 ↗ to thank you thank you any other

12:30 ↗ questions

12:31 ↗ yeah I wanted to ask something really

12:34 ↗ quick how did you decide to how did the

12:37 ↗ people here find the survey it was

12:41 ↗ online and we did email things off the

12:45 ↗ website and we mailed the boards and

12:49 ↗ commissions that I had addresses to we

12:52 ↗ tried to hit everybody that that we knew

12:54 ↗ of that was already either affiliated

12:56 ↗ with the city or was affiliated with any

12:58 ↗ of the focus groups that we had the

13:00 ↗ small business large businesses school

13:02 ↗ district service providers and realtor's

13:04 ↗ we tried to sort of go out with as many

13:06 ↗ directions as possible knowing that it's

13:09 ↗ just one type of outreach and we're

13:11 ↗ trying to do multiple types of outreach

13:14 ↗ but yeah I'm sure we could have figured

13:18 ↗ out a

13:19 ↗ in other different ways but it's a new

13:21 ↗ survey tool that the city has so I think

13:23 ↗ this is one of the second or third

13:24 ↗ surveys that the city's done any other

13:28 ↗ questions okay

13:33 ↗ strategies and actions the first group

13:38 ↗ of strategies and actions are good

13:40 ↗ perfect timing

13:41 ↗ are because I'll back up a little bit is

13:45 ↗ that council approved a temporary

13:49 ↗ moratorium last September because they

13:52 ↗ felt that the in the work that we've

13:55 ↗ done on the central Issaquah plan in the

13:56 ↗ last three years they felt that it

13:58 ↗ wasn't the developments that we were

14:02 ↗ getting weren't completely in line with

14:04 ↗ the vision that the council had going

14:06 ↗ into the central Issaquah plan and one

14:08 ↗ of the issues that they saw was that in

14:11 ↗ all the housing that was being built in

14:13 ↗ central Issaquah there weren't any

14:14 ↗ affordable units yet that were being

14:16 ↗ built so they added affordable housing

14:18 ↗ to the list of items that were supposed

14:21 ↗ to be studying during the moratorium

14:23 ↗ which was why when we first came to the

14:26 ↗ Joint Commission on what strategy should

14:28 ↗ we look at the first group of strategies

14:31 ↗ we looked at was affordable housing to

14:33 ↗ sort of get those in the think tank

14:35 ↗ before we started looking at other

14:37 ↗ strategies and there are only a small

14:40 ↗ part of the housing strategy the housing

14:42 ↗ strategy will be all types of housing

14:44 ↗ but it's just the part that council was

14:46 ↗ most interested in getting the results

14:49 ↗ sooner rather than later which is why we

14:51 ↗ started that and then as I say in that

14:53 ↗ little footnote you get to look at the

14:55 ↗ other strategies as well but we just

14:58 ↗ started with the affordable housing ones

15:00 ↗ yes so what's the the percentage of

15:07 ↗ affordable housing that they decided on

15:10 ↗ and how did they so how do we define

15:13 ↗ affordable housing affordable housing is

15:16 ↗ defined through the region through 80%

15:21 ↗ of King County median income which i

15:24 ↗ think is one of the slides that's in

15:27 ↗ this slide deck of all the data that

15:29 ↗ we've received and it starts at like

15:33 ↗ see the 80% median income and then

15:35 ↗ there's the mid is goes up to the 60 and

15:40 ↗ then low income so there's three sort of

15:43 ↗ levels if you will that are all

15:45 ↗ affordable but they're different levels

15:47 ↗ of affordable and then a hundred percent

15:50 ↗ is like market rate okay and and so okay

15:54 ↗ thank you

15:54 ↗ and will that match what is in the kind

16:00 ↗ of vision for a Sukhois yeah we talked

16:03 ↗ about it in the vision on trying to

16:05 ↗ provide housing for 80 percent or below

16:08 ↗ median which would be the the top range

16:11 ↗ of what's considered affordable I mean

16:15 ↗ how much percentages so if when you look

16:17 ↗ at the percentages will it match what we

16:20 ↗ need in Issaquah in low ink in low-end

16:23 ↗ affordable housing the percentages of

16:26 ↗ how much we need that can be part of our

16:30 ↗ vision I'm not sure that anyone in the

16:32 ↗ region thinks that we can actually

16:34 ↗ provide as much as we need but if it's

16:37 ↗ an aspirational goal for all of us for

16:41 ↗ the other region knowing how difficult

16:42 ↗ it is to provide and so I think all the

16:45 ↗ jurisdictions that I've heard of lately

16:48 ↗ everyone's got the same issue that

16:50 ↗ they're trying to figure out another way

16:52 ↗ to figure it out that Keith was just

16:55 ↗ saying it made the cover of governing

16:57 ↗ magazine because they're they're

16:59 ↗ figuring it out too so sort of all in

17:01 ↗ this together

17:02 ↗ but good questions it's a there's a lot

17:05 ↗ of data involved in in housing so good

17:08 ↗ question this I'm not sure if you're

17:11 ↗ able to read the fine print so I'd print

17:17 ↗ it out

17:20 ↗ this was from not the other two this was

17:26 ↗ from the January packet and what we did

17:29 ↗ here is the blue line up at the top are

17:33 ↗ what you all said and the focus group

17:37 ↗ said of the issues that that you felt

17:40 ↗ it's a claw faced and then the data is

17:44 ↗ in the orange or peach or whatever color

17:46 ↗ it shows on the screen to show that

17:48 ↗ there's there were two pieces of

17:50 ↗ criteria we were basing what the

17:53 ↗ affordable strategies on the right left

17:56 ↗ side the actions and the checkmarks show

17:59 ↗ which actions meet all of the criteria

18:02 ↗ that you mentioned and that the focus

18:04 ↗ groups mentioned and because it's got so

18:07 ↗ busy and since some of you weren't here

18:10 ↗ we thought we'd show it in a different

18:11 ↗ way just to have everyone's brains

18:13 ↗ explode and I printed this out so we

18:16 ↗ wouldn't all get eye strain you want to

18:18 ↗ go annoying I will keep it happy for my

18:22 ↗ eye we did here is we took the

18:30 ↗ strategies the first one I'll use as an

18:32 ↗ example accessory dwelling units and

18:34 ↗ those are sometimes called mother-in-law

18:36 ↗ apartments sometimes carriage houses

18:39 ↗ sometimes granny flats they have many

18:41 ↗ names but they're when you have a

18:43 ↗ single-family home and you put another

18:45 ↗ unit in it you either put it in the

18:47 ↗ house in the garage in the loft somehow

18:51 ↗ but it has a bathroom it has a kitchen

18:53 ↗ and it has a separate entrance those are

18:56 ↗ very affordable they're considered at

18:57 ↗ the 80% level and so one way of getting

19:02 ↗ more affordable housing is if you get if

19:05 ↗ you have more ad use accessory dwelling

19:08 ↗ units in your community we have at least

19:10 ↗ 40 now in the city and they seem to be

19:14 ↗ working really well so what I put what I

19:18 ↗ did here is so you all could see the

19:20 ↗ discussion that went around the January

19:23 ↗ meeting when the folks that were on the

19:25 ↗ Commission at that time talked about him

19:27 ↗ and most all of the comments that we had

19:29 ↗ on ad use was positive that night

19:33 ↗ there was one set of issues about delay

19:38 ↗ to use add more vehicles to the

19:40 ↗ neighborhood and can the infrastructure

19:42 ↗ handle that between the the roads and

19:45 ↗ the parking our are there any questions

19:50 ↗ on assessory dwelling units or how does

19:54 ↗ this make any sense to try to remind us

19:57 ↗ all of what you all talked about in

19:59 ↗ January and the strategies yes so

20:06 ↗ looking at a to use the idea that it is

20:10 ↗ a lower about an 80% adjusted median

20:14 ↗ income as far as rents I was looking

20:18 ↗ into the information on Portland which

20:20 ↗ is known for its a to use and their

20:23 ↗ rents are actually the same market rate

20:25 ↗ for a to use as other units mm-hmm and

20:29 ↗ no I would just put in a little question

20:32 ↗ there as to whether or not this is an

20:35 ↗ effective strategy for affordable

20:38 ↗ housing particularly low-income housing

20:42 ↗ all right and I think it serves other

20:44 ↗ needs

20:45 ↗ but right and it's the quantum rules is

20:48 ↗ that they can't be they have to be

20:49 ↗ smaller than the existing unit so often

20:52 ↗ just the fact that they're smaller makes

20:54 ↗ the price point lower than you would get

20:57 ↗ in a regular run I'm not sure what

20:59 ↗ Portland's if they have that same kind

21:01 ↗ of regulation or if they can be as big

21:03 ↗ yes do you have an expert you have to

21:06 ↗ come up to the microphone though this is

21:11 ↗ Arthur Sullivan our housing expert from

21:14 ↗ arch a regional and coalition for

21:16 ↗ housing for those of you that don't know

21:17 ↗ Arthur yet everybody had a bad accident

21:22 ↗ in town so that's why I'm late so I'm

21:23 ↗ sorry to be late

21:25 ↗ fortune I was not in it so on the ATU

21:30 ↗ question it is under the quote more

21:32 ↗ affordable housing strategies but you're

21:34 ↗ correct in that they don't explicitly

21:36 ↗ create affordable units however a couple

21:40 ↗ we've been looking at this issue for

21:43 ↗ several decades working for cities and

21:46 ↗ are two elements that have tended to

21:48 ↗ make accessory dwelling units affordable

21:50 ↗ at 80 percent of median or less now when

21:55 ↗ we started doing this average rents were

21:57 ↗ more like 80 to 90 percent of meeting

21:58 ↗ and now they're closer to 100 percent of

22:00 ↗ median so the overall market has changed

22:03 ↗ but just sort of a couple things from

22:06 ↗ research that have been done on

22:07 ↗ accessory dwelling units and I don't

22:09 ↗ know I'd have to look at Portland more

22:11 ↗ carefully in more recent years but

22:15 ↗ cities in Easton County including iskele

22:17 ↗ require owner occupancy of one of the

22:19 ↗ two homes also there is a size

22:21 ↗ limitation on the size of the accessory

22:23 ↗ dwelling units the general research is

22:26 ↗ shown over the years that for the same

22:28 ↗ square footage and accessory dwelling

22:30 ↗ unit will typically rent for about 20

22:33 ↗ percent less 15 to 20 percent less than

22:35 ↗ that same square footage in a commercial

22:37 ↗ commercially operated multifamily unit

22:40 ↗ and it's partially because of kind of

22:43 ↗ just how they operate they're more

22:44 ↗ mom-and-pop operated I can Anatoli say I

22:47 ↗ used to own one and my wife would not

22:50 ↗ allow us to raise the rent on our tenant

22:53 ↗ because she liked the tenant and we

22:54 ↗ shared dog-sitting with each other but I

22:57 ↗ also knew many people in the Berkeley

22:59 ↗ area where I used to own mine that there

23:02 ↗ are stories like that all over the place

23:04 ↗ that accessory dwelling units are a

23:05 ↗ little bit different in how they behave

23:07 ↗ and they have a tendency for what they

23:10 ↗ are to be an electic less expensive than

23:12 ↗ what you see in commercial properties

23:19 ↗ any other questions on on that is it

23:23 ↗ helpful yes

23:24 ↗ since you're up there can I ask you

23:28 ↗ about about rent control and I know

23:31 ↗ Seattle is looking into that and New

23:34 ↗ York City has it in some in some

23:36 ↗ sections and so if we're trying to do

23:39 ↗ the you know it's a we're trying to

23:41 ↗ incentivize people to live and work in

23:44 ↗ Issaquah is there anything on the can on

23:49 ↗ the table to do some kind of rent

23:51 ↗ control for people who actually work in

23:54 ↗ the city or is that not a viable

23:56 ↗ strategy

23:57 ↗ I don't think the word is viable the

23:59 ↗ word is legal illegal it's not legal

24:02 ↗ this state has a law against rent

24:06 ↗ control with the one exception being

24:08 ↗ that if you provide public funding or if

24:12 ↗ you have a land use program like you

24:14 ↗ have in which a developer is required to

24:16 ↗ have units at a certain affordability

24:17 ↗ level those are exempt from the state

24:21 ↗ rent control laws but other than that in

24:23 ↗ the general market you're not allowed in

24:25 ↗ this state to do rent control to

24:27 ↗ statewide law and that was adopted I

24:30 ↗ don't know after whatever city maybe

24:32 ↗ tried to consider doing it okay is it

24:43 ↗ helpful to go through as a reminder of

24:45 ↗ parts of the discussion should I just

24:47 ↗ keep on number two is to support

24:50 ↗ preservation of existing affordable

24:52 ↗ housing and most of our affordable

24:55 ↗ housing has covenants as Arthur

24:57 ↗ mentioned where it's either a 30-year

24:58 ↗ covenant or a 50-year covenant but

25:01 ↗ there's some let's say excuse me like an

25:04 ↗ old town there's just some darling

25:06 ↗ little bungalows that are affordable but

25:10 ↗ they don't have a covenant on them

25:11 ↗ because they've just they're older

25:13 ↗ they're smaller and so those would be

25:16 ↗ things those would be units that we

25:17 ↗ would want to preserve somehow but we

25:20 ↗ don't have that control that a covenant

25:23 ↗ gives us that you you have 30 years of

25:25 ↗ the affordability of the of the rent or

25:28 ↗ the mortgage not to change so that's

25:30 ↗ something that came up as all positive

25:35 ↗ except we just don't always know which

25:38 ↗ units might be lost because they're just

25:40 ↗ either single family units that are

25:42 ↗ owned privately that all of a sudden

25:44 ↗ could someone could buy them and decide

25:46 ↗ to tear them down and put up something

25:47 ↗ else so that the problem with that is we

25:50 ↗ don't always know when there's a chance

25:52 ↗ that we could jump in to try and buy it

25:54 ↗ save it do something like that

25:57 ↗ number three was the housing levy to

25:59 ↗ propose a housing levy and this is to

26:02 ↗ sort of share the cost of affordable

26:05 ↗ housing not only with the developers

26:07 ↗ that build housing but also with the

26:09 ↗ community at large

26:11 ↗ it would be sort of an extra tax that

26:13 ↗ the council and everyone would have to

26:16 ↗ vote on but that would provide funding

26:18 ↗ that we could buy land for housing we

26:21 ↗ could get into a partnership with

26:24 ↗ developers to build affordable housing

26:26 ↗ we would have an extra bit of funding to

26:29 ↗ help in whichever way we thought helped

26:32 ↗ us the bus as a city so that was on the

26:35 ↗ table and most folks thought that was a

26:37 ↗ good idea other than we would have to

26:39 ↗ really look at you know what we would

26:41 ↗ use the money for that kind of thing

26:44 ↗ number four was transit oriented

26:46 ↗ development including multifamily tax

26:48 ↗ exemption that's something that we're in

26:52 ↗ the midst of trying right now through

26:55 ↗ our economic development department so

26:58 ↗ this is this is pretty exciting that

27:00 ↗ we're we're starting to to sort of dive

27:02 ↗ into this one this would be putting

27:05 ↗ housing near the Transit Center and

27:07 ↗ trying to provide for incentives so that

27:10 ↗ there would be more affordable units in

27:14 ↗ that project number five is to

27:19 ↗ inclusionary zoning is that in a certain

27:22 ↗ areas of town in the centralist qua area

27:24 ↗ specifically if a developer comes in to

27:27 ↗ build housing they have to build a

27:29 ↗ certain percentage of them as affordable

27:31 ↗ no one has built in centralist equai yet

27:34 ↗ since that regulation was adopted but

27:37 ↗ we're thinking of either raising that to

27:39 ↗ to require more housing or two to make

27:42 ↗ that requirement in the rest of central

27:44 ↗ Issaquah or even in the rest of the city

27:46 ↗ we haven't figured that out but it

27:48 ↗ seemed like a good idea to just have it

27:49 ↗ right on the books that it's required if

