Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, October 26, 2017 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Sep 14, 2017

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission About Staff Liaison Created in 1983, this commission serves as a Trish Heinonen, Planning Manager policy advisory body to the Mayor and provides Email guidance and direction for Issaquah’s future growth through continued review and improvement to the Regular Members City’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan and related 2018 – Joy Lewis land use documents. 2018 – Jon Stob 2018 – Carl Swedberg Membership 2018 – Lindsey Walsh The Planning Policy Commission is comprised of 2019 – Joan Probala seven regular members, with four-year terms; and 2020 – Ron Faul several alternates, with two-year terms. All 2020 – Troy Rahmig members are appointed by the Mayor and subject to confirmation by the City Council. Terms expire Alternate Members April 30 of the year listed. For more information, 2018 – Victoria Hunt see IMC 18.03. 2018 – AJ McGauley 2018 – Althea Saldanha 2018 – Vacant

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of September 28, 2017

packet pp.5–6

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Sep 14, 2017

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

CITY OF ISSAQUAH PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION MINUTES

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Public Hearing: Proposed Amendments to Central Issaquah Development and Design Standards and Issaquah Municipal Code Regarding Inclusionary Zoning in Central Issaquah

Trish Heinonen, Policy Planning Manager Arthur Sullivan, A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH), Program Manager · packet pp.7–18

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

A. Inclusionary Zoning Amendments: Background: In September 2016, the Issaquah City Council enacted a six-month moratorium on certain types of development. The council has since extended temporary moratorium until December 31, 2017.

2681 segments .txt ↗

0:19 ↗ would it be easier question we are on

0:24 ↗ the air okay

0:30 ↗ viewing audience so good evening and

0:34 ↗ welcome to the October 26 meeting of the

0:37 ↗ Planning Policy Commission tonight we're

0:39 ↗ going to have a public hearing on the

0:42 ↗ proposed amendments to central Issaquah

0:45 ↗ development and design standards and

0:47 ↗ it's a criminal code regarding

0:49 ↗ inclusionary zoning in central Issaquah

0:53 ↗ at first we have a emotion for accepting

0:59 ↗ the minutes of the September 28th

1:02 ↗ meeting do I have a motion so moved to G

1:07 ↗ look mrs. I can't feel any discussion

1:10 ↗ any changes

1:11 ↗ all those in favor say aye hi tonight

1:17 ↗ we're going to start with a presentation

1:19 ↗ by Trish our planning policy manager

1:23 ↗ and then Arthur Sullivan who will talk

1:27 ↗ about regional coalition for the housing

1:30 ↗ arch the Trish would you please start

1:33 ↗ here I go love the pictures right the

1:40 ↗ housing strategy remember that we worked

1:42 ↗ so hard on that and you all were the you

1:46 ↗ let up the meetings with the Human

1:48 ↗ Services and economic vitality council

1:51 ↗ adopted that and now we're bringing the

1:54 ↗ implementation to you all like we

1:56 ↗ promised you we would before the end of

1:57 ↗ the year so that's what tonight is all

1:59 ↗ about is that first step from the nine

2:02 ↗ strategies and then we're gonna have

2:05 ↗ Arthur explain the magic behind how did

2:08 ↗ we get to the affordability that we

2:10 ↗ picked the choices that we picked better

2:12 ↗ in the amendment tonight and then the

2:14 ↗ next steps for this amendment so as I

2:18 ↗ said remember 2016 we had a moratorium

2:20 ↗ one of the issues the council raised was

2:23 ↗ we don't have enough affordable housing

2:25 ↗ so we did with your health we did the

2:28 ↗ housing strategy it was approved in

2:30 ↗ September with nine strategies and the

2:32 ↗ one we're focused on tonight is strategy

2:35 ↗ six which you might remember increased

2:37 ↗ developer provided affordable housing in

2:40 ↗ Central Issaquah very narrowly focused

2:43 ↗ and the one that we're starting out with

2:45 ↗ so the way we're doing that is I broke

2:50 ↗ this down to try to be as simple as

2:52 ↗ possible what are we doing we're

2:53 ↗ increasing the requirement in the urban

2:56 ↗ core from 10% mid moderate to 12.5 low

3:02 ↗ moderate or 10% low and we'll explain

3:06 ↗ how we got those in a little bit and

3:09 ↗ what else are we doing is we're adding a

3:11 ↗ requirement in the new vertical

3:13 ↗ mixed-use overlay that you all worked on

3:16 ↗ a few weeks ago so we're adding one and

3:19 ↗ we're also adding a requirement outside

3:21 ↗ the urban core zone in the mixed use

3:24 ↗ zone and those that has a choice to of

3:28 ↗ how the developer can figure that out

3:31 ↗ and just so you remember this map is

3:34 ↗ really like the red is the urban core

3:37 ↗ where we've increased the requirement in

3:40 ↗ this proposal and the purple is where

3:44 ↗ we've added the requirement in this

3:47 ↗ proposal that's the purple is outside

3:50 ↗ the urban core so I wanted to give you

3:52 ↗ some context on the areas that we're

3:55 ↗ targeting if you will for this

3:57 ↗ affordable housing requirement and the

4:00 ↗ second map is really Wiggly but the

4:04 ↗ slashed hatched area down at the south

4:07 ↗ that's the vertical mix juice overlay

4:10 ↗ that you just approved recommended

4:12 ↗ approval of a few weeks ago that's where

4:14 ↗ we're adding the an affordable housing

4:19 ↗ requirement so now you know what and you

4:21 ↗ know where this is beautiful this is the

4:27 ↗ table in your packet and I wanted to

4:31 ↗ show how we did it how are we asking for

4:35 ↗ more well according to the state you

4:38 ↗ can't ask for more unless you give

4:42 ↗ something as well otherwise it's frowned

4:46 ↗ upon as perhaps being illegal we don't

4:49 ↗ want to do that so what we're doing is

4:50 ↗ we're changing the base F AR for

4:56 ↗ residential in the two places where

4:58 ↗ we're number one adding in the core and

5:01 ↗ are increasing in the core and adding in

5:03 ↗ mixed-use and we're also raising the

5:08 ↗ base height so there this is they're

5:10 ↗ allowed to go higher and they're allowed

5:12 ↗ to have more F AR but in exchange for

5:15 ↗ that we're asking for them to give us

5:18 ↗ some sort of affordable housing and

5:20 ↗ we're giving them choices on how they

5:21 ↗ can provide it so that helps them with

5:23 ↗ their performant to do what they want to

5:26 ↗ do there's sort of similar choices that

5:28 ↗ we're giving them but I'll have our

5:29 ↗ third walk us through that and then last

5:34 ↗ slide is just the the much simpler table

5:36 ↗ with the

5:37 ↗ the mixed that vertical mix juice

5:41 ↗ overlay how we're changing that a little

5:43 ↗ bit we're changing the commercial and

5:45 ↗ we're changing let actually that's all

5:49 ↗ we're changing is the commercial but

5:50 ↗ we're adding the footnote to be clear on

5:52 ↗ what their requirement is for affordable

5:54 ↗ housing how did we get these I'm sure

5:59 ↗ that is the burning question that you

6:02 ↗ all were asking yourself as you read

6:03 ↗ this this week and for that I'm turning

6:07 ↗ it over to Arthur with the first of his

6:09 ↗ three very informative tables you gotta

6:13 ↗ take it away I will be over here if you

6:18 ↗ need me okay evening Commission Arthur

6:27 ↗ Sullivan program manager arch so we've

6:30 ↗ been asked we were working with your

6:32 ↗ staff trying to help you get to the

6:34 ↗ directive that the council wanted which

6:36 ↗ is how can we get more explicit

6:39 ↗ affordability and we really had to look

6:42 ↗ at it in three different areas for the

6:45 ↗ centralist quote because of the current

6:47 ↗ conditions and actions you took last

6:49 ↗ week for the vertical overlay so the

6:54 ↗ issue and the challenge whenever we're

6:56 ↗ working with a city is in order to add

6:59 ↗ affordability or add a public benefit

7:03 ↗ requirement there needs to be some

7:05 ↗ comparable or measurable or sort of

7:08 ↗ counterbalance on development value or

7:12 ↗ incentive for the development community

7:15 ↗ can be things that increase development

7:17 ↗ capacity it could be things that reduce

7:19 ↗ their costs such as reducing parking

7:22 ↗ requirements things along those lines so

7:24 ↗ there's this balancing act and this is

7:26 ↗ something we've helped cities do for

7:28 ↗ years and years and a number of cities

7:30 ↗ so in Redmond they have provisions

7:32 ↗ throughout their city they didn't see

7:35 ↗ anything either for about five or six

7:37 ↗ years and then because often your plans

7:38 ↗ are done it before the markets there I

7:40 ↗ mean it's not

7:41 ↗ common with the cities we've worked on

7:42 ↗ but we've also seen in the last couple

7:45 ↗ years a number of projects and cities

7:48 ↗ that have programs that you're looking

7:50 ↗ at tonight in which the development

7:52 ↗ community is producing Sammamish they

7:54 ↗ did their town centre plan a good five

7:56 ↗ plus years ago there are now a number of

7:58 ↗ projects using there's Redmond Kirkland

8:01 ↗ Bellevue in the bell red area and a few

8:04 ↗ other areas in East King County so we're

8:06 ↗ trying to use a very similar approach

8:08 ↗ here but here we had to start so it's

8:10 ↗ always what do you have in place now so

8:12 ↗ we gave you three charts in your packet

8:15 ↗ because the way you need to look at it

8:17 ↗ is starting from what you have and it's

8:19 ↗ a little bit different in each place so

8:21 ↗ the first chart we have here this is for

8:24 ↗ the urban core and we put all three on

8:27 ↗ one page but we put them up here one at

8:29 ↗ a time and they're all laid out the same

8:31 ↗ and I'm just going to try to walk you

8:33 ↗ through sort of what is in here in the

8:34 ↗ process that was being proposed here and

8:38 ↗ then open it up to questions you may

8:40 ↗ have both in terms of understanding how

8:43 ↗ the numbers are done but then also then

8:45 ↗ talking about the specific areas and

8:48 ↗ does that feel like the right thing or

8:49 ↗ how come one area is different than

8:51 ↗ another so what we basically did in this

8:54 ↗ chart so this is the area in your

8:56 ↗ central district while you already had a

8:58 ↗ requirement in the urban core for 10

9:00 ↗ percent of the old base plus if you

9:02 ↗ wanted to go above the base 20 percent

9:04 ↗ of that increase and in the base the

9:07 ↗ affordability was ten percent of the

9:09 ↗ base and that was it

9:10 ↗ 70 percent of median I'm just gonna use

9:12 ↗ percents of median because otherwise I'm

9:14 ↗ gonna trip over the terminology we came

9:15 ↗ up with and I don't know I'm just gonna

9:18 ↗ use that and then if you want to go

9:20 ↗ above the base and this is what's in the

9:22 ↗ first column the base 2012 it's showing

9:24 ↗ you your base fer was one point seven

9:26 ↗ and what we're doing in this project

9:29 ↗ what we're doing this chart showing you

9:30 ↗ a hypothetical project and we're showing

9:32 ↗ you how it changes in different

9:34 ↗ scenarios and what it looks like how

9:35 ↗ it's different in those different

9:37 ↗ scenarios and so the first one is what

9:39 ↗ you have in place currently and we're

9:42 ↗ saying you have a base fer of 1.7 and in

9:44 ↗ our demonstration project that we had it

9:47 ↗ was one acre and we looked at the number

9:50 ↗ of units and your base height that you

9:52 ↗ right now is 48 feet and the total

9:55 ↗ number of units that you could build

9:57 ↗ under the base FA are for this example

9:59 ↗ project assuming a size of 944 square

10:02 ↗ feet is about 69 units and an acre and

10:06 ↗ in that project if you built it what

10:09 ↗ we're showing you down below is what

10:10 ↗ kind of affordability would be provided

10:12 ↗ in that in that building so on your

10:14 ↗ current rules that building is right at

10:16 ↗ its base if they are and you'd have 69

10:19 ↗ units and 6.9 or seven would be

10:22 ↗ affordable and what we have is a

10:24 ↗ different row for different

10:25 ↗ affordability levels because as you see

10:28 ↗ as we go through this you're going to be

10:30 ↗ landing in different places because of

10:31 ↗ the circumstances so right now that

10:33 ↗ would be at the moderate level mid

10:36 ↗ moderate level which is 70 percent am on

10:38 ↗ so that's your current rules okay so now

10:41 ↗ what we say is well what if that the

10:42 ↗ next two columns are well what if

10:44 ↗ somebody went above that under your

10:47 ↗ current code provisions what would it

10:48 ↗ look like so we did one example where

10:51 ↗ the project uses a 3.0 F AR and then the

10:55 ↗ second one is we did a project that went

10:57 ↗ to the maximum f AR that's allowed which

11:00 ↗ is 5.0 and we took the same site and all

11:03 ↗ we did was you just use a different f AR

11:05 ↗ and what we're showing you there is for

11:07 ↗ that 3.0 FA our example 1.7 if it's your

11:12 ↗ base and 1.3 of that 3.0 is your bonus

11:14 ↗ so doing the math on that you still get

11:17 ↗ that same 6.9 units you'd have to do for

11:20 ↗ heading to the base affordable at 70%

11:22 ↗ then what you would have is you would

11:24 ↗ have that bonus FA are of 1.3 that's

11:28 ↗ going to translate to about a hundred

11:29 ↗ and twenty more units and therefore ten

11:32 ↗ of those or no that's the total units I

11:34 ↗ sort of hit that but you're adding about

11:36 ↗ 50 more units than that extra FA are and

11:40 ↗ that extra 50 units 20 percent of them

11:44 ↗ or 10 as it shows in this chart would

11:46 ↗ need to be affordable at 50 percent of

11:48 ↗ median so in that example of that

11:50 ↗ project you'd have 120 total units and I

11:53 ↗ just sort of going down there so you can

11:54 ↗ see how the charts organized ten of

11:56 ↗ those would be affordable at 50 percent

11:58 ↗ of ami seven of those would be

12:01 ↗ affordable at 70 percent or a total of

12:04 ↗ seventeen

12:05 ↗ units or 14% of the total project would

12:08 ↗ be at some level of affordability okay

12:11 ↗ so that's how your current standards are

12:14 ↗ so that's an area in which you have a

12:17 ↗ requirement and that's what's in place

12:19 ↗ so what we challenged ourselves to look

12:22 ↗ in the core area is how might you get

12:25 ↗ more affordability because it was sort

12:27 ↗ of like we'd like to see more

12:28 ↗ affordability so I'm gonna skip the next

12:30 ↗ blue it's the same example it's just a

12:32 ↗ different scenario but the purpose we

12:34 ↗ did this for is so that you can see in

12:36 ↗ those bin and the existing code how many

12:38 ↗ affordable units you would get in some

12:39 ↗ different scenarios so now what we did

12:41 ↗ is we said let's try to find a way to

12:45 ↗ increase the amount of required

12:47 ↗ affordable housing well we have to find

12:49 ↗ a way to give some extra density now in

12:52 ↗ none of the proposals you're seeing it

12:54 ↗ we're not increasing your upper end

12:56 ↗ all's we're doing is playing with the

12:58 ↗ base and we're saying if we increase the

13:00 ↗ base then that gives you some room to

13:03 ↗ say that you're giving as extra

13:06 ↗ development capacity into the base and

13:08 ↗ we're gonna work with that look at the

13:10 ↗ value of that looking at land values and

13:12 ↗ translate that into how much

13:14 ↗ affordability could you ask for that and

13:16 ↗ try to have the return be relatively

13:19 ↗ reasonable like they kind of equal each

13:22 ↗ other out so the first example we looked

13:25 ↗ at is we looked at a base fer of 3.0

13:28 ↗ you're currently at 1.7 and I believe

13:31 ↗ that's even lower than what you just

13:33 ↗ approved for the you know the vertical

13:35 ↗ mixed use zone but it's a good increase

13:38 ↗ and what we looked at there is if that

13:43 ↗ project were built and then what we did

13:45 ↗ is we said let's look at it sort of the

13:47 ↗ same way of the some percentage of that

13:50 ↗ base must be affordable and doing the

13:53 ↗ math we gave two different scenarios

13:55 ↗ that we looked at one was we said let's

14:00 ↗ look at greater affordability you know

14:03 ↗ that was we couldn't tell if that was

14:04 ↗ part of the messaging is we have such

14:06 ↗ great needs it would be nice to see some

14:08 ↗ units at a greater affordability level

14:10 ↗ so we picked 60% of mariya median income

14:13 ↗ and we said what would happen if you did

14:16 ↗ and we just did different percentages

14:18 ↗ and we came up with when we did twelve

14:20 ↗ and a half percent of the units at sixty

14:23 ↗ percent of median and required that you

14:27 ↗ can see in this example the same size

14:28 ↗ site that project would still have

14:31 ↗ that's that same 300 we had before so

14:33 ↗ it's very comparable to the first column

14:36 ↗ under the existing scenario but we're

14:38 ↗ saying that's now base so you have to do

14:40 ↗ 12 and a half percent of the units in

14:42 ↗ that base of 120 so you'll get 15 units

14:45 ↗ at sixty percent of median income and

14:50 ↗ therefore you now have and that would

14:52 ↗ compare to you to gotten a couple more

14:55 ↗ under your current provisions but those

14:58 ↗ would have been mixed between units at

15:00 ↗ fifty and seventy now you're getting all

15:02 ↗ of those units at sixty percent of

15:03 ↗ median income when we run the numbers in

15:06 ↗ terms of how a developer in terms of the

15:08 ↗ give and the take for them this is

15:10 ↗ resulting in the return slightly better

15:12 ↗ and when you go mandatory it's good to

15:14 ↗ they're a little bit on the side of the

15:16 ↗ developer because it's mandatory that in

15:18 ↗ this scenario the economics work

15:21 ↗ slightly better for the Builder than in

15:24 ↗ the scenario the 3.0 you know the first

15:27 ↗ blue column okay so the return it's a

15:30 ↗ little bit better for the Builder it's

15:31 ↗ not great every by any means but it is a

15:33 ↗ little bit better and so that's the

15:36 ↗ reason how we got to that point is we

15:38 ↗ just kept range we change affordability

15:40 ↗ levels we change the percentages and we

15:42 ↗ looked at the returns for the extra

15:44 ↗ increase in the base and that's how we

15:46 ↗ got to what you see there now we saw

15:50 ↗ that and we saw twelve and a half

15:51 ↗ percent we also thought you know Trish

15:54 ↗ made the comment it's nice sometimes to

15:56 ↗ give build builders look at deals

15:58 ↗ differently here and there and maybe it

16:01 ↗ might be nice to give them an

16:02 ↗ alternative way to meet an affordability

16:05 ↗ requirement that might meet some

16:07 ↗ interest they have and what motivated

16:09 ↗ the second column the 10% at 50 was

16:12 ↗ we've often heard from builders it's

16:15 ↗ harder for us to have more units that

16:17 ↗ are a4 that are affordable we'd rather

16:19 ↗ have less units affordable and make them

16:21 ↗ more affordable so for example in

16:23 ↗ Redmond they have a requirement that 10%

16:25 ↗ of units must be affordable at 80% of

16:28 ↗ median and then they have an alternative

16:29 ↗ formula says if you want to give us you

16:31 ↗ at fifty percent of median you can do

16:33 ↗ five percent and over the years about

16:36 ↗ one out of five builders picks that

16:39 ↗ second choice okay they just do and I

16:42 ↗ can't explain the reasons why they do

16:44 ↗ they all have different reasons for

16:46 ↗ doing so so we thought well let's try to

16:48 ↗ have a scenario where you don't have to

16:50 ↗ do more than ten percent because one

16:51 ↗ thing we've heard from a lot of builders

16:53 ↗ is keep the number down and we're most

16:56 ↗ comfortable if you're at 10 percent and

16:58 ↗ below so there isn't a magic here other

17:00 ↗ than that's what I've heard some times

17:02 ↗ over the years and so we tried to do it