27:52 ↗ you build housing and it's a Qui you

27:53 ↗ have to build some affordable housing

27:55 ↗ with that project so I don't think there

27:58 ↗ were any oh there was a one potential

28:02 ↗ concern is you have to make sure that

28:04 ↗ you don't make it so that you discourage

28:06 ↗ anybody from building was the one

28:08 ↗ comment and we're there any more on that

28:11 ↗ one just at the bottom of the page I

28:13 ↗ can't read what's on the bottom of the

28:15 ↗ page

28:16 ↗ okay and the next one so those were all

28:18 ↗ the comments that you all had in January

28:20 ↗ and here's we've got a new chart I can

28:24 ↗ tell you're loving research I also

28:25 ↗ printed this one out this one actually

28:29 ↗ has the problem statement at the top to

28:32 ↗ try to focus us on that are affordable

28:45 ↗ are in the black printing those are the

28:48 ↗ ones you all talked about in January and

28:50 ↗ tonight we're going to talk about the

28:53 ↗ three new ones and these refer to other

28:57 ↗ housing not just affordable they could

29:00 ↗ be affordable but they're sort of going

29:02 ↗ beyond the affordable options that we

29:05 ↗ talked about in January and those are

29:08 ↗ some of them you actually did talk about

29:10 ↗ in January that changing the zoning and

29:14 ↗ building code to provide opportunities

29:16 ↗ for single room occupancy or many units

29:20 ↗ or different kinds of housing types

29:24 ↗ which we don't have right now also to

29:27 ↗ allow I like cottages and different

29:30 ↗ infill kinds of projects in

29:34 ↗ single-family areas perhaps and also

29:38 ↗ different housing options and services

29:40 ↗ to allow seniors to stay in their homes

29:43 ↗ yes you know me I always have a question

29:47 ↗ no it's good so I know that the council

29:51 ↗ so we've the council's we've we've

29:54 ↗ provided approval on a number of

29:59 ↗ high-density housing there's this

30:02 ↗ empowerment's out there that have not

30:04 ↗ been used yet it retroactively Lee could

30:07 ↗ we go back and ask for give providing so

30:11 ↗ this is just so I don't know much about

30:12 ↗ this but I'm just asking we go back and

30:16 ↗ and and provide incentives for them to

30:19 ↗ actually build affordable housing

30:21 ↗ because the concern for us is and it

30:24 ↗ took me 20 minutes to drive three miles

30:25 ↗ today is that we are all the

30:27 ↗ infrastructure is already so strange

30:30 ↗ and so we've already approved all the

30:32 ↗ tight-end city housing and we're adding

30:34 ↗ more to this into a strained

30:36 ↗ infrastructure and so can we go back and

30:39 ↗ say rather than building new units this

30:42 ↗ is talk to the developers that are

30:45 ↗ already going to build new units and

30:47 ↗ provide incentives to change kind of

30:49 ↗ that conversation so that we accomplish

30:52 ↗ this as well as you know reuse their

30:54 ↗ permits right if we've already approved

30:57 ↗ a permit with an applicant the only way

31:00 ↗ because it's sort of a contract between

31:01 ↗ them and with us the only way we would

31:05 ↗ be able to modify something like that is

31:07 ↗ if it was a mutual either they came to

31:10 ↗ us and said we would like to amend

31:12 ↗ whatever it is we'd like a new unit we'd

31:15 ↗ like commercial we'd like and then we

31:17 ↗ could say well if you would like that

31:19 ↗ then we would like this but but it once

31:21 ↗ they have their permit they're pretty

31:22 ↗ much good to go and unless we were to

31:25 ↗ contact them and say hey we have this

31:27 ↗ great idea I mean they don't have to

31:29 ↗ entertain it at all we can in fact win

31:33 ↗ resented to write to fight I was going

31:36 ↗ to say I mean that is a possibility I

31:38 ↗ think one of the things to think about

31:39 ↗ especially with newly built is that the

31:41 ↗ financing they received is based on the

31:43 ↗ projections of rents and such and so

31:45 ↗ maybe a little more challenging so I

31:47 ↗ don't think the subsidy the city can

31:49 ↗ provide may be able to make up but what

31:50 ↗ is necessary there so I think it's more

31:52 ↗ effective thinking about going forward

31:54 ↗ and looking at because typically when

31:57 ↗ you're looking at affordable housing

31:58 ↗ there's many sources of money coming in

32:01 ↗ and supposed to just what the city could

32:03 ↗ provide so it's an interesting idea but

32:05 ↗ I think but it may also be something to

32:08 ↗ think about for preservation of this if

32:10 ↗ there are units that are have been on

32:12 ↗ the market for have been built for a

32:13 ↗ while thinking about it have is there an

32:16 ↗ opportunity to make sure that they don't

32:17 ↗ rise as fast as some other ones but I

32:19 ↗ think for newer one's a little more

32:21 ↗ challenging so doesn't mean it can't

32:23 ↗ ever happen but you know part of this is

32:25 ↗ we there you want to product find the

32:28 ↗ things that are going to be the most

32:29 ↗ bang for your buck be the most ability

32:31 ↗ to do things so thank you

32:39 ↗ okay it didn't seem like there were any

32:41 ↗ comments any more questions on on that

32:47 ↗ one okay

32:51 ↗ were there any I want you guys to be shy

32:54 ↗ were there any comments on the

32:56 ↗ affordable housing ones for those of you

32:58 ↗ that weren't here or even those of you

33:00 ↗ that were here on that first list yes

33:06 ↗ what do you mean comments or questions

33:09 ↗ like basically do we approve what do we

33:12 ↗ think of a to use versus em FTEs etc

33:16 ↗ right or do you say or do you see

33:18 ↗ something that just doesn't sound right

33:20 ↗ at all to you that you think there's an

33:21 ↗ issue with one of them or that something

33:24 ↗ just doesn't make any sense or something

33:27 ↗ is we should put all our eggs in one

33:28 ↗ basket kind of thing I have some

33:31 ↗ concerns about the cost-benefit ratio

33:33 ↗ for the multifamily tax exemptions as

33:36 ↗ far as the number of units that it would

33:39 ↗ provide compared to the cost because

33:43 ↗ when you're looking at that you're

33:44 ↗ looking at giving the developer a 12

33:47 ↗ year tax exemption for the entire

33:51 ↗ building even though they're only

33:54 ↗ putting in 20 to 25 percent affordable

33:57 ↗ first of all I would really really want

34:00 ↗ that to be low income rather than

34:02 ↗ affordable because I think what we've

34:06 ↗ seen in the data is that we have a huge

34:09 ↗ deficit in the 50% ami range and not as

34:13 ↗ much in the 80% range and so I think we

34:15 ↗ need to focus our push on that area but

34:19 ↗ as far as that I'd like to know a little

34:22 ↗ bit more information I looked a little

34:25 ↗ bit into Seattle's kind of the tax that

34:30 ↗ they wouldn't be collecting compared to

34:32 ↗ the number of units that they've been

34:35 ↗ able to grow and it was fairly expensive

34:38 ↗ per unit to make that difference and I'd

34:42 ↗ like to compare that to the potential

34:45 ↗ for you know even without the housing

34:48 ↗ levy for the city

34:50 ↗ to acquire land and what the cost per

34:53 ↗ unit would be there if we did something

34:55 ↗ like we did with the YWCA where we're

34:59 ↗ gifting or providing low-cost land to a

35:05 ↗ group that's going to provide much more

35:07 ↗ housing part of the description of this

35:20 ↗ is you know that there really isn't one

35:23 ↗ tool that's going to solve this problem

35:24 ↗ it's really kind of populating a tool

35:28 ↗ box with a lot of different strategies

35:30 ↗ that you know potentially all of them

35:34 ↗ are going to provide different types of

35:36 ↗ housing opportunities and you know I

35:39 ↗ agree there's needed every income level

35:42 ↗ doing part of what we've talked about is

35:45 ↗ that creating a city with a diverse

35:48 ↗ housing stock is one of our kind of top

35:50 ↗ goals and that's that's anything from

35:52 ↗ market rate housing down to housing for

35:55 ↗ homeless right and so these different

35:58 ↗ tools give us different opportunities

36:00 ↗ and I think what we talked about was if

36:04 ↗ we feel as a group comfortable with

36:06 ↗ everything on the list not as one anyone

36:09 ↗ as a silver bullet but as a group of

36:12 ↗ strategies then we would forward that to

36:14 ↗ the City Council and let them then chew

36:16 ↗ on the rationale because you're right I

36:19 ↗ mean the different tools are going to

36:21 ↗ have you know you don't want to use a

36:22 ↗ screwdriver to try and pound something

36:24 ↗ into a wall but there might be a hammer

36:26 ↗ in there that would work better and

36:28 ↗ similarly some of these depending on

36:30 ↗ what we're really trying to achieve

36:31 ↗ might work better for certain things

36:33 ↗ like like very low income you know the

36:36 ↗ city purchasing land or MFT ii could be

36:40 ↗ a better tool than maybe trying to get a

36:43 ↗ to use because i agree with you that ad

36:45 ↗ you might or might not be affordable at

36:48 ↗ the end of the day and it'll change over

36:50 ↗ time is kind of the rationale you know

36:52 ↗ maybe at one point it's market but then

36:54 ↗ it's a place for your kids to hang out

36:58 ↗ and you don't charge them anything I

36:59 ↗ don't know so and carthoris something to

37:02 ↗ say - yeah

37:02 ↗ you were sort of getting at what I

37:04 ↗ wanted to sort of put out there to the

37:06 ↗ group is that what we're looking to do

37:08 ↗ right now and is what we did began at

37:09 ↗ the last meeting we you sort of want to

37:11 ↗ just redo it again because several of

37:13 ↗ you weren't here is we're sharing you

37:15 ↗ the kind of comments we heard these are

37:18 ↗ strategies that as chief said we're not

37:20 ↗ looking for one strategy here we're

37:22 ↗ looking for these range of strategies

37:24 ↗ what are your perspectives when you hear

37:26 ↗ about them and those can be perspectives

37:29 ↗ of do they you know reinforce some of

37:31 ↗ the areas yet this could really see that

37:33 ↗ this could help address this need we're

37:35 ↗ trying to hear from you representing a

37:36 ↗ different cross-section of the community

37:38 ↗ your response is when you hear those oh

37:40 ↗ that sounds like a good a because it

37:42 ↗ might address this need and then the

37:43 ↗ other is we're not writing the ad

37:46 ↗ ordinance here with this group we're not

37:48 ↗ writing the MFT ordinance but your

37:50 ↗ comments would say if the council wants

37:52 ↗ to proceed with those what are things

37:54 ↗ that should be done as part of the

37:56 ↗ evaluation so yours is a perfect example

37:58 ↗ and yes every city we've helped with MFE

38:01 ↗ we've done this elaborate chart that

38:04 ↗ shows how much you're giving how much

38:05 ↗ you're getting and stuff like that so

38:07 ↗ we're looking for those both of those

38:09 ↗ kind of comments that's why you see

38:10 ↗ there's pros that's sort of the why is

38:12 ↗ it a fit in the community and then the

38:15 ↗ others are the issues or potential

38:17 ↗ things to deal with and we just thought

38:18 ↗ we should revisit those for each of

38:20 ↗ these topics Before we jump into the new

38:22 ↗ ones because as I said there's some new

38:24 ↗ people and you maybe had a time chance

38:26 ↗ to think about it since the last meeting

38:28 ↗ so that's all we're trying to do right

38:29 ↗ now we're not trying to get to a bottom

38:31 ↗ line conclusion per se we're trying to

38:34 ↗ just get your thoughts so that we have

38:36 ↗ so that the council can hear other

38:37 ↗ perspectives as they're deliberating as

38:39 ↗ we advance this report to them okay I

38:43 ↗ had one comment I've been talking with

38:47 ↗ people about affordable housing and

38:53 ↗ development and one of the things that

38:55 ↗ I'm hearing from people is the

38:57 ↗ development is happening very rapidly

38:59 ↗ and that it seems that even if you

39:05 ↗ required affordable units from the

39:10 ↗ developers it would not discourage them

39:13 ↗ from building in this area because it's

39:16 ↗ like everybody wants to develop

39:20 ↗ something on the east side so if we

39:23 ↗ discourage them even a little it might

39:26 ↗ help us to catch up with the

39:28 ↗ infrastructure so just one overall

39:34 ↗ thought about that as the economic

39:36 ↗ development director for the city is so

39:39 ↗ part of the problem about affordable

39:41 ↗ housing is supply and demand right so

39:44 ↗ the more housing you have it has to

39:47 ↗ compete with less buyers and therefore

39:50 ↗ the housing typically is not as high

39:52 ↗ priced the less available housing units

39:55 ↗ we have the higher the price will be

39:57 ↗ because there will be less dock for

40:00 ↗ people to actually purchase so it

40:02 ↗ actually took slow growth actually

40:04 ↗ pushes up housing costs so that's

40:07 ↗ economics okay but you might at least

40:12 ↗ get some balance so a couple a couple

40:16 ↗ things here when talking about

40:18 ↗ affordable housing there is I call a

40:21 ↗ Lockhart affordable housing and then you

40:23 ↗ have full services affordable housing

40:27 ↗ what's your preference on full services

40:32 ↗ versus ala cart and should we include

40:36 ↗ policy verbage to require full services

40:42 ↗ can you explain a little more what you

40:46 ↗ mean by a Lockhart versus full service

40:48 ↗ oh all a cart would be a development of

40:53 ↗ affordable housing where the people

40:55 ↗ simply pay the rent

40:59 ↗ then you have full services that we also

41:02 ↗ include things like childcare services

41:07 ↗ social services they may have counselors

41:11 ↗ on hand to help people with life needs

41:15 ↗ what a force training workforce training

41:17 ↗ things like that okay when you get into

41:19 ↗ affordable housing sometimes you also

41:21 ↗ have other issues that are or other

41:27 ↗ stresses on that that segment of the

41:31 ↗ population so not everybody who is in a

41:33 ↗ in affordable housing care because they

41:37 ↗ just can't get a job maybe it's because

41:39 ↗ there's other issues as well so what do

41:41 ↗ other people have reaction to that

41:43 ↗ question before I make any comments I

41:50 ↗ mean I think we need both if we're

41:52 ↗ looking at the highlands which I know

41:55 ↗ well we have the full services down with

41:58 ↗ the YWCA we also have various individual

42:04 ↗ arche subsidized houses throughout that

42:08 ↗ provide just the ala carte so I think I

42:10 ↗ I would be in support of both within the

42:14 ↗ city other thoughts and reactions

42:19 ↗ generally I'll put a sort of qualifying

42:21 ↗ statement out that so if you recall we

42:24 ↗ use the term moderate income which is

42:28 ↗ median income now is 96,000 for a family

42:32 ↗ of four so we're getting close to a nice

42:33 ↗ round number to be able to start

42:35 ↗ thinking about the math a household that

42:39 ↗ we consider moderate is going to be

42:41 ↗ eighty percent of that figure and and

42:42 ↗ for smaller family it won't be the full

42:44 ↗ ninety six will be more like eighty

42:46 ↗ thousand it's like eighty could have

42:48 ↗ almost a hundred thousand is sort of the

42:51 ↗ median income for small versus a large

42:54 ↗ household so at eighty percent of median

42:55 ↗ you're looking at about eighty thousand

42:57 ↗ down to about sixty sixty-five thousand

42:59 ↗ if it's a single person okay and for

43:03 ↗ lower income that's fifty percent of

43:05 ↗ median so you're looking at thirty to

43:08 ↗ forty five thousand dollars a year

43:09 ↗ another way to translate that in your

43:11 ↗ head pretty easily is the magical $15 an

43:14 ↗ hour number you see thrown around a lot

43:16 ↗ if somebody had a $15 an hour job

43:18 ↗ full-time it would be thirty thousand

43:20 ↗ dollars a year just simple little

43:22 ↗ figures to have in your head about hat

43:26 ↗ about forty percent of all households

43:29 ↗ are going to be under 80 percent of

43:31 ↗ median income as we grow in other words

43:34 ↗ there's a community grows from all the

43:35 ↗ jobs they have

43:37 ↗ they will generate new households that

43:39 ↗ doesn't mean that might be who's living

43:40 ↗ in the town because you only have big

43:42 ↗ homes you're not going to see that but

43:43 ↗ as your workforce grows you're going to

43:46 ↗ typically see about 40% of your

43:48 ↗ households will be in that moderate or

43:50 ↗ low income range so often when we're

43:55 ↗ dealing with housing affordability we

43:58 ↗ are dealing people who are working or

43:59 ↗ might be dealing with students we might

44:01 ↗ be dealing with seniors on fixed income

44:02 ↗ and they're all falling under one of

44:04 ↗ those income categories when you start

44:07 ↗ getting into the services you're

44:08 ↗ generally dealing with households who

44:10 ↗ were probably well below 50% of median

44:12 ↗ income they may be unemployed they may

44:14 ↗ have gone through a health crisis they

44:16 ↗ may have gone through a number of things

44:17 ↗ they may be homeless or they may be very

44:19 ↗ close to being homeless and we just had

44:23 ↗ an interview with a number of service

44:24 ↗ agencies and one of the comments they

44:26 ↗ have made is that the general increase

44:29 ↗ in housing costs in the region have put

44:32 ↗ more and more households in a housing

44:34 ↗ tenuous situation long-term not

44:37 ↗ short-term like it used to be they used

44:39 ↗ to experience but long-term and as they

44:42 ↗ experienced that the kind of issues that

44:44 ↗ Ron talked about start to emerge and

44:46 ↗ grow because of the pressure that

44:49 ↗ they're under to survive day to day and

44:52 ↗ so what we have been doing in the last

44:53 ↗ ten years

44:54 ↗ is for people who are lower-income there

44:57 ↗ have been more interest in getting

44:59 ↗ programs associated with housing so that

45:02 ↗ people can maybe help being a more

45:04 ↗ stable environment for a period of time

45:06 ↗ so they can get back on their feet and

45:08 ↗ get back and be more independent going

45:11 ↗ into the future so that's to give a

45:13 ↗ little context so usually the ala carte

45:16 ↗ is for the more at 50 and 60 80 percent

45:19 ↗ of median or even higher like first-time

45:21 ↗ homeowners you all are seeing what the

45:23 ↗ home prices are you mentioned the rh

45:26 ↗ units which are really sort of basic

45:27 ↗ wide units created through the iskele

45:29 ↗ highlands of development some of those

45:31 ↗ are targeted to households at median

45:33 ↗ income because the markets new units all

45:36 ↗ right 120 150 percent of median so this

45:40 ↗ goes back to Keith's comment earlier

45:43 ↗ that there's such a wide range of needs

45:45 ↗ which I think the data that you solved

45:48 ↗ was showing you and so the city has

45:50 ↗ looked at

45:51 ↗ different types of strategies because of

45:53 ↗ different needs but generally when the

45:55 ↗ services are there you're targeting

45:56 ↗ towards households who are under 50% and

45:59 ↗ often well below 50% and the more

46:01 ↗ Alucard are in the 40 and up percent of

46:05 ↗ median income and sometimes they're

46:07 ↗ targeted to seniors and sometimes not

46:08 ↗ but that's just sort of distinguish you

46:11 ↗ from the comment you made you wanted to

46:12 ↗ follow up it was like so the question

46:14 ↗ comes for and looking at the median

46:17 ↗ income that's at 50% if we cater to that

46:20 ↗ audience we decide to do that if we do

46:24 ↗ not offer full services for that segment

46:29 ↗ and maybe that's the only segment we we

46:30 ↗ target for full services then we would

46:33 ↗ be putting possibly undue burden on

46:36 ↗ other city resources to support that

46:39 ↗ target audience and not in not enabling

46:46 ↗ that specific community to be successful

46:50 ↗ because we're depriving them of those

46:52 ↗ resources so we're providing a place for

46:55 ↗ them to live but not a way or means to

46:58 ↗ be successful so Kay okay and again I

47:02 ↗ think what my comment would be is at 50

47:06 ↗ percent of median income what you're

47:09 ↗ describing might be true for the 20

47:12 ↗ percent of households maybe a little bit

47:14 ↗ more and they some of them might benefit

47:17 ↗ from light touches of services support

47:20 ↗ if you're at 30 percent of median that

47:23 ↗ percentage is likely to be higher okay

47:25 ↗ 50 percent of median right now is 45042

47:29 ↗ 96 divided by two so $48,000 for a

47:32 ↗ family of four so there's a probably a

47:35 ↗ lot of people who are earning that who

47:37 ↗ are doing you know fairly stable

47:40 ↗ lifestyle but I think the point you're

47:42 ↗ making is our we conscious of that need

47:45 ↗ in the housing that is being created and

47:47 ↗ supported when it's explicitly targeted

47:49 ↗ to a certain income level if that may be

47:51 ↗ a fair way to represent what you're

47:53 ↗ saying yeah I don't want to abandon

47:55 ↗ those people if we say okay we're going

47:58 ↗ to allow this community to exist I want

48:03 ↗ to give them

48:04 ↗ their means and resources to be

48:06 ↗ successful because when you're out of a

48:09 ↗ 50 range or 45,000 we may think wow

48:12 ↗ 45,000 seems like a lot but sorry living

48:15 ↗ on that and if you just sneeze you're

48:17 ↗ backwards right sometimes having those

48:19 ↗ resources keeps that person moving

48:22 ↗ forward as opposed to having a potential

48:26 ↗ catastrophe right okay so how do you

48:37 ↗ restrict to people that live and work in

48:41 ↗ there to work in this city so we've got

48:43 ↗ cities that are a number of cities that

48:46 ↗ are within 20 miles of us right and so

48:48 ↗ potentially we could take ourselves into

48:51 ↗ a place where we're solving this problem

48:53 ↗ for a bunch of cities right and so I

48:55 ↗ know that there is some collaboration so

48:58 ↗ I mean in your experience how do you

49:00 ↗ restrict that to two Issaquah on people

49:05 ↗ who work in Issaquah without getting

49:08 ↗ into any you know legal right kind of

49:11 ↗ situation it is kind of a trickier -

49:14 ↗ that's a great question and it's when I

49:16 ↗ come up against a lot or deal that gets

49:19 ↗ brought up a lot and part of it is I

49:22 ↗ volunteered to come to this organization

49:24 ↗ when it was formed and it was formed by

49:27 ↗ Bellevue who said wouldn't we all

49:29 ↗ benefit if everybody on the east side

49:32 ↗ was working on housing and had the

49:34 ↗ resources within the government to help

49:36 ↗ them work on housing issues because a

49:38 ↗ task force just very similar years

49:40 ↗ concluded that just because a building

49:42 ↗ is over the city boundary in Bellevue

49:44 ↗ doesn't mean Bellevue isn't benefiting

49:46 ↗ or if Bellevue is the only city doing

49:48 ↗ something and the other cities aren't

49:50 ↗ then is that benefiting them and so the

49:52 ↗ whole idea behind arch is the YWCA had

49:56 ↗ funding from ten cities in East Kent

49:58 ↗ County now it's a clause helped fund a

50:01 ↗ project in Bellevue so we have moved our

50:03 ↗ money around with the goal of making

50:05 ↗ housing happen in every city okay so we

50:08 ↗ want to make sure the philosophy of the

50:09 ↗ city this is formed by the cities is we

50:12 ↗ all need to try to do stuff okay both

50:14 ↗ and all these different types of tools

50:17 ↗ do we go as far as saying let's

50:19 ↗ fine-tune it and say we want to you know

50:21 ↗ do we get people from our community

50:23 ↗ that's a trickier question what we have

50:26 ↗ done is try to work with the agencies to

50:28 ↗ market locally when they have

50:30 ↗ opportunities the YWCA we actually and

50:33 ↗ we're and we're going back and we're

50:34 ↗ asking the developments that we funded

50:37 ↗ are the people coming from this area

50:39 ↗ when you create the affordable housing

50:41 ↗ what we have tried to do in the past is

50:43 ↗ have them market to local businesses

50:45 ↗ when they are opening and stuff like

50:47 ↗ that that's getting tougher to do under

50:49 ↗ the Fair Housing Act and so there is

50:52 ↗ some issues that are rising there but

50:54 ↗ we've been very conscious that the

50:55 ↗ reason we're at this table is a local

50:57 ↗ need so what are we doing to try to have

51:00 ↗ the solutions we do address local needs

51:03 ↗ a certain amount is just naturally you

51:06 ↗ know who wants to drive into this

51:07 ↗ traffic if they don't have to right so

51:10 ↗ what we are finding is generally people

51:13 ↗ we think people are coming from the

51:15 ↗ communities in which the housing is

51:17 ↗ create or maybe they didn't live here

51:19 ↗ but they work here a lot of times but it

51:21 ↗ is something we're always conscious of

51:23 ↗ but because we're getting funding

51:24 ↗ assistance from the county and the state

51:26 ↗ they're also like they don't love you to

51:29 ↗ sort of be explicitly restrictive to one

51:32 ↗ community where people can come from but

51:34 ↗ we have tried to find ways and we are

51:36 ↗ actually going out this year and

51:38 ↗ surveying because this kind of question

51:40 ↗ does come up but the main way we do it

51:42 ↗ is doing outreach to local businesses

51:44 ↗ when buildings are being filled up and

51:47 ↗ try to reach out locally and to make

51:49 ↗ that be the case because we do

51:51 ↗ understand that's what's motivating this

51:52 ↗ conversation okay

51:57 ↗ so I want to reinforce one point and I

52:00 ↗ want to make any point the point I wanna

52:02 ↗ reinforce is the point she made earlier

52:05 ↗ about rent so I've heard

52:07 ↗ the nightmare stories of friend

52:10 ↗ literally getting doubled as soon as

52:13 ↗ Uli's ends they understand rent control

52:16 ↗ is legal in Washington but this is

52:19 ↗ something I would be happy to deliver I

52:22 ↗ think we should deliver it more on okay

52:26 ↗ the other point I wanted to make I don't

52:29 ↗ see it here is one of the price drivers

52:31 ↗ or house prices and this basically

52:35 ↗ affects everybody not just middle-income

52:36 ↗ families is or iners from especially

52:43 ↗ right now Vancouver that don't live here

52:46 ↗ that don't have a work visa coming here

52:49 ↗ and buying property all cash and this is

52:54 ↗ very pronounced it's become very

52:58 ↗ pronounced in recent times and some

53:00 ↗ localities like you know the Highlands

53:02 ↗ where I live

53:04 ↗ buy the property the sign a lease right

53:08 ↗ there to leave the country and as you

53:14 ↗ know Vancouver they included a 15% tax

53:18 ↗ which is basically driving them for the

53:21 ↗ south

53:22 ↗ it used to come to the Bay Area now

53:25 ↗ they're here and this is something I

53:28 ↗ think we should talk about okay I'm

53:32 ↗ working in four cities right now and

53:34 ↗ this point has come up by groups like

53:36 ↗ yours in every city on the east side so

53:39 ↗ I don't know maybe we'll maybe they'll

53:41 ↗ be enough for this being raised as a

53:42 ↗ question so we'll that's what we're

53:44 ↗ trying to do tonight is we've given you

53:46 ↗ the four or five three or four four or

53:50 ↗ five our many for affordable housing and

53:53 ↗ what we were going you're sort of

53:54 ↗ jumping ahead on the agenda but that's

53:56 ↗ fine which is did we miss anything so

53:58 ↗ it's good that you're bringing these

53:59 ↗ general issues up but please also feel

54:02 ↗ free to comment on any of the ones on

54:05 ↗ this matrix as well okay be specific

54:09 ↗ about that but the general comments are

54:10 ↗ helpful

54:11 ↗ well so does Lord yes right one very

54:15 ↗ quick one here for affordable housing

54:17 ↗ before we move on and do we as a group

54:20 ↗ want to discuss affordable housing for

54:26 ↗ first responders and for teachers now I

54:31 ↗ understand the laws and so on for first

54:33 ↗ responders is going to be different from

54:35 ↗ teachers and that teachers could be

54:37 ↗ funded different ways

54:38 ↗ oh maybe having a formal housing plan

54:41 ↗ for these audiences might go through a

54:44 ↗ non-profit or some other means but maybe

54:47 ↗ we should include that into our

54:48 ↗ discussion because it'd be great if our

54:50 ↗ teachers could live here I think they

54:53 ↗ would like it and I think our students

54:55 ↗ would like it and I think that might be

54:56 ↗ absent from our current discussions okay

55:02 ↗ how do others feel about that comment

55:05 ↗ I'm seeing that there's a lot of

55:08 ↗ turnover in teachers because teachers

55:10 ↗ have to commute so far in order to find

55:14 ↗ a place that they can live and traffic

55:18 ↗ is not good and the stress causes them

55:21 ↗ to leave very quickly so I'm going to

55:25 ↗ ask Trish is going to show you the

55:29 ↗ matrix with the three and I'm going to

55:32 ↗ ask for that comment it's noted but to

55:36 ↗ be held and when we have the full list

55:38 ↗ up there I'm going to then ask you the

55:40 ↗ question or any of these strategies when

55:43 ↗ you add the affordable plus to general

55:45 ↗ ones ones that might in particular help

55:48 ↗ address that point that need okay I

55:51 ↗ don't want to limit it to just this part

55:53 ↗ of the list as I think there might be

55:54 ↗ some stuff on the other part of the list

55:56 ↗ that would also help address that so I

55:58 ↗ want at least in other words say I want

56:02 ↗ to take your statement one step further

56:03 ↗ and say and of the strategies that we've

56:05 ↗ been talking about here are some that

56:07 ↗ might be ways to direct that I know

56:08 ↗ about your questions in the past about

56:10 ↗ that I'm taking all those answers that

56:12 ↗ you've given me into that framework that

56:14 ↗ I just mentioned so I still remember all

56:16 ↗ those things right okay appreciate it

56:18 ↗ okay all right other comments on the

56:22 ↗ Affordable before we ship

56:24 ↗ / and add the over the other strategies

56:27 ↗ to the conversation so if the what I

56:31 ↗ understand that what we're trying to do

56:32 ↗ right now is you want us to comment on

56:34 ↗ these six and say whether we like these

56:36 ↗ tools or whether any of these six have

56:38 ↗ things that we might be concerned about

56:40 ↗ right where you go if you are going to

56:43 ↗ look at these more here are things we

56:44 ↗ want you to think harder about it so I

56:46 ↗ think the one I just look at is number

56:48 ↗ two if you take Keith's point on supply

56:51 ↗ and demand that would supporting the

56:54 ↗ preservation as is of affordable housing

56:56 ↗ would restrict supply so I would modify

56:59 ↗ that to maybe say if there is an

57:01 ↗ affordable unit put a covenant that says

57:03 ↗ what what comes into that next could

57:06 ↗ have more units but those need to be

57:08 ↗ affordable units otherwise you're just

57:09 ↗ kind of going to be stuck in place with

57:11 ↗ bungalows and not enough so what you're

57:13 ↗ saying is a sub-element of number two

57:16 ↗ could be saying preservation might be

57:20 ↗ allowing redevelopment but you're

57:22 ↗ replacing you know I just have to keep

57:25 ↗ the thing as is yes because otherwise

57:27 ↗ you're just going to end up with a

57:29 ↗ really old bungalow and people are they