17:04 ↗ and go alright if we wanted to have 10%

17:07 ↗ of the units what percentage of for

17:08 ↗ affordability has about the same return

17:10 ↗ as in that first and a 12 percent twelve

17:14 ↗ and a half percent at sixty and that's

17:15 ↗ where we got the 10% at 50% of ami so

17:18 ↗ that's just meant to sort of we thought

17:20 ↗ the idea of give them a choice and then

17:22 ↗ here's the second choice so the exercise

17:25 ↗ here is you can play with the percentage

17:28 ↗ of affordability and the ami but there's

17:31 ↗ some formulas behind this that are

17:33 ↗ looking at how much land value versus

17:35 ↗ how much rents are being reduced and

17:37 ↗ what is the cost of the capitalized

17:40 ↗ value of lost right okay so that's what

17:43 ↗ we came up with for urban core outside

17:46 ↗ the overlay area and I'll explain so

17:49 ↗ questions about the format and or this

17:53 ↗ specific area need some help on your

17:56 ↗ calculus here okay so looking at the

17:59 ↗ base for 2012 hunts he's 69 units with

18:02 ↗ the base F AR of 1.7 correct if we move

18:07 ↗ the far2 3 and now allow 120 units to

18:13 ↗ grant built in place of that 69 correct

18:16 ↗ and if we move to an f AR 5 its 212

18:20 ↗ correct so looking at this what your

18:23 ↗ proposal is we are going to go from 69

18:29 ↗ units which is what we're at today

18:30 ↗ mm-hmm and we're your proposals to go

18:34 ↗ with 3 so that's going to turn into 120

18:36 ↗ so on that one acre lot would be a

18:39 ↗ 120 units heights of 60 feet yes we did

18:44 ↗ propose in there you saw to a comment

18:47 ↗ higher fer there's a higher base height

18:49 ↗ that's being proposed as well correct

18:50 ↗ but they hit that we would have to have

18:55 ↗ this is where the bonus is coming that

18:57 ↗ confuse me a little bit okay I know it's

18:59 ↗ it's I do this for a living so get it to

19:02 ↗ a point where it makes sense we tried to

19:03 ↗ keep it a little bit straightforward but

19:05 ↗ I know it's still a lot of numbers so

19:08 ↗ the bonus part 50% 20% bonus at 50% of

19:13 ↗ affordable housing so that would be 50%

19:16 ↗ of the King County justice median and

19:22 ↗ adjusted ami way too right yeah is that

19:26 ↗ mine household income or is that

19:28 ↗ individual income ami is for a family of

19:31 ↗ four and then you have math to figure

19:33 ↗ out different so when I'm doing this

19:35 ↗ math my prototype project if you really

19:38 ↗ want to get into the guts of it what we

19:39 ↗ do is we look at prototypical projects

19:41 ↗ out in the community and we have a

19:43 ↗ mixture of one-bedroom studios and two

19:45 ↗ bedrooms and we look at what the markets

19:48 ↗ at and because the affordable rent for a

19:50 ↗ one-bedroom is different than a

19:51 ↗ two-bedroom and market rents are

19:53 ↗ different so we're looking at the

19:56 ↗ prototype building that has a mixture so

19:58 ↗ the ami to 96 you know the ami is for a

20:01 ↗ family of four

20:02 ↗ there's formulas to adjust it for

20:04 ↗ families of three and two and one and

20:06 ↗ then that translates into different

20:08 ↗ rents for studios in ones and twos and

20:10 ↗ threes and then we compare those rents

20:13 ↗ to the market rents for studios ones and

20:15 ↗ twos and threes there's a lot of pro

20:16 ↗ formas behind this okay so looking at an

20:21 ↗ individual not a family of four yes

20:23 ↗ individual yes it would still be at the

20:26 ↗ 50% ami which would actually put there

20:36 ↗ their rent and lower them the average

20:41 ↗ rent lower than the average introductory

20:45 ↗ rent for King County

20:47 ↗ wouldn't that be a backfire because now

20:50 ↗ we would be putting one person into one

20:52 ↗ unit as opposed to if it was more

20:54 ↗ expensive that person would have to then

20:57 ↗ have maybe a roommate or stack living

21:00 ↗ where they have other family members

21:03 ↗ live with some parents or something that

21:04 ↗ sort so now you're putting two people

21:06 ↗ into each unit isn't that actually know

21:10 ↗ what we're doing is in our math we are

21:14 ↗ assuming we are assuming like three

21:19 ↗ people in a two-bedroom unit on average

21:21 ↗ and it doesn't matter you know when we

21:24 ↗ the unit's rented I mean we will just

21:27 ↗ assume it's a three person household

21:28 ↗ when it's a one-bedroom we assume it's a

21:31 ↗ one-and-a-half person household when

21:33 ↗ it's a Studio we assume it's a

21:35 ↗ one-person household and so the rent

21:37 ↗ level is different at so at 50 what I've

21:40 ↗ been looking for is my handy dandy truck

21:43 ↗ that I know we give to you guys all the

21:44 ↗ time and I don't seem to see it for

21:47 ↗ myself at the moment but numbers maybe

21:52 ↗ it's in this folder

21:54 ↗ one night I don't have it with me so I

21:58 ↗ can give you hard numbers that are used

22:01 ↗ and I'm gonna have to do it sort of off

22:05 ↗ the top of my head I believe the reason

22:08 ↗ why I bring this up is because it sounds

22:10 ↗ like the business model that was being

22:13 ↗ proposed is actually going to be less

22:16 ↗ dense less dense less dense actually I

22:21 ↗ interested me enough the argument we've

22:23 ↗ I've heard in some cities and I I'm

22:27 ↗ gonna have two answers for you one

22:29 ↗ answer is no if anything it's going to

22:33 ↗ want builders to do smaller units

22:36 ↗ because when you do this analysis

22:41 ↗ the gap between typical market rents and

22:44 ↗ a rent affordable at 60% of median

22:47 ↗ income in a studio is maybe $300 a month

22:50 ↗ the gap between a two-bedroom unit and a

22:54 ↗ two-bedroom Union affordable did you say

22:56 ↗ 60% median what did I say what if this

22:59 ↗ is the same percentage of median income

23:01 ↗ is going to be $500 a unit that's why we

23:05 ↗ have to do this hard analysis and stuff

23:08 ↗ builders it costs them more they lose

23:11 ↗ more rent what when you're at the same

23:14 ↗ affordability level they lose more rent

23:17 ↗ on the two-bedroom units than they do

23:18 ↗ the studio's sure so what you're saying

23:21 ↗ is by creating substandard units well we

23:24 ↗ didn't even substandard units no I'm

23:26 ↗ sorry not substandard units but when you

23:28 ↗ create less desirable units you can Oh

23:32 ↗ what do you mean less desirable because

23:34 ↗ explain a little bit more so if you have

23:36 ↗ if an average studio of 800 square feet

23:41 ↗ friends for $1,200 right 500 square feet

23:44 ↗ and rents for $1,200 but it won't be 800

23:47 ↗ will be 500 okay so we'll go out to 500

23:51 ↗ square feet so you have a 500 square

23:52 ↗ foot apartment and you rent it for

23:54 ↗ $1,200 and what your this formula is

23:59 ↗ saying that the developer could then

24:01 ↗ come in with a 320 unit or 320 square

24:05 ↗ foot apartment and charge a thousand

24:07 ↗ dollars so one of the questions that we

24:08 ↗ got from a commissioner is how do we

24:10 ↗ assure the affordability of maintained

24:12 ↗ as buildings over time and they're sold

24:13 ↗ etc well the standard of living just I'm

24:17 ↗ getting to your point I'm trying to get

24:19 ↗ to your point and if you look at the

24:21 ↗ draft language in here you will see a

24:23 ↗ reference to a covenant that must be

24:24 ↗ when you get to Section 8 to the section

24:27 ↗ that relates to affordable housing that

24:28 ↗ you have a linkage to in your notes it

24:31 ↗ will say in there that the project must

24:33 ↗ sign a covenant in a form acceptable to

24:36 ↗ the city that will be recorded against

24:39 ↗ the property and that will address

24:41 ↗ issues such as unit mix and long term

24:45 ↗ affordability and monitoring etc one of

24:48 ↗ the issues that's in there says about

24:51 ↗ the size of the affordable units first

24:54 ↗ it says they

24:55 ↗ we have a similar unit mix as the

24:57 ↗ overall building so if a builder does

24:59 ↗ have two bedrooms and half one bedrooms

25:02 ↗ then the affordable units will have to

25:04 ↗ be have two bedrooms and half one

25:06 ↗ bedrooms in general it says they shall

25:08 ↗ be of similar condition and where they

25:12 ↗ must be entry-level market kindig

25:14 ↗ quality for your community and in terms

25:16 ↗ of size that will say they generally

25:18 ↗ need to be a similar size they may be up

25:20 ↗ to ten they may be smaller but that must

25:22 ↗ be approved by the city and we have seen

25:24 ↗ builders but we don't let them build 500

25:26 ↗ square foot of market rate studios and

25:29 ↗ 300 square foot affordable they might

25:31 ↗ build 450 square foot or 400 square foot

25:34 ↗ maybe but they don't have carte blanche

25:36 ↗ to do whatever they want for the

25:37 ↗ affordable unit so that's why my land to

25:39 ↗ make that comment so go on with your

25:41 ↗ question okay so also with that if you

25:44 ↗ have a smaller affordable unit huh

25:49 ↗ smaller square feet and you have two

25:52 ↗ occupants in it wouldn't that almost be

25:54 ↗ over occupied that's up to each property

25:58 ↗ owner the rent will still be the same to

25:59 ↗ the owner you don't base the rent on the

26:01 ↗ number of people in a unit the rent is

26:03 ↗ always staying for a studio it's always

26:05 ↗ the same for one better than always the

26:07 ↗ same for two bedroom it doesn't matter

26:09 ↗ how many people so then that becomes a

26:11 ↗ fair housing issue and it's up to the

26:13 ↗ manager if they want to limit the number

26:14 ↗ of people in the unit to follow the fair

26:16 ↗ housing practices in order to do so okay

26:22 ↗ and that's for any housing

26:25 ↗ I mean they might charge different rents

26:27 ↗ for different out but we you know but if

26:29 ↗ you want to limit occupancy or put more

26:31 ↗ or less people in or less people in that

26:33 ↗ you have to follow certain rules

26:38 ↗ other questions next one okay so the

26:47 ↗ next chart B oh do I have to move the

26:53 ↗ chart here yep okay B now it's the area

26:57 ↗ outside the urban core here you have the

27:02 ↗ same basic base but you have no

27:06 ↗ affordability requirement up to the base

27:08 ↗ and this is part of what was why the

27:10 ↗ first project that you got downtown as I

27:13 ↗ recall was outside the core and it

27:15 ↗ stayed within the base and therefore it

27:18 ↗ had no affordability so this is part of

27:21 ↗ what's triggering a lot of this

27:22 ↗ conversation is so how do we get some

27:25 ↗ affordability here the dilemma is you've

27:28 ↗ already given one point seven with no

27:31 ↗ requirement so you can't go back and say

27:34 ↗ one point seven we want something for

27:36 ↗ that okay so what we did here is we went

27:42 ↗ to a my example I gave you is it two

27:45 ↗ point five because this is outside the

27:48 ↗ core and we thought that not going quite

27:52 ↗ with all the six apps or chatting we

27:54 ↗ thought that outside the core we

27:56 ↗ shouldn't look at it you know you just

27:57 ↗ did up to five for the vertical

27:59 ↗ mixed-use and we thought for the core

28:01 ↗ you go up like four outside the core we

28:03 ↗ thought don't push it so much so we went

28:06 ↗ to two point five okay and so we gave

28:10 ↗ you in the base example under the

28:11 ↗ current code a two point five example so

28:14 ↗ in that case you've got one point seven

28:15 ↗ of base F AR and point eight of bonus

28:19 ↗ that they are so that means what you're

28:21 ↗ getting is 20% of that point 8 f AR

28:24 ↗ which translates to from this project of

28:27 ↗ 97 units because of the FA are five

28:31 ↗ point five percent of the units would be

28:33 ↗ affordable at the 50% level and

28:37 ↗ so that's what you would get under the

28:39 ↗ existing ordinance so and one way of

28:41 ↗ thinking about it is you probably

28:42 ↗ shouldn't have that bigger differences

28:44 ↗ between the existing system it's just

28:47 ↗ we're moving the base and we're trying

28:48 ↗ to make the base requirement sort of

28:50 ↗ almost comparable that's why we always

28:51 ↗ give you that first example is because

28:53 ↗ that lets you mirror what you would have

28:55 ↗ today and how much your economic

28:57 ↗ analysis justified so and what we're

29:00 ↗ sort of trying to say is economics have

29:03 ↗ been changing market rates are a lot

29:05 ↗ higher now so the gaps are bigger for

29:07 ↗ the builders that's one reason we're

29:08 ↗ saying it might look a little bit less

29:09 ↗ is because you know we're still using

29:11 ↗ pretty much similar formulas but we're

29:14 ↗ also acknowledging that the market has

29:16 ↗ changed and so the gaps are much much

29:18 ↗ bigger now than three four years ago or

29:20 ↗ five years ago when we first did this so

29:22 ↗ here we said what could we possibly get

29:26 ↗ and we wanted to get the percentage a

29:29 ↗ little bit higher and we also know that

29:32 ↗ in the conversations we've had in the

29:34 ↗ past couple months with the council over

29:35 ↗ some other properties the idea of

29:38 ↗ different affordability levels seemed to

29:40 ↗ be of interest in recognizing different

29:43 ↗ levels of need and therefore we said

29:46 ↗ let's try seven and a half percent at

29:48 ↗ 70% of AMI

29:50 ↗ okay so you still you're getting a

29:52 ↗ little bit more okay and it's a little

29:55 ↗ bit higher affordability so and that's

29:58 ↗ where our math came out so you would get

29:59 ↗ seven units so you actually get more

30:01 ↗ units but they would be a little less

30:02 ↗ affordable so that's what that example

30:05 ↗ is then demand again the same kind of

30:07 ↗ math is in the previous chart it's just

30:09 ↗ we're starting with zero and all were

30:10 ↗ adding we're not adding as much to the

30:13 ↗ base we're only adding point seven where

30:15 ↗ in the other area we added one point two

30:17 ↗ or something so that's how the math

30:20 ↗ works out in this example where the

30:22 ↗ economics are a little bit better for

30:24 ↗ the Builder and we wanted to get the

30:27 ↗ percentage a little bit higher and it's

30:28 ↗ still in an area of need okay this is

30:31 ↗ the area you used to be in the core

30:32 ↗ right that's what your core used to be

30:34 ↗ it was at 70% so this would give you the

30:37 ↗ same type of affordability level that

30:39 ↗ you have in the core area today and then

30:41 ↗ again that sort of option is what if

30:43 ↗ somebody wanted to do less and so we

30:45 ↗ came up with well five percent it's 60

30:48 ↗ percent of median income were

30:49 ↗ South to about the same mass as the

30:51 ↗ seven and a half percent at seventy

30:53 ↗ percent okay to the Builder so that's

30:56 ↗ why the numbers are lower and the

30:58 ↗ affordability is different is because

31:00 ↗ less of an increase and starting with

31:02 ↗ your base at zero okay so then that's

31:06 ↗ second questions on this area all right

31:10 ↗ third area is your vertical mixed use

31:16 ↗ which you just looked at so there you

31:19 ↗ increase the base far2 5.0 so we looked

31:24 ↗ at that math and we also you're in the

31:27 ↗ core I mean no it's outside before it's

31:30 ↗ in the core I'm sorry it's in the core

31:31 ↗ so we start with that 10% so you can see

31:35 ↗ in that column there we were saying we

31:41 ↗ didn't do the math right at 5.0 I mean

31:43 ↗ we did do one example all the way up to

31:46 ↗ five oh but we figured that's a pretty

31:47 ↗ high F a are compared to most of the

31:50 ↗ buildings we're seeing built these days

31:51 ↗ in other cities that especially with the

31:55 ↗ height that we were talking about well

31:57 ↗ you're good to go up to 85 it just feels

31:59 ↗ like the economics today are still in

32:01 ↗ buildings that we're seeing like in

32:03 ↗ belle red and places like that

32:05 ↗ downtown Redmond we figured that sort of

32:08 ↗ you're comfortable and their FA RS are

32:10 ↗ not above three and a half in fact

32:12 ↗ they're usually below three and a half

32:13 ↗ so didn't want to do too big a building

32:17 ↗ figuring what is a typical building

32:19 ↗ going to look like so we did an example

32:21 ↗ here using a 3.5 f AR and when we do the

32:25 ↗ math there and we said okay there's an

32:29 ↗ interest to get more than 10% seems to

32:32 ↗ be some of the interest and also looking

32:34 ↗ at different levels of needs so what we

32:36 ↗ basically did is right now you're

32:37 ↗ provisions are 10% of the base has to be

32:40 ↗ at 70 and then a certain portion 20% of

32:43 ↗ your bonus is at 50% so you can see in a

32:46 ↗ current example of a 2.7 FA are you

32:50 ↗ would have 10% of the units at 50% of

32:53 ↗ media this is under your existing rules

32:56 ↗ if someone built in that area to the

32:58 ↗ court and 5% about at

33:00 ↗ 50% of at 70% of media what we did if we

33:05 ↗ basically switched those two numbers

33:07 ↗ around we said 10% at at 70% of media

33:11 ↗ and 5% at 50% of media of the total

33:15 ↗ project okay so it's not measured as an

33:17 ↗ increment it's sort of your new baseline

33:19 ↗ and that's up to the base now one thing

33:21 ↗ to keep in mind in all of these you

33:22 ↗ still have your from base to max we're

33:28 ↗ not changing any of that so the bonus

33:31 ↗ program is still the same

33:33 ↗ so for all of these areas between your

33:36 ↗ you know you're like in the outside the

33:39 ↗ core the outside the court of the

33:40 ↗ maximum fer is I mean I'm sorry the poor

33:44 ↗ outside of here it's five but our base

33:48 ↗ is three so there's still that three to

33:51 ↗ five we've left in place the existing

33:53 ↗ rule that if somebody wanted to do above

33:55 ↗ three outside the core or any in the

33:58 ↗ core outside the vertical mixes area

34:00 ↗ they would have to do 20% of that at 50

34:04 ↗ percent of median so you still have that

34:06 ↗ in place haven't touched that it's just

34:09 ↗ we've changed the base so that you have

34:11 ↗ situations in all areas now of your city

34:14 ↗ in the CIP area of the city where there

34:16 ↗ is a mandate to do affordability and

34:19 ↗ that mandate is different in each area

34:22 ↗ because of the shifts that you're making

34:24 ↗ in your base so here it's higher than

34:26 ↗ the rest of the core because you went up

34:28 ↗ higher with the base then we're

34:31 ↗ proposing in the rest of the core and so

34:33 ↗ the math worked out differently and so

34:36 ↗ we got to a point where it looked like

34:37 ↗ asking for 5% of the unit's at 50 and

34:40 ↗ 10% at 70 again made the economics a

34:44 ↗ little bit better

34:44 ↗ but got you a higher percentage than the

34:46 ↗ 10% you're getting now and it's getting

34:49 ↗ you a mixture of affordability you're

34:50 ↗ getting also some units at 50 where

34:52 ↗ right now you're only getting units at

34:54 ↗ 70 so it felt like sort of exchange then

34:57 ↗ with that same principle I made on the

34:59 ↗ first one oh it's at 15 what would it

35:01 ↗ take to get it to 10% and what we're

35:04 ↗ finding is right now it's 10% at 70

35:06 ↗ right in your existing base we're saying

35:09 ↗ they'll turn it for a builder is if you

35:10 ↗ only one do 10%

35:12 ↗ the higher new base fer we think we can

35:14 ↗ make the argument they should be at 50%

35:17 ↗ okay so you have again choice for the

35:20 ↗ Builder you do the 15% with different

35:23 ↗ affordability where you do all at 50%

35:25 ↗ and bring it down to fit bring it down

35:27 ↗ to 50% for all of them ok question yes

35:36 ↗ what other options are this is the city

35:41 ↗ giving to builders what eliminate are

35:44 ↗ lowering permitting fees whatever to

35:48 ↗ enable them to do this and have you ever

35:51 ↗ done a study on by putting 10 to 15%

35:58 ↗ lower incomes in there what it does to

36:03 ↗ increase the cost of the other units

36:06 ↗ thank you for asking both of those

36:07 ↗ especially the second one so for the

36:10 ↗ first one the city has policy for

36:13 ↗ waiving impact fees and permit fees

36:18 ↗ right so this city weighs a lot of the

36:21 ↗ listed in somewhere it's obvious and in

36:25 ↗ fact what we have done is if you were to

36:27 ↗ read through all of 1821 you will see in

36:32 ↗ there there is a statement that says for

36:34 ↗ you know we say look at your

36:36 ↗ neighborhood plan but that's going to

36:37 ↗ send you to 1821 85 hey look at this

36:40 ↗ section of the minutes of the code

36:42 ↗ because you might be eligible for fee

36:44 ↗ waivers so it's right in there to let

36:45 ↗ them know we can't say universally

36:46 ↗ because the rules are a little bit

36:49 ↗ different depending on the affordability

36:50 ↗ level they're at so the city's had those

36:54 ↗ rules in place for a very long time they

36:56 ↗ put them in place way back when they

36:58 ↗ were doing the the master playing

36:59 ↗ communities kind of thing and they and

37:01 ↗ they apply them now citywide so that's

37:03 ↗ here to your first one that's the thing

37:05 ↗ that the city has in place city might be

37:09 ↗ looking at for very small scale councils

37:12 ↗ the second strategy that they're looking

37:14 ↗ at is multifamily tax exemption

37:16 ↗ short-term exemption on improvements in

37:19 ↗ exchange for affordability but they're

37:21 ↗ if they're gonna look at that if it's a

37:22 ↗ very very small area right now so that's

37:24 ↗ potentially on the council's plate for

37:26 ↗ later this year as well but for this

37:28 ↗ it's the fee waivers combined with delay

37:31 ↗ intensity increases to your second

37:34 ↗ question how does this impact the other

37:36 ↗ 90% of the unit's I know I view it

37:39 ↗ doesn't okay this is designed that you

37:46 ↗ are giving land value equal to the

37:50 ↗ reduction in rent so the first part of

37:52 ↗ the answer is there is a trade-off of

37:55 ↗ value given for value taken so it should

37:58 ↗ not affect the economics of other units

38:00 ↗ that's the first the second is if it did

38:05 ↗ what I've always preached the city's is

38:07 ↗ if we don't design it right your impact

38:11 ↗ isn't to other consumers in that

38:13 ↗ building that might get built the impact

38:15 ↗ is there won't be units built for people

38:17 ↗ to move into

38:18 ↗ builders won't build okay and so that's

38:22 ↗ always the litmus test now with always

38:24 ↗ is the challenge is sometimes plan

38:26 ↗ through ten years ahead of the market

38:27 ↗ anyway so is it because of how you

38:29 ↗ design the system or is it because you

38:31 ↗ design something for the future and my

38:33 ↗ experience has been with cities I came

38:36 ↗ from the development world where we used

38:38 ↗ to negotiate these exactly these deals

38:40 ↗ with cities we would negotiate trade off

38:42 ↗ and density for giving them

38:43 ↗ affordability that's what I did for a

38:45 ↗ living before I came to the public

38:46 ↗ sector so we try to take that principle

38:50 ↗ and apply that same principle here

38:52 ↗ that's half the answer the other half of

38:54 ↗ the answer is once a builder starts

38:57 ↗ building costs do not impact the rents

39:01 ↗ of consumer pays for a unit proof of

39:05 ↗ that what happened in 2010 builders

39:10 ↗ didn't get to charge rent based on their

39:11 ↗ costs builders charged rents based on

39:14 ↗ what people would pay so once you start

39:17 ↗ construction in your committee that's

39:19 ↗ what makes development so risky you

39:22 ↗ don't get to charge based on cost you

39:25 ↗ make a decision to move forward thinking

39:27 ↗ that your class will work but once

39:30 ↗ you're in that ground and you're going

39:31 ↗ if the market shifts on you good or bad

39:35 ↗ the market will dictate your economic

39:39 ↗ return so one story is everybody look at

39:41 ↗ the recession I had a builders in

39:43 ↗ downtown Redmond who were saying that

39:46 ↗ the 80% units that they had to do when

39:49 ↗ they Pro formed them were going to be

39:50 ↗ two to three hundred dollars below

39:52 ↗ market when they came on to market the

39:54 ↗ 80% unit rented for less than they were

39:57 ↗ allowed to rent because I rebuilt the

39:58 ↗ unit and that building was renting for

40:00 ↗ under 80 percent of ami rent levels

40:02 ↗ because of the market the other story I

40:05 ↗ tell I worked on a development once and

40:09 ↗ I had a really really not happy

40:11 ↗ neighborhood with what we were doing we

40:13 ↗ were doing ownership housing with condos

40:15 ↗ and some below market condos they did

40:17 ↗ not like us they appealed our approvals

40:21 ↗ we got delayed a year and a half the

40:24 ↗ cost of that delay to me was ten

40:26 ↗ thousand dollars per unit to my company

40:29 ↗ the market shifted thirty thousand

40:31 ↗ dollars in that year and a half so I

40:34 ↗ Proform at the project to sell the homes

40:36 ↗ for two hundred thousand our costs went

40:39 ↗ up ten thousand the market was 230 that

40:43 ↗ I fell the homes for two hundred and ten

40:45 ↗ thousand or did I fell in for two

40:46 ↗ hundred and thirty thousand I think you

40:51 ↗ know the answer to the question or the

40:53 ↗ comment so but I will say just as

40:57 ↗ strongly if you don't do this right you

41:00 ↗ can kill development or landowner

41:03 ↗ because what you're doing is you're

41:04 ↗ affecting land values and what we're

41:06 ↗ trying to say is when you change the

41:07 ↗ zoning we're trying to have some of that

41:09 ↗ my old boss used to go at this podium

41:11 ↗ when the zoning was changed tonight you

41:15 ↗ guys just rang the cash register for us

41:16 ↗ as a land owner the difference tonight

41:18 ↗ is we are giving it back to the

41:20 ↗ community because we're going to give

41:22 ↗ you that value you gave us back to the

41:24 ↗ community and some of the units being

41:26 ↗ affordable that's the principle that

41:28 ↗ you're using here if you're trying to

41:30 ↗ say we increase the value of property

41:33 ↗ but what we're trying to do is manage

41:35 ↗ that so there's a public benefit that

41:37 ↗ goes with that public decision

41:42 ↗ so looking at this methodology and I

41:45 ↗ need a clarification a is really the

41:48 ↗ same thing as C except it's 2.7 f AR

41:53 ↗ that's like a so yeah yeah yes because

41:58 ↗ they're both in the quarter they both

41:59 ↗ start from the court you're right now

42:00 ↗ and so the only difference is one's

42:02 ↗ vertical mixed use and the other one

42:03 ↗ would be all residential it's no it's

42:08 ↗ worse than the math the math the math

42:10 ↗ and get back to the map application the

42:14 ↗ difference is the location if they're

42:15 ↗ both urban core but but one now has the

42:20 ↗ base of five they're in the vertical

42:23 ↗ mixed use which is this area here your

42:28 ↗ base F AR went from 1.7 to 5.0 but in

42:32 ↗ this right area you only went from 1.7

42:38 ↗ to 3.0 and so if you go back to our

42:45 ↗ examples so in the one case you are only

42:51 ↗ getting to 120 units and so into your

42:54 ↗ old formula you're getting only in units

42:58 ↗ of extra because it you only increase

43:00 ↗ that you know that that bonus area right

43:03 ↗ is is smaller that you in other words

43:05 ↗ the amount you increased your base is

43:06 ↗ taken from old bonus area so that only

43:09 ↗ went up 1.3 but in the core you went all

43:13 ↗ the way up to 5 which is an increase of

43:15 ↗ 2 point whatever and so you are under

43:19 ↗ the old rule if someone were building at

43:20 ↗ 5.0 you'd be getting a lot more

43:22 ↗ affordability because you gave a lot

43:23 ↗ more bonus okay so now that I have a

43:26 ↗ better understanding of this mm-hmm

43:28 ↗ this is if we left if we had no

43:33 ↗ affordable housing whatsoever we would

43:35 ↗ be looking at 69 units

43:40 ↗ at what level at your base 2012 level 69

43:45 ↗ the your fa 69 total unit and 7

43:48 ↗ affordable in the core right 0 outside

43:50 ↗ the core so in order for us to get

43:53 ↗ affordable housing what you're saying is

43:55 ↗ if we went all the way to 5 we would

43:57 ↗ almost be 3 times the amount of housing

44:03 ↗ that we're allowing into the into his

44:05 ↗ o'clock no because you right now allow

44:08 ↗ all the way up to 5 in that area we're

44:12 ↗ not changing the maximum we're just

44:14 ↗ changing you know you have a zero

44:18 ↗ maximum base right there just moving the

44:22 ↗ base you're not checking we're not

44:24 ↗ changing any of the maximums in any of

44:27 ↗ the areas we're changing the base FA are

44:30 ↗ and then the heights one or more

44:34 ↗ one-story in two of the three areas and

44:36 ↗ I however much in the in the vertical

44:40 ↗ mixed-use so with the maximum capacity

44:42 ↗ for central Issaquah has not changed all

44:49 ↗ right so that's the part that I'm

44:50 ↗ confused about because looking at this

44:52 ↗ looking at the table I see units going

44:54 ↗ up so the units that I see going up are

44:57 ↗ just if a developer is going to build

44:59 ↗ 400 units and we give them a

45:03 ↗ a 5.0 far they're still going to have

45:08 ↗ 400 units but a certain percentage of

45:11 ↗ those is going to be affordable housing

45:16 ↗ the different we allowing them to

45:18 ↗ actually add on to that 400 and build

45:21 ↗ another 12 you know what we're what this

45:26 ↗ what I think we're trying to respond

45:28 ↗ here in the council is you won't have

45:30 ↗ projects like Atlas that work under

45:33 ↗ rules that didn't have to trigger any

45:35 ↗ affordability everything will trigger

45:37 ↗ affordability now any project no matter

45:40 ↗ how big or large and so that's really

45:43 ↗ what this is doing it's not changing

45:45 ↗ maximum if someone was gonna build the

45:46 ↗ 5.0 before they can still build the 5.0

45:48 ↗ and as this map shows you the number of

45:52 ↗ units they're gonna give you affordable

45:53 ↗ hasn't changed that much but what will

45:54 ↗ happen is all projects now will have

45:57 ↗ some level of affordability okay so

46:01 ↗ we're not increasing the capacity on our

46:03 ↗ buildings correct or increasing the

46:06 ↗ number of units for direct okay that's

46:08 ↗ the part that was confused about tonight

46:10 ↗ and I can see doing that it's because

46:12 ↗ you have this two-tier kind of thing

46:14 ↗ we're just moving this sort of this

46:15 ↗ little floating thing well it's the

46:17 ↗ whole incentive idea of we're allowing

46:20 ↗ an extra 20 feet which to me sounds like

46:23 ↗ we're allowing expansion beyond of what

46:27 ↗ we are at today and again we only showed

46:30 ↗ you the base heights the maximum Heights

46:34 ↗ if you in this chart if you go to the

46:36 ↗ chart in your packet you will see that

46:39 ↗ they do the higher FA are if you already

46:41 ↗ allow higher Heights you have a lower

46:45 ↗ height that goes with the base then you

46:48 ↗ write so if you look at chart for for a

46:50 ↗ on page nine you will see in the urban

46:53 ↗ core and you'll write you currently have

46:56 ↗ is a 48 foot height for the base and 125

46:59 ↗ for the max so we're not all we're

47:02 ↗ saying is since we've floated up the FA

47:05 ↗ are we're floating up the height a

47:06 ↗ little bit too but we're not floating

47:08 ↗ the maximum that you can do so that

47:10 ↗ person who is

47:11 ↗ to five-o before under the current they

47:14 ↗ could have potentially gone to 125 feet

47:16 ↗ because they were in the bonus ramp

47:20 ↗ okay I'm sorry that totally does not mix

47:24 ↗ okay okay is there a minimum height is

47:27 ↗ that what the base is I'm gonna have to

47:29 ↗ point to somebody else

47:31 ↗ there's no manual hypes hmm yeah there's

47:35 ↗ a minimum if they are right so there's a

47:38 ↗ minimum fer so the base the base height

47:40 ↗ that's being increased is what's the

47:42 ↗ threshold at which the affordability

47:45 ↗ criteria is triggered is that true

47:48 ↗ let's let's try it this way so think of

47:51 ↗ it as a stacked cake right two layers

47:54 ↗ the first layer you can do without

47:58 ↗ having to do so that so before we

48:01 ↗ touched it you could do that first layer

48:03 ↗ without any affordability right that's

48:06 ↗ ends of 48 and the second layer was

48:08 ↗ called density bonus and if you chose to

48:10 ↗ get into that second layer there was an

48:13 ↗ obligation for some affordability to

48:15 ↗ come with it and so what we're doing

48:17 ↗ with this is saying that base now we

48:20 ↗ want to get affordability in both layers

48:23 ↗ of the cake right but we have to give

48:25 ↗ them something to be able to get

48:27 ↗ something in that lower layer which used

48:29 ↗ to have no affordability and to do that

48:31 ↗ we're increasing the FAA are so think

48:34 ↗ about it in terms of so FA R is a

48:37 ↗ function of your property and the

48:39 ↗ footprint of the building and the height

48:41 ↗ right and so really what we're saying is

48:44 ↗ you could do bigger squatter buildings

48:48 ↗ have a bigger F AR and still not trip

48:51 ↗ that density bonus if that's so a

48:54 ↗ developer's gonna pencil out what that

48:57 ↗ means for them to go both taller and to

48:59 ↗ add additional affordability by going

49:02 ↗ into that density bonus range so far

49:04 ↗ that's been kind of not many people have

49:08 ↗ wanted to venture into that space and so

49:10 ↗ what we're doing now is capturing that

49:13 ↗ lower level by increasing the FA are

49:17 ↗ giving them kind of a bigger squad or

49:19 ↗ building

49:20 ↗ because that's a way that I think as

49:22 ↗ Arthur mentioned earlier we can get

49:24 ↗ there with the math because we can show

49:27 ↗ that there's value add to their property

49:29 ↗ by doing that so this black box science

49:33 ↗ basically just produces bigger buildings

49:36 ↗ but not more units your for each of

49:44 ↗ those three areas there is no more

49:46 ↗ capacity or no more extra height than

49:49 ↗ exists today

49:51 ↗ by the way are saying that the FA are

49:55 ↗ where before without getting into the

49:58 ↗ affordability they could only do 1.7 FA

50:02 ↗ are right now they can do 3.0 so if they

50:06 ↗ still build a 1.7 that thing they need

50:10 ↗ to have affordable units they could also

50:14 ↗ build up to 3.0 and still have

50:17 ↗ affordable bill oh they can even clip

50:19 ↗ going up to the five but for us to

50:23 ↗ capture that old 1.7 at 1.6 building we

50:26 ↗ had to give them something to enable

50:28 ↗ them to go higher they may choose not to

50:31 ↗ just like in Redmond Redmond gave many

50:34 ↗ years ago doubled they barely did change

50:38 ↗ capacity and when they did that they

50:41 ↗ told the builders everyone's gonna give

50:43 ↗ us 10% affordable even if you build to

50:45 ↗ the old rules and some builders have

50:48 ↗ chosen to do that but they still give

50:49 ↗ you 10 because they had the they were

50:51 ↗ empowered to do more that's their choice

50:53 ↗ whether or not they use all the capacity

50:55 ↗ given to them but you have given them

50:57 ↗ that capacity under the base okay the

51:01 ↗ difference between a 3 and a 5 is you

51:03 ↗ get a bigger building and bigger units

51:06 ↗ not necessary bigger units no the

51:10 ↗ Builder would do a unit mix based on

51:12 ↗ what he thinks the market is I'll get

51:14 ↗ you got more units or you might get

51:16 ↗ bigger more you know it depends on where

51:18 ↗ the market so in this case someone could

51:21 ↗ still build the 1.7 base FA are at 48

51:27 ↗ feet height and 69 total units but if

51:32 ↗ we're looking at that option a

51:34 ↗ if we adopt that that means instead of

51:37 ↗ doing the 10% at 70% a ami you have to

51:44 ↗ do 12.5% at 15 and actually so to do the

51:52 ↗ best explanation rather than looking at

51:54 ↗ the urban core we should probably be

51:56 ↗ looking at to go say let's really if

51:59 ↗ you're talking to zero scenario you're

52:01 ↗ talking there so in this case somebody

52:03 ↗ could build the one point seven that

52:05 ↗ would give you sixty nine units and in

52:09 ↗ right now there would be nothing going