57:31 ↗ I couldn't work that right there may be

57:33 ↗ times we're keeping some below because

57:35 ↗ another example of preservation would be

57:39 ↗ we haven't had cities do that around

57:41 ↗ here too much is here's a neighborhood

57:44 ↗ that we're going to allow mooring but

57:47 ↗ how you're going to did this I went back

57:50 ↗ our loan it was our length not Arlington

57:53 ↗ but Alexandria Virginia no I know it was

57:56 ↗ Arlington Virginia and they what they

57:59 ↗ did is they had an area right around

58:00 ↗ there new rail stations for metro and

58:02 ↗ there's a base zoning and then they said

58:06 ↗ if you won and it had a lot of housing

58:08 ↗ they're already like garden-style

58:10 ↗ apartments and stuff and they said

58:12 ↗ there's a couple different ways you can

58:13 ↗ go higher than that babe zoning and one

58:15 ↗ of those is you can buy air rights from

58:18 ↗ another building and then that building

58:20 ↗ will get preserved and we've toured a

58:22 ↗ couple so there's the point I'm hearing

58:24 ↗ from you is think about the idea of

58:27 ↗ still having growth occur but preserving

58:29 ↗ opportunities that are there okay all

58:32 ↗ right

58:36 ↗ others died bid a arrow Hadron I had

58:40 ↗ recruited sorry quick question on for

58:41 ↗ number one by a to use as an ad you have

58:44 ↗ to be a separate dwelling or can it be

58:46 ↗ part of the primary building actually

58:49 ↗ almost the vast majority of the time

58:52 ↗ they're part of the primary building

58:53 ↗ most a to use are not separate cost too

58:59 ↗ much most people find it's very easy to

59:01 ↗ carve out space and a house to work for

59:03 ↗ an 8000 Eddie you could also be a room

59:06 ↗ for rent an ad you must be a legally

59:10 ↗ separate you to be a native you can rent

59:13 ↗ out rooms people can rent out rooms and

59:15 ↗ that's just people can do that but an

59:18 ↗ Adu is when you go through the effort of

59:20 ↗ creating a separate legal unit from a

59:24 ↗ point it may not be it might not be

59:26 ↗ legally separate in terms of being able

59:28 ↗ to sellable

59:29 ↗ but it's firewalls separated and it has

59:32 ↗ cooking and it has bathing facility it

59:35 ↗ has all living needs independent of the

59:39 ↗ rest of the house but would a I'm

59:43 ↗ thinking I'm squawk mountains we have a

59:44 ↗ lot of single-story units that have

59:48 ↗ daylight basements provide basements

59:50 ↗ have seven foot ceilings guess which

59:52 ↗ sheetrock on it that becomes a cigarette

59:54 ↗ and half foot ceilings is that literally

59:57 ↗ would that be legally considered as a

59:58 ↗ edu or the ceiling if you go and get the

1:00:01 ↗ permit and do enough firewall separation

1:00:03 ↗ you could potentially make daylight

1:00:06 ↗ basements are a prime opportunity for

1:00:08 ↗ the town where I own mine was a hillside

1:00:11 ↗ community and most of the ad use were in

1:00:14 ↗ daylight basements in the basement in

1:00:15 ↗ the basement area that had been it took

1:00:17 ↗ the base back right I mean everybody

1:00:20 ↗ knows the layout you take that bathroom

1:00:22 ↗ on the lower level and those two rooms

1:00:24 ↗ that are each side of it and boy it's

1:00:26 ↗ real easy with not a whole lot of cost

1:00:28 ↗ to create a separate unit from that so

1:00:31 ↗ it is very common split-level you can

1:00:34 ↗ probably vision how you can do that one

1:00:36 ↗ I mean so yes most of them are just

1:00:39 ↗ carved out of existing living space and

1:00:41 ↗ existing units using primarily existing

1:00:44 ↗ plumbing with minor you know some

1:00:46 ↗ plumbing modifications but the main

1:00:48 ↗ you have to have the cooking you must

1:00:50 ↗ have the bath the bathing and you must

1:00:54 ↗ have fire separation there's probably

1:00:56 ↗ some other technical but those are the

1:00:57 ↗ main ones and then you must have at

1:01:00 ↗ least at most cities say you must have

1:01:03 ↗ at least one more parking space than is

1:01:05 ↗ required under the code for that house

1:01:07 ↗ now most homes already have that you

1:01:10 ↗ have more than you know so if the code

1:01:12 ↗ requires two and you have somehow four

1:01:14 ↗ parking spaces in your driveway you meet

1:01:16 ↗ the requirement so those are generally

1:01:18 ↗ what the basic rules are to create an

1:01:20 ↗ Adu

1:01:21 ↗ there's some other subtleties like

1:01:23 ↗ design features if you do an addition or

1:01:25 ↗ something kind of things and stuff so

1:01:28 ↗ you wanted to make a comment earlier um

1:01:30 ↗ yes thanks I also had a follow-up

1:01:33 ↗ question on the ad use so is the

1:01:36 ↗ strategy to somehow support addition of

1:01:40 ↗ abs into existing structures or would it

1:01:44 ↗ be encouraging developers to develop

1:01:48 ↗ when they develop new homes to also

1:01:50 ↗ include ad use I'm just wondering what

1:01:53 ↗ the mechanism is for encouraging me to

1:01:55 ↗ use in the strategy what do people think

1:01:57 ↗ good question so I think because ad use

1:02:05 ↗ serve multiple purposes in addition to

1:02:08 ↗ affordable housing they allow

1:02:10 ↗ flexibility for the owner as they age

1:02:14 ↗ and perhaps their kids move out they can

1:02:18 ↗ move into the smaller unit and rent out

1:02:20 ↗ the larger unit it provides that

1:02:24 ↗ flexibility of additional income and

1:02:28 ↗ things like that so I think it's very

1:02:30 ↗ important to think about it in existing

1:02:33 ↗ homes it also helps with the

1:02:35 ↗ preservation when we're looking at the

1:02:37 ↗ valley floor yeah I think most of the

1:02:44 ↗ housing addition that we're going to get

1:02:47 ↗ is going to be you know part mint sand

1:02:50 ↗ things like that that are higher density

1:02:52 ↗ so we wouldn't be able to include a to

1:02:55 ↗ use and that so I think that's often the

1:02:58 ↗ story behind a to use but let me make

1:03:02 ↗ tell the story about the new and see

1:03:05 ↗ what you think of that and new if the

1:03:07 ↗ Builder knows the community allows a to

1:03:11 ↗ use it's pretty inexpensive while you're

1:03:13 ↗ building a unit to think about how could

1:03:16 ↗ I lay this house out so that in the

1:03:18 ↗ future it could very easily accommodate

1:03:20 ↗ an ad you so I had a friend in Mercer

1:03:23 ↗ Island who essentially rebuilt their

1:03:25 ↗ house and as they rebuilt it they were

1:03:27 ↗ thinking about the parents and they're

1:03:29 ↗ going I want an ad I want her to have a

1:03:31 ↗ space so as they design the house they

1:03:34 ↗ designed it to be incorporated in fact

1:03:36 ↗ another city a commissioner said maybe

1:03:38 ↗ we should require new bill homes to be

1:03:42 ↗ plumbed so that they could have an Adu

1:03:44 ↗ that was an idea from one commission so

1:03:48 ↗ yes well so all the friends I have that

1:03:52 ↗ that have it that something that could

1:03:55 ↗ be an Adu they use Airbnb and so in in

1:04:00 ↗ high in high-cost areas the amount of

1:04:04 ↗ money you can make off of Airbnb is much

1:04:06 ↗ higher than na tu so that would be a

1:04:11 ↗ consideration here so we'll make a note

1:04:13 ↗ if you do a to use is there a side issue

1:04:15 ↗ of the air be short-term use and what

1:04:18 ↗ does so you think about we don't to

1:04:19 ↗ solve that tonight we can make that an

1:04:21 ↗ issue out there okay any others up here

1:04:24 ↗ is I want to take all night on this I

1:04:25 ↗ want to get us to some new ones to the

1:04:29 ↗ number six is blank on the handout that

1:04:33 ↗ I have evaluate slash consider efforts

1:04:36 ↗ to remove barriers to call elements

1:04:39 ↗ right that part of this discussion or

1:04:41 ↗ upcoming discussion that should I think

1:04:45 ↗ I don't know how that is on the

1:04:46 ↗ affordable one but but it really I think

1:04:51 ↗ is as much appropriate for the new ones

1:04:54 ↗ but the reason it's blank I'm not sure

1:04:57 ↗ why it's blank but I know what it means

1:04:59 ↗ and and maybe that's that could be the

1:05:03 ↗ great transition to the new ones if you

1:05:06 ↗ live or if someone died because we can

1:05:08 ↗ still come back to the first six and

1:05:10 ↗ stuff but if you don't have a dying need

1:05:13 ↗ to

1:05:14 ↗ you say something right this moment on

1:05:16 ↗ the Affordable one we could use his

1:05:19 ↗ question as a transition and do that one

1:05:22 ↗ is the first one under the land use sort

1:05:25 ↗ of or the broader housing needs issue

1:05:30 ↗ people okay with that okay so this one

1:05:34 ↗ is and do we do have a slide than you

1:05:37 ↗ have within the one so we didn't jump to

1:05:40 ↗ that you're asking go through those

1:05:42 ↗ right this is what six right so okay so

1:05:49 ↗ for this one remove barriers to condo

1:05:53 ↗ development does anyone knows a story

1:05:54 ↗ behind what the story here okay

1:05:59 ↗ so the story here is least this is the

1:06:02 ↗ story we hear is that the kind of

1:06:06 ↗ condominiums that were being built up

1:06:08 ↗ until the recession are not getting

1:06:11 ↗ built and what I mean by that is like in

1:06:14 ↗ Issaquah highlands there's a number of

1:06:16 ↗ condo developments that were built up

1:06:18 ↗ there and that is the same kind of

1:06:20 ↗ buildings as the new rental housing that

1:06:22 ↗ you're seeing built now and we're not

1:06:24 ↗ seeing that we're still seeing high-end

1:06:27 ↗ condos being built like in downtown

1:06:29 ↗ Seattle and downtown Bellevue you're

1:06:30 ↗ still seeing those kind of condos built

1:06:32 ↗ and what we've heard is the reason is

1:06:34 ↗ they're so high up on the market that

1:06:38 ↗ the builders can in for afford the

1:06:40 ↗ really expensive insurance costs to deal

1:06:43 ↗ with condo association liability okay

1:06:46 ↗ but for the kind of condos that were

1:06:48 ↗ built the issue that we're hearing is

1:06:50 ↗ out there is that NIF state the condo

1:06:53 ↗ liability laws to the builders are

1:06:56 ↗ written in a way that puts them at

1:06:58 ↗ jeopardy that within a ten year period

1:07:01 ↗ they will be sued and therefore and be

1:07:04 ↗ liable for the material workmanship of

1:07:07 ↗ the buildings and therefore they can't

1:07:11 ↗ get the insurance or it's so hard to do

1:07:13 ↗ that they're just not building it and

1:07:15 ↗ given where interest rates are being so

1:07:18 ↗ low rental housing is doing well before

1:07:22 ↗ the recession when rates were a little

1:07:24 ↗ bit higher the kind of builders were all

1:07:26 ↗ building there was no rental house

1:07:28 ↗ being built because the economics often

1:07:30 ↗ works better so the whole issue appears

1:07:32 ↗ to be around this state's condo

1:07:34 ↗ liability legisla and builders therefore

1:07:38 ↗ making it difficult for them to consider

1:07:40 ↗ building something which from my

1:07:43 ↗ background and looking at everything

1:07:45 ↗ going on in the market I can't

1:07:48 ↗ understand why condos aren't being built

1:07:49 ↗ it doesn't seem to be a market demand

1:07:50 ↗ issue ok it seems to be that and so it

1:07:54 ↗ seems believable what they're saying

1:07:56 ↗ during the recession when they say that

1:07:57 ↗ yeah well maybe they're just saying that

1:07:59 ↗ because they're trying to make your life

1:08:00 ↗ easier but right now you go they're

1:08:03 ↗ still not building them but you are

1:08:05 ↗ seeing townhomes being built because

1:08:07 ↗ those are built as fee-simple so they're

1:08:11 ↗ not that sorry condominium association

1:08:13 ↗ so here is a form of housing that has

1:08:15 ↗ become in East Kane County since I've

1:08:17 ↗ been here that's the first form of

1:08:20 ↗ ownership for people is condominiums and

1:08:22 ↗ we're not seeing it built right now and

1:08:23 ↗ so the idea here is two cities get

1:08:28 ↗ behind and tell legislators we have this

1:08:31 ↗ big gap in our market that is not being

1:08:34 ↗ met and it seems that maybe legislation

1:08:37 ↗ is part of the reason why and should we

1:08:39 ↗ do something or maybe either like you

1:08:41 ↗ know it's been a tough one for the

1:08:42 ↗ legislators because the attorneys come

1:08:44 ↗ in and say no we're protecting consumers

1:08:46 ↗ okay so as with many issues there's two

1:08:50 ↗ sides to it but that's what the story is

1:08:52 ↗ behind this one and so there's nothing

1:08:54 ↗ explicitly for the city to do at this

1:08:56 ↗ moment other than to maybe get behind

1:08:59 ↗ the legs the issues that the builders

1:09:01 ↗ are saying they're having with that

1:09:03 ↗ issue okay are you very high level

1:09:07 ↗ what's the difference between a condo

1:09:10 ↗ and a townhouse a townhome can be a

1:09:13 ↗ condo a condo is when you don't own the

1:09:15 ↗ ground condo is when you own this you

1:09:18 ↗ own you don't even know in the building

1:09:20 ↗ you own the air within the the paint and

1:09:23 ↗ end of your unit and the Association

1:09:26 ↗ owns the building and you and that's why

1:09:30 ↗ you pay dues to take care of the

1:09:32 ↗ building and stuff so you own your unit

1:09:35 ↗ but you don't own the grounds and you

1:09:36 ↗ don't own the infrastructure of the

1:09:39 ↗ property whereas in a townhouse

1:09:41 ↗ the way they're building them is they

1:09:43 ↗ are subdividing them into individual

1:09:45 ↗ units or if I think it might also be to

1:09:48 ↗ keep the number of units under a certain

1:09:50 ↗ size and I'm not sure I haven't filed

1:09:52 ↗ the legislation closely enough but with

1:09:53 ↗ a townhome you often own the dirt

1:09:55 ↗ underneath your unit and you own your

1:09:57 ↗ your the whole building and the shell

1:09:59 ↗ okay but daily they may look the same so

1:10:06 ↗ the thing is is if it's a paper

1:10:08 ↗ difference it's you know you may walk

1:10:11 ↗ down the street and there may be no

1:10:13 ↗ visible difference between a condominium

1:10:15 ↗ and a townhouse project it's whether the

1:10:17 ↗ townhouses as Arthur said are typically

1:10:20 ↗ on platted Lots so every individual unit

1:10:23 ↗ has a piece of dirt that you own

1:10:25 ↗ underneath it wears on a condominium you

1:10:27 ↗ own that dirt in common with all your

1:10:30 ↗ neighbors and also obviously then when

1:10:34 ↗ you go to stat flat you know flat one

1:10:37 ↗ above the other obviously that can't be

1:10:40 ↗ a townhouse that's got to be a

1:10:42 ↗ condominium so they've been able to in

1:10:44 ↗ some cities been able to get around it

1:10:46 ↗ when you use a townhouse you know up and

1:10:48 ↗ down configuration but the kinds that

1:10:51 ↗ you saw Peninsula Highlands that were

1:10:53 ↗ being built and that we saw you know

1:10:55 ↗ downtown Redmond several of those

1:10:57 ↗ buildings are condoms that we're

1:10:58 ↗ building it but none of them are now the

1:11:00 ↗ new ones are all rental wear ISM and the

1:11:03 ↗ pre-2010 several of those were built

1:11:05 ↗ even as flat as condominiums okay and

1:11:09 ↗ that's probably where the biggest gap is

1:11:11 ↗ is where in all this new development

1:11:12 ↗ that's now at sort of the four storey

1:11:15 ↗ type stuff none of that in the last

1:11:17 ↗ three years or four years has been

1:11:19 ↗ ownership so there is there is a way to

1:11:21 ↗ build a stacked flat project as an

1:11:25 ↗ apartment as a rental unit and actually

1:11:30 ↗ turn it into a condominium later so

1:11:32 ↗ after that liability time lapses you can

1:11:36 ↗ do that but you have to build it a

1:11:38 ↗ certain way to start so that you can

1:11:40 ↗ then segregate it out individually later

1:11:42 ↗ so it takes a game plan and right now I

1:11:46 ↗ think as Arthur mention because rents

1:11:49 ↗ are so high right now most builders

1:11:51 ↗ aren't looking long lens and they

1:11:53 ↗ about that as they build right now it's

1:11:55 ↗ builded as cheap as you can charge as

1:11:57 ↗ much as you can when I was a developer

1:11:59 ↗ in the 80s in California we built rental

1:12:01 ↗ housing to condo standards so that we

1:12:04 ↗ could do what Keith was just describing

1:12:06 ↗ so you have to build it I decided to

1:12:08 ↗ build it differently but I doesn't feel

1:12:09 ↗ like the builders are doing that right

1:12:10 ↗ now they're not okay is it Arthur is it

1:12:15 ↗ safe to say that Honda's are part of a

1:12:19 ↗ more comprehensive housing mix and

1:12:23 ↗ should be a part of any successful

1:12:28 ↗ affordable housing that entertaitment or

1:12:30 ↗ a question it's I guess it's a question

1:12:33 ↗ I kind of heard you stating it okay so

1:12:37 ↗ you think I need a statement what do

1:12:40 ↗ other people think I mean how do you

1:12:42 ↗ react to it if you think I made a

1:12:44 ↗ statement how do you react to the

1:12:46 ↗ statement okay I'll play this I think

1:12:48 ↗ you made that statement I agree with

1:12:49 ↗ that statement I would say just and from

1:12:52 ↗ personal experience I think pointing to

1:12:54 ↗ like Los Angeles big city expensive city

1:12:57 ↗ very spread out but I think one thing

1:12:59 ↗ that keeps it relatively affordable as

1:13:01 ↗ we look to move my mother-in-law back

1:13:03 ↗ there as there are condos and you can

1:13:04 ↗ purchase those so she won't be saddled

1:13:07 ↗ with rent increases right she will get a

1:13:09 ↗ mortgage we will get a mortgage for her

1:13:11 ↗ she'll have a place and that will be the

1:13:14 ↗ thing and at the end of it you actually

1:13:15 ↗ own something versus 30 years of just

1:13:17 ↗ paying rent so I think it's the other

1:13:19 ↗ benefits obviously I tend to be smaller

1:13:21 ↗ units so if we have a difference in mix

1:13:24 ↗ and we're lacking in the one in

1:13:25 ↗ two-bedroom things for home ownership

1:13:27 ↗ this allows you to get in and actually

1:13:29 ↗ own something and build equity so I

1:13:30 ↗ think it's a central so Arthur one one

1:13:33 ↗ suggestion here is we're talking this

1:13:34 ↗ through because it seems like most of

1:13:36 ↗ the group is is liking condos as a part

1:13:39 ↗ of a diverse housing stock so besides

1:13:41 ↗ the the lobbying efforts that we can do

1:13:44 ↗ in Olympia maybe one other thing that we

1:13:46 ↗ can do is look to see if there is a

1:13:49 ↗ permitting disincentive for building it

1:13:52 ↗ to condo standards from the get-go

1:13:54 ↗ because if there is maybe the city can

1:13:57 ↗ look at ways of lowering those barriers

1:13:59 ↗ so that if I'm a builder and I could

1:14:03 ↗ basically if it's just the cost of the

1:14:05 ↗ materials and there's no additional

1:14:07 ↗ like permitting fees or impact fees or

1:14:11 ↗ anything else maybe that's a way to

1:14:12 ↗ potentially help facilitate okay so I

1:14:16 ↗ want to take I want to put Keith's

1:14:18 ↗ comment but I want to make sure that

1:14:22 ↗ what he's what his statement was is true

1:14:24 ↗ in your mind I don't want to put words

1:14:25 ↗ in your mouth yeah

1:14:26 ↗ I sorta did so you asked kind of two

1:14:28 ↗ questions you let in by making a

1:14:31 ↗ statement about it could be part of a

1:14:34 ↗ continuum of needs so the first question

1:14:37 ↗ to you is and I think you know we showed

1:14:39 ↗ you data showing a wide range of needs a

1:14:41 ↗ basic question is should the strategy

1:14:45 ↗ overall try to achieve a continuum of

1:14:49 ↗ housing types in the community or should

1:14:51 ↗ we focus on certain types and the

1:14:53 ↗ continuum can be at two levels one is

1:14:56 ↗ cost and the other is type of housing

1:15:00 ↗ choices so let me put that question out

1:15:02 ↗ and see if we get affirmation on that

1:15:05 ↗ general point and then I want to come

1:15:07 ↗ back to the in those ownership condos

1:15:10 ↗ fit in that series but first let's talk

1:15:12 ↗ about the big picture so we see if

1:15:14 ↗ there's consensus on that point or not

1:15:16 ↗ or if there's a different perspective on

1:15:17 ↗ that you look at the urban core and we

1:15:20 ↗ would be looking at condos right because

1:15:23 ↗ you can't do townhouses and do

1:15:25 ↗ high-density and we're almost out of

1:15:27 ↗ real estate in terms of doing

1:15:29 ↗ single-family homes or duplex type lot

1:15:33 ↗ so it looks like about the only way we

1:15:36 ↗ could move forward would be condos

1:15:38 ↗ unless their apartments and we my condo

1:15:42 ↗ at least gets people owning and gets

1:15:44 ↗ moving in the right financial direction

1:15:46 ↗ so we have a choice okay so that's

1:15:51 ↗ you're answering the second question

1:15:53 ↗ first first I want again I want to make

1:15:55 ↗ sure and and if we're good with the

1:15:56 ↗ first one I don't need to belabor it but

1:15:58 ↗ I just want I've got the group here I

1:16:00 ↗ want to first talk on the continuum and

1:16:02 ↗ you've made a really compelling argument

1:16:04 ↗ for the condo one and would look come

1:16:06 ↗ back to that but when I first take care

1:16:08 ↗ of the continuum question because our

1:16:10 ↗ job here is the document for the council

1:16:13 ↗ your thoughts and so you've raised a

1:16:15 ↗ really good question that I want to make

1:16:17 ↗ sure I see what perspectives and range

1:16:18 ↗ yes

1:16:20 ↗ with regard to the continuum I mean just

1:16:23 ↗ from personal experience I lived in

1:16:25 ↗ Southern California where you know real

1:16:28 ↗ estate is very high or not high on but

1:16:31 ↗ just expensive so you get pushed out and

1:16:33 ↗ you know our first you know property was

1:16:37 ↗ a condo it got us into the market got

1:16:39 ↗ collateral to the point where we moved

1:16:42 ↗ up here when we sold it we had enough

1:16:44 ↗ for a down payment to now go on to a

1:16:46 ↗ townhouse with that said we just had a

1:16:49 ↗ baby now we're starting out grow and

1:16:52 ↗ we're going to have to now move towards

1:16:54 ↗ to a single-family home so I mean I can

1:16:57 ↗ see this have you know a condo being a

1:17:01 ↗ part of this whole continuum work you

1:17:04 ↗ know what kind of cycles and then by the

1:17:06 ↗ time you have your single-family home

1:17:08 ↗ and you're now an empty nester you want

1:17:10 ↗ to downsize and you have what do you do

1:17:12 ↗ then a lot of people go back to having

1:17:15 ↗ condos because then they don't want to

1:17:16 ↗ have to deal with blowing their own lawn

1:17:18 ↗ or dealing with roofing or whatever so

1:17:21 ↗ you go back to a condo where all you

1:17:23 ↗ have to do is you know downsize in terms

1:17:26 ↗ of your mortgage and then you just pay

1:17:27 ↗ an association and gets taken care of

1:17:29 ↗ okay so I think in terms of that there's

1:17:32 ↗ there's a cycle that maybe if there's

1:17:34 ↗ not a lot of stock or market for condos

1:17:37 ↗ it's something that you know explore

1:17:40 ↗ looking to any other comments about the

1:17:42 ↗ Kinze yes I'm fine with building condos

1:17:48 ↗ as long as you don't build it in the

1:17:49 ↗ highlands and you're okay now so the

1:17:54 ↗ obvious points one is you're always

1:17:56 ↗ trained on infrastructure like we

1:17:57 ↗ already pointed out you don't have

1:17:59 ↗ enough roads you don't have enough

1:18:00 ↗ schools and condos means packing more

1:18:02 ↗ people in the same area that's what one

1:18:07 ↗ the second thing is the obvious thing

1:18:11 ↗ you want a sense of there's enough

1:18:13 ↗ demand there's enough condos that are in

1:18:15 ↗ Bellevue and Seattle that are sitting

1:18:17 ↗ vacant do you have a I might have to get

1:18:23 ↗ data alright and but that statement

1:18:25 ↗ definitely wants to I know two or three

1:18:27 ↗ years oh okay two or three years ago is

1:18:30 ↗ not today the world has changed

1:18:32 ↗ significant

1:18:34 ↗ yes well actually that I had that on my

1:18:36 ↗ list of what is the occupancy rate right

1:18:38 ↗ now for four apartments and four for

1:18:44 ↗ smaller condos okay idea what who did so

1:18:50 ↗ I'm not going to do that off the top of

1:18:52 ↗ my head we but we have that kind of

1:18:55 ↗ information and in general vacancy rates

1:18:59 ↗ have been going way down in the last

1:19:01 ↗ couple years to a point where that's why

1:19:05 ↗ we're seeing a longer rental

1:19:06 ↗ construction period than we probably

1:19:08 ↗ seen in a really long time and part of

1:19:10 ↗ that because vacancies aren't having

1:19:12 ↗ been moving and part of the reasons they

1:19:14 ↗ think vacancies haven't been moving is

1:19:16 ↗ because they're in condos being built so

1:19:18 ↗ people don't have the ability you

1:19:21 ↗ mentioned you got into the market with a

1:19:24 ↗ condo but you still have to save up a

1:19:26 ↗ downpayment and you still need that

1:19:28 ↗ first rental unit I mean the ladder

1:19:30 ↗ starts before ownership for most people

1:19:32 ↗ they don't jump right into ownership yes

1:19:34 ↗ this is anecdotal I work at a apartment

1:19:38 ↗ community here in Issaquah we have 125

1:19:40 ↗ units and we're currently working

1:19:43 ↗ through a waiting list of 50 people that

1:19:45 ↗ we have had for a year this does

1:19:49 ↗ anecdotal for rental capacity yeah

1:19:53 ↗ arthritis on your question about the

1:19:56 ↗ continuum or the suite of solute I'm

1:19:59 ↗ going at the at the mission statement

1:20:02 ↗ for the housing strategy that we work

1:20:04 ↗ through and I think it's still good even

1:20:06 ↗ after all this discussion I think it's

1:20:07 ↗ still valid then it includes you know

1:20:09 ↗ the the words writing a diversity of

1:20:12 ↗ choices to meet the needs of people who

1:20:13 ↗ choose to live work and play at school

1:20:15 ↗ and I think in order to do that you have

1:20:16 ↗ to have that continuum so okay great all

1:20:21 ↗ right so I've heard

1:20:25 ↗ sorry yet look at the mission say when

1:20:27 ↗ we've been sort of saying it I just want

1:20:29 ↗ I'd like to revisit some of those things

1:20:30 ↗ once in a while to make sure as you get

1:20:32 ↗ into this more you still feel the same

1:20:34 ↗ way so that's why I ask the question

1:20:36 ↗ I wasn't assuming you know but this is

1:20:38 ↗ we want to keep reiterating from the

1:20:40 ↗ beginning what's the core where we're

1:20:41 ↗ coming from so now the condo I've heard

1:20:43 ↗ a number of arguments for condominiums

1:20:45 ↗ and I've heard

1:20:46 ↗ but a careful part of condominiums which

1:20:48 ↗ is related to a comment we heard earlier

1:20:50 ↗ is infrastructure so if you're going to

1:20:53 ↗ do density do or densities right but its

1:20:55 ↗ density is okay condos can be part of an

1:20:57 ↗ answer more to add about condos or

1:21:00 ↗ should we jump to the next one and again

1:21:02 ↗ we can keep coming back as we go but

1:21:04 ↗ anything right at the moment yes so I

1:21:08 ↗ think we recognize that the central

1:21:10 ↗ Issaquah plan has a goal of density in

1:21:14 ↗ the valley floor and so if we're going

1:21:17 ↗ to do that it would be more supportive

1:21:21 ↗ of the workers and the people who are

1:21:24 ↗ choosing to live here to be able to have

1:21:27 ↗ ownership availability with condos

1:21:30 ↗ rather than fill it completely with

1:21:33 ↗ apartments so I think that's saying what

1:21:35 ↗ would you say two minutes ago right

1:21:37 ↗ right you're saying the same thing so

1:21:38 ↗ that's I'm hearing that in particular

1:21:40 ↗ for Central Issaquah it would be good to

1:21:43 ↗ have both never read that comment from

1:21:46 ↗ two people they like the idea of there's

1:21:49 ↗ obviously a lot of development on the

1:21:51 ↗ table for apartments that's why there's

1:21:54 ↗ a moratorium I'd believe and maybe one

1:21:58 ↗ of the things that could happen during

1:21:59 ↗ this moratorium is looking into exactly

1:22:03 ↗ what was discussed by key Thanks

1:22:06 ↗ improving the standards of what we're

1:22:08 ↗ building so that it could potentially

1:22:09 ↗ become condos in the future okay so so

1:22:13 ↗ I'm hearing an amendment or in addition

1:22:16 ↗ to that one also look internally to see

1:22:18 ↗ if you know probe with builders maybe

1:22:21 ↗ and say hey are we part of the issue if

1:22:23 ↗ we take care of issue a are we right

1:22:25 ↗ behind with another issue and that's

1:22:27 ↗ something we should acknowledge in our

1:22:29 ↗ work I'm seeing a lot of head nodding on

1:22:31 ↗ that okay great

1:22:34 ↗ let's see what's the next one

1:22:37 ↗ accommodate single room occupancy or

1:22:40 ↗ many Suites in multifamily zones so

1:22:44 ↗ there what we're talking about is a

1:22:51 ↗ phenomenon that started in Seattle about

1:22:54 ↗ ten years ago where builders came up

1:22:58 ↗ with this concept

1:22:59 ↗ of within when it actually goes back a

1:23:03 ↗ long long long time but this is when it

1:23:05 ↗ started getting some traction and some

1:23:07 ↗ new traction and new development most of

1:23:09 ↗ the time in the past old hotels might be

1:23:11 ↗ converted to residents and it became a

1:23:15 ↗ very affordable form of housing I in

1:23:19 ↗ Bellevue in 1995 if any of you are

1:23:23 ↗ familiar with downtown Bellevue there's

1:23:25 ↗ a building called Pacific in and it

1:23:28 ↗ looks blue and yellowing kind of aqua

1:23:31 ↗ green and if you look closely enough

1:23:33 ↗ it's all maritime themed architecture if

1:23:36 ↗ you look closely enough that's what they

1:23:38 ↗ were kind of doing that builder was from

1:23:41 ↗ California and the city actually

1:23:42 ↗ provided him some funding assistance

1:23:44 ↗ it's generally a market rate project but

1:23:47 ↗ it's all at the time they were

1:23:50 ↗ considered very small units they're like

1:23:52 ↗ three hundred square feet and smaller

1:23:54 ↗ and this builder got this notion from

1:23:59 ↗ doing development around the west coast

1:24:01 ↗ that places like Seattle have old hotels

1:24:05 ↗ that can be converted and have been over

1:24:07 ↗ the years and former very affordable

1:24:09 ↗ form of housing for retail workers and

1:24:12 ↗ people like that who work in the

1:24:14 ↗ center's but in suburbs you don't have

1:24:17 ↗ that stock and so he figured out a way

1:24:20 ↗ to build it from scratch

1:24:21 ↗ ok Brill did news don't because there's

1:24:24 ↗ no load hotels to convert in downtown

1:24:26 ↗ Bellevue and so he builds them and it's

1:24:29 ↗ specific in Marvin gardens he names them

1:24:34 ↗ all actors of Monopoly pieces and the

1:24:36 ↗ light blue and the first two sections of

1:24:40 ↗ the track ok and he and and he was doing

1:24:45 ↗ that like 25 years ago then in Seattle

1:24:47 ↗ the next evolution was builders figured

1:24:49 ↗ out a way around the land use rules in

1:24:51 ↗ Capitol Hill and they could build these

1:24:53 ↗ small buildings that were big

1:24:56 ↗ comparatively speaking to all the other

1:24:58 ↗ homes in the neighborhood and those

1:25:00 ↗ homes would be sliced and diced up to be

1:25:04 ↗ and even though they were licensed

1:25:07 ↗ there's only three units they slice and

1:25:10 ↗ dice each of those six bedroom units up

1:25:13 ↗ and have 18 people living independently

1:25:15 ↗ in them and that got a little

1:25:17 ↗ controversial because it felt like kind

1:25:19 ↗ of a mismatch so you'll notice here

1:25:20 ↗ we've made the statement in multifamily