52:13 ↗ forward you'd have 7.5% of those sixty

52:16 ↗ nine units right at the 70% AMI or they

52:20 ↗ could build higher yep more dense

52:24 ↗ buildings I think that they're they

52:27 ↗ wouldn't do that because they could

52:29 ↗ because they're being given this the

52:32 ↗ change in the base so economically they

52:34 ↗ that's why they're being great I would

52:36 ↗ do that but he just said some of the

52:39 ↗ builders in Redmond did choose to do

52:42 ↗ yeah I'm going to do some you know

52:44 ↗ that's that's the hard thing about doing

52:47 ↗ this is different builders build

52:51 ↗ differently they have different kinds of

52:54 ↗ money they have different kinds of

52:55 ↗ product they have different kinds of

52:57 ↗ this and you see in downtown Bellevue

53:00 ↗ you see high-rises and you still see

53:02 ↗ wood frame and there's all of them can

53:05 ↗ do high-rise I think one of the problems

53:07 ↗ instead of thinking about it as we're

53:10 ↗ gonna get bigger buildings which I mean

53:14 ↗ first of all we've already asked for

53:15 ↗ with the vertical mix use stuff we've

53:17 ↗ that's what we're going for

53:19 ↗ but the problem might be that if you've

53:23 ↗ got a builder who wants to build these

53:26 ↗ 1.5 FA are type buildings and we're

53:30 ↗ saying more affordable units and they

53:34 ↗ don't want to do that they're gonna go

53:36 ↗ to Bothell or Woodinville or you know

53:39 ↗ something like that to build theirs

53:41 ↗ rather than coming

53:42 ↗ essica so that's what we need to be

53:45 ↗ considering as our potential and what

53:47 ↗ we're saying is this is the point I was

53:49 ↗ making earlier is that a builder

53:53 ↗ shouldn't need to decide between here or

53:56 ↗ somewhere else because they got

53:58 ↗ something for it that didn't exist now

53:59 ↗ what happens is landowners want the

54:02 ↗ people buying to forget about this

54:04 ↗ decision that was made but we keep

54:05 ↗ reminding builders but the land can say

54:07 ↗ well no this provisions been in place

54:09 ↗ for 15 years in Redmond or 20 years in

54:12 ↗ Redmond so that's requirements kind of

54:14 ↗ like if you adopt rules for steep slopes

54:17 ↗ some slopes have sites have them some

54:19 ↗ don't what do you do you pay different

54:22 ↗ amounts for land because of the

54:23 ↗ constraints on the land and that's why

54:25 ↗ I'm saying we can kill it is if you make

54:26 ↗ land go negative then you're not doing

54:29 ↗ anybody the right thing so I would just

54:32 ↗ disagree a little bit with the bigger

54:34 ↗ buildings I think we wanted more density

54:36 ↗ but not not just bigger buildings Point

54:39 ↗ Blank especially in the vertical mixed

54:42 ↗ use and the FA are at five there and I

54:46 ↗ think when I'm looking at these I keep

54:48 ↗ looking at the two blue columns and

54:50 ↗ comparing to the green and it doesn't

54:52 ↗ seem that different but then in reality

54:55 ↗ because most people are choosing to go

54:57 ↗ with the base it's really comparing the

55:00 ↗ the white versus the green because

55:03 ↗ people are as we've seen that's been the

55:05 ↗ problem is that people haven't been

55:06 ↗ choosing to use the bonus option so very

55:14 ↗ good point but because there's an

55:17 ↗ economics behind this you know this word

55:18 ↗ called taking just a bike like that

55:23 ↗ because of a thing called takings if the

55:27 ↗ number in the green was double or triple

55:29 ↗ what was in the blue for the same you

55:31 ↗ know it's like well how did you make

55:33 ↗ that happen

55:34 ↗ okay so there's there's sort of a little

55:37 ↗ reason why they look somewhat similar

55:39 ↗ right and just just just to put real

55:44 ↗ numbers to this because it looks like

55:46 ↗ 7-7 doesn't seem like a lot and we're

55:48 ↗ like whoa but when you when you add

55:50 ↗ gateway and Atlas together and those are

55:53 ↗ both outside now

55:55 ↗ now gateways not mixed-use but we didn't

55:58 ↗ include it because Western gateway was

56:00 ↗ done but if but both of those are in

56:02 ↗ central Issaquah they're outside the

56:04 ↗ core and total there there's 750 units

56:09 ↗ and so when you take 750 units and you

56:12 ↗ take seven and a half percent so now

56:14 ↗ we're getting 56 affordable units with

56:17 ↗ this where we got zero in reality so so

56:21 ↗ those numbers start to actually make

56:23 ↗ feel a lot different than looking at

56:25 ↗ seven right and that that's a good point

56:27 ↗ in the last you know a lot of cities

56:30 ↗ have adopted these kind of programs and

56:32 ↗ until about during the recession we were

56:34 ↗ getting zero because nobody was building

56:36 ↗ before the recession

56:37 ↗ between all the different cities we were

56:39 ↗ getting maybe 20 or 30 a year maybe 40

56:42 ↗ this year we might get 300 units in East

56:44 ↗ King County through these kind of

56:46 ↗ provisions it is it is this incremental

56:49 ↗ it's out there but this year alone we

56:53 ↗ think we're gonna we're gonna get to or

56:55 ↗ very close to 300 units created through

56:57 ↗ the East King County cities through

56:59 ↗ programs like this and that's because

57:01 ↗ cities that put these kind of programs

57:02 ↗ in place I'd like to go to Keith's point

57:06 ↗ this is one of the questions I had for

57:07 ↗ you Trish as we see numbers you present

57:09 ↗ to us about projections of growth for

57:12 ↗ Issaquah and what I'd like to see is an

57:14 ↗ actual projection of units right so that

57:17 ↗ was one of your questions and there this

57:20 ↗ is a one rough level a way of thinking

57:23 ↗ about this is the CIPA Pass 'ti is just

57:27 ↗ over 7,000 units over seventy five

57:30 ↗ hundred seventy five seventy seven

57:31 ↗ hundred units so you've got a scenario

57:34 ↗ at seven and a half and you got a

57:36 ↗ scenario at 12% and you got a scenario

57:38 ↗ at ten plus five you know ten percent

57:41 ↗ you got a lot of you know so different

57:42 ↗ builders might do but okay so you've

57:44 ↗ said on average ten percent of that

57:47 ↗ capacity that's seven hundred units now

57:50 ↗ your growth isn't all expected to happen

57:52 ↗ in the next 15-20 years your growth

57:54 ↗ capacity you're assuming about a third

57:55 ↗ of that might happen in the next 15 to

57:58 ↗ 20 years so you know 2,200 happened and

58:02 ↗ that's a couple hundred I mean it's

58:03 ↗ you're probably going to see

58:05 ↗ because we had different affordability

58:07 ↗ levels and choices for builders so to

58:09 ↗ that question it's a matter of look at

58:11 ↗ your capacity and just take about ten

58:13 ↗ percent of that number so then when we

58:15 ↗ look at that number of we're looking at

58:17 ↗ it between 300 and let's say 500 units

58:20 ↗ and that 500 is actually being pretty

58:22 ↗ generous how what impact is that going

58:25 ↗ to give us to our community what are we

58:26 ↗ actually getting for affordable housing

58:28 ↗ this is actually going to meet our

58:29 ↗ demand are we gonna have 500 units that

58:32 ↗ solve a serious portion of the crisis

58:35 ↗ that we're currently having or is this

58:37 ↗ actually gonna make a dent so I just

58:39 ↗ spent a day at a day-long conference

58:42 ↗ where about 10 or 12 people all talked

58:46 ↗ about different ways to create

58:47 ↗ affordability and everybody always says

58:50 ↗ there's not one silver bullet and you're

58:53 ↗ not going to get to the needs that are

58:55 ↗ defined in your comprehensive plan one

58:57 ↗ way or the other and what I found over

58:59 ↗ the years it's a combination of cities

59:02 ↗ looking at a site and decor where

59:05 ↗ they'll use subsidy dollars from them

59:07 ↗ and from cities and from the county and

59:10 ↗ stuff and that'll be one answer this is

59:13 ↗ an answer where the private sector in

59:15 ↗ the past you've got zero explicitly now

59:18 ↗ sometimes the market on its own way back

59:20 ↗ built units affordable at 80% of media

59:22 ↗ okay when they bill today that doesn't

59:25 ↗ seem to happen so this is a way to get

59:28 ↗ at and that's why I made the point that

59:30 ↗ we used to get 20 or 30 so it's 10

59:32 ↗ percent of your growth in the court I

59:34 ↗ appreciate that better is better I'm

59:36 ↗ glad that we're adding to our base what

59:39 ↗ I'm curious is what the city is

59:40 ↗ assessing what is this going to do for

59:42 ↗ our that what slice of the pie is it's

59:44 ↗ going to contribute to no one's saying

59:45 ↗ this is the one answer that we're going

59:47 ↗ to have but based on what this is going

59:49 ↗ to give us how much of this is getting

59:51 ↗ salt but what is the percentage of the

59:54 ↗ city seized or it's gonna take a chunk

59:56 ↗ out the hurt we're having when you look

59:58 ↗ at a community you can decide if you

59:59 ↗ want to look at city of its across scale

1:00:02 ↗ or at a larger scale I would argue

1:00:04 ↗ larger scale and its cost scale are

1:00:06 ↗ about the same because you have a lot of

1:00:08 ↗ employment that when you look at you

1:00:11 ↗ know you if you look at your plan you'll

1:00:12 ↗ see these numbers in your planet 17

1:00:15 ↗ percent or 24 percent affordable to

1:00:17 ↗ people under 50 percent of median

1:00:19 ↗ come and another 15% affordable from 50

1:00:22 ↗ to 70% of median income those

1:00:25 ↗ percentages have been pretty darn

1:00:27 ↗ consistent from my 40-year career that

1:00:30 ↗ is you bro economically a workforce

1:00:33 ↗ profile that gets the household income

1:00:35 ↗ profile that gets results of our

1:00:37 ↗ workforce and if anything it's skewing a

1:00:39 ↗ little more towards the lower end these

1:00:41 ↗ days is 24% under 50% of median and

1:00:45 ↗ another 15 16% between 50 and 80 that's

1:00:49 ↗ from so if you look at this is this is

1:00:51 ↗ growth and this is trying to deal with

1:00:53 ↗ 50 to 80 percent of median you're doing

1:00:57 ↗ or not to and most of your growth is in

1:00:59 ↗ the center that's what you're planning

1:01:00 ↗ for then through a policy like this you

1:01:03 ↗ are potentially making a pretty darn

1:01:05 ↗ good dent and actually meeting the

1:01:07 ↗ growth demand you're not taking care of

1:01:08 ↗ existing problems but you're doing a

1:01:10 ↗ pretty good job of dealing with that

1:01:12 ↗ moderate need resulting from growth by

1:01:15 ↗ having policies like this it's a pretty

1:01:18 ↗ so you're doing 50% or more probably by

1:01:20 ↗ having this kind of policy there's nine

1:01:25 ↗ housing strategies and this is just the

1:01:27 ↗ first one we're hitting and so I think

1:01:30 ↗ as Arthur says we're trying to do many

1:01:33 ↗ different things to try to hit the very

1:01:35 ↗ big problem for the city but we're at

1:01:38 ↗ least we're starting to do some it some

1:01:40 ↗ bigger things and when you were updating

1:01:42 ↗ your comp plan we put together data for

1:01:44 ↗ all of the cities on the same format

1:01:47 ↗ that showed you how many units the

1:01:49 ↗ cities were creating for direct

1:01:50 ↗ assistance how many they were treating

1:01:52 ↗ just the market we go out and survey all

1:01:54 ↗ new buildings to see if by any chance

1:01:55 ↗ any of them are affordable under 80% of

1:01:57 ↗ median and then we also track all of

1:02:01 ↗ these created through fee waivers and

1:02:03 ↗ density bonuses or land use and we we've

1:02:06 ↗ kept that data for 25 years so we can

1:02:08 ↗ show every city exactly how much then

1:02:10 ↗ there's also the census which said when

1:02:12 ↗ you look at

1:02:13 ↗ what's our affordability look like so

1:02:15 ↗ there's a two very different ways of

1:02:16 ↗ slicing information but both of those

1:02:19 ↗ are ones we do keep tabulating for all

1:02:21 ↗ the cities so that they can see the

1:02:23 ↗ result of what they're doing the joys

1:02:26 ↗ point though Trish could we when we're

1:02:30 ↗ looking at affordable housing can we go

1:02:33 ↗ back to that presentation where we saw

1:02:37 ↗ what the need was at 70% 60% 50% based

1:02:43 ↗ on our population I think we had those

1:02:47 ↗ numbers yes it's not cut that finely but

1:02:51 ↗ it is kind of like I have the right book

1:02:53 ↗ we look at what data we have to know we

1:02:57 ↗ have this many total population this

1:03:00 ↗ many total units in Issaquah and this

1:03:05 ↗ much need at whatever the ami levels are

1:03:09 ↗ and what we and how much of this

1:03:12 ↗ proposal address but part of what we do

1:03:16 ↗ that and it's a good idea but I also

1:03:19 ↗ always remind people why I work for you

1:03:21 ↗ and why I came back here to work in this

1:03:24 ↗ area you are generating demand for

1:03:27 ↗ housing from your workforce and they may

1:03:30 ↗ not be able to afford to live here so

1:03:32 ↗ when you're looking at that it's fair to

1:03:33 ↗ look at it how you describe we also

1:03:35 ↗ think it's useful to look at it from the

1:03:37 ↗ employment base the company I worked for

1:03:40 ↗ in the Bay Area was formed by the

1:03:42 ↗ business community saying we need

1:03:44 ↗ housing for our workforce so when we

1:03:47 ↗ have it both ways so you can see that

1:03:49 ↗ information and that's where we're

1:03:51 ↗ saying is you have generated a lot of

1:03:54 ↗ jobs in your community that pay and that

1:03:56 ↗ low you know the income ranges we're

1:03:58 ↗ talking about here but yes we can we

1:04:00 ↗ have that information and getting it all

1:04:03 ↗ this in a slightly different way I guess

1:04:05 ↗ I'm knowing that there's not a silver

1:04:07 ↗ bullet I'm not my gut tells me that

1:04:10 ↗ having a mix of affordability is better

1:04:12 ↗ so you have some at 17 750 you know

1:04:16 ↗ rather than having more at 70 which we

1:04:21 ↗ didn't leave out you know a large

1:04:22 ↗ portion of

1:04:23 ↗ but I don't know if that's the right

1:04:25 ↗ answer that's just kind of what I feel

1:04:26 ↗ and I don't know if there's any comment

1:04:28 ↗ on that you all right there from other

1:04:29 ↗ cities the data will show that the

1:04:31 ↗ further you go down the median income

1:04:32 ↗ range the greater the gaps and the needs

1:04:34 ↗ are because the market starts to create

1:04:38 ↗ units at about 7080 percent of median

1:04:40 ↗ and so there is some choice in the

1:04:42 ↗ community as you start getting to 70 to

1:04:45 ↗ 80 less so than there used to be and

1:04:48 ↗ that's one of the things we're seeing so

1:04:50 ↗ in general the biggest gaps are for

1:04:53 ↗ renters under 50 even but even doing

1:04:55 ↗ something like this can help them

1:04:56 ↗ because they're still living in your

1:04:57 ↗ town they just pay over 50 percent of

1:05:00 ↗ their income so if this might give them

1:05:01 ↗ a choice for paying 40 percent of the

1:05:03 ↗ rainfall but the gaps you have that the

1:05:06 ↗ information that was asked for but

1:05:08 ↗ Commissioner Walsh will show that those

1:05:11 ↗ gaps feel more significant as a

1:05:14 ↗ proportion of those populations as you

1:05:17 ↗ go down lower incomes I've got two

1:05:20 ↗ questions here the first one under the

1:05:24 ↗ current provision we would allow under a

1:05:28 ↗ far of 2.56 affordable units is what we

1:05:32 ↗ would get if the developer chose that

1:05:35 ↗ option or for three we would get ten and

1:05:40 ↗ or they could go back and actually do

1:05:43 ↗ zero

1:05:45 ↗ the current if they only built to the

1:05:49 ↗ one point seven right if the only bill

1:05:50 ↗ to the one point seven right and the

1:05:53 ↗ solution that's being recommended is

1:05:55 ↗ that we require every unit to meet an

1:06:00 ↗ affordable housing requirement or not

1:06:03 ↗ every unit but every development meet an

1:06:06 ↗ affordable housing requirement which

1:06:08 ↗ would produce in this case seven to five

1:06:12 ↗ units of affordable housing at 60% of

1:06:17 ↗ ami and 70% of am I correct so okay but

1:06:22 ↗ the total number of units being

1:06:27 ↗ developed does not change so what you're

1:06:30 ↗ guaranteeing me is that

1:06:32 ↗ if we had a developer come in and say

1:06:35 ↗ I'm gonna build 7,000 units to the

1:06:37 ↗ maximum of Issaquah capacity we gave

1:06:40 ↗ them a lot of affordable housing units

1:06:41 ↗ under the current code options he would

1:06:45 ↗ not be able to go above 7,000 units

1:06:48 ↗ right I guess I mean yeah right so this

1:06:52 ↗ isn't a growth issue that's right

1:06:54 ↗ the other question I noticed we're

1:06:56 ↗ focusing a lot of attention on 60% of

1:06:59 ↗ ami and 70% of AMI

1:07:00 ↗ what about eighty ninety and a hundred

1:07:02 ↗ percent because even a hundred percent

1:07:04 ↗ of AMI

1:07:06 ↗ it's still hard to find affordable

1:07:08 ↗ housing right so okay now we didn't if

1:07:14 ↗ you read that section drill carefully we

1:07:18 ↗ get you all rental scenarios your code

1:07:20 ↗ is written that if you're doing

1:07:22 ↗ ownership housing these requirements are

1:07:25 ↗ ten percent of ami higher okay because

1:07:28 ↗ of just the economics of that and it's

1:07:31 ↗ currently that's how it is today you

1:07:32 ↗ know your current coding says yeah

1:07:35 ↗ 10% in 70 of your base if it's rental

1:07:38 ↗ and 10% at 80% of median if it's

1:07:40 ↗ ownership okay so you just program for

1:07:44 ↗ ownership we'll go a little bit higher

1:07:45 ↗ for if we ever get the ownership stowing

1:07:47 ↗ which is that strategy number can't

1:07:49 ↗ remember which one and I suspect that

1:07:52 ↗ will happen one way or the other will

1:07:54 ↗ get to a point where condos are built

1:07:55 ↗ again in terms of rental at 80 and 90 or

1:07:59 ↗ whatever you could start to make that

1:08:01 ↗ argument but again I would say if you go

1:08:04 ↗ back to the comment about where the

1:08:08 ↗ needs are this is where your needs are

1:08:11 ↗ because at 80 and 90 there are all the

1:08:14 ↗ existing older buildings I'm doing the

1:08:17 ↗ economics and the gas based on new

1:08:19 ↗ buildings where the rents are at 100% of