1:25:22 ↗ zones so we're not talking about the

1:25:25 ↗ Seattle experience we're talking more

1:25:27 ↗ like what the first example I gave you

1:25:29 ↗ is a builder coming in and just building

1:25:32 ↗ really small units there's a builder now

1:25:35 ↗ who's been building in Redmond and

1:25:36 ↗ Kirkland and he builds even his units

1:25:41 ↗ are like two hundred square feet and

1:25:44 ↗ maybe a little smaller sometimes and a

1:25:49 ↗ little bigger so 150 to 300 square feet

1:25:52 ↗ and build it borrowing a little bit from

1:25:56 ↗ some of the approaches they do have like

1:25:59 ↗ a shared kitchen but all the units do

1:26:01 ↗ also have microwaves and stuff so the

1:26:03 ↗ kitchens aren't used very often they're

1:26:04 ↗ more disordered common areas that people

1:26:06 ↗ share and he's been building those as a

1:26:09 ↗ market rate builder and so that's kind

1:26:14 ↗ of what we're describing is units that

1:26:16 ↗ you historically would not have seen but

1:26:18 ↗ he finishes one and he starts another

1:26:21 ↗ one so what is that telling you well

1:26:26 ↗ he's a rental right there's a demand and

1:26:28 ↗ you know why there's a demand does

1:26:30 ↗ anyone know why there's a demand he's

1:26:36 ↗ getting more rent per square foot than

1:26:38 ↗ any market rate builder because people

1:26:41 ↗ need a place to live absolutely is the

1:26:44 ↗ lowest absolute rent in town and so

1:26:47 ↗ people are sacrificing space for a price

1:26:51 ↗ point and he has found a way to get to a

1:26:54 ↗ price point of under $1000 in

1:26:57 ↗ residential unit he's renting them for

1:26:59 ↗ like eight hundred dollars still not

1:27:01 ↗ inexpensive but compared to everything

1:27:03 ↗ else out there and downtown Redmond you

1:27:07 ↗ have things with the Japan and you have

1:27:11 ↗ others campuses and downtown Kirkland

1:27:14 ↗ you know so he has found a niche in the

1:27:17 ↗ market but he's also needed a little

1:27:20 ↗ help from the cities to get there he

1:27:23 ↗ tried to get a little less parking in

1:27:25 ↗ his buildings but he's all

1:27:27 ↗ demonstrated that the parking demand is

1:27:29 ↗ very low I mean he's done lots of

1:27:31 ↗ studies with cities and stuff like that

1:27:33 ↗ so the question is should the city look

1:27:35 ↗ at if they you know the market wants to

1:27:38 ↗ build that is there any it's sort of

1:27:39 ↗ like the same comic keep made about

1:27:40 ↗ condos is there anything about our

1:27:42 ↗ regulations that if a builder came in

1:27:43 ↗ and wanted to build that kind of housing

1:27:45 ↗ that the regulations would get in the

1:27:47 ↗ way of it is there any is there at the

1:27:49 ↗ potential need for something like that

1:27:51 ↗ here that we should be sure that if the

1:27:53 ↗ market wants to build it they could I

1:27:55 ↗ thought on that the first thing that

1:27:58 ↗ talked to my mind was a pod meant that

1:28:01 ↗ kind of name okay yes so I think this

1:28:06 ↗ could be a good small part of this

1:28:09 ↗ bigger puzzle but I'd be concerned about

1:28:13 ↗ kind of opening the floodgates on these

1:28:15 ↗ and letting them just be scattered

1:28:18 ↗ everywhere I think this could really

1:28:20 ↗ work in a very select zone I'm mostly

1:28:24 ↗ thinking about like I think transitory

1:28:26 ↗ and development is kind of a separate

1:28:28 ↗ thing maybe but it seems to kind of fit

1:28:31 ↗ into that type of zone where this could

1:28:34 ↗ work right next to a transit station

1:28:36 ↗ where people that use transit I want to

1:28:39 ↗ live in this setting or maybe right next

1:28:43 ↗ to a big retail zone or something like

1:28:44 ↗ that and where it becomes walkable to

1:28:47 ↗ places that people work so that's my

1:28:49 ↗ thought okay other reaction so one thing

1:28:53 ↗ I think we need to look at Arthur is so

1:28:55 ↗ if you're creating 150 square foot to

1:28:58 ↗ 200 square foot units the thing we'd

1:29:01 ↗ have to look at is does our zoning

1:29:03 ↗ allows that level of density even if

1:29:05 ↗ it's a small building my number of units

1:29:07 ↗ per acre could be huge right yeah so I

1:29:10 ↗ think we need to look and see if if

1:29:12 ↗ there's a barrier there right and if so

1:29:15 ↗ to John's point you know how would you

1:29:18 ↗ potentially undo that in a limited way

1:29:20 ↗ mm-hmm if that's the concern right right

1:29:23 ↗ so that's right so that's the example if

1:29:26 ↗ you have an area that uses a density per

1:29:28 ↗ acre overlay you're not going to see

1:29:31 ↗ this it's only in areas where you use a

1:29:33 ↗ floor area ratio where you're allowed to

1:29:35 ↗ build to the box

1:29:36 ↗ kind of thing so that's pretty much

1:29:38 ↗ unless there was a small site

1:29:41 ↗ just couldn't make other stuff work he

1:29:43 ↗ built one right next to our office in

1:29:44 ↗ downtown Redmond that was it it was to

1:29:47 ↗ single family lots you know just sort of

1:29:49 ↗ like and it's now 120 units but it's

1:29:53 ↗ it's fine it does it's you know it seems

1:29:55 ↗ to be working just fine anyway other

1:29:57 ↗ comments on this idea so I've heard the

1:29:59 ↗ don't open the floodgates there's one

1:30:02 ↗ comment I've heard other perspectives on

1:30:04 ↗ it a new one have a counter perspective

1:30:06 ↗ or concur with that or some other

1:30:07 ↗ thought again remember this is as much

1:30:10 ↗ keep this in mind with an idea as well

1:30:13 ↗ as you like an idea though so two

1:30:16 ↗ comments about that one in addition to

1:30:18 ↗ it would be thought of coop housing

1:30:22 ↗ I am heard that discussed yet which

1:30:25 ↗ would work with 100 or 200 square foot

1:30:29 ↗ units because you would have shared okay

1:30:31 ↗ shared spaces like kitchen and bathroom

1:30:34 ↗ facilities but also in can you describe

1:30:37 ↗ co-op housing a little bit more in case

1:30:38 ↗ other installment well so co-op housing

1:30:41 ↗ would be a ownership stake in a large

1:30:48 ↗ flat I guess you usually call it a large

1:30:50 ↗ flat where you might be 20 units per

1:30:53 ↗ floor and someone would actually own be

1:30:57 ↗ incorporated and your shareholders which

1:31:00 ↗ would be your third tenants go to piece

1:31:05 ↗ of the corporation and then you live

1:31:08 ↗ either you could have shared facilities

1:31:12 ↗ like bathrooms and kitchens and in some

1:31:15 ↗ cases co-op would also supply maybe a

1:31:18 ↗ kitchenette or something like that in

1:31:20 ↗ each unit second question is if we do go

1:31:24 ↗ with a hundred or tutor square foot unit

1:31:27 ↗ and that means our pasty for higher

1:31:32 ↗ density would then increase based on our

1:31:36 ↗ limitations in terms of our amount of

1:31:40 ↗ land that we would be able to use so

1:31:42 ↗ you'd have more people per square foot

1:31:45 ↗ part of our policy or part of our plan

1:31:49 ↗ do we want to actually limit and put

1:31:52 ↗ restrictions on what

1:31:54 ↗ minimum requirement would be free space

1:31:57 ↗ per person so if we're going to have

1:31:59 ↗ these really high density units it may

1:32:02 ↗ be on the surrounding sides of the

1:32:04 ↗ building we would want more space right

1:32:06 ↗ because if all said we have all these

1:32:09 ↗ extra people living in dezik wha does

1:32:13 ↗ the city have the resources to be able

1:32:16 ↗ to handle all these extra people not

1:32:19 ↗ just where we're going to put them

1:32:21 ↗ because we figured that out if we can do

1:32:23 ↗ hundred square foot or tuner square foot

1:32:25 ↗ units we have lot more density do we

1:32:28 ↗ want that much density okay that feels

1:32:31 ↗ like the infrastructure question raising

1:32:33 ↗ its head against them and and if you

1:32:36 ↗ have that much entity in a small area

1:32:41 ↗ will you be able to preserve more of the

1:32:45 ↗ trees and surrounding environment that's

1:32:51 ↗ disappearing so rapidly the other

1:32:57 ↗ question I had was what would be the

1:33:02 ↗ difference between single room occupancy

1:33:05 ↗ and boarding houses probably not a whole

1:33:13 ↗ lot I mean a boarding house you usually

1:33:16 ↗ if you think of the old term of it

1:33:18 ↗ you've got your food - when you live

1:33:20 ↗ there and SRO you typically don't single

1:33:25 ↗ room would be the difference would be

1:33:27 ↗ the shared kitchen and dining facility

1:33:30 ↗ I'm not sure from a code point of view

1:33:32 ↗ I'm just saying from a impression of

1:33:35 ↗ when you think of a boarding house you

1:33:37 ↗ often think of people also getting their

1:33:39 ↗ meals and in an SRO people don't get

1:33:42 ↗ meals now from a building officials

1:33:44 ↗ point of view I'm not sure to what

1:33:46 ↗ extent they see differences maybe yours

1:33:50 ↗ a little more firepit units are more

1:33:52 ↗ independent and then SRO so there might

1:33:54 ↗ be building code issues we'd have to do

1:33:57 ↗ a lot more exploring to see the

1:33:59 ↗ difference between a boarding house per

1:34:00 ↗ se in an SRO I mean I was particularly

1:34:04 ↗ thinking for aging populations many

1:34:07 ↗ people

1:34:08 ↗ do not want to have the burden of doing

1:34:11 ↗ all their own cooking and so single room

1:34:15 ↗ occupancy with services might be very

1:34:19 ↗ appealing so okay now from time to time

1:34:23 ↗ read between lines or try to put things

1:34:25 ↗ together that I'm hearing so I heard

1:34:28 ↗ co-op we came out and we started with a

1:34:31 ↗ pod minutes or srl and now I'm hearing

1:34:35 ↗ co-op I'm hearing boarding home I'm

1:34:40 ↗ hearing a few more ideas on small spaces

1:34:44 ↗ little more communal type living but in

1:34:47 ↗ different shapes and forms is that any

1:34:50 ↗ kind of a theme here or that should be

1:34:53 ↗ expanded on because the next one is more

1:34:56 ↗ about in neighborhoods these that you're

1:34:59 ↗ describing feel more multi-family in

1:35:02 ↗ nature number eight is going to be sort

1:35:05 ↗ of the same question of diversity

1:35:06 ↗ related to cottages and duplex multiplex

1:35:11 ↗ but this first one is sort of about

1:35:14 ↗ diversity small forms of housing that

1:35:18 ↗ are maybe a little higher density and

1:35:21 ↗ more rental and nature is I'm kind of

1:35:25 ↗ just winging it here so reactions so

1:35:28 ↗ problem statement number three shows

1:35:31 ↗ that 30% of the escolar residents live

1:35:33 ↗ alone yet under 10% of the units are

1:35:36 ↗ one-bedroom or less I think that would

1:35:40 ↗ probably be part of answering this type

1:35:43 ↗ of question because those will either be

1:35:47 ↗ individuals or maybe couples

1:35:52 ↗ what are they currently choosing as

1:35:55 ↗ their housing and would that type of

1:36:00 ↗ individual choose something like that or

1:36:04 ↗ is there not a demand in a sack off for

1:36:07 ↗ that

1:36:12 ↗ so a question you asses their demand

1:36:15 ↗ well I'm going to let you you had your

1:36:17 ↗ hand so I don't want to get off-track

1:36:18 ↗ and not let you make your comment to

1:36:20 ↗ before Oh actually I was going to talk

1:36:22 ↗ about something that that Therese said

1:36:24 ↗ about the ownership piece mm-hmm the

1:36:29 ↗ what was my concern with having the

1:36:32 ↗ smaller unit and if we if we have them

1:36:37 ↗ in condo form is that they'll just get

1:36:40 ↗ sold and then they all turn into into

1:36:43 ↗ rentals

1:36:44 ↗ there's just some people will just show

1:36:46 ↗ up and but buy a whole bunch and then

1:36:48 ↗ turn them into rental so that if we do

1:36:51 ↗ that and want to restrict to cut to

1:36:54 ↗ owners then we have to have some kind of

1:36:56 ↗ owner-occupied rules along with it or

1:36:59 ↗ else it'll just be you know it's the

1:37:01 ↗ same problem all right so that's a

1:37:03 ↗ concern area for us to note okay yes so

1:37:06 ↗ re on a condo right now and one of the

1:37:09 ↗ restrictions is you have to be there for

1:37:11 ↗ two years as the owner you cannot rent

1:37:13 ↗ the unit so you know there could be

1:37:16 ↗ restrictions such as those placed that

1:37:19 ↗ you have to be there and actually the

1:37:23 ↗ loans right I'm sorry is that three year

1:37:25 ↗ loan or the Association yeah that's a

1:37:28 ↗ rule the association of the Association

1:37:30 ↗ okay all right so we can bet thing to

1:37:33 ↗ note and so now back to the response of

1:37:38 ↗ here's how many households and this is

1:37:41 ↗ how many units we have which is

1:37:43 ↗ something we point out in an earlier

1:37:45 ↗ meeting again number six number seven

1:37:49 ↗ these of all others in the coop so the

1:37:52 ↗ coop is different ideas ownership form

1:37:54 ↗ the other ones SRO boarding house

1:37:57 ↗ those are rental so they're both sides

1:38:01 ↗ of this story of small units are they

1:38:04 ↗ both part of this continuum we talked

1:38:06 ↗ about 30 minutes ago or 20 minutes ago

1:38:09 ↗ is this part of it or is it just doesn't

1:38:11 ↗ feel like the fit in this town you you

1:38:14 ↗ know to some extent we don't do any of

1:38:16 ↗ the building the city doesn't build they

1:38:17 ↗ just enable okay and so the so I think

1:38:20 ↗ the question to you is should our rules

1:38:24 ↗ enabling if the market wants to do it

1:38:26 ↗ and if we do want the market to be able

1:38:29 ↗ to do it what kind of things do we want

1:38:32 ↗ as a community so that it feels okay

1:38:35 ↗ that we've allowed it to happen

1:38:37 ↗ so your point about gee we'd like if

1:38:40 ↗ it's an ownership form of housing for it

1:38:41 ↗ to be ownership if we can okay if that's

1:38:44 ↗ the intent of that one but we've got

1:38:46 ↗ some examples that their intent would be

1:38:48 ↗ rental and the boardinghouse might be

1:38:50 ↗ for seniors who don't want to have to do

1:38:51 ↗ all you know it's sort of a lightweight

1:38:53 ↗ group home right but group homes you got

1:38:56 ↗ to have medical stuff maybe somebody

1:38:57 ↗ wants that but they don't need the

1:38:59 ↗ medical they just want the meals right

1:39:01 ↗ it's sort of what you're saying if you

1:39:03 ↗ think about it if you go to senior

1:39:04 ↗ facility I mean it's interesting you say

1:39:06 ↗ it that way because if you go to senior

1:39:08 ↗ properties now the big commercial ones

1:39:10 ↗ what do they do live on your own you can

1:39:14 ↗ take the meals or you can go for

1:39:15 ↗ full-blown health and meals and they

1:39:18 ↗ give you the ability to go back and

1:39:19 ↗ forth between that so one question would

1:39:23 ↗ be well so those same kind of choices

1:39:26 ↗ potentially be there for seniors but not

1:39:28 ↗ in large commercial developments and

1:39:30 ↗ that's if I think you know the boarding

1:39:33 ↗ house versus the adult family homes

1:39:35 ↗ versus just living in your home the way

1:39:37 ↗ you are would be sort of a comparable to

1:39:40 ↗ what's going on in the commercial

1:39:42 ↗ industry to help seniors stay in their

1:39:44 ↗ community in a boarding house wouldn't

1:39:47 ↗ have to be restricted to seniors you

1:39:49 ↗ know no but right exactly people who are

1:39:51 ↗ starting out and before retiring all in

1:39:54 ↗ the same place I see a light next to

1:39:56 ↗ yours yeah so we have a local nonprofit

1:39:59 ↗ that supports people with disabilities

1:40:02 ↗ that has three adult family homes where

1:40:06 ↗ caregiver lives with five individuals

1:40:09 ↗ and it's so it's very flexible it works

1:40:11 ↗ great it's in neighborhoods so I think

1:40:13 ↗ that that's really important that we

1:40:16 ↗ keep that in mind too okay so we have

1:40:20 ↗ quite the population here okay so little

1:40:24 ↗ stuff let's I also noticed that this

1:40:26 ↗ conversation seems to be absent from our

1:40:28 ↗ debate right now is what about senior

1:40:31 ↗ living what is the city's current plans

1:40:33 ↗ for senior housing

1:40:36 ↗ I believe it's up I'm gonna you know

1:40:41 ↗ you're always a step ahead of us

1:40:42 ↗ you just ready to go cuz that's number

1:40:45 ↗ nine so I'm not quite ready for that one

1:40:50 ↗ we don't want to skip over number eight

1:40:51 ↗ I just think it's a couple more comments

1:40:53 ↗ you guys make maybe a general comment I

1:40:55 ↗ mean I think we're everything we're

1:40:58 ↗ saying is right it's just I think every

1:41:00 ↗ everything has to be on the table

1:41:03 ↗ the I would say the city should you know

1:41:06 ↗ work hard to lower burdens on developers

1:41:09 ↗ wherever possible and then let the

1:41:12 ↗ market drive it to some degree because

1:41:15 ↗ everybody says oh yeah we want people to

1:41:16 ↗ you know be able to live in this wall

1:41:18 ↗ that also work here and we want all

1:41:19 ↗ kinds of people to be here out stuff but

1:41:21 ↗ and then we got at the same time say oh

1:41:23 ↗ but we don't apartment and so I think we

1:41:25 ↗ just sort have to put our money where

1:41:26 ↗ our mouth is and and we and it can be

1:41:28 ↗ done in a smart way I think that

1:41:29 ↗ decision probably should be made at the

1:41:31 ↗ project level it should be part of the

1:41:34 ↗ strategy I think and then we can make

1:41:36 ↗ those decisions at the project level

1:41:37 ↗ that's okay and so what I'm going to

1:41:39 ↗ maybe sorted to your point that I'm

1:41:41 ↗ trying to put out we've been asking for

1:41:42 ↗ all evening but just to sort of give you

1:41:44 ↗ another way another example of it is we

1:41:47 ↗ helped a lot of cities write rules to

1:41:49 ↗ allow access regulators mother-in-law

1:41:51 ↗ apartments but they're not just outright

1:41:53 ↗ allowed there's some condition like

1:41:57 ↗ owner occupancy or if you do it in

1:41:59 ↗ addition to your house it has to match

1:42:01 ↗ you the door can't be right next to the

1:42:03 ↗ front door the door needs to be on the

1:42:05 ↗ side or hidden landscape that we did

1:42:07 ↗ there needs to be one more parking so

1:42:09 ↗ it's not a new parking space but it

1:42:10 ↗ leaves enough parking for one extra car

1:42:12 ↗ the things to make it so that if it does

1:42:14 ↗ happen it feels like a good fit so on

1:42:17 ↗ all of these you're giving us comments

1:42:19 ↗ that sort of help us what are the things

1:42:21 ↗ that yeah if we're going to open it up

1:42:23 ↗ because right now you have a moratorium

1:42:24 ↗ going on because maybe it didn't feel

1:42:27 ↗ like it was quite the right fit and so

1:42:29 ↗ that's what this conversation is

1:42:31 ↗ important for is what are some of the

1:42:33 ↗ things for us to think about that might

1:42:34 ↗ make it a better fit okay so and or no

1:42:39 ↗ take that one oh that's just not a fit

1:42:41 ↗ in this town you're going to get a

1:42:43 ↗ matrix at the end of the meeting where

1:42:44 ↗ we took out manufactured housing

1:42:45 ↗ communities because one town I work for

1:42:48 ↗ does have them but you

1:42:49 ↗ so we just took it off the list I'm not

1:42:52 ↗ hearing anything so far that says these

1:42:54 ↗ ideas are missing the mark which is good

1:42:56 ↗ because all of us have staff looked at

1:42:58 ↗ them and we try to come up with ideas

1:43:00 ↗ that we thought could be good fit but

1:43:02 ↗ we're going to give you a chance at the

1:43:03 ↗ next meeting to also add other ideas too

1:43:06 ↗ okay so this is not the list you've

1:43:09 ↗ already given us a few ideas tonight

1:43:11 ↗ okay so let's talk a little bit about

1:43:14 ↗ number eight which is the diverse forms

1:43:18 ↗ and this is more like in single-family

1:43:21 ↗ areas so this is cottages or even

1:43:24 ↗ duplexes or a multiplex usually means

1:43:28 ↗ like a triplex so what's your thoughts

1:43:31 ↗ about that idea that was fast

1:43:36 ↗ so what I've heard and I saw the housing

1:43:40 ↗ Le'Veon rent all fixed income that is

1:43:45 ↗ that is a big concern for seniors

1:43:48 ↗ staying in their homes if we continue to

1:43:51 ↗ increase the costs on them particularly

1:43:55 ↗ a fixed income you're going to have to

1:43:57 ↗ leave and so out of that how are you

1:44:01 ↗ correlating that to this item so I'm so

1:44:04 ↗ it's options and services I made it

1:44:07 ↗ it's so I saw it more as enabling

1:44:09 ↗ seniors to to stay in their homes may be

1:44:13 ↗ having some exemptions for certain

1:44:16 ↗ people I don't know whether that's

1:44:17 ↗ possible that's just my side oh I

1:44:20 ↗ thought we went oh I thought we jumped

1:44:22 ↗ at nine already no I'm sorry

1:44:24 ↗ I was I was out oh that's not number

1:44:26 ↗ nine I thought that might have been any

1:44:28 ↗ okay oh oh that's odd I was got other

1:44:32 ↗ comments about eight today is one that

1:44:35 ↗ has two sides of a coin potentially for

1:44:37 ↗ sure so Chris has already mentioned the

1:44:40 ↗ adult family homes in single-family

1:44:42 ↗ areas mm-hmm they don't seem to be

1:44:45 ↗ causing any problems

1:44:50 ↗ we're already doing it on a limited

1:44:53 ↗ basis okay now those are houses that are

1:44:59 ↗ physically the same as the rest of the

1:45:00 ↗ other homes in neighborhoods but that's

1:45:02 ↗ a good point

1:45:02 ↗ you have adult family homes in your

1:45:04 ↗ neighborhoods now kind of thing if you

1:45:07 ↗ feel I don't know some people in some

1:45:09 ↗ communities that's that's been in some

1:45:11 ↗ questions so I thought I saw something

1:45:13 ↗ over here because I think I'm missing

1:45:16 ↗ number eight isn't this already loud

1:45:17 ↗ just like you're saying allow people to

1:45:21 ↗ build all sorts of sources wait I'm

1:45:23 ↗ missing the point sorry so this is to

1:45:28 ↗ say looking at like in a single-family a

1:45:31 ↗ typical single family area would you

1:45:34 ↗ allow and usually with your allowed

1:45:36 ↗ cottages you're allowing more cottages

1:45:39 ↗ than could have been built otherwise so

1:45:41 ↗ if somebody has enough land for three

1:45:44 ↗ single-family homes they might build

1:45:45 ↗ five cottages so this is and this is one

1:45:49 ↗ that so so this is when you're right

1:45:51 ↗ this is allowed now and I think that's

1:45:53 ↗ the question really more for the city

1:45:55 ↗ right now is do we allow that to be

1:45:58 ↗ something that can happen so for example

1:46:01 ↗ what's happening in Bellevue right now

1:46:02 ↗ is in a lot of neighborhoods a

1:46:05 ↗ single-family house is being torn down

1:46:07 ↗ and in its place is basically three or

1:46:11 ↗ four larger houses because it used to be

1:46:14 ↗ a very different housing to land ratio

1:46:16 ↗ right and so for us the issue is coming

1:46:19 ↗ up in Old Town and and the issue on a

1:46:22 ↗ scale perspective is about tearing down

1:46:25 ↗ one 1950s Rambler and putting back a

1:46:29 ↗ duplex or maybe subdividing into

1:46:32 ↗ duplexes and so so as an issue and for a

1:46:36 ↗ group that's talking about housing and

1:46:38 ↗ housing issues is that something do we

1:46:41 ↗ see enough benefit for the added

1:46:43 ↗ capacity but at some point do we lose

1:46:47 ↗ potentially the character that makes the

1:46:50 ↗ city a little bit different than maybe

1:46:51 ↗ some others that's the dilemma with I

1:46:54 ↗ think eight more than anything and so

1:46:56 ↗ you're right that what's allowed now is

1:46:59 ↗ it can happen

1:47:01 ↗ if that's fine if everybody says you

1:47:03 ↗ know what we need the additional housing

1:47:05 ↗ stock then we just leave that one on the

1:47:08 ↗ table if there's some issues there maybe

1:47:10 ↗ we need to unpack it a little bit in one

1:47:14 ↗ of the positive examples is just a few

1:47:17 ↗ blocks from your compassion house which

1:47:19 ↗ is a duplex which looks no different

1:47:21 ↗ than the other houses around it other

1:47:28 ↗ comments on this topic so I think one of

1:47:31 ↗ the things that would be a concern and

1:47:33 ↗ I'm putting aside I'm assuming just

1:47:37 ↗ market housing not anything for for

1:47:40 ↗ adult homes but I think considering that

1:47:43 ↗ then is I do think there's a character

1:47:47 ↗ point to be made so there certainly I

1:47:49 ↗ think we all probably enjoy front street

1:47:51 ↗ not the traffic but being there and

1:47:53 ↗ walking around the traffic will get

1:47:56 ↗ worse and it wouldn't feel like French

1:47:58 ↗ Street anymore or that area would feel

1:48:00 ↗ different and so I don't know that it's

1:48:02 ↗ a no not anywhere ever but I think

1:48:05 ↗ there's probably certain areas of the

1:48:06 ↗ town that we would all say like hey

1:48:08 ↗ probably not here where that balance is

1:48:11 ↗ a little different

1:48:13 ↗ my other question I guess would be are

1:48:17 ↗ we assuming this is I think the other

1:48:21 ↗ concern maybe this is longer term

1:48:23 ↗ because I you know the high winds being

1:48:26 ↗ a relatively new development but that

1:48:28 ↗ was already built to a certain density

1:48:29 ↗ so you know there's no extra parking

1:48:32 ↗ spaces that was already all thought of

1:48:33 ↗ so you know ten years down the line if

1:48:36 ↗ we start you know where there are single

1:48:38 ↗ family homes putting triplex is there

1:48:40 ↗ that area is going to be a disaster and

1:48:42 ↗ I live there

1:48:43 ↗ so I'll just caveat that with with you

1:48:46 ↗ know sort of thinking about the longer

1:48:47 ↗ term effects of that in areas that were

1:48:49 ↗ maybe built with a certain amount of

1:48:51 ↗ density already built in so those would

1:48:55 ↗ be a couple considerations that I would

1:48:56 ↗ say not know but sink sink deeply about

1:49:01 ↗ where and when their current code for

1:49:06 ↗ zoning restrictions as to where it's

1:49:09 ↗ allowed currently or is it just overall

1:49:13 ↗ if it's

1:49:13 ↗ residential you can do this so that so

1:49:17 ↗ the zoning code will state whether like

1:49:20 ↗ a duplex is allowed

1:49:22 ↗ right now the city doesn't have a

1:49:24 ↗ cottage ordinance other cities do and so

1:49:28 ↗ part of what we're talking about now is

1:49:31 ↗ should we enable a cutting a cottage

1:49:34 ↗ ordinance with the idea again that

1:49:37 ↗ creating other types of housing stock

1:49:39 ↗ might maybe at a smaller scale could be

1:49:42 ↗ more affordable than than what's

1:49:44 ↗ available otherwise and so most I'm

1:49:49 ↗ going to say this Trish without knowing

1:49:51 ↗ what I'm talking about so if I'm wrong

1:49:53 ↗ just speak up I believe that most

1:49:55 ↗ single-family zones allow duplexes most

1:50:00 ↗ but not all so but zones are can be

1:50:03 ↗ anywhere in the city right so in other

1:50:05 ↗ words you have a certain kind of zone

1:50:07 ↗ and where you think it's appropriate so

1:50:09 ↗ I'm going to put my foot in my mouth and

1:50:10 ↗ maybe get in trouble given the comments

1:50:12 ↗ here which is the question would be

1:50:17 ↗ potentially in looking at these you need

1:50:21 ↗ to be more refined geographically than

1:50:24 ↗ just your traditional single-family you

1:50:28 ↗ know for however you do your

1:50:29 ↗ classifications and and when I'm almost

1:50:32 ↗ hearing here is it needs it maybe needs

1:50:34 ↗ to be more refined geographically

1:50:36 ↗ somehow and I'm not sure some cities

1:50:39 ↗ just aren't geared to do that others are

1:50:41 ↗ here to do that where they could say in

1:50:44 ↗ this neighborhood it's okay and in that

1:50:46 ↗ neighborhood it's you know you could

1:50:47 ↗ have excess one in two different

1:50:50 ↗ neighborhoods but in one you allow the

1:50:51 ↗ cottages and the others you don't some

1:50:54 ↗ cities will do that I don't know if

1:50:55 ↗ that's something that for this idea to

1:50:57 ↗ go forward that the qualification that

1:50:59 ↗ it should have and if so that might be

1:51:01 ↗ the killer for the city or not I'm not

1:51:02 ↗ sure maybe that's that's why I'm sort of

1:51:06 ↗ hearing from the comments is it's not a

1:51:08 ↗ carte blanche idea wouldn't want to

1:51:10 ↗ change zoning in south is a part because

1:51:12 ↗ now you're going to be putting a lot

1:51:13 ↗ more traffic through main Issaquah to

1:51:16 ↗ get to arterioles like 90

1:51:20 ↗ but it would be appropriate for areas

1:51:23 ↗ like the urban core or communities

1:51:26 ↗ around 90 or have easy access to 90 it's

1:51:33 ↗ more than the the traffic the

1:51:36 ↗ infrastructure because it's waters who

1:51:38 ↗ are all the the other infrastructure

1:51:41 ↗ that is going to get strained if you put

1:51:42 ↗ too much density so I've heard

1:51:44 ↗ infrastructure including traffic I've

1:51:47 ↗ heard character is another consideration

1:51:51 ↗ cuz I did I hear that I thought I heard

1:51:53 ↗ that I think right like I wrote that

1:51:59 ↗ down obviously yeah all and every one of

1:52:03 ↗ these only applies to certain areas I

1:52:05 ↗ think we've kind of established that I

1:52:07 ↗ think when I think about cottage housing

1:52:10 ↗ I think it could be really successful in

1:52:12 ↗ an area like Old Town where it's been a

1:52:14 ↗ lot of time talking about preserving

1:52:16 ↗ character and I think the critical part

1:52:18 ↗ of this whole cottage discussion would

1:52:20 ↗ be like I guess I picture like a

1:52:24 ↗ community being kind of created like a

1:52:26 ↗ it has to be at a certain size a certain

1:52:30 ↗ number of units call it four or five but

1:52:34 ↗ that requires more than just a single

1:52:36 ↗ family plot of land to do with the

1:52:39 ↗ character that we're talking about so I

1:52:41 ↗ don't know how many places cottages

1:52:44 ↗ could really successfully work but I

1:52:46 ↗ think it's something that the city could

1:52:48 ↗ potentially look at saying okay

1:52:51 ↗ developers we're going to create

1:52:52 ↗ opportunities for these collection of

1:52:55 ↗ properties to be combined if they are

1:52:58 ↗ turned into caught a certain number of

1:53:01 ↗ cottage units so you just described

1:53:04 ↗ something that might be something like

1:53:06 ↗ what Redmond did in one neighborhood

1:53:08 ↗ Redmond has a neighborhood that's an

1:53:11 ↗ older neighborhood but more spread out

1:53:13 ↗ so there's a lot of infill going on and

1:53:16 ↗ they create an ordinance that says when

1:53:19 ↗ you and sometimes people put two plots

1:53:21 ↗ together and that's enough to do ten

1:53:23 ↗ homes or teen homes is the Roseville

1:53:25 ↗ area and they made a rule it says when

1:53:28 ↗ you do that X percent of the units plus

1:53:31 ↗ Bender certain

1:53:33 ↗ because they didn't want all the homes

1:53:35 ↗ to be to stay wanted so it's like one

1:53:37 ↗ out of ten or one out of five has to be

1:53:39 ↗ under 1,500 or 2,000 square feet so they

1:53:42 ↗ actually put that in their code that

1:53:43 ↗ says we want units of different sizes if

1:53:46 ↗ your development over a certain size and

1:53:48 ↗ I've never seen any other so you do that

1:53:51 ↗ but it was totally a response to a

1:53:53 ↗ neighborhood concern of we're very very

1:53:57 ↗ we got such a diverse form of housing

1:53:59 ↗ now and we don't we want the new stuff

1:54:01 ↗ that at least some diversity in it so

1:54:03 ↗ that was something they did in one

1:54:05 ↗ neighborhood so we just had the survey

1:54:09 ↗ on old town and part of that was talking

1:54:13 ↗ about housing and the character of

1:54:15 ↗ housing and there was a very strong