1:08:22 ↗ median at 80 and 90 percent of median

1:08:24 ↗ existing buildings are there in the

1:08:27 ↗ community today that's slow that might

1:08:31 ↗ be going away I would argue it can it

1:08:36 ↗ probably gets hard to go much further as

1:08:40 ↗ a percent of ami or there'll always be

1:08:42 ↗ rentals in the 80 to 90 because most

1:08:45 ↗ renters earn under ninety percent of

1:08:47 ↗ median okay

1:08:49 ↗ yes there are some than the Microsoft

1:08:52 ↗ they're coming here and they rent and

1:08:53 ↗ stuff but most renters are in the

1:08:56 ↗ lower-income tier kind of thing so

1:08:59 ↗ that's why I think here we're looking at

1:09:02 ↗ these kind of levels because that's

1:09:04 ↗ where your biggest issues are in your

1:09:06 ↗ community so if you're going to use an

1:09:09 ↗ incentive try to get to levels where

1:09:11 ↗ you're at guys yeah I think my memory of

1:09:14 ↗ when we talked about the affordable

1:09:16 ↗ stuff was that we had the biggest gap in

1:09:19 ↗ that 50% range whereas we saw that we

1:09:24 ↗ were really good at the 80 to a hundred

1:09:27 ↗ percent so I think this especially that

1:09:30 ↗ rental yeah for ownership that's a whole

1:09:33 ↗ nother story

1:09:34 ↗ but then the program is actually

1:09:35 ↗ designed and again this is good condos

1:09:38 ↗ because it's central Issaquah it's not

1:09:39 ↗ going to be townhomes and things the

1:09:41 ↗ affordability is a little bit higher and

1:09:43 ↗ part of it is because that's market part

1:09:46 ↗ of it that's where needs probably more

1:09:49 ↗ how does this be touched on it affecting

1:09:53 ↗ the ownership Housing Strategy does this

1:09:55 ↗ contribute to any other of the

1:09:57 ↗ strategies that we've laid out in any

1:09:59 ↗ kind of a direct or indirect way so I

1:10:03 ↗ said I can get a couple answers to an

1:10:05 ↗ earlier question and you've now reminded

1:10:07 ↗ me of that sometimes people say oh by

1:10:11 ↗ doing this you're gonna have the markets

1:10:13 ↗ start changing the mix of you and if

1:10:15 ↗ they put in their building I said does

1:10:16 ↗ it affect the price and I do the other

1:10:18 ↗ consumers that said I don't think so and

1:10:20 ↗ my experience is it doesn't now some

1:10:22 ↗ people may say otherwise and I know

1:10:23 ↗ you've heard otherwise I know you've

1:10:25 ↗ heard it I just from my experience

1:10:26 ↗ haven't seen that play out but some

1:10:31 ↗ question is does it affect like do you

1:10:34 ↗ do more studio so that you get the

1:10:36 ↗ smaller gap so it doesn't cost you as

1:10:37 ↗ much the comment we make is we're trying

1:10:41 ↗ to keep it at ten percent or less of the

1:10:43 ↗ product the builders been a bill he's

1:10:45 ↗ got 90 percent of his product and that's

1:10:47 ↗ where he makes that's where they make

1:10:48 ↗ their money you're going to make your

1:10:51 ↗ decisions on what you bill on the 90

1:10:53 ↗ percent and we're designed to be a small

1:10:56 ↗ enough percentage we just go along with

1:10:57 ↗ whatever you're doing so when the condo

1:11:00 ↗ market took off I didn't see any less

1:11:02 ↗ condos being built in Redmond then in

1:11:05 ↗ like Kirkland where there wasn't a

1:11:07 ↗ requirement I didn't see a difference it

1:11:09 ↗ all went condo because the market was

1:11:11 ↗ there for condos in general at the condo

1:11:13 ↗ markets there they're gonna beat out the

1:11:14 ↗ renters developers they're gonna pay

1:11:17 ↗ more for land that's just how the

1:11:19 ↗ economics works so it's a good question

1:11:21 ↗ and I haven't seen it it's bigger market

1:11:25 ↗ factors that seem to affect what

1:11:27 ↗ builders do which makes in my mind

1:11:30 ↗ common sense because 90% of the product

1:11:32 ↗ is marked they're a product I have a

1:11:36 ↗ question about the long-term

1:11:37 ↗ affordability of these so for for

1:11:42 ↗ renting as the market changes as the

1:11:44 ↗ median income changes

1:11:47 ↗ if somebody is making the same amount

1:11:49 ↗ and the median income is changing um is

1:11:53 ↗ there any provisions on keeping

1:11:55 ↗ affordable housing affordable for the

1:11:57 ↗ people when they enter the rental units

1:12:01 ↗ so no the provision is they get to rent

1:12:05 ↗ at you know if it's a seventy percent of

1:12:08 ↗ median income unit

1:12:09 ↗ it's whatever 70 percent of median

1:12:11 ↗ income is for the area and if that

1:12:14 ↗ increases that's how much the rent is

1:12:16 ↗ allowed to increase but that's the only

1:12:18 ↗ amount they can increase it now we do

1:12:20 ↗ have provisions in our covenants that

1:12:21 ↗ say that you can only adjust rent once a

1:12:25 ↗ year to somebody so we put that in there

1:12:28 ↗ and then we even have provisions that

1:12:31 ↗ once you move in your income can go up a

1:12:33 ↗ little bit and it might even go above

1:12:34 ↗ the standard you can still say we don't

1:12:36 ↗ want to get just above it and be booted

1:12:37 ↗ out or and stuff so there's a little

1:12:39 ↗ cushion in there for that doesn't seem

1:12:41 ↗ to happen a whole lot but that's how it

1:12:43 ↗ works to sort of say oh this person's

1:12:46 ↗ income went down or is flat so you can't

1:12:47 ↗ raise the rent they have expenses I mean

1:12:50 ↗ they are these we're not subsidizing

1:12:51 ↗ these properties so they are allowed to

1:12:54 ↗ raise the rent on a unit by the changes

1:12:57 ↗ in median income right so I was thinking

1:12:59 ↗ about and it could no the Covenant is

1:13:02 ↗ not fifty years the company is for the

1:13:04 ↗ life of the building it's a land use

1:13:06 ↗ approval so you had mentioned the Bay

1:13:09 ↗ Area and I know there's so rents you

1:13:13 ↗ know are increasing and as the as people

1:13:15 ↗ are making as the median income I think

1:13:17 ↗ is increasing then the rents are all

1:13:19 ↗ increasing so I was just thinking are

1:13:21 ↗ there options for people once they enter

1:13:24 ↗ a building to try to make it affordable

1:13:26 ↗ in the long term for them so they don't

1:13:28 ↗ get priced out is there any metric

1:13:30 ↗ saying is the area median income we all

1:13:32 ↗ do is false you know it's the whole

1:13:33 ↗ county yeah it's I don't know if I've

1:13:39 ↗ ever seen it be more than 5% an average

1:13:41 ↗ is about 3% if not less the last ten

1:13:44 ↗ years in fact my first 15 years of my

1:13:46 ↗ career was like for per se

1:13:49 ↗ changing on average some fear zero hits

1:13:53 ↗ one or two it went negative

1:13:54 ↗ we don't make people lower rents and

1:13:55 ↗ then the last 15 years of my career it's

1:13:59 ↗ been more like three or even a little

1:14:01 ↗ below so if anything median incomes are

1:14:04 ↗ changing a little bit slower than they

1:14:05 ↗ used to but it's around 3% which as a

1:14:09 ↗ developer you go to a bank and you try

1:14:11 ↗ to underwrite a building they're not

1:14:13 ↗ gonna let you have a rent increase of

1:14:14 ↗ more than that anyway so for

1:14:15 ↗ underwriting for a builder they might

1:14:18 ↗ get more when they have once they own it

1:14:20 ↗ so if the markets going up 10% 15% a

1:14:23 ↗ year

1:14:24 ↗ no we just for those units it just is

1:14:27 ↗ based on the median income for the

1:14:29 ↗ region okay so that so I think you're

1:14:31 ↗ saying correct me if I'm wrong but the

1:14:33 ↗ market is projected probably to be

1:14:36 ↗ increasing at a much faster rate than

1:14:38 ↗ the median okay if you really want to

1:14:40 ↗ get into theoretical conversations

1:14:42 ↗ theoretically it shouldn't over time

1:14:44 ↗ short term yeah long term no but we have

1:14:47 ↗ been seen it feels like over time

1:14:50 ↗ because when I first was here average

1:14:52 ↗ rents were affordable at 70% of median

1:14:54 ↗ income and I'd see it go up to 75 you

1:14:57 ↗ know take a whole city's rents take the

1:15:00 ↗ average and if you were at 70% of median

1:15:02 ↗ income you could afford the average rent

1:15:03 ↗ in the town on each side for the rest of

1:15:05 ↗ the county with 60 low sixties but for

1:15:08 ↗ East King County was always like around

1:15:09 ↗ 70 and sometimes we go to 75 and then we

1:15:13 ↗ have a recession and go back down very

1:15:14 ↗ quickly back down to 70 and what's

1:15:17 ↗ happened in the last four years is we've

1:15:18 ↗ gone up and up to 85 that's like almost

1:15:21 ↗ 85 percent of meeting on the east side

1:15:23 ↗ there probably will be some correction I

1:15:26 ↗ don't think it will go all the way back

1:15:28 ↗ down but if I showed you we have a graph

1:15:30 ↗ in the materials we've given you for the

1:15:32 ↗ comp plan that needs analysis that shows

1:15:34 ↗ you how rents have changed relative to

1:15:37 ↗ median income over time and we just have

1:15:40 ↗ had this lip the last four or five years

1:15:43 ↗ like nothing I've ever seen and are we

1:15:45 ↗ likely to stay there maybe but it's it's

1:15:49 ↗ a historically high relative to median

1:15:52 ↗ income level we're at right now

1:15:55 ↗ sorry if this is semantics but in the

1:15:59 ↗ code in our packet there's a footnote

1:16:02 ↗ number four for Table four point four a

1:16:05 ↗ that's talking about the base height and

1:16:09 ↗ it says the base height may increase to

1:16:11 ↗ 54 feet to accommodate additional first

1:16:13 ↗ floor height does that need to be

1:16:15 ↗ increased by the same 12 feet that the

1:16:18 ↗ base height is also increasing it makes

1:16:23 ↗ sense what I'm asking

1:16:24 ↗ it's another one of the notes that we

1:16:26 ↗ didn't 54 would need to be 66 good

1:16:37 ↗ question I'm trying to find the 4 in the

1:16:40 ↗ table did you find the 4 already in the

1:16:42 ↗ table it's on page 10 see the footnote I

1:16:48 ↗ don't see the tape I don't see it in the

1:16:49 ↗ table though number 4 oh it's in so

1:16:54 ↗ table 4.4 its height I see night okay I

1:16:57 ↗ just couldn't find it that's where it's

1:16:59 ↗ referenced so I'd say it's a good

1:17:00 ↗ question we should probably look at it a

1:17:02 ↗ little more carefully

1:17:03 ↗ yeah before we say yes I'll

1:17:04 ↗ automatically but it's a good yeah good

1:17:08 ↗ catch thank you

1:17:21 ↗ any other questions before we open it up

1:17:24 ↗ for the public hearing it's always nice

1:17:31 ↗ when you come up with questions that I

1:17:34 ↗ haven't thought about congratulations

1:17:38 ↗ so with that I'm going to open up the

1:17:41 ↗ public hearing at 7 250 if there's

1:17:45 ↗ anybody that would like to make public

1:17:48 ↗ comment on this issue that we're talking

1:17:55 ↗ about oh I thought that was a yes you're

1:18:04 ↗ too far away nobody know how cash is

1:18:09 ↗ then I'll close the public hearing at

1:18:12 ↗ 11:51

1:18:15 ↗ and open it up to you guys is there

1:18:17 ↗ something else on this specific issue

1:18:19 ↗ that you would like to discuss so I

1:18:23 ↗ think in looking at Commissioner Stobbs

1:18:26 ↗ question about height I actually think

1:18:29 ↗ it should be 66 it should be 66 in the

1:18:34 ↗ table so change the 60 to 66 66 in the

1:18:40 ↗ car in the footnote in the column so the

1:18:44 ↗ 60 should be 66 to account for the

1:18:49 ↗ additional Oh for retail but for retail

1:18:52 ↗ on the ground floor is that that's only

1:18:56 ↗ applicable to mixed-use yeah so why

1:18:59 ↗ would it not just do the same reference

1:19:02 ↗ in a footnote if it refers to like

1:19:06 ↗ height exemptions and ever

1:19:07 ↗ saying make adjustments for sorry I just

1:19:12 ↗ want to make sure I understand why there

1:19:14 ↗ was a footnote there before and if we

1:19:16 ↗ are proposing to basically get rid of it

1:19:25 ↗ 66 but the column doesn't change down to

1:19:35 ↗ 66 okay and the column c60 should stay

1:19:40 ↗ okay okay

1:19:54 ↗ anything else so I've actually done a

1:19:57 ↗ lot of research in reading on affordable

1:20:01 ↗ housing strategies and santa clara

1:20:03 ↗ county actually specifically has a good

1:20:06 ↗ example that red and SFGate

1:20:09 ↗ and one of the things that they had

1:20:11 ↗ mentioned was that affordable housing

1:20:16 ↗ strategies that don't have a targeted

1:20:19 ↗ audience in mind are ineffective so if

1:20:27 ↗ we create a housing supply at sixty

1:20:33 ↗ percent of median income

1:20:34 ↗ we're basically opening it up to the

1:20:36 ↗ entire Puget Sound area and saying hey

1:20:39 ↗ come to Issaquah because we are really

1:20:40 ↗ affordable and so we build it they will

1:20:43 ↗ come but it may not actually do anything

1:20:46 ↗ for the people that are working here

1:20:50 ↗ because you're going to have supply and

1:20:52 ↗ demand issues so now you're going to

1:20:53 ↗ have an enormous amount of demand for a

1:20:56 ↗ very short supply of housing units so it

1:20:59 ↗ may not actually solve our problem by

1:21:02 ↗ creating this affordable housing using

1:21:06 ↗ the strategy that's being proposed

1:21:08 ↗ tonight

1:21:09 ↗ if we create a target audience this

1:21:14 ↗ affordable housing package or direction

1:21:17 ↗ furgus then it could be more effective

1:21:23 ↗ in basically solving our problems but

1:21:26 ↗ right now as we see the way this policy

1:21:31 ↗ is being presented to us it's too

1:21:33 ↗ general and I don't think it's actually

1:21:36 ↗ going to be effective and in fact I

1:21:38 ↗ think it's going to have the opposite

1:21:39 ↗ effect of all of our intentions what do

1:21:42 ↗ you mean by target audience do you mean

1:21:44 ↗ limiting this to teachers or something

1:21:49 ↗ like that we can't do that we need to

1:21:52 ↗ and I don't know about the legalities of

1:21:54 ↗ this but if we create a and this is

1:21:59 ↗ actually a question to art as well as

1:22:01 ↗ Keith if we create this vision and leave

1:22:04 ↗ it very loose and say we have this great

1:22:07 ↗ affordable housing package here it has a

1:22:08 ↗ quoi comes as a quoi

1:22:10 ↗ that's actually going to create so much

1:22:12 ↗ demand for these units that the people

1:22:15 ↗ that are actually working here our

1:22:17 ↗ teachers our police officers and whoever

1:22:20 ↗ else that's actually working here may

1:22:22 ↗ not even be able to get a chance to or

1:22:27 ↗ take in these affordable units because

1:22:29 ↗ it would be so much demand for them it's

1:22:31 ↗ like leaving money on the sidewalk

1:22:33 ↗ everybody wants it so the YWCA family

1:22:38 ↗ village is a building that's primarily

1:22:41 ↗ at 60% of median income the people who

1:22:44 ↗ live there working your banks your

1:22:47 ↗ school's your restaurants

1:22:49 ↗ the reason remember I said earlier I

1:22:51 ↗ came back here I came here I worked for

1:22:54 ↗ a company world-renowned now that was

1:22:59 ↗ formed by the business community saying

1:23:00 ↗ we need to find ways to for create

1:23:02 ↗ housing for our workforce we're not in

1:23:04 ↗ the business we want somebody to create

1:23:06 ↗ it for our workforce when we have a

1:23:08 ↗ slide that we showed you when we were

1:23:12 ↗ doing the housing strategies your slide

1:23:15 ↗ looked the same about if every other

1:23:16 ↗ city in East King County

1:23:18 ↗ the first thing that slide shows is you

1:23:21 ↗ created demand from your workforce that

1:23:24 ↗ is 30 to 40 percent greater than your

1:23:27 ↗ supply of housing the second graphic

1:23:30 ↗ shows you that the income of the people

1:23:32 ↗ that we employ in East King County is no

1:23:35 ↗ different than the countywide mix of

1:23:37 ↗ incomes and in fact in many cities

1:23:39 ↗ including yours you have more jobs that

1:23:41 ↗ are lower pain than you do have that or

1:23:43 ↗ higher pain 50% of your jobs I believe

1:23:47 ↗ are very close to it pay under 50

1:23:49 ↗ percent of being an income right so how

1:23:53 ↗ can we create this affordable housing

1:23:55 ↗ package to protect the people that work

1:24:01 ↗ here so that they can partake in this I

1:24:04 ↗ don't want to create a package and but

1:24:07 ↗ but that kind of housing is everywhere

1:24:09 ↗ throughout the county and people tend to

1:24:11 ↗ want to work and live in general

1:24:14 ↗ proximity or maybe they have family in

1:24:16 ↗ proximity Redmond has hundreds and

1:24:19 ↗ hundreds of units that they have been

1:24:21 ↗ creating through similar programs

1:24:22 ↗ through our housing trust fund that the

1:24:25 ↗ city is all fund we've created 3,000

1:24:27 ↗ housing units throughout East King

1:24:29 ↗ County that are targeted at 50% of

1:24:31 ↗ median and les they're generally serving

1:24:34 ↗ people from area but on the flip side if

1:24:36 ↗ we start saying that Seattle which

1:24:38 ↗ produces a lot more affordability are

1:24:40 ↗ they going to say the same thing so the

1:24:43 ↗ idea is generally speaking people now

1:24:46 ↗ the groups we work with they reach out

1:24:48 ↗ to local companies and they do reach out

1:24:50 ↗ locally but naturally people who are

1:24:54 ↗ nearby fine properties who are ever

1:24:56 ↗ nearby I just had a guy walk in the door

1:24:58 ↗ who was in one of these units and

1:25:00 ↗ Bellevue worked locally and he said had

1:25:03 ↗ to move out of there or there anymore in

1:25:04 ↗ the area I can find my wife's a

1:25:06 ↗ schoolteacher in a local elementary

1:25:08 ↗ school and over the years three or four

1:25:09 ↗ of her teachers have bought units or

1:25:11 ↗ lived in rental units through these

1:25:13 ↗ programs people look locally more times

1:25:15 ↗ than not okay you can find a unit at

1:25:18 ↗ sixty percent of median down in South

1:25:20 ↗ Kent County I mean so to say that you

1:25:23 ↗ know right now you are exporting all of

1:25:25 ↗ this income yes we you know the why reek

1:25:29 ↗ is out locally

1:25:30 ↗ but the need the demand for this housing

1:25:32 ↗ we're talking about is being generated

1:25:34 ↗ here but your housing stock does not

1:25:36 ↗ match the income profile the business

1:25:40 ↗ community survey of Bellevue in last

1:25:42 ↗ year fifty percent of the businesses

1:25:45 ↗ saying they are having an increasingly

1:25:46 ↗ hard time attracting employees because

1:25:49 ↗ they can't they can't find housing they

1:25:51 ↗ can afford that's the kind of issues

1:25:54 ↗ we're dealing with that we hear about

1:25:56 ↗ from the business community here this is

1:25:59 ↗ housing that is matching incomes of

1:26:02 ↗ households that you are creating in your

1:26:04 ↗ community that right now are not living

1:26:06 ↗ in your community I agree with you the

1:26:09 ↗ but my argument is that the more

1:26:11 ↗ attractive the community is the higher

1:26:14 ↗ demand you're going to have for that

1:26:16 ↗ community right so if Issaquah is a very

1:26:19 ↗ safe place to live and raise kids and we

1:26:22 ↗ have a very excellent school system

1:26:24 ↗ that's a huge magnet for Issaquah and

1:26:29 ↗ because we have all these great

1:26:32 ↗ attributes the people who actually work

1:26:36 ↗ here are going to have to compete with

1:26:38 ↗ other people who want to move here

1:26:40 ↗ because it's better than living in other

1:26:43 ↗ parts of the Puget Sound area not I

1:26:46 ↗ don't sound smug but you know

1:26:49 ↗ supply-demand if you got a better

1:26:51 ↗ product people are going to want on and

1:26:53 ↗ so all I'm saying is many other cities

1:26:54 ↗ have these rules in place you have a

1:26:56 ↗ civil Highlands that had affordable

1:26:58 ↗ units in them you created them there

1:27:00 ↗ I haven't what I'm saying is what's

1:27:02 ↗ resulted is well maybe if they move here

1:27:04 ↗ they get jobs here too because your

1:27:05 ↗ workers your employers need people at

1:27:07 ↗ that income because of what they pay and

1:27:09 ↗ I'm saying we've been doing this for 25

1:27:11 ↗ years here I've been doing it longer in

1:27:13 ↗ other areas I hear that question raised

1:27:15 ↗ a lot what I find the experience and the

1:27:17 ↗ result that works and there's also fair

1:27:19 ↗ housing issues and things like that is

1:27:21 ↗ that local reaching out to local

1:27:24 ↗ companies etcetera to make sure they're

1:27:25 ↗ aware that these opportunities are there

1:27:27 ↗ that's why we have our website for

1:27:29 ↗ people to be able to find but I haven't

1:27:31 ↗ found that the phenomenon you're

1:27:33 ↗ expressing has played itself out in

1:27:35 ↗ other communities except Santa Clara

1:27:37 ↗ County where they wrote

1:27:38 ↗ excuse me in Santa Clara County actually

1:27:41 ↗ wrote about this problem where they

1:27:43 ↗ create affordable housing and their own

1:27:45 ↗ teachers can't live with in Santa Clara

1:27:47 ↗ County because they can't afford it so

1:27:49 ↗ they actually started creating their own

1:27:51 ↗ housing to rent to teach in Santa Clara

1:27:54 ↗ County is one of the counties I used to

1:27:56 ↗ do work at so I'm familiar with the

1:27:57 ↗ situation so and I realize some of this

1:28:00 ↗ is hypothetical but I want to be

1:28:03 ↗ forward-looking and making sure that we

1:28:05 ↗ have the right the right things in place

1:28:08 ↗ to regulate or to policeman make sure

1:28:14 ↗ our targets our goals our aspirational

1:28:17 ↗ goals are going to be met if a and how

1:28:23 ↗ are these units can be made of Elva are

1:28:25 ↗ they going to be made available through

1:28:26 ↗ a lottery system who's going to control

1:28:28 ↗ that lottery or is it just open market

1:28:31 ↗ people are developed or property

1:28:34 ↗ managers just put the units for rents on

1:28:36 ↗ Craigslist history has been they market

1:28:40 ↗ different the same as they market the

1:28:41 ↗ rest of their housing in your community

1:28:43 ↗ now when it's the affordable stuff we do

1:28:45 ↗ with community groups that's a little

1:28:47 ↗ different story they're at below 50 and

1:28:48 ↗ that's a whole explain that but it's a

1:28:50 ↗ different story but for these units and

1:28:52 ↗ all the other communities and we got

1:28:53 ↗ 1500 of them now they're marketed the

1:28:56 ↗ same as the rest so the market builder

1:28:57 ↗ is marketing these units the same as all

1:29:00 ↗ their others okay they'll usually say

1:29:03 ↗ starting at for the owners right exactly

1:29:07 ↗ so then it starts and the real and

1:29:11 ↗ what's happened is like for the

1:29:12 ↗ ownership housing the realtor community

1:29:15 ↗ knows about the program's now in the

1:29:16 ↗ cities because there's like 600 homes

1:29:18 ↗ and so the realtor is when they're

1:29:19 ↗ showing locally they you know the local

1:29:21 ↗ Realtors know and that's how often the

1:29:25 ↗ buyers are found but it.we it's the same

1:29:27 ↗ marketing system for your market rate

1:29:28 ↗ units too it's kind of hard when you

1:29:31 ↗ limit it to teachers or just people who

1:29:35 ↗ live in the commune

1:29:36 ↗ in that range salary range people have a

1:29:42 ↗ tendency to move around so once you're

1:29:45 ↗ in here and you you decide to get a job

1:29:49 ↗ in Bellevue does that mean you have to

1:29:50 ↗ leave that unit and move to Bellevue so

1:29:53 ↗ I mean it complicates things

1:29:55 ↗ to a degree that I don't think that I

1:29:59 ↗ mean I I'm sensitive to the point you're

1:30:01 ↗ raising what I'm letting you know is

1:30:03 ↗ from the practice of being around this

1:30:04 ↗ field and understanding it that the

1:30:07 ↗ natural way of people moving and renters

1:30:09 ↗ etc that we haven't seen it play out and

1:30:12 ↗ I built in Santa Clara and surrounding

1:30:15 ↗ communities and stuff when I was in the

1:30:17 ↗ Bay Area that I'm sure there's antidotal

1:30:21 ↗ stories here and there you can find out

1:30:22 ↗ those stories for anything but as a

1:30:23 ↗ whole and on the balance we haven't

1:30:25 ↗ heard that issue emerging in Redmond and

1:30:27 ↗ they're they've got hundreds of units at

1:30:30 ↗ this point in time okay yeah I'm not the

1:30:32 ↗ subject-matter expert but I have to rely

1:30:34 ↗ on outside resources so that's why I'm

1:30:36 ↗ asking you so I'm a little right now all

1:30:38 ↗ I've got our hypothetical okay I do have

1:30:43 ↗ one question that's actually off scope

1:30:46 ↗ so we'll have to pardon me I'd brought

1:30:47 ↗ this up to Trish since we do have Arthur

1:30:50 ↗ here with us not everybody in our

1:30:52 ↗ community fits these indexes and some

1:30:54 ↗ people actually fall at zero well I

1:30:56 ↗ realize this is not related I would love

1:30:58 ↗ to have an update we've talked before

1:31:00 ↗ about addressing our homeless situation

1:31:03 ↗ and the strategies that the city is

1:31:05 ↗ doing we're looking at it there's a lot

1:31:06 ↗ of things we do I hear that frequently

1:31:09 ↗ I'm hoping that you have an update even

1:31:11 ↗ if it's just a line item on something

1:31:13 ↗ that's going on for those that are don't

1:31:15 ↗ fall within these categories well right

1:31:20 ↗ now we're going through a funding round

1:31:21 ↗ and of the proposals in front of us one

1:31:26 ↗ is well you've all probably heard about

1:31:28 ↗ the Bellevue shelter and that's not in

1:31:30 ↗ this round because it's taking a little

1:31:31 ↗ bit harder to get to a final decision on

1:31:33 ↗ specific location but in Kirkland they

1:31:36 ↗ are looking at doing that for families

1:31:38 ↗ and women and they have a site and so

1:31:40 ↗ that one is hopefully proceeding in the

1:31:42 ↗ next year so that's a shelter type

1:31:44 ↗ facility we also the group that is

1:31:47 ↗ looking at

1:31:48 ↗ the men's shelter they do other forms of

1:31:51 ↗ housing and so what they're what one

1:31:54 ↗ thing they've been doing is leasing

1:31:55 ↗ homes in neighborhoods where they have

1:31:57 ↗ six men who have been with them for a

1:31:59 ↗ while and are now working and stuff but

1:32:01 ↗ aren't making much where they live in a

1:32:02 ↗ group home situation so they're looking

1:32:04 ↗ at that's another alternative being

1:32:06 ↗ looked at the third is is that we have a

1:32:10 ↗ property in Redmond that will be kind of

1:32:13 ↗ in the same areas you know it's an over

1:32:14 ↗ Lake if any of you are familiar with

1:32:16 ↗ over Lake and the old group health

1:32:17 ↗ hospital and that now a big thing with

1:32:20 ↗ lots of new development going on well

1:32:22 ↗ one of those sites kind of like what you

1:32:24 ↗ did up in Misco Highlands one of those

1:32:26 ↗ sites is being bought a little bit of a

1:32:28 ↗ discount by imagine housing and they're

1:32:31 ↗ doing a 250 unit building that will have

1:32:38 ↗ a hundred market rate with a private

1:32:39 ↗ builder and then they're doing 150 units

1:32:42 ↗ and that building will have 30 or 40 of

1:32:46 ↗ those units will be for formerly for

1:32:49 ↗ homeless families and individuals and

1:32:51 ↗ then the other units the other hundred

1:32:53 ↗ will under it or so will be at 60 50 and

1:32:57 ↗ 30 percent of median income and then

1:32:59 ↗ there'll be market rate so those just in

1:33:01 ↗ this round are three different ways in

1:33:04 ↗ which affordable units are being

1:33:05 ↗ incorporated in we're about to break

1:33:07 ↗ ground and Bellevue on a family project

1:33:09 ↗ that will have half the units for

1:33:11 ↗ formerly homeless families in half for

1:33:13 ↗ other just lower-income families so

1:33:15 ↗ those are exhibits there's such a wide

1:33:17 ↗ range of different approaches that are

1:33:18 ↗ being looked at but that just gives you

1:33:21 ↗ examples of some new things that are

1:33:22 ↗ being worked on yeah that are happening

1:33:24 ↗ here on the assign their community I'm

1:33:26 ↗ curious if we have any updates about

1:33:28 ↗ Issaquah specifically if there's any

1:33:30 ↗ yeah do we have anything in the works

1:33:32 ↗ right now in the year that we've been

1:33:34 ↗ looking at housing strategies do we have

1:33:36 ↗ anything right now that the city is

1:33:38 ↗ actively involved in then we can have an

1:33:40 ↗ update on so our community this is okay

1:33:42 ↗ I'm going to say no but yes

1:33:45 ↗ and it's willing to say yes is you are

1:33:47 ↗ working on the Tod project and you have

1:33:50 ↗ selected the housing authority and the

1:33:52 ↗ housing authority will put some vouchers

1:33:54 ↗ into some of the units that they are

1:33:56 ↗ going to have there that's going to be

1:33:57 ↗ property targeted at 50 and 60 percent

1:34:00 ↗ of median for the most part

1:34:01 ↗ but they're going to put vouchers in a

1:34:02 ↗ number of these units when someone has a

1:34:04 ↗ voucher it means that their income can

1:34:08 ↗ be any income zero to I think can go up

1:34:12 ↗ to 70 or 80 percent immediate and you

1:34:14 ↗ pay one third of your income to live

1:34:16 ↗ there and you the balance between that

1:34:19 ↗ and a contract rent which is somewhere

1:34:21 ↗ close to market is pay all the time by

1:34:24 ↗ the federal government so that's a big

1:34:26 ↗ program that the Housing Authority has

1:34:28 ↗ now they're having an increasingly hard

1:34:31 ↗ time for people with vouchers finding

1:34:33 ↗ housing in these Kent County so we are

1:34:35 ↗ working on ways to get vouchers in fact

1:34:38 ↗ we are having a meeting next week with

1:34:41 ↗ city staff where one of the things we

1:34:43 ↗ may do is for some of these units that

1:34:45 ↗ are here see if the owner is willing to

1:34:48 ↗ have a voucher put on that unit so

1:34:50 ↗ they'll get the same rent or maybe a

1:34:51 ↗ little bit more in exchange for someone

1:34:53 ↗ with a voucher now with voucher program

1:34:56 ↗ or the public housing lists or whatever

1:34:59 ↗ they have the housing authority

1:35:00 ↗ prioritized people with the lowest

1:35:02 ↗ incomes and people who are formerly

1:35:04 ↗ homeless now in my thinking of

1:35:07 ↗ homelessness it's not one of these

1:35:08 ↗ things that starts and stops you get to

1:35:11 ↗ a point where you become homeless or you

1:35:12 ↗ might become your threat of becoming

1:35:14 ↗ homeless you are homeless and then when

1:35:16 ↗ you get back on your feet you're at a

1:35:18 ↗ threat of going homeless again or trying

1:35:19 ↗ to get back on your feet to me all of

1:35:22 ↗ those are part of dealing with

1:35:23 ↗ homelessness vouchers is the best way I

1:35:25 ↗ know of to create housing that helps

1:35:27 ↗ people who maybe they're not homeless

1:35:29 ↗ but could be or would be or where and so

1:35:31 ↗ that property because the housing

1:35:33 ↗ authorities working on it is looking at

1:35:35 ↗ having like 20 vouchers in that building

1:35:37 ↗ and I would say to some degree that's

1:35:40 ↗ helping you deal with homelessness yes

1:35:41 ↗ absolutely thank you for that update so

1:35:45 ↗ would any of these be eligible for that

1:35:48 ↗ so what we're working on with the

1:35:50 ↗ Housing Authority right now is they

1:35:51 ↗ would love to do that but these are

1:35:53 ↗ private owners so we're trying to figure

1:35:55 ↗ out you know most of the cities aren't

1:35:58 ↗ like tell ability that gotta have a

1:36:00 ↗ voucher there but I have talked to some

1:36:03 ↗ builders who are been willing to say

1:36:05 ↗ okay I'll think about it

1:36:06 ↗ and we're thinking about playing around

1:36:09 ↗ with it

1:36:09 ↗ little bit and if we do we have to go

1:36:11 ↗ back to every city and one idea is to

1:36:13 ↗ say well if they normally get $600 a

1:36:16 ↗ month the owner you know under the park

1:36:18 ↗ maybe we'd let them get 650 or 700 a

1:36:20 ↗ month if they take a voucher because of

1:36:22 ↗ the extra working stuff but any code

1:36:26 ↗ changes or any planning it for us by a

1:36:29 ↗ city or so we don't know at one level if

1:36:33 ↗ we tell the owner you're gonna get the

1:36:35 ↗ same right we're gonna get why don't you

1:36:37 ↗ do it you help out and if we get you

1:36:39 ↗ know the Housing Authority only has so

1:36:41 ↗ many vouchers so one approach is that

1:36:43 ↗ what we have said is if a builder is

1:36:46 ↗ willing to do it the income reporting

1:36:48 ↗ they normally have to do to the city's

1:36:50 ↗ will say we'll waive it just show us

1:36:52 ↗ that you're done you have a voucher

1:36:53 ↗ contract and if you have a voucher

1:36:55 ↗ contract you have to they have to send

1:36:57 ↗ information to the housing authorities

1:36:58 ↗ that don't don't have to do with us

1:37:00 ↗ we'll just get a letter because we know

1:37:02 ↗ anyone who's got a voucher is going to

1:37:05 ↗ be having income z' that we're trying to

1:37:07 ↗ help so we're looking at administrative

1:37:09 ↗ things as things so it would not take

1:37:11 ↗ any code changes but just makes the

1:37:13 ↗ builders life a little bit easier in

1:37:16 ↗ terms of the administration they have to

1:37:17 ↗ do with us so that's one angle and then

1:37:20 ↗ the other angle is if we if the city

1:37:22 ↗ wanted to say and that'll be a peach so

1:37:24 ↗ that would be a code change the city

1:37:26 ↗ would have to make so we don't know

1:37:28 ↗ we've got a couple builders who are just

1:37:29 ↗ willing to do it without any code

1:37:31 ↗ changes needed and we're seeing how we

1:37:34 ↗ can get so we're working on like model

1:37:36 ↗ contracts with the Housing Authority and

1:37:38 ↗ there would be a contract that that

1:37:40 ↗ certainly and when do all they do to do

1:37:42 ↗ certain units would say those units will

1:37:45 ↗ be available to people with vouchers and

1:37:49 ↗ so they're trying to do a couple I

1:37:50 ↗ wasn't this included in our

1:37:52 ↗ possibilities for strategies for

1:37:55 ↗ creating affordable housing vouchers

1:37:57 ↗ yeah because they can do them without

1:38:00 ↗ that you currently have many people with

1:38:03 ↗ vouchers in your community well and

1:38:05 ↗ that's great but if being able to create

1:38:08 ↗ code changes or present plan ideas that

1:38:13 ↗ would increase

1:38:14 ↗ that creates more affordable housing

1:38:19 ↗ sounds like it should have been

1:38:21 ↗ something we addressed in the earlier

1:38:25 ↗ area right and I guess it's cuz we were

1:38:28 ↗ already doing it

1:38:29 ↗ it wasn't something we were looking to

1:38:31 ↗ whoops to to start or to because we're

1:38:34 ↗ we don't know the scale the housing

1:38:36 ↗ authority is willing to do it too and

1:38:39 ↗ yes I mean it's the the seven you have

1:38:41 ↗ aren't the limit to the seven and if

1:38:43 ↗ this works out there's nothing that says

1:38:45 ↗ we wouldn't talk with the city and say

1:38:47 ↗ let's what do you want to look at this

1:38:49 ↗ as well but they're not talking huge

1:38:51 ↗ numbers and they want to do it through

1:38:52 ↗ Audi's King County but it's it's these

1:38:54 ↗ you asked about how we help there and

1:38:57 ↗ this is when I gave you one example and

1:39:00 ↗ I think that's an important thing for us

1:39:02 ↗ to consider because I think it's Joy's

1:39:04 ↗ saying a lot of our strategies address

1:39:07 ↗ this idea of the fifty to a hundred

1:39:10 ↗ percent we don't have much that was

1:39:14 ↗ presented to us as an option for the

1:39:17 ↗ below 50% particularly any of our

1:39:20 ↗ homeless population and so having a

1:39:23 ↗ strategy that specifically addresses so

1:39:26 ↗ actually you do in number nine number

1:39:29 ↗ nine so okay we just start that this

1:39:33 ↗ year that's the one that we know is sort

1:39:35 ↗ of they've got all kinds of funny pieces

1:39:36 ↗ because homelessness there's so many

1:39:38 ↗ funny pieces so I mean you you know so

1:39:41 ↗ so that is something that we are you

1:39:44 ↗ know trying to find ways to get vouchers

1:39:47 ↗ to fit in and things like that and

1:39:49 ↗ there's a couple but you have one

1:39:50 ↗ proposal in front of you very clear that

1:39:52 ↗ would make something like that happen

1:39:55 ↗ yes when we get that

1:39:59 ↗ well it's in for funding requests now I

1:40:01 ↗ mean it's it's a relatively real concept

1:40:03 ↗ that's trying to be put together by your

1:40:05 ↗ city great that's why we like to ask and

1:40:07 ↗ think the best I can do is ask for

1:40:09 ↗ update as we go and a little bit more

1:40:10 ↗ the little bit more we know yes it's a

1:40:12 ↗ fuller picture of what we're looking at

1:40:13 ↗ so thank you for asking

1:40:14 ↗ it's like so many things revolving

1:40:16 ↗ around it's hard to remember every

1:40:17 ↗ little point that's going on out there

1:40:19 ↗ so art I've actually been thinking about

1:40:21 ↗ your response to my concerns here about

1:40:24 ↗ protection for some of the employees

1:40:27 ↗ that work here I'm still not convinced

1:40:31 ↗ that the problem doesn't exist because I

1:40:35 ↗ don't know how you would be able to

1:40:37 ↗ measure it but is it legal for us to

1:40:41 ↗ include protections for public service

1:40:45 ↗ employees which would be teachers city

1:40:49 ↗ workers city staff law enforcement

1:40:53 ↗ firefighters anyone who's actually

1:40:56 ↗ trying to help make this city a better

1:40:58 ↗ place by working with the city does that

1:41:01 ↗ make sense yes I mean I understand the

1:41:04 ↗ question first responders I mean the

1:41:06 ↗ whole nine yards retail workers while

1:41:09 ↗ retail workers could be a second tier I

1:41:11 ↗ want people who are working on support

1:41:14 ↗ services to have preferential treatment

1:41:16 ↗ and then you can go to employees working

1:41:19 ↗ within boundaries of Issaquah or so my

1:41:25 ↗ comment is going to be its a city

1:41:28 ↗ attorney question because it's a fair

1:41:30 ↗ housing issue and there's different

1:41:33 ↗ degrees of fair housing and fair

1:41:35 ↗ housings gotten tough for the last

1:41:36 ↗ couple years because of some court cases

1:41:39 ↗ and you're not in the community that

1:41:43 ↗ pushing these kind of things doesn't put

1:41:44 ↗ you under a microscope to be honest with

1:41:46 ↗ you so to some degree depend on how you

1:41:50 ↗ did it and the scale you did it

1:41:51 ↗ potentially I have built the building a

1:41:54 ↗ long time ago that was the city gave the

1:41:56 ↗ land though it wasn't privately built it

1:41:58 ↗ was the city gave the land for it and we

1:42:00 ↗ did give some level of priority did not

1:42:03 ↗ require but it's challenging thing to do

1:42:09 ↗ if you're going to do it I can't I

1:42:11 ↗ wouldn't take it off the table but I

1:42:12 ↗ would not go anywhere with that without

1:42:14 ↗ the city attorney closely at our side

1:42:16 ↗ monitoring what you do not saying

1:42:18 ↗ incentivizing I'm just saying for the

1:42:21 ↗ affordable housing piece okay we gave

1:42:24 ↗ them first preference if they qualify

1:42:26 ↗ for that right then they would be able

1:42:29 ↗ to move in there otherwise you know they

1:42:31 ↗ would fall under all the other normal

1:42:33 ↗ conditions just like everybody else

1:42:34 ↗ would but okay so there's there's a

1:42:36 ↗ legal side of it and there's a practical

1:42:40 ↗ side of it too well no one applies in

1:42:43 ↗ there just simply right no I understand

1:42:45 ↗ but there's there's definitely I'm

1:42:48 ↗ sympathetic to the question you're

1:42:50 ↗ raising okay I totally understand it but

1:42:53 ↗ I'm also hopefully you're getting the

1:42:54 ↗ point that it's a tough topic and alls

1:42:58 ↗ I'm saying is if the city wants to

1:42:59 ↗ pursue it and one of the philosophy

1:43:02 ↗ behind arches well you're asking the

1:43:04 ↗ cities in East Kent County to put up two

1:43:06 ↗ million dollars to help this project and

1:43:08 ↗ the state's going to put up money for

1:43:10 ↗ that project and the state doesn't

1:43:13 ↗ encourage people to do stuff like that

1:43:15 ↗ so there's a practical side of that

1:43:17 ↗ conversation as well as the legal side

1:43:20 ↗ and and so where what we have been able

1:43:24 ↗ to do and this is even getting harder is

1:43:27 ↗ to market aggressively locally maximize

1:43:31 ↗ awareness locally of opportunities by

1:43:34 ↗ controlling how they're advertised by

1:43:37 ↗ encouraging advertising being done in

1:43:40 ↗ certain ways yes but how would the state

1:43:43 ↗ so looking at this business model and I

1:43:46 ↗ bring up a great question so developer

1:43:48 ↗ comes in builds we have affordable units

1:43:50 ↗ how is the state involved in those

1:43:52 ↗ affordable unit they might not be

1:43:54 ↗ involved there but then when they say

1:43:55 ↗ you're doing that and you ask them for

1:43:56 ↗ money for something else they might say

1:43:58 ↗ well we don't necessarily love how

1:44:00 ↗ you're behaving with your programs I'm

1:44:05 ↗ just saying there's practical there's a

1:44:07 ↗ lot of discussion out there about

1:44:10 ↗ inclusivity and communities and in fact

1:44:16 ↗ the federal government recently about a

1:44:21 ↗ year ago made a comment that said

1:44:24 ↗ and I don't know how far this one will

1:44:25 ↗ go there's what I'm saying how touchy

1:44:27 ↗ and difficult the conversation this is

1:44:30 ↗ is that if you touch any federal money

1:44:36 ↗ everything you do should be consistent

1:44:39 ↗ with what the federal money would

1:44:41 ↗ require you to do so that's sort of the

1:44:43 ↗ point I was making how even though that

1:44:45 ↗ program might not touch that you are

1:44:47 ↗ getting federal assistance for other

1:44:49 ↗ things you are doing therefore your

1:44:51 ↗ behavior should be consistent with ever

1:44:54 ↗ your resources so there may be ways to

1:44:58 ↗ deal with this and I'm that same city

1:45:00 ↗ shouldn't think about it or look at it

1:45:02 ↗ but keep in mind how in reality you've

1:45:04 ↗ been creating stuff as a whole and who

1:45:07 ↗ are your partners in doing that is one

1:45:09 ↗ practical side but the legal side is

1:45:11 ↗ court cases around fair housing so it's

1:45:14 ↗ there's a lot of increasing court case

1:45:17 ↗ and I'm not versed enough in the legal

1:45:20 ↗ area and what we have found the comfort

1:45:23 ↗ with is what I've discovered what I've

1:45:24 ↗ presented to you and going beyond that

1:45:27 ↗ and I'm saying maybe it doesn't get

1:45:29 ↗ looked at it's a much more complicated

1:45:32 ↗ conversation we could just do whatever

1:45:39 ↗ we wanted without any rules or

1:45:41 ↗ regulations we would be just great but

1:45:44 ↗ we do have to follow them and I know

1:45:45 ↗ that there are a lot of fair houses with

1:45:49 ↗ the private sector what we try to do is

1:45:52 ↗ minimize interference because we aren't

1:45:55 ↗ giving them cash or anything they want

1:45:57 ↗ to rent they want to go quick they got

1:45:59 ↗ someone in the door they don't want to

1:46:01 ↗ have to all go at the wait a minute

1:46:02 ↗ right to do this right to do that so

1:46:04 ↗ that that's another side of the

1:46:05 ↗ practical side of it is keeping that in

1:46:08 ↗ mind is are you making it so it's real

1:46:10 ↗ easy for the private sector person to

1:46:13 ↗ fill their units there are so many

1:46:15 ↗ complications out there and to see at

1:46:18 ↗ all this they were even thinking about

1:46:21 ↗ it or they've already mandated you have

1:46:26 ↗ to rent to the first person replies yeah

1:46:28 ↗ so I mean you complicate things

1:46:31 ↗ rheumatica Lee when you do something

1:46:33 ↗ like that yeah that's what we hear from

1:46:35 ↗ the private sector people are I want to

1:46:37 ↗ be able to get people in qualifying

1:46:39 ↗ through and they don't so we have to set

1:46:42 ↗ up a system that we don't pre quite you

1:46:43 ↗ know they put somebody in they get all

1:46:45 ↗ the paperwork and they give us the

1:46:46 ↗ paperwork after the fact okay so

1:46:49 ↗ question how do we make sure that we are

1:46:56 ↗ serving the people that work here with

1:47:00 ↗ our housing model so that's why I gave

1:47:03 ↗ you the example of what happened in

1:47:04 ↗ Issaquah Highlands in a case where they

1:47:07 ↗ probably do more they are required to do

1:47:09 ↗ a more regional approach because of all

1:47:11 ↗ the funding that went into it that's why

1:47:13 ↗ I told you that they surveyed who's

1:47:14 ↗ there and where they work and so many of

1:47:17 ↗ them work in this community or any in

1:47:19 ↗ this community or the east side that's

1:47:22 ↗ and so we are so along those lines what

1:47:25 ↗ we're trying to do is collect data to

1:47:28 ↗ sort of be able to show you with the

1:47:30 ↗ approach that's been used to date what

1:47:32 ↗ happened the results I don't have it

1:47:34 ↗ right now but it is because this

1:47:37 ↗ question I mean I understand the

1:47:38 ↗ question I mean what do we tell you why

1:47:40 ↗ you have the need so that is one thing

1:47:42 ↗ we are trying to potentially research

1:47:44 ↗ and get a better feel for but the few

1:47:46 ↗ times we have and that's for the stuff

1:47:49 ↗ that would if what you're describing is

1:47:51 ↗ more likely to it's much more likely to

1:47:53 ↗ occur in the housing it's at 30 to 50

1:47:56 ↗ percent of median than it is to occur at

1:47:58 ↗ the housing that's at 60 and 70 percent

1:47:59 ↗ of media that I can guarantee you

1:48:01 ↗ because you can get that kind of rents

1:48:04 ↗ in other parts of the county and stuff

1:48:05 ↗ but we are surveying the properties

1:48:08 ↗ we're going to try to find a way in our

1:48:10 ↗ surveying next year you know they have

1:48:13 ↗ to monitor give us information if

1:48:14 ↗ there's some way we can get a feel for

1:48:16 ↗ that and that's for the housing that's

1:48:19 ↗ really affordable so you know if you

1:48:21 ↗ take what you're saying and it has basis

1:48:23 ↗ you're gonna see it play out probably

1:48:26 ↗ even stronger in that situation okay now

1:48:29 ↗ I want to be empathetic to the to my

1:48:31 ↗ community no I totally others tonight

1:48:34 ↗ understand that okay because I live here

1:48:38 ↗ too I mean I'm here this is my community

1:48:41 ↗ too I mean I live in Eve King County my

1:48:44 ↗ motivation is to help employees of our

1:48:45 ↗ areas have place to live I have the same

1:48:47 ↗ mode I hear where you're coming from

1:48:49 ↗ well I'm apathetic to King County but

1:48:50 ↗ I'm really more empathetic to there's a

1:48:52 ↗ cause it's harder when you start

1:48:56 ↗ thinking that because Bellevue ASIC why

1:48:59 ↗ you're two mile apart two miles apart

1:49:01 ↗ now but my point is I get the local need

1:49:06 ↗ for workforce and I think Joan already

1:49:10 ↗ made this point but people that are

1:49:12 ↗ often in these lower the the 70% 60% ami

1:49:17 ↗ may also also not have the same job

1:49:20 ↗ security and maybe switching jobs and

1:49:22 ↗ that doesn't mean that they're not a

1:49:23 ↗ part of the community if they get a job

1:49:25 ↗ in Bellevue they shouldn't have to you

1:49:27 ↗ know not be able to take a job if they

1:49:29 ↗ can get another job in another community

1:49:31 ↗ and I don't so I I see that as a sort of

1:49:34 ↗ limiting to the flexibility of these

1:49:37 ↗ units I think that if I think that you

1:49:40 ↗ can be a member of the community and

1:49:42 ↗ take a job in Bellevue and you know

1:49:44 ↗ especially one of these jobs that are

1:49:46 ↗ shorter term I was saying that for the

1:49:49 ↗ people who work here give them the

1:49:53 ↗ preference to move here so that it does

1:49:57 ↗ two things one we have more community

1:50:03 ↗ with a stronger community because not

1:50:05 ↗ only to the people who work here also

1:50:08 ↗ lived here so there's a pride of

1:50:10 ↗ community but you're also reducing cars

1:50:12 ↗ in traffic well and but then the other

1:50:17 ↗ thing I was thinking of

1:50:19 ↗ just in terms of loot the the total

1:50:24 ↗ percentage is so there are people

1:50:25 ↗ already in the community that are that

1:50:27 ↗ are at these lower income and they are

1:50:31 ↗ paying more than they can basically then

1:50:34 ↗ they can afford I mean they're they're

1:50:35 ↗ just cutting elsewhere I you know so

1:50:38 ↗ there's this demand and there are these

1:50:40 ↗ people that are paying more than they

1:50:41 ↗ can afford currently and our housing

1:50:43 ↗ market is mismatched with our demand and

1:50:46 ↗ so I think that naturally those people

1:50:49 ↗ will be the first people to apply for

1:50:51 ↗ these these units when they become

1:50:53 ↗ affordable because they're already here

1:50:55 ↗ and they're just paying you know paying

1:50:57 ↗ more than they can afford in this way

1:50:58 ↗ they could be able to afford their

1:51:01 ↗ housing okay we could debate this and

1:51:07 ↗ all evening and never come up with a

1:51:10 ↗ solution I don't think that's on our

1:51:14 ↗ docket this evening to actually go into

1:51:20 ↗ all of those different forms of vouchers

1:51:24 ↗ and everything else I think we have to

1:51:26 ↗ look at what the city has put together

1:51:29 ↗ now which seems to be a lot better than

1:51:31 ↗ having no requirements I think that was

1:51:34 ↗ one of our big problems originally was

1:51:37 ↗ there was no enforcement for any kind of

1:51:44 ↗ affordable housing and just you know

1:51:46 ↗ there is never going to be a hundred

1:51:48 ↗ percent availability for every part

1:51:51 ↗ every income level in Issaquah it's

1:51:54 ↗ never going to happen I'm I have said a

1:51:59 ↗ bunch of times you know I've heard

1:52:03 ↗ answers that the market will decide what

1:52:08 ↗ comes in what I'd like to have the city

1:52:11 ↗ look at the other side of that which is

1:52:14 ↗ this the builders can decide what they

1:52:20 ↗ want to build but the city has to do the

1:52:24 ↗ plans of what they want to do the city

1:52:26 ↗ the builders will build whatever the

1:52:28 ↗ city wants them

1:52:29 ↗ to build and I don't think that there is

1:52:32 ↗ enough discussion or plans yet to

1:52:38 ↗ [Music]

1:52:40 ↗ present the real vision I see what you

1:52:43 ↗ had what how you can build and what the

1:52:46 ↗ requirements are but not any specific

1:52:49 ↗ idea of where what goes where how its

1:52:52 ↗ put together I don't see that and I

1:52:55 ↗ don't think until we get that we're

1:52:58 ↗ going to have a city too full of

1:52:59 ↗ hodgepodge of eight-way and Atlas and

1:53:03 ↗ and different things up here because

1:53:06 ↗ they meet the qualifications that are

1:53:08 ↗ mandated by the city so I think that we

1:53:11 ↗ have to take the next step and actually

1:53:15 ↗ create a model what we want where we

1:53:21 ↗ want it it can always be changed but at

1:53:23 ↗ least we have some kind of an idea and I

1:53:25 ↗ I know they push back you've said many

1:53:30 ↗ times well the city doesn't have the

1:53:32 ↗ money to build a model and I think we're

1:53:35 ↗ at the point now that we need that model

1:53:38 ↗ we need to know where this is what the

1:53:42 ↗ city is going to look like and if it

1:53:44 ↗ doesn't work then we can always modify

1:53:47 ↗ it but we have to have some goal

1:53:49 ↗ otherwise the builders you build

1:53:51 ↗ whatever I want I meet the recruit you

1:53:54 ↗ know I we meet all the restrictions here

1:53:56 ↗ you have to let me do it whether that's

1:53:59 ↗ what I want what the city wants for that

1:54:03 ↗ area or not they meet that that kind of

1:54:06 ↗ requirement so I hope that sometime that

1:54:10 ↗ we start that discussion and have the

1:54:13 ↗ city actually build that model of what

1:54:17 ↗ they want the future to be instead of

1:54:20 ↗ just putting out numbers and and ideas

1:54:23 ↗ and

1:54:24 ↗ stuff so that's my two cents so is there

1:54:26 ↗ anything for the good of the order so

1:54:30 ↗ are there any requirements that you want

1:54:34 ↗ to change what's presented tonight

1:54:36 ↗ anything I was gonna say we're

1:54:38 ↗ addressing this in two meetings right

1:54:40 ↗ Trish no this we're hoping that you can

1:54:42 ↗ be through tonight possible okay so

1:54:45 ↗ right now we need a motion to either

1:54:47 ↗ accept or change what is being presented

1:54:51 ↗ tonight on the central Issaquah

1:54:55 ↗ development and design standards

1:54:57 ↗ regarding inclusionary zoning or

1:55:00 ↗ affordable housing does anybody want to

1:55:02 ↗ make the motion to accept what's been

1:55:07 ↗ presented by the city miss madam

1:55:10 ↗ chairman I move that we approve the

1:55:14 ↗ Central District Development design

1:55:16 ↗ standards and it's permissible code

1:55:18 ↗ chapter eighteen point two one regarding

1:55:21 ↗ inclusionary zoning including central

1:55:25 ↗ standards chapter four zoning districts

1:55:27 ↗ use in standards summary and this

1:55:30 ↗ communis will code chapter 1821

1:55:32 ↗ affordable housing fantastic they'll

1:55:36 ↗ have a second second any further

1:55:40 ↗ discussion

1:55:41 ↗ it excuse me that needs to include also

1:55:43 ↗ as modified tonight but the footnote

1:55:45 ↗ number four the sixty sixty six instead

1:55:51 ↗ of sixty verified by the six additional

1:56:02 ↗ heat units whatever it is okay so we

1:56:08 ↗ have a second all those in favor of the

1:56:10 ↗ motion please say aye opposed nay motion

1:56:17 ↗ passes

1:56:20 ↗ is there anything on the agenda any any

1:56:24 ↗ other updates that you want to talk

1:56:26 ↗ about no the next meeting is the ninth

1:56:31 ↗ the ninth is it was considered 7

1:56:33 ↗ November and that would be your first

1:56:37 ↗ night of district visions for central

1:56:39 ↗ Issaquah and we've got two meetings for

1:56:41 ↗ that it would be a continued public

1:56:43 ↗ hearing on the 30th of November and

1:56:45 ↗ those are your only two meetings in

1:56:48 ↗ November we're giving you Thanksgiving

1:56:49 ↗ off so enjoy your time away from us that

1:56:52 ↗ Thursday night any questions we don't

1:56:57 ↗ have another meeting until after

1:56:58 ↗ November 9 till number nine till the 9th

1:57:01 ↗ of November all right just two weeks I

1:57:03 ↗ think right two weeks flash so with that

1:57:07 ↗ I'm going to call the meeting to a close

1:57:09 ↗ it then eight back here twenty nine PPC

1:57:16 ↗ schedule

1:57:25 ↗ 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