1:54:19 ↗ disagreement if I remember correctly

1:54:21 ↗ with the idea of consolidating lots and

1:54:25 ↗ ending up in that area with multifamily

1:54:29 ↗ units and things like that

1:54:31 ↗ I feel like cottages could be an

1:54:35 ↗ exception to that that would fit that

1:54:38 ↗ feeling it wasn't presented on the

1:54:40 ↗ housing survey because I guess we had a

1:54:43 ↗ lot of it at that point but it could be

1:54:46 ↗ a way that the neighborhood would be

1:54:50 ↗ comfortable with consolidation of lots

1:54:52 ↗ if you're keeping that character okay I

1:54:55 ↗ want to make sure we save some time for

1:54:57 ↗ senior because with that one got some

1:54:59 ↗ quick attention because we're not going

1:55:01 ↗ to I want to make sure we cover all

1:55:03 ↗ these tonight and then we want to give

1:55:04 ↗ you your homework assignment so I could

1:55:07 ↗ you know 40 okay okay I'm sorry I

1:55:13 ↗ thought wind is happening that is very

1:55:14 ↗ fun once my wife

1:55:17 ↗ so we're at eight and I thought we had

1:55:20 ↗ till 8:30 so sorry but seeing your just

1:55:24 ↗ if anyone else has some comments about

1:55:25 ↗ quick comments about senior housing and

1:55:27 ↗ then we want to give you a homework

1:55:29 ↗ assignment but you've been sort of doing

1:55:32 ↗ part of the homework assignment but we

1:55:33 ↗ want to give you a more explicit one

1:55:35 ↗ that's related to that so kind of thing

1:55:38 ↗ but any other quick comments about

1:55:39 ↗ senior and we'll continue that at the

1:55:41 ↗ next meeting we can do that but any

1:55:44 ↗ quick comments on this comment that I

1:55:47 ↗ hear two different things from seniors

1:55:50 ↗ some seniors like living with other

1:55:53 ↗ seniors and others want to stay in their

1:55:57 ↗ home or neighborhood partially because

1:55:59 ↗ they want to be with people who are not

1:56:03 ↗ all seniors right I would love to see a

1:56:08 ↗ community in which it's possible for

1:56:10 ↗ seniors to survive on their fixed income

1:56:15 ↗ and still live around people that they

1:56:18 ↗ know so kind of related to that but also

1:56:26 ↗ to get back to what Ron said earlier

1:56:28 ↗ about supportive services that would fit

1:56:31 ↗ with seniors as well as well as the low

1:56:33 ↗ income is the nearest place for

1:56:37 ↗ supportive services that would allow

1:56:38 ↗ people to stay in their homes or to have

1:56:40 ↗ like mostly independent that gets some

1:56:43 ↗ services is hopefully again they're all

1:56:45 ↗ the way up in Redmond we could encourage

1:56:48 ↗ hoping to build an office here in

1:56:50 ↗ Jessica LA and that would be amazing

1:56:52 ↗ because there's really nothing here and

1:56:55 ↗ is a clog that allows that for seniors

1:56:57 ↗ or low-income either one this one that's

1:57:01 ↗ come and I actually just want to refer

1:57:04 ↗ back to Teresa's comment on sort of

1:57:06 ↗ condos being a step in 2000 or cutand

1:57:08 ↗ also step out again I think that just

1:57:10 ↗ fixed understanding of what you're going

1:57:12 ↗ to be paying as I understand if your

1:57:14 ↗ senior fixed income fixed cost is

1:57:16 ↗ helpful so to me it just underscores the

1:57:18 ↗ importance of making progress on that

1:57:21 ↗ condo issue okay we presently have a

1:57:26 ↗ senior strategy

1:57:28 ↗ what do you mean by a senior strategy

1:57:30 ↗ the city presently have a plan to

1:57:33 ↗ address senior housing so our current

1:57:36 ↗ plan is to let the market determine so

1:57:40 ↗ this is why we're talking about it right

1:57:41 ↗ if you want a different plan when you

1:57:44 ↗ talk about it right I mean you do have

1:57:46 ↗ senior assisted housing in your

1:57:48 ↗ community but it's been through the

1:57:50 ↗ market right with it but you do have

1:57:54 ↗ some and there's a new senior rental

1:57:57 ↗ project going in with gateway so on

1:58:00 ↗ Newport so I mean senior housing is here

1:58:03 ↗ and it's being built but there's no

1:58:07 ↗ strategy at the moment so it's just and

1:58:09 ↗ which is how most housing is the market

1:58:11 ↗ builds to asking in our community but

1:58:13 ↗ cities have done things to encourage

1:58:15 ↗ more diversity fossil has an overlay for

1:58:17 ↗ seniors housing and if you ever go to

1:58:20 ↗ the fossil Northshore Senior Center the

1:58:22 ↗ North right and Bothell right across 522

1:58:25 ↗ from downtown and you look around it and

1:58:28 ↗ it's all senior housing that's a

1:58:30 ↗ single-family zone that had senior

1:58:32 ↗ overlay and the senior overlay made

1:58:35 ↗ that's a more desirable use and now you

1:58:37 ↗ have five different developments that

1:58:39 ↗ are geared toward seams right around

1:58:41 ↗ there Senior Center because of what city

1:58:42 ↗ did with their zoning so you can be more

1:58:45 ↗ proactive about it or not so in the

1:58:47 ↗ interest of time is we had this whole

1:58:52 ↗ measure to hand out okay so explain

1:58:56 ↗ there's a practice slide if you want to

1:58:58 ↗ oh great the practice light thank you

1:59:00 ↗ so what we're going to hand out is this

1:59:05 ↗ list that you've seen is from a much

1:59:08 ↗ longer list that we've developed and

1:59:11 ↗ you're now going to get to see the whole

1:59:14 ↗ list okay and but you've seen a listing

1:59:18 ↗ of things we tried to show you how you

1:59:21 ↗ started with data and you identified

1:59:24 ↗ needs in a mission statement and all

1:59:25 ↗ that and we gave you what we thought

1:59:28 ↗ were strategies that helped best to

1:59:30 ↗ address those needs that you identified

1:59:32 ↗ but we might not got it all right you've

1:59:35 ↗ given us some other ideas tonight so

1:59:38 ↗ what we think would be probably good is

1:59:41 ↗ we will attempt to get written up the

1:59:43 ↗ notes from tonight and Adam to that

1:59:45 ↗ matrix we just had on the wall that will

1:59:48 ↗ fill in the ones that weren't filled in

1:59:49 ↗ we'll also go back to the focus groups

1:59:53 ↗ and add in notes from their comments to

1:59:56 ↗ see where they match up if any of them

1:59:57 ↗ make comments about any of the specific

1:59:59 ↗ strategies and then we will have that

2:00:04 ↗ for you and then you can start reading

2:00:06 ↗ through this on your own and the idea

2:00:08 ↗ the next meeting is now you see our

2:00:12 ↗ collective list of strategies how does

2:00:16 ↗ that feel to you okay and how does it

2:00:19 ↗ feel to you both in terms of the

2:00:21 ↗ comments and the reservoir of Al and

2:00:25 ↗ also have does this feel like a good fit

2:00:29 ↗ as again the idea being these are the

2:00:32 ↗ most important ideas what you see there

2:00:35 ↗ are the full range some of those things

2:00:36 ↗ the city has already worked on that

2:00:37 ↗ might be some of the reasons they're not

2:00:39 ↗ on the list here but we want to give you

2:00:41 ↗ an opportunity at the next meeting to

2:00:44 ↗ challenge the list a little bit and see

2:00:46 ↗ if there's one or two things you would

2:00:48 ↗ like to add to the list from looking at

2:00:51 ↗ this or any other ideas that pop in your

2:00:53 ↗ head from reading that list okay and

2:00:56 ↗ again this is about all kinds of housing

2:00:59 ↗ not just affordability it's about

2:01:01 ↗ housing in general in the city of

2:01:03 ↗ Issaquah so at the next meeting it's a

2:01:07 ↗ combination of how does the collective

2:01:09 ↗ list look how do the comments look that

2:01:11 ↗ we've been developing over the last

2:01:12 ↗ couple meetings and do you want to

2:01:15 ↗ supplement it in any way okay or after

2:01:18 ↗ you've thought about it more take off or

2:01:21 ↗ really challenge any of the ones that

2:01:24 ↗ are on the list okay so that's what we

2:01:27 ↗ have is there more

2:01:33 ↗ tres bien mic is May 25th so it's two

2:01:39 ↗ weeks we weren't sure if we would need

2:01:42 ↗ it but we put it on your calendars

2:01:44 ↗ anyway does that still work for I guess

2:01:47 ↗ we'd have to send it to the new folks

2:01:49 ↗ because they might not have gotten the

2:01:50 ↗ first invite but it would be in two

2:01:53 ↗ weeks and we'll try and get all our

2:01:54 ↗ homework done and sent to you all a week

2:01:57 ↗ before the meeting so you would have it

2:01:59 ↗ and as soon as as soon as we can get it

2:02:01 ↗ to you are they're quick yes sure

2:02:05 ↗ yes we're still on as um so if so I

2:02:10 ↗ won't be happy out of the country

2:02:12 ↗ okay so can we send you notes sure that

2:02:15 ↗ you can add them absolutely

2:02:17 ↗ also if you all have questions between

2:02:20 ↗ now and then of things that just didn't

2:02:22 ↗ make sense tonight feel free to email

2:02:25 ↗ any of the staff members as well with

2:02:27 ↗ your questions - we're happy to help you

2:02:29 ↗ through any of this in all of this other

2:02:32 ↗ thoughts before we oh where does anyone

2:02:36 ↗ want to make public comments that have

2:02:38 ↗ sat through this into a cloth seat shirt

2:02:49 ↗ hi my name is steeper 117 Northeast

2:02:52 ↗ dogwood Street about ten nine years now

2:02:54 ↗ so first of all thank you all for being

2:02:56 ↗ here and contribute your time and effort

2:02:58 ↗ to make this issue something that works

2:03:00 ↗ for Issaquah so a couple thoughts

2:03:04 ↗ the first was goes to mr. Falls comment

2:03:07 ↗ our group can require certain people we

2:03:09 ↗ offered the affordable housing like

2:03:10 ↗ first responders or teachers I'm glad

2:03:13 ↗ that issues being looked at so I won't

2:03:15 ↗ talk about it further the second issue

2:03:17 ↗ was talked about public funds for

2:03:22 ↗ keeping seniors in the existing housing

2:03:23 ↗ my concern is not to be mean but just if

2:03:28 ↗ you build a house you have the asset it

2:03:30 ↗ goes with the community if you have

2:03:32 ↗ affordable housing that gets used to

2:03:34 ↗ subsidize them that public trust or

2:03:39 ↗ public funds goes to the senior when

2:03:42 ↗ they sell the house or to the heirs when

2:03:44 ↗ they sell the house it doesn't go back

2:03:45 ↗ into the public fund for a continued use

2:03:47 ↗ in public housing so I just want to see

2:03:48 ↗ if there's a way of talking about that

2:03:49 ↗ issue to recovery part of that funds

2:03:53 ↗ third issue was there I'm not hearing

2:03:57 ↗ enough of the talking about the when we

2:04:00 ↗ talk about affordable housing mean

2:04:01 ↗ though we talked about a 70 10-10-10

2:04:03 ↗ split and what the market rates are on I

2:04:05 ↗ just wanna make sure that we keep that

2:04:08 ↗ as a focus next issue we've heard talk

2:04:13 ↗ about cottage houses I've also heard

2:04:15 ↗ about tiny homes as an issue and I

2:04:17 ↗ haven't heard that talk about as much

2:04:19 ↗ I'm one make sure that gets part of the

2:04:21 ↗ discussion the last issue was we talked

2:04:28 ↗ about maintain the stock of affordable

2:04:29 ↗ housing it seems like there's an

2:04:31 ↗ opportunity with the providence Heights

2:04:33 ↗ community person SRO or the idea of a

2:04:37 ↗ place that already has drum tories and

2:04:39 ↗ living spaces for staff could be used

2:04:42 ↗ either transitional housing or permanent

2:04:45 ↗ housing before we lose that as a stock

2:04:47 ↗ within these quartz community I'd like

2:04:49 ↗ to see that be part of that discussion

2:04:51 ↗ of can that be included or in fold it in

2:04:53 ↗ I think there's just a real potential

2:04:59 ↗ for a loss of affordable housing if we

2:05:01 ↗ lose that existing stock that

2:05:03 ↗ be used thank you

2:05:11 ↗ anything else for many of you so a lot

2:05:17 ↗ of this discussion I find it very

2:05:18 ↗ difficult to have without learning or

2:05:20 ↗ the city's answer on infrastructure

2:05:23 ↗ development I know I keep going back to

2:05:25 ↗ this but I feel a pain every day with

2:05:27 ↗ the traffic what's the best way to

2:05:30 ↗ figure out what's what's the city's plan

2:05:32 ↗ for infrastructure development let so

2:05:34 ↗ this next six months for just

2:05:36 ↗ transportation or for water no and not

2:05:39 ↗ just transportation but schools

2:05:40 ↗ everything and everything comes with a

2:05:42 ↗ you have to provide the whole it's not

2:05:44 ↗ yet right and there's there's plans

2:05:47 ↗ actually on the website are you know we

2:05:50 ↗ have a five-year water plan five-year

2:05:51 ↗ sewer plan those kinds of things the

2:05:53 ↗ school districts have their own plans

2:05:54 ↗ for growth that are every six years that

2:05:57 ↗ get updated every year and those we can

2:06:00 ↗ get you a link to those but we do the

2:06:01 ↗ impact fees for schools so we have to

2:06:04 ↗ have their annual plan but we can walk

2:06:07 ↗ you through and the transportation plan

2:06:09 ↗ we have an EVC meeting next week we can

2:06:11 ↗ talk about that Oh excellent they can

2:06:14 ↗ they can mentor you right through there

2:06:16 ↗ but that's a great question because

2:06:18 ↗ there's so many pieces to the puzzle of

2:06:20 ↗ any city great any other thoughts ideas

2:06:27 ↗ economic vitality Commission meets next

2:06:29 ↗ week so they're going to sounds like

2:06:31 ↗ they're going to get a nice primer on on

2:06:35 ↗ and learn you can see it on TV because

2:06:38 ↗ it's so it's not oh you guys aren't

2:06:40 ↗ oh lucky

2:06:44 ↗ so it's Wednesday at 5:30 City Hall

2:06:46 ↗ Northwest Pickering room okay one good

2:06:52 ↗ to know this compact fixture for for a

2:06:54 ↗ cape it would be nice if you had a nice

2:06:56 ↗ model and you plug stuff in and and

2:07:00 ↗ could tell how it infrastructure changes

2:07:02 ↗ so the city the city just purchased a

2:07:05 ↗ software called city and Joanie engines

2:07:08 ↗ and we have to build the base but what

2:07:12 ↗ it would allow you to do is to as we get

2:07:14 ↗ these development projects that

2:07:16 ↗ come in you could then see what they

2:07:18 ↗ look like in the neighborhood in a 3d

2:07:20 ↗ image and it gives you the ability to

2:07:23 ↗ change your perspective along the street

2:07:25 ↗ to see how it will impact before it's

2:07:28 ↗ even getting permitted so we're getting

2:07:30 ↗ there

2:07:31 ↗ but we're in the process now of building

2:07:33 ↗ the base thank you yeah cool before I

2:07:38 ↗ close just for planning policy

2:07:40 ↗ commission members if there's any way

2:07:43 ↗ that you all can meet at 5 o'clock

2:07:45 ↗ remember we were going to do today at 5

2:07:47 ↗ o'clock to do the transportation

2:07:49 ↗ improvement program our engineer can't

2:07:51 ↗ be here when he was supposed to be here

2:07:53 ↗ so he asked if we could meet on the 25th

2:07:56 ↗ before this next joint meeting but at

2:07:59 ↗ 5:00 and it sounds like that you won't

2:08:01 ↗ be here but if I can get you all to

2:08:04 ↗ think of your schedules and let me know

2:08:06 ↗ to see if that could be a viable and it

2:08:07 ↗ would only be an hour so we'd really

2:08:09 ↗ have to focus but I'd rather ask you to

2:08:12 ↗ look at it and not good to look at it so

2:08:15 ↗ I'll be emailing you tomorrow morning

2:08:17 ↗ for RSVPs ok just to have that in your

2:08:20 ↗ head as you drive home but thanks if you

2:08:22 ↗ all did really well tonight considering

2:08:24 ↗ how many new members and the barrage of

2:08:26 ↗ data that we gave you thank you very

2:08:27 ↗ much first I just want to thank Arthur

2:08:30 ↗ for thinking of the barrage of questions

2:08:32 ↗ absolutely absolutely

2:08:36 ↗ it's good to have an expert in the house

2:08:37 ↗ thank you all we're off camera

2:08:44 ↗ you

2:08:53 ↗ you

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF