Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, November 4, 2021 · City Council Digest

1. CALL TO ORDER

Commission Membership

packet pp.3

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION Staff Liaison Christen Leeson, Senior About Planner Created in 1983, this commission serves as a Email policy advisory body to the Mayor and provides guidance and direction for Issaquah's future Regular Members growth through continued review and 2022 – Joy Lewis improvement to the City's Comprehensive Land 2022 – Matt Monahan Use Plan and related land use documents. 2022 – Jason Voiss 2022 – Vacant Membership 2023 – Nina Milligan The Planning Policy Commission is comprised of 2024 – Ron Faul seven regular members, with four-year terms; 2024 – Sara Bader and several alternates, with two-year terms. All members are appointed by the Mayor and Alternate Members subject to confirmation by the City Council. 2022 - Richard Zaragoza Terms expire April 30 of the year listed. For 2023 - Vacant more information, see IMC 18.03 and Rules & Regulations. Meetings Unless…

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of October 14, 2021

packet pp.5–7

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 10-14-21 Planning Policy Commission Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Planning Policy Commission 6:30 PM Virtual Meeting October 14, 2021 MINUTES

5. REPORTS

Council Update

Christen Leeson, Senior Planner · packet pp.25–27

Open packet at p.25 ↗

Staff report:

10.21.21 – 10.28.21 Public Comment Update Update Process & Public Engagement

Title 18 Code Update: Public Comments

Received · Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, Community Planning & Development

Topics: Land Use

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.29–34

▶ Watch from 1:55:03 Open packet at p.29 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission 2021-2022 Schedule (subject to change) 2021 1/14/21 1/28/21 Land Use Code Amendments re: Electric Vehicle  Public Hearing: 2021 Docket of Proposed

3078 segments .txt ↗

0:20 ↗ good evening everyone

0:22 ↗ i would like to call

0:23 ↗ the november 4th joint planning policy

0:25 ↗ commission

0:27 ↗ planning policy commission

0:29 ↗ to order tonight at 6 33

0:32 ↗ my name is commissioner jason voice and

0:35 ↗ due to the virtual format of today's

0:37 ↗ meeting i'd like to start

0:39 ↗ by providing some guidelines

0:41 ↗ we have participants attending by

0:43 ↗ computer and others who may be attending

0:45 ↗ by phone

0:47 ↗ for all meeting attendees please

0:50 ↗ speak clearly and pause frequently state

0:53 ↗ your name each time before speaking

0:56 ↗ mute your microphone when you're not

0:57 ↗ speaking

0:58 ↗ and if you're having any technical

1:00 ↗ issues

1:01 ↗ try joining the meeting using a

1:03 ↗ different device such as a smartphone or

1:05 ↗ tablet

1:06 ↗ or use the call in information in the

1:08 ↗ meeting invite to call into the meeting

1:12 ↗ kristen

1:13 ↗ would you please take the roll call for

1:15 ↗ tonight

1:17 ↗ yes commissioner bader

1:23 ↗ i see you oh here right

1:25 ↗ here

1:27 ↗ i'm commissioner lewis

1:31 ↗ not

1:32 ↗ mr milligan oh that's right commissioner

1:34 ↗ lewis i pardon me she has an excused

1:36 ↗ absence i forgot

1:38 ↗ um

1:39 ↗ commissioner milligan

1:40 ↗ here

1:42 ↗ commissioner monahan

1:44 ↗ here

1:44 ↗ commissioner voice

1:46 ↗ here

1:47 ↗ commissioner zaragoza

1:49 ↗ here

1:50 ↗ and we will wait to see what happens

1:52 ↗ with commissioner fall

1:54 ↗ it's to join us commissioner fall is in

1:57 ↗ the wind

1:58 ↗ as they say

2:00 ↗ um tonight we're gonna be starting off

2:02 ↗ with taking public comment so for all of

2:04 ↗ those wishing to add their voice to the

2:06 ↗ conversation we ask that

2:08 ↗ um

2:10 ↗ that all of the members joining us by

2:12 ↗ public welcome and if there is anyone we

2:14 ↗ do ask that you state your name

2:16 ↗ and let us know how you're coming into

2:18 ↗ the meeting

2:20 ↗ and also that you should know the public

2:21 ↗ comments are an important part of the

2:23 ↗ public process

2:24 ↗ we take them seriously and they are

2:26 ↗ factored into our decision making

2:28 ↗ so i will return it back to kristin to

2:31 ↗ see if we have anyone out there who

2:32 ↗ would like to make a com a public

2:34 ↗ comment this evening

2:38 ↗ we do susan neville has raised her hand

2:42 ↗ so i am going to make you a panelist and

2:44 ↗ you are

2:46 ↗ now unmuted ready

2:48 ↗ can you hear me yes hi this is susan

2:51 ↗ deville um i'm a long time musical

2:53 ↗ resident

2:54 ↗ and um i just have a quick question to

2:57 ↗ ask this evening at the end of last

3:00 ↗ week's meeting

3:01 ↗ on zoning land use and form and

3:04 ↗ intensity

3:06 ↗ i was a little bit confused because

3:08 ↗ i wasn't sure if

3:10 ↗ you had received the policy direction

3:12 ↗ intended in the agenda

3:15 ↗ because we

3:17 ↗ did spend a lot of time on land use

3:20 ↗ wishes but i don't remember if we spoke

3:23 ↗ to zoning

3:24 ↗ like the update approach number two or

3:26 ↗ format intensity

3:28 ↗ so

3:29 ↗ what i wanted to do was make sure you

3:31 ↗ walked away with

3:33 ↗ the needed policy direction that you had

3:35 ↗ intended

3:37 ↗ and if you would take just a few moments

3:39 ↗ at the end of this meeting

3:41 ↗ to clarify

3:43 ↗ what you heard that they told you so

3:46 ↗ that i could hear it too

3:48 ↗ i appreciate that if you would consider

3:50 ↗ that and that's it for tonight thank you

4:02 ↗ jason would you like me to respond to

4:03 ↗ that

4:04 ↗ sure please

4:06 ↗ um i think we did receive the direction

4:08 ↗ that we were looking for um but as for

4:11 ↗ sort of going over the meeting i'm going

4:13 ↗ to wait for the minutes to come out

4:16 ↗ so that i mean i can't i'm not going to

4:18 ↗ try and sit here and go off the top of

4:20 ↗ my head and see if we're trying to

4:21 ↗ recall everything that was talked about

4:22 ↗ last time i think it's best if we wait

4:24 ↗ for the minutes

4:25 ↗ um those will come out at our next

4:27 ↗ meeting but many

4:32 ↗ yeah you know i'm not exactly sure about

4:35 ↗ susan's question i think it was directed

4:37 ↗ at the planning and policy commission

4:39 ↗ members too

4:41 ↗ or perhaps you can clarify a question

4:47 ↗ am i on

4:52 ↗ yes we can help you

4:54 ↗ yeah i i just wanted

4:57 ↗ um

4:58 ↗ i didn't want this to be a criticism but

5:00 ↗ i'm not sure if we covered everything

5:02 ↗ that you had asked for

5:03 ↗ in the agenda

5:05 ↗ during our discussion and i was

5:07 ↗ wondering if the planning policy felt

5:09 ↗ that way too or

5:10 ↗ um if

5:14 ↗ i'm not sure if that's something you can

5:16 ↗ answer

5:20 ↗ so it's a question for the commissioners

5:22 ↗ right susan uh yeah commissioners okay

5:28 ↗ uh there was uh

5:30 ↗ two items at the end or one or two items

5:31 ↗ can't remember now that we're going to

5:32 ↗ talk about in a different meeting is

5:35 ↗ that what we're talking about

5:38 ↗ for clarification from susan um those

5:41 ↗ were the emergency ones

5:43 ↗ and i believe i understood those would

5:45 ↗ be different

5:46 ↗ so um i would be happy to go back and

5:49 ↗ re-listen to the um the meeting if you

5:53 ↗ feel like we had talked to the zoning

5:56 ↗ and the form and intensity part of the

5:58 ↗ agenda

6:00 ↗ and gave your policy direction on that

6:03 ↗ thank you

6:13 ↗ there's no one else

6:17 ↗ who has

6:20 ↗ raised a hand to speak um there is one

6:23 ↗ more caller here caller if you'd like to

6:24 ↗ speak press star 3 or let me know in the

6:26 ↗ chat

6:34 ↗ no there's no one else who'd like to

6:35 ↗ speak

6:37 ↗ thank you kristen and i just realized

6:40 ↗ that there was a whole second page to my

6:41 ↗ script so sorry

6:43 ↗ for the ambiguity to all the callers

6:45 ↗ there's a whole list of rules i was

6:46 ↗ supposed to tell everybody but you guys

6:48 ↗ did just fine without all those rules

6:51 ↗ the next item on tonight's agenda is our

6:54 ↗ regular business

6:55 ↗ at tonight's meeting we will be

6:56 ↗ discussing transfer of development

6:58 ↗ rights landmarks and archaeology

7:01 ↗ as well as affordable housing

7:04 ↗ it's my obligation to you

7:06 ↗ that i be respectful of your time so we

7:08 ↗ are going to stick to the time

7:09 ↗ parameters as much as possible with a

7:12 ↗ possible short extension for round robin

7:15 ↗ if

7:16 ↗ it's felt necessary

7:18 ↗ so first up for staff to present tonight

7:21 ↗ is miss lucy sloman

7:23 ↗ uh discussing land development or i'm

7:25 ↗ sorry

7:26 ↗ our land development manager who will be

7:28 ↗ starting us off tonight on our

7:30 ↗ discussion

7:31 ↗ of transfer of development rights

7:34 ↗ thank you chair voice

7:38 ↗ um do you want to go to the next slide

7:40 ↗ kristin

7:43 ↗ so transfer of development rights um

7:46 ↗ were created around

7:48 ↗ in the early 1980s um

7:51 ↗ on the east coast to preserve farmland

7:54 ↗ but the

7:55 ↗ technique has expanded to

7:58 ↗ also help with historic sites sensitive

8:00 ↗ lands critical areas and open space

8:04 ↗ i bolded those two because that's really

8:07 ↗ what we've used it for in the city of

8:09 ↗ issaquah

8:11 ↗ to

8:12 ↗ do uh transfer of development rights or

8:15 ↗ tdrs

8:16 ↗ you have to establish sending and

8:18 ↗ receiving sites as you can see on the

8:20 ↗ map on the left

8:22 ↗ the green

8:23 ↗ are the sending sites from which

8:25 ↗ development rights may be taken

8:28 ↗ and the red sites are properties to

8:30 ↗ which development rights may be sent

8:35 ↗ and

8:36 ↗ the orange box

8:38 ↗ identifies the detail that's shown in

8:41 ↗ some larger in um on the right

8:44 ↗ and these are a number of examples that

8:47 ↗ have uh happened in the city of issaquah

8:50 ↗ um

8:51 ↗ we estab we started doing this in the

8:53 ↗ 2000 around 2000 but the regulations

8:56 ↗ weren't put in place until 2005.

9:00 ↗ so i think these illustrate these um

9:02 ↗ three examples illustrate um a couple of

9:05 ↗ different ways that you can do tdrs so

9:08 ↗ um the very first one that happened in

9:11 ↗ 2000 was the

9:13 ↗ big blue arrow that's coming in from the

9:15 ↗ upper right

9:17 ↗ and it says 500 000 square feet from

9:20 ↗ tdrs and what that means is that there

9:23 ↗ was property outside the city of

9:25 ↗ issaquah

9:27 ↗ that was

9:28 ↗ preserved there was a desire to preserve

9:30 ↗ it as open space

9:32 ↗ the development rights were removed from

9:34 ↗ that property called mitchell hill

9:37 ↗ and

9:38 ↗ uh port blakely communities the master

9:40 ↗ developer of iss

9:42 ↗ highlands paid the bulk of the money

9:44 ↗ king county paid a small portion and

9:46 ↗ those development rights were

9:48 ↗ transferred

9:50 ↗ 500 000 square feet of non-commercial

9:53 ↗ entitlement was added to issaquah

9:55 ↗ highlands

9:57 ↗ another way that we've done tdrs in the

10:00 ↗ city is is

10:02 ↗ a site within the city to a site within

10:04 ↗ the city

10:05 ↗ so

10:06 ↗ um

10:07 ↗ the green area area at the bottom

10:10 ↗ of the right hand image is park point

10:13 ↗ and

10:14 ↗ it was

10:16 ↗ scheduled for development there was an

10:18 ↗ eis in the works there was a great

10:21 ↗ desire to protect it

10:23 ↗ um

10:24 ↗ the hillsides and slopes and it was one

10:27 ↗ of those classic forested hillsides

10:30 ↗ and i i don't know the exact sequence of

10:33 ↗ events whether um it was because the

10:37 ↗ owners went bankrupt or they had already

10:40 ↗ uh established tdrs

10:43 ↗ but in the end

10:44 ↗ a bank not not a tdr bank but a bank

10:47 ↗ bank regal bank ended up with the

10:50 ↗ property and the tdrs that represented

10:54 ↗ the development rights

10:55 ↗ so

10:56 ↗ a hundred of those tdrs went also into

11:00 ↗ isqa highlands

11:01 ↗ and were part of the residential

11:04 ↗ entitlement that created westridge

11:07 ↗ which is just north of where the the

11:09 ↗ blue arrow with 100 tbrs on it is

11:12 ↗ pointing

11:14 ↗ also there was another development

11:16 ↗ agreement

11:19 ↗ negotiated with the city called wash dot

11:22 ↗ tdr

11:24 ↗ and i haven't been able to find the

11:26 ↗ exact number but

11:29 ↗ kristin and some other old-timers have

11:32 ↗ said around 400 tdrs were transferred

11:35 ↗ into the area that's shown in red that

11:38 ↗ was the wash dot property

11:40 ↗ and it represented uh it ended up being

11:44 ↗ both

11:45 ↗ residential units

11:47 ↗ and um potentially the bellevue college

11:50 ↗ campus um

11:52 ↗ it hasn't happened yet but um that's

11:54 ↗ what might go there

11:56 ↗ and the third type the third example

11:59 ↗ is um

12:01 ↗ in the upper left of the right hand

12:03 ↗ image with the sort of cross hatching on

12:06 ↗ it is the lakeside development agreement

12:09 ↗ area

12:10 ↗ and to build their full entitlement

12:14 ↗ they will have to obtain 500 tdrs

12:18 ↗ so they are allowed to do some

12:19 ↗ development without tdrs but they will

12:21 ↗ not be able to build out the full

12:23 ↗ capacity

12:24 ↗ unless they acquire tdrs

12:28 ↗ next slide

12:33 ↗ specifically with the title 18

12:36 ↗ update

12:37 ↗ the council's goals uh and outcomes

12:40 ↗ included a goal its very first goal

12:43 ↗ protect forested hillsides um the issue

12:48 ↗ objective possible actions and desired

12:51 ↗ outcomes

12:53 ↗ are directly from that document but i

12:56 ↗ just include this and it was also in

12:58 ↗ your memo i just include this because

13:01 ↗ tdrs

13:03 ↗ was one of the tools

13:04 ↗ put out there as a possible way

13:07 ↗ of protecting uh forested hillsides the

13:10 ↗ map that you see here is outdated um

13:13 ↗ it's probably five or six years old and

13:16 ↗ um it's we've annotated it with some

13:18 ↗ markings that show where the x's

13:21 ↗ indicate where um

13:24 ↗ properties that we thought we might be

13:26 ↗ able to protect have in fact developed

13:30 ↗ the ones with p's

13:32 ↗ are ones that have been protected

13:34 ↗ and the ones with question marks it's

13:36 ↗ hard to say which way they're going to

13:38 ↗ go there is

13:39 ↗ development interest

13:41 ↗ um but it may not be possible due to

13:44 ↗ some of the

13:45 ↗ critical areas or characteristics of the

13:47 ↗ site and so

13:50 ↗ um there were questions about do you

13:52 ↗ know do we know exactly where this is

13:54 ↗ going to go or how we would do this and

13:57 ↗ i think the short answer is no i think

13:59 ↗ we wanted to have a conversation

14:02 ↗ with the commission and the public about

14:04 ↗ this as a possible tool but i think this

14:07 ↗ gives you an idea of some of the sites

14:10 ↗ that might be considered and

14:13 ↗ that we would if the commission and

14:16 ↗ public support this

14:17 ↗ uh to

14:19 ↗ figure out if tbrs is a good tool to

14:22 ↗ protect those health sites

14:26 ↗ and that's the end of my presentation

14:28 ↗ and i um it's up to the commission

14:30 ↗ whether you'd like to do questions now

14:32 ↗ or later

14:37 ↗ well i'll i will this is still a

14:39 ↗ democracy so

14:41 ↗ fellow commissioners would you guys like

14:42 ↗ to do clarifying questions now or at the

14:44 ↗ end of um staff entire presentation

14:49 ↗ we'll obviously do the discussion after

14:51 ↗ but verifying questions now or after

14:55 ↗ valerie and kristen's presentations

15:03 ↗ i can't see everybody after

15:06 ↗ thank you commissioner

15:08 ↗ anybody else i i can only see a couple

15:10 ↗ of you

15:15 ↗ this is matt i'm good with after

15:18 ↗ okay

15:20 ↗ commissioner milligan

15:22 ↗ i can't see

15:23 ↗ yeah are you saying that we will do all

15:25 ↗ three topics and then we will do

15:27 ↗ questions

15:28 ↗ that's what i was thinking is having

15:30 ↗ clarifying questions after all three

15:32 ↗ presentations you know what um i have a

15:35 ↗ feeling that that might seem a good idea

15:37 ↗ right now when we're on transfer

15:38 ↗ development rights it might might not

15:40 ↗ seem like such a good idea when we get

15:42 ↗ to affordable housing because then

15:44 ↗ tdr i'll get

15:46 ↗ forgotten

15:48 ↗ i would do clarifying questions after

15:50 ↗ each topic

15:51 ↗ if i'm the only one it's okay i'm

15:52 ↗ flexible

15:54 ↗ commissioner vader i believe you're out

15:56 ↗ there too

15:57 ↗ i am out here

15:59 ↗ excuse me i'm okay either way

16:01 ↗ um i kind of agree

16:03 ↗ um with nina um milligan a little bit

16:06 ↗ that i think at least for me affordable

16:08 ↗ housing will be a kind of hot topic of

16:09 ↗ conversation so sure

16:12 ↗ okay um i'm fine with doing them now

16:15 ↗ we'll keep it strictly to the tdrs and

16:17 ↗ then what we'll do is we'll have

16:18 ↗ clarifying questions after each

16:20 ↗ presentation

16:21 ↗ and then after our we finish up our

16:23 ↗ clarifying questions after all three

16:26 ↗ presentations then we'll turn it over to

16:28 ↗ public comment and then from there we'll

16:30 ↗ have our discussion

16:32 ↗ so i'll open up the floor and i'll be

16:34 ↗ monitoring the chat box

16:36 ↗ so please feel free to put in comment

16:38 ↗ question or clarification

16:40 ↗ and i'll call on you when i see your

16:42 ↗ name

16:46 ↗ commissioner milligan has a question

16:48 ↗ that's why i said i wanted to do it by

16:51 ↗ topic i i do have a question and and

16:53 ↗ also i want to recognize to lucy that

16:57 ↗ even though our policy might have

16:58 ↗ started in 2000

17:00 ↗ i think i recall that all of issaquah

17:02 ↗ highlands was a transfer off of the

17:05 ↗ grand ridge what became grand ridge park

17:08 ↗ property and i didn't want to lose the

17:10 ↗ credit for that when we're talking about

17:12 ↗ transfer development rights and how

17:13 ↗ wonderful it's been to preserve

17:15 ↗ brandridge park too

17:17 ↗ uh lucy are you um so in this map i

17:20 ↗ found this kind of confusing i have to

17:22 ↗ say because um the red i think of as a

17:24 ↗ receiving site and we're using red here

17:27 ↗ as a ascending site and there's this one

17:31 ↗ well in this one and thank you i should

17:33 ↗ have walked through the uh legend more

17:36 ↗ clearly yeah we can't see it on our

17:38 ↗ little screen oh i'm sorry um the green

17:42 ↗ are protected properties on this one

17:44 ↗ and uh the red are

17:47 ↗ developable hillsides

17:50 ↗ yeah so um the red indicates properties

17:54 ↗ that we might want to figure out

17:57 ↗ how to protect they aren't um and i'm

18:00 ↗ really glad you asked this because i

18:02 ↗ should have said this at the time

18:04 ↗ hillsides that are 40 or steeper

18:08 ↗ are a critical area called a steep slope

18:11 ↗ and those are um

18:13 ↗ regulated um there are certain

18:15 ↗ circumstances in which

18:17 ↗ they can't be built on but um i mean

18:20 ↗ where they can be built on but generally

18:22 ↗ they can't be built on so what we're

18:24 ↗ talking about in terms of forested

18:26 ↗ hillsides and

18:29 ↗ trying to figure out how to protect them

18:31 ↗ are the slopes that are less than 40

18:35 ↗ say 15 to 40 percent

18:37 ↗ and um so i believe i don't know the

18:41 ↗ exact criteria because this map was

18:43 ↗ created a while ago as i said but those

18:46 ↗ red sites represent properties um where

18:49 ↗ at least a portion

18:51 ↗ are hilly enough that but not

18:54 ↗ they're somewhat hilly but not hilly

18:56 ↗ enough to be protected as critical areas

18:58 ↗ so for instance you see bergsma is on

19:01 ↗ here it's shown

19:02 ↗ in red

19:04 ↗ but i put the

19:05 ↗ peas on it and i'm sorry you are on

19:07 ↗ laptops so i'm sure they're tiny um but

19:11 ↗ the peas indicate that you know we've

19:13 ↗ protected that

19:18 ↗ okay thank you and so then when um the

19:20 ↗ other one i can't see and i don't mean i

19:22 ↗ just mean to look at an example i was

19:24 ↗ thinking about the king county property

19:25 ↗ that's down below as aqua highlands on

19:27 ↗ the um

19:28 ↗ on the bend of i-90

19:30 ↗ that one um

19:32 ↗ so i looked at that one and and that's a

19:35 ↗ really good question and i put question

19:36 ↗ marks on that because the city owns two

19:39 ↗ of those

19:40 ↗ parcels um

19:42 ↗ there have been a couple of different

19:43 ↗ proposals for that at one time we were

19:46 ↗ talking about a school on the

19:47 ↗ easternmost sort of the northeastern

19:50 ↗ corner of those properties

19:52 ↗ um

19:53 ↗ that isn't going to happen

19:55 ↗ um there's been discussion of a park on

19:58 ↗ there

19:59 ↗ but preserving the trees but it's not um

20:02 ↗ it's not sort of officially protected

20:05 ↗ with some kind of conservation easement

20:07 ↗ or a

20:09 ↗ sort of final

20:11 ↗ use now some of the other properties in

20:13 ↗ that same cluster

20:15 ↗ i was looking today several of them are

20:17 ↗ owned by washtag um now that might mean

20:20 ↗ they're going to not be developed but we

20:23 ↗ don't really know

20:24 ↗ um

20:25 ↗ they it's their property and um we

20:28 ↗ we don't know what their choices may be

20:31 ↗ with that

20:33 ↗ and that's what my last question about

20:34 ↗ and using that one property as an

20:36 ↗ example uh if i recall the zoning on

20:38 ↗ that it's community facilities

20:40 ↗ facilities and so is there a

20:42 ↗ um some

20:44 ↗ how does that zoning have developed what

20:46 ↗ is the developable

20:48 ↗ right

20:49 ↗ what's the capacity of the

20:52 ↗ to be development right when it doesn't

20:54 ↗ have a zone

20:56 ↗ well i mean it's interesting you can't

20:59 ↗ um

21:00 ↗ you can't pull tdrs off of a community

21:03 ↗ facility there's

21:05 ↗ community facility uh tradition plateau

21:08 ↗ and um

21:10 ↗ conservation

21:12 ↗ residential i'm not getting the names

21:14 ↗ quite right

21:16 ↗ those who cannot create tdrs i think

21:19 ↗ probably because there's an assumption

21:22 ↗ that

21:24 ↗ they are not really developable

21:26 ↗ um

21:28 ↗ i am zooming in to study the

21:34 ↗ so

21:34 ↗ this is all too a little too micro but i

21:37 ↗ kind of wanted to to get a feel for what

21:39 ↗ were we transferring and i'm glad that

21:41 ↗ you brought up tiger mountain because

21:42 ↗ that came up in another context in

21:45 ↗ another life last year or something

21:47 ↗ about there being some development

21:48 ↗ rights in there

21:50 ↗ and that was a concern

21:52 ↗ so okay i just wanted to get some more

21:55 ↗ details and some help reading the map

21:59 ↗ so interestingly in that area there's a

22:02 ↗ combination of zoning

22:05 ↗ um

22:06 ↗ and again it is pretty tiny but from

22:08 ↗ what i

22:09 ↗ remember some of it is zone community

22:11 ↗ facilities open space

22:13 ↗ some of it is zoned community facilities

22:16 ↗ facilities meaning you could put

22:18 ↗ buildings on it

22:20 ↗ and uh some of it is zoned uh intensive

22:23 ↗ commercial

22:25 ↗ so um it

22:27 ↗ i think that's you know uh part of what

22:30 ↗ we want to look at through this process

22:34 ↗ if tdrs seem like a tool that we should

22:37 ↗ um spend more time exploring to protect

22:40 ↗ the health sites

22:48 ↗ thank you

22:50 ↗ commissioner zaragoza

22:52 ↗ thanks chair uh richard sargosa uh my

22:56 ↗ question had to do with

22:58 ↗ i wanted to better understand the the

23:00 ↗ sending site qualifications

23:02 ↗ so

23:03 ↗ the sending site so so you would

23:05 ↗ transfer your property or your building

23:08 ↗ rights to the sending site the setting

23:10 ↗ site

23:12 ↗ is a property that has no

23:15 ↗ development rights at all

23:17 ↗ none existing or can it

23:19 ↗ would you buy both properties

23:21 ↗ essentially

23:22 ↗ so um ascending site can be handled in a

23:26 ↗ couple of different ways

23:28 ↗ you could decide

23:30 ↗ let's say you own a

23:33 ↗ piece of property i'm gonna i'm gonna go

23:35 ↗ back to the

23:37 ↗ original origins of this let's say you

23:39 ↗ own a piece of farmland and you want to

23:41 ↗ protect it

23:43 ↗ um

23:44 ↗ because you know your taxes are based on

23:46 ↗ highest and best use and so owning a

23:48 ↗ piece of farmland in certain locations

23:51 ↗ is very expensive in terms of taxes

23:54 ↗ so

23:55 ↗ if you decide no i want to keep the

23:58 ↗ whole thing

24:00 ↗ as a farm in perpetuity you could go

24:04 ↗ through the calculation exercise

24:06 ↗ determine the development rights that

24:09 ↗ are associated with that property you

24:11 ↗ would get a letter from the city which

24:14 ↗ is kind of like

24:16 ↗ it's called a letter of intent and it

24:18 ↗ says that yes you qualified to

24:21 ↗ um

24:22 ↗ take all your development rights on this

24:23 ↗ property

24:24 ↗ and um

24:26 ↗ uh take them off so that you can go to

24:29 ↗ people and say look i have the right to

24:30 ↗ do this are you interested

24:32 ↗ um

24:33 ↗ or

24:34 ↗ let's say that you wanted to build a

24:37 ↗ house for your kids

24:40 ↗ and then the other the majority of the

24:42 ↗ property would remain farmland so you

24:44 ↗ would identify that portion

24:46 ↗ the development rights associated with

24:49 ↗ that portion

24:50 ↗ and then you could sell that to maybe

24:52 ↗ finance certain things that you wanted

24:54 ↗ to do to improve the rest of it as

24:56 ↗ farmland

24:58 ↗ does that make sense

25:00 ↗ i'm still a little confused so that i

25:03 ↗ think that

25:04 ↗ that's that the farmer is selling

25:07 ↗ their property rights

25:09 ↗ and then that

25:10 ↗ is transferred somewhere else

25:12 ↗ the the somewhere else is the sending

25:14 ↗ site

25:15 ↗ that's the receiving site that's the

25:16 ↗ receiving site sorry that's that was

25:19 ↗ that was my problem that's okay so the

25:20 ↗ receiving site

25:22 ↗ does the receiving site not have its own

25:25 ↗ um

25:26 ↗ okay building rights

25:28 ↗ it does

25:30 ↗ um in our code uh so there are a couple

25:32 ↗ of reasons that

25:34 ↗ uh you might as a receiving site decide

25:37 ↗ to do this

25:38 ↗ um one is that in central issaquah if

25:42 ↗ you want to go above the base

25:44 ↗ density

25:45 ↗ or height

25:47 ↗ you

25:47 ↗ tdrs would be one way to allow you to do

25:51 ↗ more

25:52 ↗ height or intensity

25:55 ↗ and

25:56 ↗ if you're outside of central issaquad

25:58 ↗ there are certain

25:59 ↗ [Music]

26:01 ↗ changes to your development standards

26:03 ↗ you can build a taller building you can

26:05 ↗ get some extra impervious surface there

26:07 ↗ are things the rules change as a way to

26:10 ↗ encourage

26:11 ↗ the use of tdrs

26:16 ↗ does that make sense thank you yeah it

26:18 ↗ does you're basically adding on to your

26:20 ↗ existing property rights

26:21 ↗ in a in a very in a constrained envelope

26:24 ↗ right

26:25 ↗ thank you

26:31 ↗ thank you

26:32 ↗ now i'd like to welcome valerie

26:34 ↗ who also has a presentation

26:36 ↗ on landmarks

26:39 ↗ please valerie

26:42 ↗ hello

26:43 ↗ my name is valerie porter i'm an

26:45 ↗ associate planner here at the city so

26:47 ↗ next we're going to talk about landmarks

26:48 ↗ and archaeology this topic related to

26:51 ↗ title 18 is pretty straightforward and

26:53 ↗ that's because in 2001 the city entered

26:57 ↗ into an interlocal agreement with king

26:59 ↗ county allowing the county to review

27:01 ↗ landmark nominations and determine

27:04 ↗ designations on behalf of the city

27:06 ↗ although the landmark commission does

27:08 ↗ have approval authority an issaquah

27:10 ↗ representative is present during the

27:12 ↗ public hearings to voice any comments or

27:14 ↗ concerns that they have

27:17 ↗ related to the nomination

27:19 ↗ so as part of the interlocal agreement

27:22 ↗ the city has adopted king county's

27:24 ↗ landmark code which establishes

27:26 ↗ regulations and procedures for the

27:28 ↗ designation so at the bottom of the

27:30 ↗ slide i've kind of briefly illustrated

27:34 ↗ what that process looks like

27:37 ↗ so the changes that are proposed for

27:38 ↗ title 18 are mentioned in the memo and

27:41 ↗ are updates that have been accepted and

27:44 ↗ adopted by king county

27:46 ↗ you'll notice that the pretty minor

27:47 ↗ changes um the modifications reflect the

27:50 ↗ commission's you know name change

27:52 ↗ they've removed some language that's no

27:54 ↗ longer applicable

27:55 ↗ and we've modified a requirement that

27:58 ↗ states that

28:01 ↗ nominations must require

28:03 ↗ consent from property owners of

28:05 ↗ religious institutions and structures

28:09 ↗ next slide please

28:13 ↗ so the city has

28:15 ↗ six registered landmarks and you can see

28:18 ↗ that they're listed and shown here on

28:21 ↗ the map

28:22 ↗ um

28:23 ↗ so anyone can make a nomination but this

28:27 ↗ is what we have so far

28:29 ↗ so are there any questions

28:38 ↗ we have a question from commissioner

28:40 ↗ milligan

28:41 ↗ commissioner milligan here how it's the

28:43 ↗ first one try not

28:45 ↗ thanks valerie for this i have two

28:47 ↗ questions for you

28:49 ↗ one of them is

28:51 ↗ has the city talk to or will they talk

28:54 ↗ to our historical society especially the

28:57 ↗ executive director about the proposals

28:59 ↗ and then the other question is when we

29:02 ↗ adopt a policy from another jurisdiction

29:04 ↗ such as this

29:06 ↗ do we

29:09 ↗ do we have a way that we could refer to

29:11 ↗ that policy rather than copying that

29:13 ↗ policy in

29:14 ↗ and what would be interesting right now

29:17 ↗ we're having to make an update because

29:18 ↗ they made an update but if we just said

29:20 ↗ hey we do what they do then we wouldn't

29:22 ↗ have to update what would be the risk

29:24 ↗ and reward of that or is it even

29:27 ↗ possible

29:29 ↗ um i'm not sure for the nomination

29:32 ↗ portion um

29:34 ↗ so

29:35 ↗ the

29:36 ↗ all nominations are sent to staff for

29:38 ↗ distribution and review

29:41 ↗ i'm not quite sure if they do go to that

29:43 ↗ board

29:44 ↗ maybe kristin can speak to that

29:47 ↗ and then also

29:49 ↗ in regards to the code

29:51 ↗ there are some sections in the code

29:52 ↗ where we do reference um you know other

29:55 ↗ um like the state or

29:58 ↗ the whack um so we could um

30:04 ↗ i guess it's just a discussion that we

30:06 ↗ would need to have if that's what we

30:07 ↗ would like to do or not

30:11 ↗ yeah um and i'll jump in

30:13 ↗ you know maybe back in 2001 things were

30:15 ↗ made more complicated maybe now we can

30:19 ↗ just refer to theirs but with the few

30:21 ↗ differences that we have we have appeals

30:23 ↗ is the difference

30:24 ↗ that we have from king county and then

30:26 ↗ the piece

30:27 ↗ about the

30:28 ↗ consent from the owners of religious

30:30 ↗ institutions and buildings that is

30:32 ↗ actually is is aqua initiated so that

30:34 ↗ would be different too there are a few

30:35 ↗ but that's something worth considering

30:37 ↗ especially for trying to simplify a code

30:40 ↗ um

30:41 ↗ as for the first question i erica manas

30:44 ↗ and i um she is head of the historical

30:46 ↗ society here she and i talk regularly so

30:50 ↗ yeah we're we're all connected and you

30:53 ↗ know we talk with king county all the

30:54 ↗ time so it's

30:56 ↗ yeah it's it's all there that connection

30:58 ↗ and communication

31:06 ↗ are there any further questions for

31:08 ↗ valerie

31:14 ↗ all right

31:15 ↗ miss lisa i believe you're up

31:23 ↗ hello again this is kristin leeson and i

31:25 ↗ am so grateful

31:27 ↗ mike stanger from arch is also

31:30 ↗ more than welcome to turn on your camera

31:32 ↗ um whatever i don't know he does so it's

31:35 ↗ always good to have mike around

31:37 ↗ um

31:39 ↗ so this is an um

31:40 ↗ it's an interesting topic affordable

31:42 ↗ housing

31:43 ↗ so there are i'm going to say there are

31:45 ↗ two types of affordable housing and i'm

31:46 ↗ going to call them type one and type two

31:49 ↗ and thing one and thing two that's what

31:50 ↗ it hurt in my head just now um type one

31:54 ↗ those units are created through

31:56 ↗ incentives and programs that the city

31:58 ↗ has and they are regulated through

32:00 ↗ covenants so oftentimes rental

32:02 ↗ properties are to remain

32:04 ↗ as affordable units

32:07 ↗ as long as the property is a rental

32:09 ↗ property as a residential property

32:10 ↗ sometimes they're limited to 30 years or

32:13 ↗ 50 years but it's usually at least 50

32:14 ↗ years

32:16 ↗ type 2 properties are created through

32:18 ↗ the market they're not regulated so

32:20 ↗ maybe you're in an area of town where

32:21 ↗ housing is less expensive but somebody

32:23 ↗ can come in tear down that house and

32:26 ↗ that house that was affordable goes away

32:28 ↗ and some you know million dollar home is

32:30 ↗ put in there so

32:32 ↗ tonight we are just talking about type

32:34 ↗ one

32:35 ↗ so type two would be more

32:37 ↗ missing middle kind of conversation

32:39 ↗ uh which we will get to at another time

32:42 ↗ uh i i've already told you it's coming

32:44 ↗ but tonight we're just going to talk

32:45 ↗ about type 1 and incentives

32:48 ↗ so just to let you know uh these are the

32:51 ↗ affordable units that we have and

32:53 ↗ they're located all around the city

32:55 ↗ these are all up to 80 percent available

32:58 ↗ to

32:59 ↗ households with incomes up to 80 of the

33:02 ↗ area median income

33:04 ↗ and these were all created through

33:06 ↗ incentives and programs that we have

33:10 ↗ and then these units are available to

33:15 ↗ units that are

33:16 ↗ incomes in households with income levels

33:18 ↗ of 81 to 120 percent of the area median

33:21 ↗ income and they're all located in

33:23 ↗ issaquah highlands now these do not

33:25 ↗ count toward our i mentioned in the memo

33:28 ↗ that the goal is to have 40 percent of

33:30 ↗ all of our housing be affordable which

33:32 ↗ is

33:33 ↗ pretty high and these units don't count

33:35 ↗ toward that it's the

33:36 ↗ these they're 141 of these and like

33:39 ↗ 750 or a few more of the other units

33:42 ↗ those count toward our accounts sort our

33:44 ↗ key county targets

33:49 ↗ so we have several programs and

33:50 ↗ incentives that are in place and

33:52 ↗ requirements they include inclusionary

33:54 ↗ zoning which i'll talk a little bit more

33:55 ↗ about

33:56 ↗ cluster housing

33:58 ↗ which cluster housing in itself doesn't

34:00 ↗ require affordable housing but if you do

34:02 ↗ cluster housing with five acres or more

34:04 ↗ you're required to do a development

34:05 ↗ agreement and that development agreement

34:07 ↗ requires that you include affordable

34:08 ↗ housing how much is negotiated in that

34:11 ↗ process

34:12 ↗ we do fee waivers so impact fees plan

34:15 ↗ permit plan review fees permit review

34:17 ↗ fees

34:18 ↗ school impact fees those are all way for

34:20 ↗ affordable units

34:22 ↗ they affordable units get priority

34:24 ↗ permit review they move through a little

34:25 ↗ bit faster

34:27 ↗ a reduction of parking and park space

34:29 ↗ for affordable units

34:31 ↗ we have a multi-family tax exemption but

34:33 ↗ only for one project it is for the

34:35 ↗ transit oriented development project if

34:37 ↗ that comes in

34:38 ↗ we have development agreements which

34:40 ↗ most but not all require affordable

34:43 ↗ housing but

34:45 ↗ you know we've had

34:47 ↗ 400 plus units put on the ground

34:50 ↗ that are under 80 up to 80 because of

34:53 ↗ development agreements then we have the

34:54 ↗ central issaquad density bonus program

34:57 ↗ and i'm going to focus on that one first

34:59 ↗ i'm not going to talk about all these

35:00 ↗ i'm going to talk about um density

35:02 ↗ program tonight primarily

35:05 ↗ um the density bonus program it was

35:07 ↗ adopted in 2013 as part of the

35:08 ↗ centralized by development and design

35:10 ↗ standards

35:11 ↗ it's a voluntary program and it's in the

35:13 ↗ central issaquas sub area only which is

35:16 ↗ right here

35:17 ↗ so if you want to exceed we have a base

35:21 ↗ height right and a base far at central

35:23 ↗ squad and a maximum height and a maximum

35:26 ↗ maximum far in central issaquah

35:29 ↗ if you want to exceed the base height or

35:31 ↗ far floor area ratio

35:34 ↗ then you're required to provide a

35:35 ↗ percentage of your units as a for a

35:37 ↗ percentage of that building as

35:38 ↗ affordable housing so if you're a

35:40 ↗ residential property

35:42 ↗ um

35:43 ↗ third of your area

35:45 ↗ of your far or height that goes over the

35:47 ↗ base

35:48 ↗ um you are required to do on-site

35:50 ↗ affordable housing for one-third of that

35:53 ↗ or if you're a commercial property then

35:54 ↗ you can give the city feet in loop it's

35:56 ↗ 15 per square foot

35:58 ↗ and twenty percent of the one-third

36:01 ↗ um

36:02 ↗ must be low income

36:04 ↗ so then for the other two-thirds of the

36:06 ↗ far that you go over the base

36:09 ↗ you have a choice you can do on-site

36:11 ↗ affordable units

36:13 ↗ you can do

36:15 ↗ open space somewhere else in the city

36:16 ↗ purchase it preserved as open space or

36:19 ↗ you can do fee and loop and if you do

36:20 ↗ fan-loo the money goes into a pot that

36:23 ↗ we have established and then council

36:25 ↗ decides

36:26 ↗ where that money will go whether it will

36:28 ↗ be used for affordable housing or

36:29 ↗ whether it will be used for open space

36:31 ↗ it's a council decision

36:33 ↗ so our pros with this is that this

36:35 ↗ program has yielded 11 units so far and

36:37 ↗ all of them are at 50 percent uh area

36:40 ↗ median income which is great because

36:41 ↗ that's harder to get

36:43 ↗ and we've had about six hundred fifty

36:44 ↗ thousand dollars of fee and lou from a

36:46 ↗ commercial property so this top property

36:48 ↗ is veil so the eleven units are located

36:51 ↗ run locus

36:52 ↗ and seventh and

36:55 ↗ uh the

36:56 ↗ common lofts right here are where we got

36:59 ↗ the fee and lou

37:01 ↗ and then the cons to this is they're

37:03 ↗ only 11 units it's been in place for

37:05 ↗ nine years eight eight years and we've

37:07 ↗ gotten 11 units

37:08 ↗ but the problem is is that the market

37:10 ↗ doesn't demand more density so we're

37:12 ↗ going to get those if a builder comes in

37:14 ↗ and says

37:15 ↗ in order to make a profit off of this i

37:16 ↗ need to build more and right now

37:19 ↗ issaquah isn't demanding that kind of

37:20 ↗ market

37:21 ↗ and it's hard for staff and developers

37:23 ↗ to understand and calculate it i mean

37:25 ↗ trying to explain it the one third the

37:26 ↗ twenty percent of the one-third to

37:28 ↗ two-thirds it's it's confusing

37:30 ↗ so

37:31 ↗ first question for you think about

37:35 ↗ um do you prefer to keep the density

37:37 ↗ bonus program in place

37:39 ↗ or would you like to eliminate this

37:41 ↗ voluntary program

37:45 ↗ want to discuss it now or do you want to

37:47 ↗ keep going

37:49 ↗ i think let's keep going and then we'll

37:51 ↗ have a wonderful discussion

37:53 ↗ okay

37:55 ↗ all right

37:56 ↗ so

37:57 ↗ moving on to our mandatory programs um

38:00 ↗ our mandatory programs we have

38:02 ↗ inclusionary zoning which is only

38:04 ↗ required in three zones

38:07 ↗ within central issaquah our mixed-use

38:09 ↗ central isoquazone

38:12 ↗ our urban core zone which is the red

38:14 ↗ and our vertical mixed-use overlay i'm

38:16 ↗ going to call it a zone to make it

38:17 ↗ easier

38:19 ↗ right here also in centralization

38:21 ↗ we also have cluster housing which can

38:24 ↗ be done anywhere in the city but again

38:26 ↗ it's if you have five or more acres and

38:28 ↗ then we have development agreements

38:29 ↗ which usually require affordable housing

38:31 ↗ again it's anywhere in the city

38:34 ↗ so our inc our mandatory programs are

38:36 ↗ only required in three zones or with

38:38 ↗ development agreements

38:41 ↗ um

38:43 ↗ i will i'll just leave it there um so

38:47 ↗ question is

38:49 ↗ we have one mandatory program right

38:50 ↗ really it's inclusionary zoning so do

38:52 ↗ you wish to add affordable housing

38:54 ↗ programs to our regulations and this is

38:56 ↗ one of the reasons mike's here aside

38:58 ↗ from so many other reasons um

39:00 ↗ but

39:01 ↗ some options may include reducing

39:02 ↗ required parking requirements by x for

39:05 ↗ certain percent of affordable housing

39:07 ↗ units provided or which might be an

39:09 ↗ optional thing it might not be mandatory

39:11 ↗ or allowing mfte or multi-family tax

39:13 ↗ exemptions

39:14 ↗ for residential developments throughout

39:16 ↗ the city or

39:18 ↗ raising the base height and faf floor

39:21 ↗ area ratio in central isfah with maybe

39:24 ↗ the requirement that if we raise the

39:25 ↗ base height then a percentage of an

39:28 ↗ additional percentage of affordable

39:29 ↗ housing housing is required

39:31 ↗ so question three

39:33 ↗ is if you do want to add affordable

39:35 ↗ housing programs do you want to see

39:37 ↗ these applied city-wide or just in

39:40 ↗ central

39:41 ↗ central issaquah because the what's

39:42 ↗ mandatory in central issaquah right now

39:45 ↗ does not cover all of central illicit

39:46 ↗ why it only covers three zones

39:48 ↗ so those are my questions for you and

39:50 ↗ that's all i have

39:56 ↗ thank you kristen

39:57 ↗ so i think um what we'll do is we'll

39:59 ↗ wait for any clarifying questions from

40:01 ↗ the commissioners um we'll take public

40:04 ↗ comment

40:05 ↗ um so they can help inform our

40:07 ↗ discussion

40:09 ↗ and then we'll get to that wonderful

40:10 ↗ discussion

40:13 ↗ i'm just waiting to see and there we go

40:15 ↗ uh from commissioner bader

40:17 ↗ please

40:18 ↗ yeah hi this is sarah bader i have a

40:20 ↗ clarifying question that i think will

40:22 ↗ help me like scope this conversation

40:25 ↗ um what is

40:26 ↗ like kind of

40:28 ↗ allowed or permissible related to

40:30 ↗ affordable housing like within the

40:31 ↗ confines of title 18 because i feel like

40:33 ↗ what should we do about affordable

40:35 ↗ housing is a big question

40:37 ↗ and so i'm wondering like what can we do

40:39 ↗ about affordable housing within title 18

40:45 ↗ a lot

40:47 ↗ and mike could probably help out here

40:49 ↗ but

40:50 ↗ um there are programs out there that we

40:52 ↗ don't use in the city

40:54 ↗ we have a lot of programs um we don't

40:56 ↗ have many mandatory programs but we do

40:58 ↗ have

40:59 ↗ you know with our we were one of the

41:01 ↗ first to waive the fees for people um we

41:04 ↗ do the development agreements which a

41:06 ↗ lot of other cities don't do i

41:08 ↗ um

41:10 ↗ uh you know whatever we're going to do

41:13 ↗ would be included in title 18.

41:17 ↗ so

41:18 ↗ i think i think it's pretty open mike do

41:19 ↗ you have any thoughts on this one

41:25 ↗ i got you you're in oh no you're not

41:29 ↗ there you go

41:31 ↗ okay

41:32 ↗ um actually i don't think i have

41:34 ↗ anything to add uh

41:37 ↗ that would be quick

41:39 ↗ to that

41:40 ↗ uh if your question was

41:44 ↗ um

41:45 ↗ what can we add to title 18 yeah then i

41:48 ↗ think

41:49 ↗ kristin basically

41:51 ↗ you know gave the the general

41:54 ↗ response to that the uh

41:57 ↗ an mfte program would be

41:59 ↗ probably in a separate

42:01 ↗ section of the code

42:03 ↗ most cities put that into their finance

42:06 ↗ or

42:07 ↗ revenue part of the code

42:09 ↗ as opposed to the land use or

42:11 ↗ development side of the code

42:16 ↗ thank you

42:21 ↗ commissioner milligan has a question

42:25 ↗ thank you commissioner milligan here uh

42:29 ↗ my clarifying question is to understand

42:32 ↗ better about what when it's required and

42:35 ↗ when it's an

42:36 ↗ incentive

42:37 ↗ and you know maybe i'll ask the question

42:40 ↗ by saying in central is aqua can you

42:42 ↗ tell me how a developer might

42:45 ↗ be required to do inclusionary zoning

42:48 ↗ and also take advantage of a density

42:50 ↗ bonus because i'm just not quite sure

42:51 ↗ where the intersection is

42:53 ↗ between those two

42:56 ↗ opportunities so if you are located in

43:00 ↗ any of these zones with color on them

43:03 ↗ mixed use urban core or the vertical

43:05 ↗ mixed use some

43:06 ↗ if you do a residential development or a

43:09 ↗ mix even a mixed-use development that

43:11 ↗ sorry you guys are over here now um if a

43:13 ↗ mix of commercial and residential

43:16 ↗ then you are required to do a percentage

43:19 ↗ of affordable housing so if you're in

43:21 ↗ the vertical mixed use zone um you can

43:23 ↗ do

43:24 ↗ the range is anywhere from seven and a

43:25 ↗ half percent of your units have to be

43:27 ↗ affordable up to 12 and a half percent

43:29 ↗ percent and there are like nine

43:30 ↗ different numbers in between um but

43:31 ↗ that's that's what the range is

43:33 ↗ um

43:34 ↗ so those and those you are absolutely

43:36 ↗ required to do it with residential any

43:37 ↗ kind of residential development now

43:40 ↗ i'm still in central supoise

43:43 ↗ um the density bonus

43:45 ↗ anybody can use it it's voluntary

43:48 ↗ if you want to go above the base far

43:51 ↗ and you have then you have to use

43:53 ↗ density bonus but again it's your choice

43:55 ↗ to go above the far or not

43:57 ↗ um but if you are on in one of the zones

44:00 ↗ that's required to do inclusionary

44:03 ↗ you you can do your occlusion

44:05 ↗ inclusionary but still even there if you

44:07 ↗ want to go above the base far then

44:09 ↗ you're still required to do density

44:10 ↗ bonus as well so then you have both

44:12 ↗ programs in play

44:19 ↗ commissioner

44:20 ↗ monahan you my question had to do with

44:23 ↗ number one um about eliminating

44:27 ↗ yeah exactly can you uh kristen talk me

44:29 ↗ through what are some of the advantages

44:30 ↗ to eliminating it i think i get the

44:32 ↗ obvious one which is you want the code

44:34 ↗ to be slimmed down as much as possible

44:36 ↗ but you know maybe if economic

44:38 ↗ circumstances change maybe it could

44:40 ↗ become more valuable so i'm just

44:42 ↗ want to articulate what other advantages

44:44 ↗ would be to eliminate the program at

44:45 ↗ this time

44:46 ↗ yeah i think

44:48 ↗ i think

44:49 ↗ really um

44:50 ↗ this part has been

44:53 ↗ i think you've said it i mean it's it's

44:55 ↗ there but nobody's using it not many

44:58 ↗ people are using it it's been used twice

45:00 ↗ and when we do use it it's very

45:02 ↗ confusing so you know we can keep it and

45:04 ↗ try and simplify it i don't know if

45:06 ↗ we'll get anything from it but then

45:08 ↗ keeping it in place nobody uses it

45:10 ↗ that's okay

45:11 ↗ you know it's still an option and you

45:13 ↗ still may get something out of it

45:15 ↗ um you know the option the other option

45:17 ↗ is just take it out and put in some more

45:20 ↗ mandatory programs or more effective

45:22 ↗ programs and see what you get but

45:25 ↗ you know there's no harm in leaving it

45:26 ↗ in there as long as we can figure out

45:28 ↗ how to use it correctly because i will

45:29 ↗ tell you um you can give this out to

45:31 ↗ different people and get three different

45:32 ↗ answers as to what it's really supposed

45:33 ↗ to be

45:36 ↗ yeah

45:36 ↗ mr chairman do you mind if i jump in

45:38 ↗ here to

45:40 ↗ please

45:41 ↗ i'd just like to

45:43 ↗ add a little bit to what kristen's

45:44 ↗ saying

45:48 ↗ kirkland had a similar uh

45:51 ↗ provision a voluntary density bonus

45:54 ↗ program in their city

45:56 ↗ in the uh through the 2000s and they got

46:00 ↗ they weren't getting much

46:03 ↗ many takers on it or producing many

46:05 ↗ affordable units so what they did

46:08 ↗ at that time was they

46:10 ↗ basically converted it to a mandatory

46:12 ↗ program by saying instead of

46:16 ↗ making it the developers option

46:18 ↗ to

46:19 ↗ take

46:20 ↗ additional

46:22 ↗ development capacity or housing capacity

46:25 ↗ and then

46:27 ↗ give back some affordable units this the

46:30 ↗ city zoned it

46:31 ↗ at made that density increa excuse me

46:36 ↗ the increase as of right

46:38 ↗ so

46:39 ↗ the density

46:41 ↗ was increased

46:43 ↗ and

46:44 ↗ the affordable housing was then required

46:46 ↗ so it was it was not the developers

46:48 ↗ choice anymore

46:51 ↗ they converted their voluntary program

46:52 ↗ to a mandatory program

46:54 ↗ and that could be done um

46:57 ↗ with this

46:58 ↗ with this quest program as well

47:01 ↗ the other thing that

47:02 ↗ that i might as well go ahead and say is

47:05 ↗ that kirkland did at that same time

47:07 ↗ was to

47:10 ↗ add on

47:11 ↗ a multi-family tax exemption

47:14 ↗ so that

47:15 ↗ instead of the affordable units being

47:18 ↗ 80 percent of median they were able to

47:21 ↗ essentially buy down the affordability

47:23 ↗ of those units to 50 percent of median

47:27 ↗ so um

47:29 ↗ those

47:30 ↗ work in tandem and uh

47:33 ↗ have

47:35 ↗ been able to get some pretty significant

47:37 ↗ affordability from their multi-family

47:40 ↗ development

47:48 ↗ thank you

47:50 ↗ if there's any further clarifying

47:52 ↗ questions what we'll do is go to public

47:54 ↗ comment and move into our discussion

47:56 ↗ where again questions are

47:58 ↗ um

47:59 ↗ encouraged so it's not the end of

48:01 ↗ question asking

48:02 ↗ but uh

48:04 ↗ yeah let's go to public comment so we

48:06 ↗ can incorporate their comments into our

48:08 ↗ discussion

48:09 ↗ is there anyone signed up to speak

48:11 ↗ kristen

48:18 ↗ forgot to mute i see one raised hand

48:21 ↗ susan deville would like to speak

48:29 ↗ susan you are a panelist and you are

48:30 ↗ unmuted thank you i'm susan deville i'm

48:33 ↗ still here a long time resident

48:35 ↗ i just want to speak to what we were

48:37 ↗ just talking about which is the

48:39 ↗ multi-family tax exemption

48:42 ↗ for residential if we were to

48:44 ↗ make it mandatory

48:46 ↗ um i think um

48:49 ↗ we don't know the tax ramifications

48:51 ↗ of what this could encompass or maybe we

48:54 ↗ go slowly and be really specific about

48:56 ↗ it

48:57 ↗ um maybe something like

49:01 ↗ make it three-fourths

49:03 ↗ um walking mile to

49:05 ↗ work or a half a mile walking to schools

49:09 ↗ to keep it in areas that we want and

49:11 ↗ also most importantly to see if their

49:14 ↗ state or

49:15 ↗ county backing to help with the cost

49:19 ↗ of this

49:22 ↗ exemption

49:23 ↗ and that's all i want to say thank you

49:30 ↗ anyone else who would like to speak

49:34 ↗ i don't see anyone else who's raised

49:36 ↗ their hand let me check chat

49:42 ↗ oh i don't see anyone else who would

49:44 ↗ like to speak

49:46 ↗ um i'm gonna

49:47 ↗ call a user

49:49 ↗ there's a call in

49:52 ↗ uh and i can't see the phone number it's

49:54 ↗ 206 300.

49:58 ↗ um

50:00 ↗ i don't know if you'd like to speak yes

50:01 ↗ or no

50:02 ↗ have unmuted you

50:07 ↗ no okay

50:09 ↗ all right no then there's no one else

50:10 ↗ i'd like to speak

50:12 ↗ great thank you

50:14 ↗ so this is a

50:15 ↗ real quick question to the fellow my

50:16 ↗ fellow commissioners um how would you

50:19 ↗ guys like to do this piecemeal start

50:20 ↗ with the tdrs or just

50:23 ↗ getting a yes

50:26 ↗ so we will begin with the discussion

50:27 ↗ about the tdrs and then we'll just move

50:29 ↗ through to a discussion with valerie

50:31 ↗ about the

50:32 ↗ uh

50:34 ↗ the landmarks and then we'll we will

50:37 ↗ wrap up with a

50:38 ↗ discussion on affordable housing

50:41 ↗ so let's begin with tdrs

50:45 ↗ looking for comments clarifications

50:48 ↗ questions

50:54 ↗ commissioner milligan

50:58 ↗ i'm first going to ask lucy if she had a

51:00 ↗ question i can't remember can she show

51:02 ↗ us the slide again or get us back to

51:05 ↗ whether there was an objective from the

51:08 ↗ staff

51:09 ↗ that we can hang on

51:11 ↗ and then

51:15 ↗ i wanted

51:17 ↗ very humbly to say while you work on

51:20 ↗ that that

51:21 ↗ i'm

51:22 ↗ generally in support of the tdr program

51:25 ↗ in any way so we can make it better

51:28 ↗ why not let's do it because it's a great

51:30 ↗ way to preserve lands

51:32 ↗ and if the staff is working on ways to

51:35 ↗ preserve it i would generally be in

51:36 ↗ support especially if it has to do with

51:39 ↗ forested hillsides that our code doesn't

51:43 ↗ protect and you know it is very

51:45 ↗ difficult to protect everything through

51:47 ↗ critical areas or otherwise and so i um

51:51 ↗ i think the general direction i'm in

51:53 ↗ favor of and

51:55 ↗ if that's the sort of information you're

51:58 ↗ looking for

51:59 ↗ from us tonight um

52:01 ↗ that's if there's something else let us

52:03 ↗ know

52:04 ↗ thank you

52:06 ↗ so we didn't pose questions

52:09 ↗ uh in particular we were um

52:13 ↗ mainly giving an approach uh to how we

52:16 ↗ were thinking about these

52:18 ↗ we

52:20 ↗ the two items that we identified in the

52:22 ↗ memo is consistent with the title 18

52:26 ↗ update goals

52:27 ↗ policy changes and desired outcome

52:30 ↗ consider

52:31 ↗ tdr use for protecting hillsides

52:34 ↗ and the other was consider facilitation

52:38 ↗ of tdr use with issaquah highlands

52:40 ↗ consistent with the replace its

52:42 ↗ replacement regulations

52:44 ↗ and central esqua because those are both

52:47 ↗ in the plans or

52:49 ↗ in the regulations

52:52 ↗ and

52:54 ↗ so

52:55 ↗ the regulations were updated in 2013 in

52:59 ↗ association with the lakeside

53:01 ↗ development agreement i think that there

53:04 ↗ is some clarification and

53:07 ↗ usability that could be introduced

53:11 ↗ and it will be a bit of a study

53:15 ↗ to

53:16 ↗ determine

53:17 ↗ how to set up a program to protect

53:20 ↗ hillsides you know are we going to

53:21 ↗ designate them in advance

53:23 ↗ are we going to offer criteria to

53:28 ↗ let owners uh come to the city and want

53:31 ↗ to do this

53:32 ↗ uh that's something uh you know we are

53:35 ↗ open to hear from you and that we would

53:38 ↗ be considering as part of uh updating

53:41 ↗ this chapter

53:43 ↗ thank you and and just in in closing i

53:46 ↗ would like to add that where i'm really

53:49 ↗ excited about looking at other

53:50 ↗ opportunities for sending sites um i'm

53:53 ↗ not at all interested in expanding our

53:56 ↗ receiving sites just to say something

53:58 ↗ that hasn't been mentioned but in case

54:01 ↗ it would be

54:02 ↗ i think we have plenty of receiving

54:04 ↗ sites

54:06 ↗ in my opinion thank you that's it for me

54:09 ↗ thank you

54:17 ↗ anyone else would like to speak about

54:18 ↗ tdrs

54:22 ↗ so i'll put in my two cents as well i

54:25 ↗ was having a dinner last night with a

54:26 ↗ friend

54:28 ↗ and the

54:29 ↗ the topic of costa rica came up the

54:32 ↗ conservation nation

54:34 ↗ and what we were talking about is before

54:36 ↗ in the 80s they had a tremendous amount

54:38 ↗ of logging going on

54:40 ↗ but in the 80s they completely changed

54:43 ↗ course

54:44 ↗ and they started basically completely

54:46 ↗ zoning off areas of cloud forest

54:48 ↗ rainforest

54:50 ↗ reservoirs reservations

54:52 ↗ but what they also understood is that

54:54 ↗ the majority of their population lived

54:56 ↗ around the capital

54:58 ↗ and they couldn't continue to regulate

55:00 ↗ the capital to death because this is

55:01 ↗ where their growth was happening

55:03 ↗ i generally support the tdrs i think

55:05 ↗ it's a good program

55:07 ↗ i don't

55:08 ↗ necessarily agree

55:10 ↗ with my fellow commissioner as far as

55:12 ↗ the receiving sites

55:14 ↗ because i think there has to be an

55:15 ↗ incentive if the city which it has

55:18 ↗ made our forested hillsides a top

55:21 ↗ priority i'm all for it

55:23 ↗ but we also cannot regulate where we

55:25 ↗ want our growth to death

55:28 ↗ up again if this is our goal is to focus

55:31 ↗ that energy and that density um you know

55:34 ↗ we also need to understand that we have

55:37 ↗ different targets to hit

55:38 ↗ we have our population that's going to

55:40 ↗ continue to grow

55:42 ↗ so that would that was kind of the

55:43 ↗ conversation that i had with a friend

55:45 ↗ but like my fellow commissioner i am so

55:47 ↗ supportive of this program

55:49 ↗ and i believe anything that helps

55:51 ↗ anything get streamlined

55:53 ↗ um in any type of governance is always a

55:55 ↗ good thing

55:56 ↗ and and you bring up a great um point uh

56:00 ↗ chair voice

56:01 ↗ you know one of the things that

56:02 ↗ washington state has

56:04 ↗ that not every state in the u.s has is

56:07 ↗ um the urban growth boundaries

56:10 ↗ uh and that defines areas in which

56:15 ↗ not ever

56:16 ↗ sorry not every county

56:19 ↗ has to participate in growth management

56:22 ↗ but most of the counties in western

56:24 ↗ washington do because of the level of

56:26 ↗ activity

56:27 ↗ and in those counties there are lines

56:29 ↗ drawn

56:30 ↗ and inside that is where growth can take

56:33 ↗ place outside of that their

56:36 ↗ lower density as well as protection of

56:39 ↗ ag land and farmland so that's sort of a

56:42 ↗ macro level of protection that the state

56:45 ↗ has

56:47 ↗ which is sounds uh potentially like

56:49 ↗ something that you're talking about with

56:51 ↗ costa rica and so the tdrs is a more

56:55 ↗ fine-grained tool that we can consider

56:57 ↗ using within the city limits within the

57:00 ↗ urban growth boundary

57:02 ↗ to try and protect lands that

57:06 ↗ are in the areas where growth can take

57:08 ↗ place but which we may not want to

57:11 ↗ develop

57:12 ↗ right now the city is generally at

57:16 ↗ you know

57:17 ↗ post-urban villages and some of the big

57:20 ↗ development agreement areas like esquire

57:22 ↗ highlands and telus

57:25 ↗ the focus has been

57:28 ↗ uh growth

57:29 ↗ in central iskwa and on the valley floor

57:33 ↗ and um kristin knows this

57:35 ↗ best of any of us

57:37 ↗ but i believe there are buildable lands

57:40 ↗ um

57:41 ↗ it would be redevelopment but there are

57:44 ↗ quite a bit of buildable land um within

57:47 ↗ central escort

57:51 ↗ thank you lucy yeah no i think it's it's

57:53 ↗ worked well for our city um and like i

57:56 ↗ said if it strengthen it

57:58 ↗ strengthens it i think it's appropriate

58:02 ↗ again it's it's one of our

58:04 ↗ top priorities is to protect and

58:06 ↗ maintain our beautiful mountains and

58:08 ↗ forests so

58:10 ↗ but there has to be some give and take

58:12 ↗ for that

58:14 ↗ any other comments as far as tdrs for ms

58:17 ↗ sloman

58:19 ↗ commissioner saracosa

58:22 ↗ uh richard zaragoza i

58:24 ↗ i don't really have like

58:26 ↗ a huge opinion on it on this except that

58:28 ↗ it makes perfect sense you know let's

58:30 ↗ protect the hillsides let's transfer

58:32 ↗ density to

58:34 ↗ the core

58:35 ↗ it feels like a slam dunk and if we you

58:37 ↗ know

58:38 ↗ we should do it

58:40 ↗ i think you know certainly

58:42 ↗ how flexible we are with that you know

58:45 ↗ is something to be discussed i don't i

58:47 ↗ haven't heard enough detail to discuss

58:49 ↗ whether you know we do expand out from

58:52 ↗ the core i don't think that's that's the

58:53 ↗ question we're being asked right now

58:55 ↗ it's like if we increase density in the

58:57 ↗ core and remove it from remove it from

58:59 ↗ the hillsides i think it's a simple

59:01 ↗ concept and it makes a lot of sense to

59:02 ↗ me

59:04 ↗ but if we were to get into those

59:06 ↗ nitty-gritty details i i think that

59:08 ↗ would be interesting

59:10 ↗ well and and you bring up another good

59:12 ↗ point uh which is that when we were

59:15 ↗ ending the esco highlands development

59:18 ↗ agreement there was a big discussion

59:19 ↗ about

59:20 ↗ tdrs

59:21 ↗ and in the end

59:23 ↗ the council

59:25 ↗ established a quarter mile from issaquah

59:28 ↗ highlands park and ride

59:30 ↗ and non-residential properties as the

59:33 ↗ limits

59:34 ↗ but right now you would have to go

59:36 ↗ through a council amendment process to

59:38 ↗ be able to use tdrs

59:40 ↗ and so

59:43 ↗ that is uh for an example of where it

59:47 ↗ um we might want to explore an easier

59:50 ↗ way to use tdrs in the air the area has

59:54 ↗ been designated on the map

59:56 ↗ um but the ability to use them is more

1:00:00 ↗ burdensome than it would be elsewhere in

1:00:02 ↗ the city

1:00:13 ↗ thank you

1:00:18 ↗ i'll just let it sit out there for a few

1:00:20 ↗ seconds

1:00:21 ↗ any final commentary as far as uh mrs

1:00:24 ↗ loman's presentation or tdrs

1:00:31 ↗ all right moving along

1:00:33 ↗ um now we'll be speaking to

1:00:38 ↗ miss valerie

1:00:39 ↗ on

1:00:41 ↗ our landmarks and archaeology

1:00:43 ↗ so please feel free to put any comments

1:00:45 ↗ questions

1:00:47 ↗ into the chat

1:01:05 ↗ i'm not seeing any i think valerie it

1:01:07 ↗ was such a great presentation

1:01:09 ↗ that

1:01:10 ↗ we've had everything answered and i

1:01:12 ↗ think it seems pretty straightforward as

1:01:14 ↗ far as what you guys are trying to

1:01:15 ↗ accomplish um tidying it up

1:01:18 ↗ it just seems very straightforward makes

1:01:20 ↗ a lot of common sense i do think i

1:01:22 ↗ believe it was commissioner milligan who

1:01:23 ↗ had maybe mentioned

1:01:25 ↗ an interesting conversation as far as

1:01:30 ↗ yes we have certain different things

1:01:32 ↗ that are different from the king county

1:01:34 ↗ code but it would be interesting that

1:01:35 ↗ we're not continually having to amend it

1:01:38 ↗ through i think the docket

1:01:40 ↗ if maybe we just kind of put some

1:01:42 ↗ language in there that says

1:01:43 ↗ you know refer to what our king county

1:01:45 ↗ code is update it along with king county

1:01:48 ↗ it's an interesting discussion but

1:01:50 ↗ i think the rest of it seems pretty

1:01:52 ↗ straightforward having said that we do

1:01:54 ↗ have a comment from commissioner monahan

1:01:57 ↗ yeah sorry i couldn't help myself matt

1:01:59 ↗ monahan i have to play the lawyer and

1:02:00 ↗ just ask that i i'm supportive of the

1:02:03 ↗ concept of not having to re-update it

1:02:05 ↗ but i'd like to make sure that the

1:02:07 ↗ lawyer says that's okay you basically

1:02:09 ↗ have a body of law that says you know to

1:02:11 ↗ the extent this other body of law which

1:02:13 ↗ is controlled by another jurisdiction is

1:02:14 ↗ updated we automatically update it i

1:02:17 ↗ just want to make sure that that's

1:02:18 ↗ kosher from a

1:02:20 ↗ municipal

1:02:21 ↗ law perspective so

1:02:23 ↗ supportive but want to make sure it's

1:02:24 ↗ legal

1:02:27 ↗ so as part of the title 18 process we do

1:02:30 ↗ have an attorney who's reviewing a lot

1:02:32 ↗ of these things to make sure that we're

1:02:34 ↗ in compliance so of course

1:02:36 ↗ um so i do think that commissioner

1:02:38 ↗ millington proposed

1:02:40 ↗ or posed a great question that i would

1:02:42 ↗ like to get a little bit more feedback

1:02:44 ↗ on um are you guys more leaning towards

1:02:48 ↗ adopting or referencing the adopted king

1:02:51 ↗ county code or would we

1:02:53 ↗ like to basically implement that into

1:02:55 ↗ title 18.

1:03:01 ↗ looking for some commentary um

1:03:04 ↗ i'm but we'll just do a very quick round

1:03:05 ↗ robin i i am supportive of anything that

1:03:08 ↗ makes it easier

1:03:09 ↗ to use and again if if this kind of

1:03:12 ↗ slows down the wheels of bureaucracy

1:03:15 ↗ i'm not as much in favor for so as long

1:03:17 ↗ as like mr monahan said as long as it's

1:03:20 ↗ legal

1:03:21 ↗ um i would be supportive of that i think

1:03:22 ↗ that makes a lot of sense myself

1:03:25 ↗ so i'm gonna go over to i'm just gonna

1:03:27 ↗ call people real quickly so we can move

1:03:28 ↗ along um

1:03:30 ↗ commissioner bader

1:03:32 ↗ yeah

1:03:33 ↗ i agree it makes sense to me

1:03:35 ↗ whatever's easiest

1:03:36 ↗ commissioner monahan

1:03:39 ↗ supportive

1:03:41 ↗ commissioner

1:03:43 ↗ yeah saragosa

1:03:43 ↗ makes sense to me

1:03:45 ↗ and commissioner milligan

1:03:48 ↗ uh yes i still do like that idea but one

1:03:51 ↗ thing that i noticed uh valerie and what

1:03:52 ↗ you mentioned about other times that we

1:03:54 ↗ refer

1:03:55 ↗ is perhaps when we are obligated to

1:03:59 ↗ provide that

1:04:01 ↗ that the other jurisdiction

1:04:03 ↗ overrules any of our authority now in

1:04:06 ↗ this case we're voluntarily adopting

1:04:09 ↗ we don't have to take on the king county

1:04:11 ↗ if i'm understanding this correctly so

1:04:13 ↗ that puts us in a little different

1:04:14 ↗ position in referring it and then the

1:04:16 ↗ only last thing that and i'm just saying

1:04:18 ↗ that is you know something to think

1:04:19 ↗ about then the other um is

1:04:22 ↗ uh if there was a way to put a hook in

1:04:26 ↗ there that says that we adopt the code

1:04:30 ↗ and

1:04:32 ↗ how we would review what would be the

1:04:34 ↗ process of an automatic review and

1:04:36 ↗ adoption of updates

1:04:39 ↗ you know and um you just can't say that

1:04:41 ↗ we'll take anything that they update

1:04:44 ↗ because we might not agree on the update

1:04:46 ↗ so i haven't solved that part for it

1:04:49 ↗ maybe there's a way to make that

1:04:50 ↗ glamorous too so general line for it

1:04:55 ↗ we could also possibly have maybe

1:04:57 ↗ commissioner monahan draft something is

1:04:59 ↗ as long as this uh you know very vague

1:05:02 ↗ language that

1:05:03 ↗ we're okay with the referral as long as

1:05:06 ↗ it doesn't do any demonstrable damage to

1:05:08 ↗ the city right something so vague that

1:05:09 ↗ only

1:05:11 ↗ city of israel can figure out if there's

1:05:12 ↗ any type of damage so

1:05:14 ↗ well said

1:05:16 ↗ uh commissioner milligan i know you also

1:05:18 ↗ had a comment previously

1:05:21 ↗ nope

1:05:23 ↗ all right so again i will let it sit out

1:05:25 ↗ there for a few seconds if we have any

1:05:26 ↗ further questions from valerie

1:05:30 ↗ we're melon

1:05:37 ↗ great thank you valerie

1:05:39 ↗ all right

1:05:40 ↗ for the big discussion we are going to

1:05:43 ↗ affordable housing

1:05:46 ↗ and please feel free again to put your

1:05:48 ↗ comments questions in the chat

1:05:51 ↗ and we will let kristin take it away

1:05:53 ↗ well i just want to throw it out there

1:05:55 ↗ that i recognize that this has the

1:05:56 ↗ potential to be a really huge discussion

1:05:58 ↗ we could spend a year on just this and

1:06:01 ↗ it's not just

1:06:02 ↗ affordable housing with covenants but

1:06:04 ↗ affordable housing market rate which i

1:06:06 ↗ called type 2 tonight um you know that's

1:06:09 ↗ another type of affordable housing and

1:06:11 ↗ and we're going to get to that piece if

1:06:13 ↗ you know we get if this grant is

1:06:14 ↗ approved and that sort of thing um so i

1:06:16 ↗ think maybe part of this discussion is

1:06:19 ↗ you may throw some ideas out there and

1:06:21 ↗ we go

1:06:22 ↗ that's a great idea but we might have to

1:06:24 ↗ put it on you know table it because it

1:06:27 ↗ will take a year to figure it out you

1:06:28 ↗ know market analysis and all that kind

1:06:30 ↗ of stuff that goes with it um but it may

1:06:33 ↗ be an idea that we go you know that's a

1:06:34 ↗ pretty simple fix

1:06:36 ↗ you know um

1:06:38 ↗ there is an affordable housing chapter

1:06:39 ↗ 1821 and

1:06:42 ↗ mike has been through that with us and

1:06:43 ↗ said you know what

1:06:46 ↗ we have this program here in your code

1:06:48 ↗ but the way we've done it in redmond and

1:06:51 ↗ kirkland is much more effective than

1:06:53 ↗ what we have here so let's consider

1:06:54 ↗ changing that

1:06:56 ↗ so those are some of the changes in this

1:06:57 ↗ chapter that we're proposing making but

1:07:00 ↗ um we just want to get the idea of

1:07:03 ↗ finding ways to get more

1:07:05 ↗ tonight affordable housing with

1:07:07 ↗ covenants out there so

1:07:08 ↗ it's it's a discussion

1:07:10 ↗ yeah it's just right

1:07:12 ↗ let's just let's just do it

1:07:14 ↗ the right and we we definitely have our

1:07:16 ↗ helpful one two three questions or so we

1:07:18 ↗ can also put those back up

1:07:20 ↗ we can take it as far as just starting

1:07:22 ↗ off real quickly with question one

1:07:24 ↗ question two question three and then

1:07:26 ↗ basically allowing the rest of the time

1:07:28 ↗ for people to

1:07:29 ↗ to speak i'm

1:07:31 ↗ i i don't mind however way we go it

1:07:34 ↗ might add a little bit more order do you

1:07:35 ↗ want to just toss up question one sure

1:07:37 ↗ i'm like i'll just say that once it's

1:07:39 ↗ pretty easy question one was do you want

1:07:41 ↗ to keep the dnc pro density program or

1:07:44 ↗ just cut it

1:07:49 ↗ i believe

1:07:51 ↗ i believe commissioner milligan or is

1:07:53 ↗ that an old

1:07:54 ↗ one that's a new one okay 740

1:07:57 ↗ commissioner milligan please

1:07:59 ↗ i think you saw me reach for my keyboard

1:08:03 ↗ uh commissioner milligan here

1:08:05 ↗ i do not want to get rid of the density

1:08:08 ↗ bonus program i do want to know

1:08:12 ↗ in the title 18 cleanup

1:08:15 ↗ how much change is appropriate

1:08:19 ↗ to bring

1:08:20 ↗ the code into compliance with the plan

1:08:23 ↗ now if the fact that

1:08:26 ↗ it's not producing doesn't mean it's

1:08:28 ↗ inconsistent with the plan that just

1:08:30 ↗ means we haven't gotten that many new

1:08:32 ↗ buildings or whatever

1:08:34 ↗ so i i do want to try to control

1:08:38 ↗ [Music]

1:08:39 ↗ the breadth of the changes that we might

1:08:42 ↗ make in this title 18 cleanup

1:08:44 ↗ so that we do stay true to the

1:08:49 ↗ cleaning it up rather than changing it

1:08:51 ↗ but with that

1:08:53 ↗ the

1:08:54 ↗ density bonus program has

1:08:58 ↗ two thirds of it that can be mitigated

1:09:01 ↗ if i'm understanding correctly

1:09:03 ↗ and that was the part that caught my eye

1:09:06 ↗ not only does it make it more confusing

1:09:07 ↗ which is one thing we're trying to do

1:09:09 ↗ with the title 18 is make it less

1:09:10 ↗ confusing so why do we have two thirds

1:09:13 ↗ of it or any of it

1:09:17 ↗ that you could mitigate it at all i mean

1:09:19 ↗ mitigation is just another way of

1:09:21 ↗ expressing well i really kind of wanted

1:09:23 ↗ this but i don't want it that much so

1:09:24 ↗ you can pay me instead

1:09:26 ↗ uh i think that

1:09:28 ↗ we could clean it up by just making the

1:09:30 ↗ density bonus have

1:09:32 ↗ an affordable housing requirement

1:09:35 ↗ it can be those um

1:09:36 ↗ levels of affordability but rather than

1:09:39 ↗ having mitigation options with pay and

1:09:41 ↗ low

1:09:43 ↗ drop them just make it all one thing

1:09:46 ↗ or if you want it really clean and you

1:09:49 ↗ didn't want to keep that density bonus

1:09:52 ↗ uh program just make it an extension of

1:09:55 ↗ the inclusionary zoning so if you do go

1:09:57 ↗ over

1:09:58 ↗ you know maybe you've got some other

1:10:00 ↗ incentive in the density bonus thing but

1:10:02 ↗ if you do go over the base farm

1:10:05 ↗ the

1:10:07 ↗ the

1:10:08 ↗ affordability requirement

1:10:10 ↗ expands with the building

1:10:14 ↗ something like that

1:10:20 ↗ thank you uh commissioner bader

1:10:23 ↗ yeah hi sister vader is going to make

1:10:25 ↗ almost the exact same comment i think

1:10:27 ↗ i'm i'm a little stuck on this 40

1:10:30 ↗ goal which just seems gigantic to me

1:10:32 ↗ and so i think in light of that like we

1:10:34 ↗ should not be cutting you know even 11

1:10:36 ↗ units is like a little tiny teeny tiny

1:10:39 ↗ bit closer to that 40 percent goal but i

1:10:42 ↗ agree i'm not sure um especially since

1:10:45 ↗ it doesn't seem to be used all that much

1:10:47 ↗ um why there are

1:10:50 ↗ either mitigation or fee and lou why

1:10:51 ↗ don't we just make it um you know

1:10:54 ↗ straight affordable housing requirements

1:10:56 ↗ um

1:10:58 ↗ part of the reason for the fee in lieu

1:11:00 ↗ is for commercial properties because

1:11:02 ↗ they don't do residential so that that's

1:11:04 ↗ one of the reasons to leave that piece

1:11:06 ↗ in at least for the one-third

1:11:07 ↗ um and one of the reasons that it is

1:11:10 ↗ actually a reason um and i'm having to

1:11:12 ↗ think back a while but it was a council

1:11:14 ↗ discussion and we wanted to do density

1:11:16 ↗ bonus

1:11:17 ↗ and i believe at the time they said well

1:11:20 ↗ the

1:11:21 ↗ open space is just preserving open space

1:11:24 ↗ is just as important as getting

1:11:25 ↗ affordable housing that was the

1:11:26 ↗ discussion at the time

1:11:28 ↗ which is why

1:11:29 ↗ this fell into the affordable housing

1:11:32 ↗ section

1:11:32 ↗ or

1:11:34 ↗ because um

1:11:35 ↗ you know the one-third was dedicated to

1:11:37 ↗ affordable housing but this was another

1:11:39 ↗ way to help preserve open space in an

1:11:41 ↗ area where in central illinois the big

1:11:43 ↗ concern was this whole place is going to

1:11:44 ↗ be developed and we're not going to

1:11:46 ↗ we're going to lose a bunch of our open

1:11:47 ↗ space so that was a discussion at the

1:11:49 ↗ time

1:11:50 ↗ and

1:11:51 ↗ it i'm it could be opened up again but

1:11:54 ↗ you know and that was that was eight

1:11:56 ↗ nine ten years ago

1:11:58 ↗ so

1:11:59 ↗ you may have been a council member

1:12:02 ↗ to mr milligan i can't remember at the

1:12:03 ↗ time so you may remember the

1:12:04 ↗ conversation too is what i'm thinking

1:12:15 ↗ thanks sure but i'm now conflicted and

1:12:18 ↗ confused

1:12:19 ↗ i thought i had an opinion but now i i i

1:12:22 ↗ think my head's on other things now but

1:12:24 ↗ um

1:12:26 ↗ i'm on the fence about whether it should

1:12:28 ↗ stay or not because it doesn't seem to

1:12:30 ↗ be hurting anything

1:12:32 ↗ um and maybe it'll be good in the future

1:12:34 ↗ but at the same time

1:12:36 ↗ i feel like if it's a if it's a priority

1:12:39 ↗ for the city then why not increase our

1:12:40 ↗ mandatory

1:12:42 ↗ requirements right why why make it an

1:12:45 ↗ incentive

1:12:46 ↗ and and if we're willing to raise the

1:12:48 ↗ height the height of buildings why don't

1:12:50 ↗ we just raise the height of buildings

1:12:51 ↗ and increase that mandatory requirement

1:12:55 ↗ so

1:12:57 ↗ i just want to be clear yeah we haven't

1:12:59 ↗ talked about raising the height of

1:13:00 ↗ buildings that would scare people

1:13:02 ↗ um we've talked about raising just the

1:13:04 ↗ base height so maybe basically 50 feet

1:13:07 ↗ which is the base and 100 the max but

1:13:10 ↗ we're not talking about raising the max

1:13:12 ↗ we've just sort of just thrown things

1:13:13 ↗ around just talked about raising the

1:13:15 ↗ base okay i don't want anybody to what

1:13:19 ↗ okay

1:13:24 ↗ so yeah i'm on the fence

1:13:26 ↗ i'm not sure which way to go on this

1:13:29 ↗ thanks

1:13:35 ↗ commissioner million

1:13:39 ↗ this is so fun commissioner milligan

1:13:41 ↗ here okay kristen let's make it the

1:13:44 ↗ density bonus

1:13:45 ↗ you get the density bonus if you do

1:13:47 ↗ affordable housing

1:13:48 ↗ and open space

1:13:52 ↗ do them both

1:13:53 ↗ what the heck

1:14:01 ↗ i want to i think i mentioned it but i

1:14:03 ↗ may not have and it was just pointed out

1:14:05 ↗ to me that the open space can either be

1:14:07 ↗ purchased open space and dedicated event

1:14:09 ↗ space or can be done through tdrs

1:14:11 ↗ so i needed to throw i think it was in

1:14:14 ↗ my slide but i needed to throw that out

1:14:16 ↗ there again in case i didn't mention it

1:14:17 ↗ so

1:14:18 ↗ but you're saying do both huh

1:14:27 ↗ commissioner zaragoza

1:14:29 ↗ thanks i just wanted to add that that's

1:14:31 ↗ what was in my head could we use tdrs to

1:14:33 ↗ increase open space or move it from one

1:14:36 ↗ location to another so that's awesome

1:14:38 ↗ that's great

1:14:43 ↗ commissioner bader

1:14:44 ↗ yeah sorry my dog's going nuts in the

1:14:46 ↗ back i don't know if you can can hear

1:14:48 ↗ him but

1:14:49 ↗ um

1:14:51 ↗ with that because i heard you say before

1:14:53 ↗ that part of the reason for having the

1:14:55 ↗ open space requirement was to

1:14:57 ↗ create open space in central issaquah

1:15:00 ↗ but

1:15:01 ↗ it sounds like that's not necessarily

1:15:03 ↗ the case in which case i'm back to

1:15:05 ↗ supporting kind of dropping that

1:15:08 ↗ and i don't know if it was to say that

1:15:10 ↗ in central issaquad but there was this

1:15:12 ↗ concern that there was going to be so

1:15:14 ↗ much development in central issaquad

1:15:15 ↗ that there wasn't going to be any green

1:15:17 ↗ space left there so either in central or

1:15:19 ↗ outside people just wanted to find a way

1:15:21 ↗ to preserve open space okay

1:15:30 ↗ um and if i could just add and i i think

1:15:34 ↗ it is

1:15:35 ↗ an interesting

1:15:37 ↗ option that doesn't really get discussed

1:15:39 ↗ very much the use of tdrs in central

1:15:41 ↗ isqua

1:15:43 ↗ but if it was

1:15:45 ↗ less discretionary for instance that

1:15:48 ↗ would be one way of transferring

1:15:50 ↗ development from hillsides

1:15:53 ↗ into central iskwa is through the use of

1:15:56 ↗ tdrs

1:15:58 ↗ now the question is

1:15:59 ↗ how you would write that program i'll

1:16:01 ↗ leave that up to kristin

1:16:04 ↗ but um

1:16:07 ↗ i think there is some rationale that um

1:16:10 ↗ it might be

1:16:11 ↗ tied to

1:16:13 ↗ maybe non-residential properties

1:16:29 ↗ thank you i

1:16:30 ↗ i guess i will go last i didn't put my

1:16:32 ↗ name in the comment box but again i i

1:16:35 ↗ think it seems to be harmless and as far

1:16:38 ↗ as there's the last sentence

1:16:40 ↗ um however with vacant land becoming

1:16:42 ↗ less available and planning for light

1:16:43 ↗ rail which

1:16:45 ↗ is still we'll see

1:16:47 ↗ uh in central elizaquah in the near

1:16:49 ↗ future denser development is likely to

1:16:51 ↗ occur in this area so even though the

1:16:53 ↗ program hasn't seen a lot of use today

1:16:57 ↗ it doesn't necessarily mean that it

1:16:59 ↗ couldn't be utilized

1:17:01 ↗ more fully in the future

1:17:08 ↗ all right seeing no further comments

1:17:09 ↗ let's go on to question two

1:17:12 ↗ i'd like to summarize question one so i

1:17:15 ↗ started here

1:17:16 ↗ and i had

1:17:17 ↗ keep go fence and both right actually i

1:17:20 ↗ just started off with keep and go and

1:17:22 ↗ then i wound up with fence and both and

1:17:24 ↗ i've got little marks in every one of

1:17:25 ↗ them

1:17:26 ↗ i think what i heard

1:17:28 ↗ if the consensus is keep it

1:17:31 ↗ yes okay i see all knots and then

1:17:34 ↗ potentially

1:17:36 ↗ just sort of take a look

1:17:38 ↗ at doing both or finding another way to

1:17:41 ↗ get tdrs in there just for commercial

1:17:43 ↗ only

1:17:44 ↗ um

1:17:47 ↗ and then i heard also just make it just

1:17:49 ↗ affordable housing and not open space so

1:17:52 ↗ um if i could just get a little

1:17:53 ↗ clarification there

1:17:55 ↗ that would be great

1:18:00 ↗ all right commission this is on us

1:18:02 ↗ looking for clarification for kristin

1:18:04 ↗ and i see you

1:18:05 ↗ can i just um add two cents to the

1:18:08 ↗ conversation before you get into uh the

1:18:10 ↗ pros and cons of each one

1:18:13 ↗ i think um in terms of

1:18:16 ↗ the goals if the goal is to get more

1:18:19 ↗ affordable housing keeping a density

1:18:21 ↗ bonus doesn't hurt but it doesn't

1:18:24 ↗ deliver the additional affordable

1:18:26 ↗ housing units that is

1:18:28 ↗ sort of the dilemma that we need to kind

1:18:30 ↗ of unbundle right

1:18:32 ↗ so what will

1:18:33 ↗ if the goal is to get more affordable

1:18:35 ↗ housing if

1:18:37 ↗ and you know we all need to kind of

1:18:38 ↗ agree to

1:18:39 ↗ look at you that if that's the goal then

1:18:41 ↗ our job is to make sure that you have a

1:18:44 ↗ fuller understanding of why you know

1:18:46 ↗ what mike was talking about like

1:18:47 ↗ kirkland's approach in redmond's

1:18:49 ↗ approach

1:18:50 ↗ um we can provide more information in

1:18:52 ↗ terms of how much how many additional

1:18:54 ↗ units their program has resulted in and

1:18:57 ↗ why that that was more of a success

1:18:59 ↗ than our current density bonus program

1:19:03 ↗ perhaps um if or mike can maybe take a

1:19:06 ↗ little bit more

1:19:07 ↗ time to kind of

1:19:08 ↗ you know provide additional detail i

1:19:10 ↗ want to make sure everyone has all the

1:19:12 ↗ information about

1:19:14 ↗ um

1:19:15 ↗ it's no harm to keep it in but it's not

1:19:17 ↗ going to get us more units because going

1:19:19 ↗ from a base height of 85 to 125 feet

1:19:23 ↗ uh

1:19:24 ↗ the developers are going to look at the

1:19:25 ↗ performer and go this doesn't you know

1:19:28 ↗ why would we go up to 125 feet when we

1:19:31 ↗ um get this much so why does it work for

1:19:34 ↗ for those um why is our program not

1:19:37 ↗ successful as part of the equation i

1:19:39 ↗ think that we need to kind of

1:19:41 ↗ be more

1:19:42 ↗ careful that we are giving you all that

1:19:44 ↗ information

1:19:46 ↗ i see someone sharing the slides and

1:19:47 ↗ let's uh interesting so i pulled this up

1:19:50 ↗ mike actually put this together for

1:19:51 ↗ another presentation that he and i did

1:19:54 ↗ and i asked him if he could throw

1:19:56 ↗ issaquah in the mix um sarah had asked a

1:19:59 ↗ question in her email and how we

1:20:00 ↗ compared with other cities

1:20:02 ↗ and

1:20:03 ↗ mike can explain this a little better

1:20:05 ↗ actually a lot better

1:20:07 ↗ than i can so

1:20:09 ↗ mike has said i'm going to let you talk

1:20:10 ↗ in a second but mike has said he would

1:20:12 ↗ be happy to come back and do a much more

1:20:13 ↗ in-depth um discussion about

1:20:15 ↗ other programs what other cities do we

1:20:17 ↗ do like i said this is kind of a

1:20:20 ↗ up here discussion and let's just

1:20:21 ↗ explore it but mike do you want to jump

1:20:23 ↗ in and

1:20:26 ↗ sure thanks again my name is mike

1:20:28 ↗ stenger i'm a planner at arch

1:20:33 ↗ and um

1:20:36 ↗ the city of bellingham and whatcom

1:20:38 ↗ county asked us to talk about

1:20:41 ↗ inclusionary housing so that's that kind

1:20:43 ↗ of how this is oriented

1:20:49 ↗ sorry i had to clear my throat there

1:20:52 ↗ um

1:20:52 ↗ red let me just start with the bottom of

1:20:55 ↗ this chart i guess redmond started their

1:20:59 ↗ inclusionary or mandatory program by

1:21:01 ↗ upzoning their downtown

1:21:05 ↗ in the early 90s and then

1:21:07 ↗ over time they

1:21:09 ↗ expanded those requirements to other

1:21:12 ↗ now

1:21:13 ↗ one basic thing that we should

1:21:15 ↗ understand is that

1:21:17 ↗ mandatory programs have to come with

1:21:21 ↗ uh

1:21:22 ↗ in conjunction with providing some

1:21:24 ↗ benefit to the property owners or

1:21:26 ↗ developers usually in the form of

1:21:29 ↗ increasing

1:21:30 ↗ the development capacity or density of

1:21:32 ↗ the property

1:21:34 ↗ but something that adds value for the

1:21:35 ↗ developer as well as

1:21:37 ↗ in exchange for getting

1:21:40 ↗ the

1:21:42 ↗ affordable housing

1:21:44 ↗ in a voluntary program you do the same

1:21:46 ↗ thing but since it's the developer's

1:21:48 ↗ choice whether to take it or not you

1:21:50 ↗ usually have to give the developer a lot

1:21:53 ↗ more

1:21:54 ↗ to convince them to take it

1:21:56 ↗ whereas with a mandatory program

1:21:59 ↗ city decides what the exchange is going

1:22:02 ↗ to be

1:22:03 ↗ so redmond started this program in the

1:22:04 ↗ 90s

1:22:06 ↗ they understood at that time that the

1:22:08 ↗ market wasn't there for them yet and it

1:22:10 ↗ did take about 15 years before they

1:22:13 ↗ started getting real

1:22:14 ↗ a development in their downtown but once

1:22:16 ↗ they did they got all these

1:22:19 ↗ affordable units that you see in the

1:22:21 ↗ bottom line mandatory no mfte

1:22:26 ↗ about five years ago they looked at what

1:22:28 ↗ kirkland was doing and said how can we

1:22:31 ↗ get deeper affordability

1:22:33 ↗ because their mandatory program just

1:22:35 ↗ required

1:22:36 ↗ units affordable at 80 median

1:22:40 ↗ so they added mfte on top of that

1:22:44 ↗ as an option and

1:22:46 ↗ the

1:22:47 ↗ the next

1:22:48 ↗ line up from the bottom is the newer

1:22:50 ↗ program where they're starting to get

1:22:54 ↗ rental housing at eighty sixty percent

1:22:57 ↗ of median sorry

1:22:59 ↗ uh kirkland i talked about earlier

1:23:02 ↗ they have kind of a mishmash of

1:23:04 ↗ different

1:23:05 ↗ you know zones and requirements but

1:23:09 ↗ most of their

1:23:10 ↗ multifamily areas

1:23:12 ↗ require

1:23:14 ↗ now

1:23:16 ↗ affordability for rental at 50

1:23:21 ↗ which is one of the the few programs

1:23:24 ↗ that's getting that kind of result

1:23:27 ↗ and they combine that they basically

1:23:30 ↗ you can't require mfte but

1:23:33 ↗ the deal is that they require

1:23:36 ↗ 50 of median and

1:23:40 ↗ by doing that you also qualify for mfte

1:23:45 ↗ jumping up to bellevue um

1:23:48 ↗ bellevue has

1:23:50 ↗ had a mandatory program in the early 90s

1:23:54 ↗ and then

1:23:55 ↗ got a lot of pushback mainly from

1:23:58 ↗ single-family developers and the city

1:24:00 ↗ council actually

1:24:02 ↗ changed over an election and repealed it

1:24:05 ↗ so since then bellevue has been very

1:24:09 ↗ voluntary oriented

1:24:13 ↗ and as i said

1:24:16 ↗ in order to get some a developer to

1:24:19 ↗ accept your voluntary

1:24:22 ↗ program for affordable housing you have

1:24:23 ↗ to really sweeten the deal for them

1:24:27 ↗ and so far that they have not gotten the

1:24:30 ↗ results that

1:24:32 ↗ uh redmond has had for example although

1:24:35 ↗ um i checked the permits the

1:24:37 ↗ multi-family permits during this same

1:24:39 ↗ period since 2010

1:24:42 ↗ and the multifamily units have been

1:24:45 ↗ permitted

1:24:46 ↗ in bellevue

1:24:47 ↗ and redmond are pretty close to the same

1:24:52 ↗ so on a percentage basis as well redmond

1:24:54 ↗ is uh bremen's program is performing

1:24:57 ↗ better that way

1:25:00 ↗ so as as

1:25:02 ↗ kristen said i'd be happy to come back

1:25:04 ↗ and talk more about

1:25:06 ↗ you know how these programs work and um

1:25:10 ↗ it's more detail more about what

1:25:13 ↗ arch does for the city of issaquah

1:25:16 ↗ and give kind of a fuller context to

1:25:18 ↗ things

1:25:20 ↗ whenever you'd like

1:25:25 ↗ thank you mr stenger i i i'll do a very

1:25:28 ↗ quick round robin with the commission i

1:25:30 ↗ think that's such a

1:25:32 ↗ good such a big topic probably deserves

1:25:35 ↗ a meeting in itself to help get the

1:25:38 ↗ entire commission better educated

1:25:40 ↗ we're not going to be able to do that

1:25:41 ↗ tonight so if there's big decisions that

1:25:44 ↗ staff is looking for i'd rather put

1:25:45 ↗ those off um if we can give you guys

1:25:48 ↗ guidance

1:25:49 ↗ as far as some of the things you'd like

1:25:52 ↗ to know tonight i'd be happy to but

1:25:54 ↗ asking us to help create policy tonight

1:25:56 ↗ with an entry-level education is

1:25:58 ↗ probably not a good idea for us or for

1:26:01 ↗ the city and i believe there's a lot of

1:26:03 ↗ information out there i'll be very

1:26:04 ↗ honest for myself um when i saw that 4.7

1:26:07 ↗ to forty percent number that looks like

1:26:09 ↗ a radical transformation and i don't i

1:26:11 ↗ don't know how king county came up with

1:26:13 ↗ that number but the king county

1:26:15 ↗ is not the clb all of anything so i'd

1:26:17 ↗ like to have no more information is that

1:26:19 ↗ what is that with the residents of

1:26:21 ↗ issaquah want is 40 affordable housing

1:26:23 ↗ all over their city tiny cottages tiny

1:26:26 ↗ houses

1:26:27 ↗ i don't know

1:26:28 ↗ so i would like a lot more information

1:26:30 ↗ before trying to give you guys

1:26:32 ↗ um clear policy directives and i think

1:26:34 ↗ that like i said there's a lot of

1:26:35 ↗ information

1:26:36 ↗ it doesn't mean we can't be aggressive

1:26:38 ↗ but when i see that chart

1:26:40 ↗ i like balance in my life

1:26:42 ↗ redmond looks completely out of balance

1:26:44 ↗ from every other city that surrounds it

1:26:46 ↗ so i'd like to know more about

1:26:49 ↗ what is it that they're doing

1:26:51 ↗ um because redmond has its own

1:26:52 ↗ development problems and i usually don't

1:26:54 ↗ speak ill of other cities but

1:26:56 ↗ it's pretty well known

1:26:58 ↗ how does the commission feel about

1:27:01 ↗ bringing back mr stanger at a later date

1:27:03 ↗ for a more educational type meeting

1:27:05 ↗ about this topic

1:27:09 ↗ can i get an amen

1:27:10 ↗ or a yes from somebody

1:27:14 ↗ all right i'm seeing some hands i'm

1:27:15 ↗ seeing some thumbs up so

1:27:17 ↗ yes kristin if we could figure out a way

1:27:19 ↗ to put in tuck in a meeting

1:27:22 ↗ before moving too heavily again i think

1:27:24 ↗ we can all give you our gut level

1:27:27 ↗ ideas as far as affordable housing but i

1:27:29 ↗ think before we give you any real policy

1:27:31 ↗ prescriptions from this commission

1:27:33 ↗ um

1:27:35 ↗ be good to have a basically an

1:27:36 ↗ educational meeting with mr stenger

1:27:43 ↗ you know part part of the reason for

1:27:45 ↗ that was um sort of to show voluntary

1:27:47 ↗ versus mandatory programs

1:27:49 ↗ and how effective they can be or you

1:27:52 ↗ know eat you know each one in their own

1:27:54 ↗ different ways

1:27:55 ↗ particularly since question two has to

1:27:57 ↗ do with do you want to expand programs

1:28:01 ↗ so

1:28:02 ↗ that's sort of the reason that we put

1:28:03 ↗ that slide up there the question had

1:28:05 ↗ asked to

1:28:06 ↗ how do we compare with other cities and

1:28:08 ↗ how are their cities performing so

1:28:10 ↗ again this is not intended to be a

1:28:13 ↗ we want this program in place kind of

1:28:15 ↗ thing and listen because those could

1:28:16 ↗ take a year to do um but we do want to

1:28:19 ↗ get some guidance yeah we want to expand

1:28:20 ↗ it beyond central illicit law or we want

1:28:22 ↗ to expand mandatory beyond the three

1:28:24 ↗ zones where it currently exists but stay

1:28:26 ↗ within centralization that kind of thing

1:28:29 ↗ and i think like i said i think

1:28:31 ↗ everybody's willing to have maybe not a

1:28:32 ↗ year-long conversation but a longer

1:28:35 ↗ conversation but again it's got to come

1:28:37 ↗ from a fuller knowledge of what it is

1:28:40 ↗ and i think i i didn't i don't remember

1:28:42 ↗ seeing that chart in the packet it's

1:28:44 ↗ kind of an eye-opener and again it's

1:28:45 ↗ it's not to single out a particular city

1:28:48 ↗ but um

1:28:49 ↗ again

1:28:50 ↗ i'd like to know more about the effects

1:28:52 ↗ of what that did to particular

1:28:54 ↗ neighborhoods in redmond uh because

1:28:57 ↗ issaquah is really just a conglomeration

1:28:58 ↗ of neighborhoods

1:29:00 ↗ um so what are we what kind of pros and

1:29:02 ↗ cons are we gonna do

1:29:04 ↗ to our township um will we make it look

1:29:07 ↗ something that you know people fall in

1:29:09 ↗ love with and move here

1:29:11 ↗ um will we irreversibly change it and if

1:29:14 ↗ we do is that really for the better and

1:29:16 ↗ is that really what the residents of the

1:29:17 ↗ city want

1:29:21 ↗ but i'm happy to keep going we still

1:29:23 ↗ have two more questions

1:29:25 ↗ yeah you know i just want to say we want

1:29:27 ↗ to bring it full circle in terms of um

1:29:29 ↗ the the context of title 18 and the

1:29:31 ↗ density bonus program

1:29:33 ↗ right so

1:29:35 ↗ so you're gonna get an apartment

1:29:36 ↗ building they will build it up to the

1:29:39 ↗ base height of 85 feet

1:29:42 ↗ you may have on your books a program

1:29:44 ↗ that says you can go up to 125 feet if

1:29:47 ↗ but you have to provide seven percent of

1:29:49 ↗ affordable housing nobody's going to

1:29:51 ↗ take that on

1:29:52 ↗ because of

1:29:53 ↗ economics or whatever the

1:29:56 ↗ other choices for the developer they

1:29:57 ↗ might have

1:29:58 ↗ so

1:29:59 ↗ so

1:30:00 ↗ therefore if you just say we want you

1:30:04 ↗ know you're going to build 100 units out

1:30:06 ↗ of that we want seven percent to be

1:30:09 ↗ affordable

1:30:10 ↗ then will it pencil out for them we can

1:30:12 ↗ you know um

1:30:14 ↗ and what additional tools like

1:30:17 ↗ mfte was discussed or other

1:30:19 ↗ are things like density bonus

1:30:22 ↗ will make will tip the needle for them

1:30:24 ↗ to want to do it is sort of the question

1:30:27 ↗ so

1:30:29 ↗ you know just a basic guidance at this

1:30:32 ↗ point about voluntary versus mandatory

1:30:35 ↗ then we can develop more thoughtful

1:30:38 ↗ conversation and and materials for you

1:30:40 ↗ to deliberate on but at least if we can

1:30:42 ↗ get a sense of

1:30:44 ↗ yes we should we want to be more

1:30:46 ↗ um leaning toward more towards mandatory

1:30:50 ↗ versus voluntary i think that sort of uh

1:30:52 ↗ would be helpful for us as we prepare

1:30:55 ↗ additional materials or additional

1:30:57 ↗ meeting topics for discussion

1:31:00 ↗ well i do think basic guidance is what

1:31:02 ↗ you're going to get very basic

1:31:06 ↗ so

1:31:07 ↗ um

1:31:08 ↗ commission i mean is everybody feel that

1:31:09 ↗ way another possibly special meeting

1:31:12 ↗ educational meeting that's just simply

1:31:14 ↗ on this topic again we can still give

1:31:16 ↗ staff a gut level feeling of how we feel

1:31:20 ↗ voluntary as many said or mandatory

1:31:22 ↗ um but

1:31:25 ↗ everybody

1:31:25 ↗ [Music]

1:31:27 ↗ okay with another meeting

1:31:31 ↗ okay excellent so if staff could

1:31:33 ↗ schedule a meeting

1:31:35 ↗ um

1:31:36 ↗ so we could

1:31:37 ↗ take a little bit of a deeper dive

1:31:39 ↗ but let's go

1:31:41 ↗ you're really asking for another meeting

1:31:44 ↗ i'm just kidding no i'm kidding we can

1:31:45 ↗ do that

1:31:47 ↗ you guys are getting meeting heavy but

1:31:48 ↗ um yeah we can do that

1:31:52 ↗ we have a lot of fun here

1:31:54 ↗ okay question two

1:31:58 ↗ well question two

1:31:59 ↗ um is if you do want more programs in

1:32:02 ↗ place

1:32:03 ↗ then

1:32:04 ↗ do you want to expand those the

1:32:06 ↗ mandatory programs or the programs we

1:32:08 ↗ have beyond

1:32:10 ↗ the three zones where the mandatory is

1:32:11 ↗ allowed do you want to expand it outside

1:32:13 ↗ of central illinois or keep it in

1:32:15 ↗ central asia so kind of

1:32:16 ↗ how far do you want to take it

1:32:20 ↗ gut level right everybody just got got

1:32:23 ↗ level

1:32:24 ↗ right

1:32:25 ↗ i think we're just looking for some

1:32:26 ↗ basic again to the point is is is this a

1:32:30 ↗ voluntary thing i think we definitely

1:32:32 ↗ can see that we need a little bit more

1:32:33 ↗ teeth

1:32:34 ↗ but again i still have to be convinced

1:32:36 ↗ why 40 is a great number

1:32:40 ↗ to a previous commissioner's point

1:32:42 ↗ i haven't heard anybody explain why

1:32:44 ↗ that's a great number or not

1:32:48 ↗ mike do you have any insight as to why

1:32:49 ↗ king county picked 12 12 and 16

1:32:52 ↗ which totals 40.

1:32:55 ↗ sure

1:32:57 ↗ it it's a function of the growth

1:32:59 ↗ management act and the way it's being

1:33:02 ↗ implemented through king county and in

1:33:04 ↗ our case of course

1:33:06 ↗ um the the 40 number has been around a

1:33:09 ↗ long time actually um

1:33:13 ↗ since the first uh

1:33:16 ↗ i think the the not the first but the

1:33:18 ↗ round of county-wide planning policies

1:33:21 ↗ in 2006

1:33:23 ↗ i want to say

1:33:25 ↗ and the idea is that

1:33:29 ↗ the growth management act at the state

1:33:30 ↗ level says the counties that are

1:33:33 ↗ doing comprehensive planning

1:33:35 ↗ need to plan for the

1:33:38 ↗ demand for housing at all income levels

1:33:41 ↗ and the county has has applied or

1:33:44 ↗ interpreted that to mean that every

1:33:46 ↗ community

1:33:47 ↗ should plan for

1:33:49 ↗ the housing

1:33:50 ↗ demands of all income levels throughout

1:33:52 ↗ the county

1:33:54 ↗ and so um

1:33:56 ↗ you know

1:33:57 ↗ as a household 12 percent of the

1:33:59 ↗ households in at that time the last go

1:34:02 ↗ go-round

1:34:04 ↗ cpps when these goals were set 12

1:34:06 ↗ percent of households

1:34:08 ↗ were making 30 of median income or less

1:34:12 ↗ and another 12 were between 30 and 50

1:34:15 ↗ percent of median

1:34:17 ↗ and then the 16 from

1:34:19 ↗ 15 to 80. so the idea was that your

1:34:22 ↗ comprehensive plan would accommodate

1:34:25 ↗ housing affordable

1:34:26 ↗ uh in those amounts

1:34:29 ↗ the

1:34:31 ↗ proposed county-wide

1:34:33 ↗ planning policies

1:34:34 ↗ uh at this time

1:34:38 ↗ are actually higher than that it's it's

1:34:40 ↗ raising those

1:34:42 ↗ figures to 49 percent

1:34:46 ↗ uh because of the change in household

1:34:48 ↗ incomes

1:34:49 ↗ um and obviously the the

1:34:52 ↗ gap between what's affordable at those

1:34:54 ↗ income levels and and what's actually

1:34:58 ↗ and what the the demand is um is

1:35:00 ↗ creating a lot of

1:35:03 ↗ housing cost burdened households and

1:35:04 ↗ that's what the county

1:35:06 ↗ wants us to plan

1:35:08 ↗ to overcome

1:35:12 ↗ so it's it's all part of a rational

1:35:15 ↗ exercise

1:35:16 ↗ um but it you know admittedly it creates

1:35:20 ↗ numbers that

1:35:22 ↗ feel

1:35:23 ↗ irrational

1:35:26 ↗ or

1:35:26 ↗ i appreciate that mr stinger because

1:35:28 ↗ again i just i'm look again i

1:35:31 ↗ i just like to be convinced of things

1:35:35 ↗ um

1:35:36 ↗ but we do have some questions coming in

1:35:38 ↗ so commissioner sergosa

1:35:43 ↗ thanks sure uh richard seragosa um

1:35:46 ↗ on the forty percent

1:35:49 ↗ i think

1:35:50 ↗ uh what affects my opinion on that as i

1:35:52 ↗ lived in nisswa highlands in the

1:35:53 ↗ beginning i think it was probably like

1:35:55 ↗ maybe halfway through building it was

1:35:57 ↗ everything was under the arch program so

1:35:58 ↗ we had

1:36:00 ↗ a totally balanced

1:36:02 ↗ you know

1:36:03 ↗ number of different incomes um

1:36:06 ↗ and it was great when we first moved to

1:36:09 ↗ the highlands it was a fantastic place

1:36:11 ↗ and i felt like it was very balanced

1:36:13 ↗ we enjoyed it very much

1:36:15 ↗ and then as that arch program ended i

1:36:18 ↗ think around five years and all of those

1:36:20 ↗ different incomes started selling their

1:36:22 ↗ houses that the values skyrocketed and

1:36:24 ↗ now it's a very expensive place to live

1:36:27 ↗ i and we eventually sold because it

1:36:29 ↗ wasn't as enjoyable without that balance

1:36:32 ↗ um

1:36:33 ↗ so i think i would have loved to have

1:36:35 ↗ stayed there

1:36:36 ↗ with with that balance there right once

1:36:38 ↗ that bouncing away it wasn't as

1:36:40 ↗ enjoyable

1:36:41 ↗ or the quality of life wasn't the same

1:36:44 ↗ um

1:36:45 ↗ and washington is extremely expensive

1:36:47 ↗ well sorry the seattle area is a very

1:36:50 ↗ very expensive place to live and it's

1:36:52 ↗ only getting higher and higher and

1:36:53 ↗ higher

1:36:54 ↗ um my own family

1:36:57 ↗ was trying to buy a second home another

1:36:59 ↗ home in issaquah we were actually priced

1:37:01 ↗ out ourselves

1:37:02 ↗ and we're not a low-income family at all

1:37:05 ↗ so i think it's important that we do

1:37:08 ↗ keep that balance of incomes otherwise

1:37:11 ↗ essentially we gentrify the entire area

1:37:15 ↗ and we only have one

1:37:16 ↗ type of income out here

1:37:18 ↗ so i think 40 doesn't feel

1:37:21 ↗ um dramatic to me right and especially

1:37:23 ↗ that's not 40

1:37:25 ↗ low income right that's that's that's

1:37:27 ↗ all of the

1:37:28 ↗ the ranges we're basically saying 40

1:37:31 ↗ of people that aren't

1:37:33 ↗ you know

1:37:35 ↗ no limit to their incomes right

1:37:38 ↗ we're going for balance and and really

1:37:39 ↗ if you're going for real balance it'd

1:37:41 ↗ probably be more than 40 but 40 feels

1:37:43 ↗ comfortable to me

1:37:45 ↗ um

1:37:46 ↗ that said um it's really interesting to

1:37:49 ↗ see that redmond has done so well with

1:37:51 ↗ their mandatory requirements

1:37:53 ↗ i also lived in redmond before all those

1:37:55 ↗ apartment buildings went in

1:37:58 ↗ so i saw it change and it has

1:38:00 ↗ dramatically changed but not necessarily

1:38:02 ↗ for the negative i mean that's a really

1:38:05 ↗ vital downtown core that's really

1:38:08 ↗ nice place to be

1:38:09 ↗ um before that it was pretty run down

1:38:11 ↗ there was lots you know interesting

1:38:13 ↗ older buildings but they weren't being

1:38:14 ↗ utilized um

1:38:16 ↗ and i don't think the city was really

1:38:18 ↗ benefiting from

1:38:19 ↗ all of those older buildings that were

1:38:21 ↗ there even though you know perhaps they

1:38:23 ↗ could have been renovated and it could

1:38:24 ↗ have been an interesting downtown area a

1:38:26 ↗ lot of that is is still there

1:38:29 ↗ half price books buildings and things

1:38:30 ↗ like that

1:38:32 ↗ um

1:38:33 ↗ but i think it's been

1:38:34 ↗ an improvement

1:38:36 ↗ maybe you disagree

1:38:38 ↗ but um

1:38:40 ↗ i think it makes sense that if their

1:38:41 ↗ goal is to increase

1:38:45 ↗ these types of

1:38:47 ↗ housing it's working for them so it

1:38:49 ↗ makes sense that we would

1:38:51 ↗ also do that and whatever our goal is

1:38:55 ↗ 40 or not

1:38:56 ↗ it seems like they have a good model and

1:38:58 ↗ it makes sense to to go in that

1:38:59 ↗ direction

1:39:01 ↗ thank you

1:39:05 ↗ thank you

1:39:06 ↗ uh commissioner bader

1:39:09 ↗ yeah hey sarah vader i i just want to

1:39:11 ↗ like amen all of that i think that was

1:39:13 ↗ really well said um

1:39:15 ↗ i shared in that email that we only

1:39:17 ↗ moved to issaquah two years ago and had

1:39:19 ↗ we moved here now like we wouldn't

1:39:22 ↗ we wouldn't be here um you know it's

1:39:24 ↗ just

1:39:25 ↗ and i know that the kind of conversation

1:39:27 ↗ about affordability more general and

1:39:28 ↗ that kind of type 2 is a different

1:39:30 ↗ conversation but i think it's really

1:39:32 ↗ important as we think about what do we

1:39:34 ↗ want this place to be you know in the

1:39:35 ↗ future

1:39:36 ↗ um

1:39:38 ↗ part of the reason i'm sitting on this

1:39:39 ↗ commission is because i was really

1:39:40 ↗ inspired by the city's work on equity

1:39:42 ↗ and i think if we don't take

1:39:44 ↗ affordable housing seriously um and you

1:39:48 ↗ know trying to minimize it and say we're

1:39:49 ↗ doing it and like kick a box i i don't

1:39:51 ↗ think that that's enough and i don't

1:39:53 ↗ think that that's the vision

1:39:54 ↗ at least my understanding of what the

1:39:56 ↗ city wants to be and who we want to be

1:39:57 ↗ for um

1:39:58 ↗ and so

1:40:00 ↗ um

1:40:01 ↗ all that to say um plus one um to

1:40:03 ↗ commissioner zaragoza

1:40:05 ↗ um i will say just to give something

1:40:07 ↗ concrete

1:40:08 ↗ um on the

1:40:10 ↗ mandatory

1:40:11 ↗ inclusionary zoning um as i've read

1:40:13 ↗ through the

1:40:15 ↗ memo and this was the part i think i

1:40:16 ↗ said no housing in centralistic club but

1:40:18 ↗ i meant there doesn't sound like there

1:40:19 ↗ have been any housing developments in

1:40:21 ↗ the three zones where there's mandatory

1:40:23 ↗ inclusionary zoning which is like then

1:40:25 ↗ why i have it

1:40:26 ↗ um so i think at a minimum um

1:40:29 ↗ extending it to all of central issaquad

1:40:31 ↗ because i see that there were 800 units

1:40:33 ↗ developed um

1:40:36 ↗ kind of adjacent to those zones but

1:40:38 ↗ there was no affordable housing as part

1:40:40 ↗ of that and while like a missed

1:40:41 ↗ opportunity that is um

1:40:43 ↗ and so i think at a minimum my

1:40:44 ↗ recommendation would be to extend the

1:40:47 ↗ mandatory inclusionary zoning to all of

1:40:50 ↗ central issaquad

1:40:56 ↗ thank you

1:40:58 ↗ commissioner million

1:41:01 ↗ thank you nina milligan here yes i will

1:41:04 ↗ plus one uh both of those uh in and to

1:41:09 ↗ elaborate on commissioner zaragoza's

1:41:12 ↗ comments about issaquah highlands and i

1:41:13 ↗ too have had personal experience with

1:41:15 ↗ the um

1:41:18 ↗ positive outcomes of having interspersed

1:41:21 ↗ affordable housing rather than

1:41:23 ↗ partitioned and

1:41:25 ↗ segmented it's over there and not over

1:41:27 ↗ here

1:41:28 ↗ that which development that includes

1:41:30 ↗ affordable housing makes a really

1:41:32 ↗ important

1:41:33 ↗ um

1:41:34 ↗ uh diversity in in community that we

1:41:38 ↗ enjoy and so the failing in issaquah

1:41:40 ↗ highlands that i wanted to bring up here

1:41:42 ↗ was that in the early days the

1:41:44 ↗ affordable housing had a very short term

1:41:47 ↗ if any at all

1:41:49 ↗ and we have been able to negotiate in

1:41:52 ↗ perpetuity affordable housing even here

1:41:54 ↗ in issaquah islands and so we're talking

1:41:56 ↗ about terms of 30 and 50 years

1:41:59 ↗ tonight in our packet but i would say

1:42:01 ↗ why are we talking about a term at all i

1:42:03 ↗ don't know if i quite understand that

1:42:04 ↗ why don't we have a way to have it

1:42:07 ↗ forever whether it's that

1:42:09 ↗ that one

1:42:11 ↗ property that one tax id or

1:42:14 ↗ whether the count of it is for forever

1:42:17 ↗ i'm not quite sure how to do that i'm

1:42:18 ↗ just thinking that off the top of my

1:42:19 ↗ head but we don't want our affordable

1:42:22 ↗ housing to fall off after

1:42:24 ↗ a few decades because if the need for it

1:42:28 ↗ is over no it's not but

1:42:30 ↗ maybe there's some way to maintain the

1:42:33 ↗ inventory of it

1:42:35 ↗ forever however you can do that

1:42:37 ↗ uh about inclusionary zoning

1:42:41 ↗ plus one to commissioner bader but i

1:42:43 ↗ would go a step further and knowing that

1:42:46 ↗ we

1:42:47 ↗ don't have a lot of housing capacity

1:42:49 ↗ outside of this central issaquah and i'm

1:42:51 ↗ not

1:42:52 ↗ suggesting that we increase the housing

1:42:55 ↗ capacity outside central issaquah why

1:42:57 ↗ doesn't

1:42:58 ↗ all of issaquah have

1:43:01 ↗ an affordable housing

1:43:03 ↗ allotment so that affordable housing is

1:43:06 ↗ required everywhere

1:43:08 ↗ not just in one part of town and and i'm

1:43:11 ↗ not quite sure how you do that but in

1:43:13 ↗ redevelopment certainly there will be

1:43:15 ↗ opportunities

1:43:16 ↗ for

1:43:18 ↗ adding

1:43:19 ↗ more affordable housing to our mix

1:43:22 ↗ and the last thing i want to say on this

1:43:24 ↗ part

1:43:25 ↗ um if you think we're talking about

1:43:27 ↗ parking later i'll talk about that later

1:43:29 ↗ but about the chart i think it's very

1:43:31 ↗ difficult to compare us to those other

1:43:33 ↗ cities because we don't know which thing

1:43:35 ↗ made it so they had more affordable

1:43:37 ↗ housing there two things i'm gonna say

1:43:38 ↗ one is um the comparison

1:43:40 ↗ um redmond and kirkland the growth in

1:43:43 ↗ redmond and kirkland has been

1:43:44 ↗ significantly higher in residential i

1:43:47 ↗ think

1:43:48 ↗ than

1:43:49 ↗ uh here in issaquah and so if they're

1:43:51 ↗ growing more in residential they're

1:43:53 ↗ going to have more affordable housing

1:43:54 ↗ regardless of what their policy is

1:43:56 ↗ so i don't know if um if that's apples

1:43:58 ↗ to apples

1:44:00 ↗ but the other thing i noticed that i

1:44:01 ↗ wanted to avoid was that a lot of that

1:44:03 ↗ affordable housing was in rentals and i

1:44:06 ↗ think that it is something that we could

1:44:08 ↗ talk about when we have

1:44:10 ↗ uh mike back for another meeting is how

1:44:12 ↗ do we translate this into affordable

1:44:15 ↗ home ownership

1:44:17 ↗ more than rentals

1:44:20 ↗ that's it on this so the answer to

1:44:22 ↗ question two is yes expand

1:44:24 ↗ make it uh even playing field throughout

1:44:27 ↗ issaquah

1:44:28 ↗ that would be message

1:44:32 ↗ thank you commissioner seracosa

1:44:35 ↗ thank you sir

1:44:37 ↗ uh richard zaragoza uh i i wanted to

1:44:39 ↗ make a quick comment about to with with

1:44:42 ↗ redmond

1:44:43 ↗ um

1:44:44 ↗ they weighed they had to wait for that

1:44:45 ↗ market right they made the plans they

1:44:47 ↗ figured it out and they waited it out

1:44:49 ↗ it's like 15 years was a long time and

1:44:51 ↗ those buildings came in very very slowly

1:44:53 ↗ i think you know there was always jokes

1:44:55 ↗ about oh yeah they got the 10-year plan

1:44:57 ↗ they're gonna it's going to be

1:44:58 ↗ skyscrapers and it's never going to get

1:44:59 ↗ there and then it is it's not

1:45:01 ↗ skyscrapers but close

1:45:03 ↗ um

1:45:04 ↗ you can't really

1:45:06 ↗ incentivize a market right if a market's

1:45:08 ↗ cooking you can

1:45:09 ↗ increase it with incentives but you

1:45:11 ↗ can't make a market out of incentives so

1:45:13 ↗ it makes sense that

1:45:15 ↗ we come up with the plan that we want

1:45:16 ↗ for the future

1:45:18 ↗ and then we cross our fingers and hope

1:45:19 ↗ it happens

1:45:20 ↗ um but it makes sense that

1:45:23 ↗ these incentives that we have aren't

1:45:24 ↗ working

1:45:25 ↗ because the market just isn't there yet

1:45:28 ↗ um but when it does we should be ready

1:45:30 ↗ to get what we want and what we need

1:45:32 ↗ um

1:45:34 ↗ so that's that um but i wanted to

1:45:36 ↗ comment also on the

1:45:38 ↗ the um

1:45:40 ↗ i know your idea about rentals versus

1:45:42 ↗ home ownership i'd be very interested in

1:45:44 ↗ hearing more about that because i think

1:45:46 ↗ that's that's an important topic

1:45:48 ↗ thanks

1:45:53 ↗ thank you

1:45:57 ↗ other comments until we move on

1:46:00 ↗ and i will say that i

1:46:02 ↗ purposely ignored the clock so i bought

1:46:04 ↗ us a little bit more time but

1:46:07 ↗ we are getting close i just want to say

1:46:08 ↗ thank you to my fellow commissioners

1:46:10 ↗ because it's always great to hear other

1:46:13 ↗ people

1:46:14 ↗ because you guys already changed my mind

1:46:16 ↗ um again i think i came in with a very

1:46:18 ↗ different idea of affordable housing and

1:46:20 ↗ i want to thank the commissioners

1:46:22 ↗ because again i never really thought

1:46:24 ↗ of it the way that

1:46:25 ↗ you all have explained it to me and

1:46:27 ↗ you're right i

1:46:29 ↗ i'm happy to live here but i don't want

1:46:31 ↗ to be priced out of here either so i

1:46:33 ↗ really appreciate that because again i

1:46:34 ↗ think we need to have a diversity of

1:46:36 ↗ incomes

1:46:37 ↗ um i guess sometimes when people think

1:46:39 ↗ of affordable housing they probably

1:46:40 ↗ think of like the worst of new york city

1:46:43 ↗ and that's the way i felt when i was

1:46:44 ↗ coming into this conversation so again

1:46:46 ↗ thank you for helping me see it a little

1:46:48 ↗ bit more clearly because again i i don't

1:46:50 ↗ want it and i'll pick on one of our

1:46:52 ↗ lovely streets i don't want this city

1:46:54 ↗ become just harrison street or grand

1:46:55 ↗ ridge estates as beautiful as those

1:46:58 ↗ houses are

1:46:59 ↗ and they have their place in our city um

1:47:01 ↗ you know this needs to be a city of full

1:47:03 ↗ of

1:47:04 ↗ of life and

1:47:05 ↗ you know

1:47:06 ↗ people having the ability to do work and

1:47:08 ↗ play here

1:47:09 ↗ so every once while um

1:47:12 ↗ yeah like i said i learn a lot just from

1:47:14 ↗ listening so thank you i would say as

1:47:16 ↗ far i've never been a big mandate guy

1:47:19 ↗ but i think like i said our numbers are

1:47:21 ↗ moving pretty sluggish so however we can

1:47:24 ↗ kind of supercharge them

1:47:25 ↗ um you know i'll kind of keep my

1:47:28 ↗ comments about the other township to

1:47:29 ↗ myself

1:47:31 ↗ but i do think like i said having a

1:47:32 ↗ balance i like looking at the other

1:47:34 ↗ cities to see what they're doing

1:47:36 ↗ um because again i think everything in

1:47:38 ↗ balance is a good idea so i'm looking

1:47:41 ↗ forward to that next meeting as well i

1:47:43 ↗ think i'll learn even more

1:47:47 ↗ all right hopefully

1:47:49 ↗ kristen you got enough direction for

1:47:51 ↗ crest question two

1:47:53 ↗ good actually i was gonna

1:47:55 ↗ propose that we don't go do a deep dive

1:47:57 ↗ into question two because that should be

1:47:59 ↗ saved for later i think we've got enough

1:48:01 ↗ direction that you both would like to

1:48:02 ↗ see more affordable housing and expanded

1:48:04 ↗ beyond

1:48:05 ↗ some mandatory and expanded beyond just

1:48:07 ↗ the three zones um i heard both central

1:48:09 ↗ assault but then also potentially

1:48:11 ↗ city-wide so you know give us a chance

1:48:13 ↗ to talk about it and

1:48:15 ↗ be able to provide you with better

1:48:17 ↗ information

1:48:19 ↗ for the next time that we meet before we

1:48:21 ↗ go into a discussion when we don't have

1:48:22 ↗ all the facts

1:48:23 ↗ so or at least all the facts that we

1:48:26 ↗ have at the time and then you may ask us

1:48:27 ↗ more

1:48:29 ↗ we're always going to ask you

1:48:30 ↗ more are

1:48:32 ↗ you always go

1:48:34 ↗ so i think we have uh question three i

1:48:36 ↗ don't know if it really kind of works

1:48:38 ↗ with question two because we're talking

1:48:39 ↗ about city-wide

1:48:41 ↗ um does everybody wanted to again you

1:48:43 ↗ know the floor is open so if anyone

1:48:45 ↗ wants to take a stab at question three i

1:48:47 ↗ believe the question was do we expand i

1:48:49 ↗ think we all kind of answered it

1:48:52 ↗ but again

1:48:54 ↗ um

1:48:55 ↗ you know again i'm pretending not to see

1:48:57 ↗ the clock but i do want to

1:48:59 ↗ keep to our commitment so maybe like i

1:49:01 ↗ said for the last few minutes we'll just

1:49:03 ↗ kind of do a round robin

1:49:05 ↗ please feel free to

1:49:06 ↗ speak your mind

1:49:08 ↗ commissioner milligan

1:49:12 ↗ okay yeah i i don't remember what

1:49:13 ↗ question three was but i did want to

1:49:15 ↗ talk about parking

1:49:16 ↗ uh

1:49:17 ↗ and i i'm not

1:49:19 ↗ i can't remember and i don't feel clear

1:49:21 ↗ about what our current um

1:49:23 ↗ standard is especially in

1:49:26 ↗ uh transit-oriented development and the

1:49:29 ↗ urban core those places that can perhaps

1:49:33 ↗ provide quality housing with a lower

1:49:35 ↗ parking requirement especially if

1:49:38 ↗ if we do it with that deal for

1:49:40 ↗ affordable housing so this would be

1:49:42 ↗ another incentive program that i think

1:49:45 ↗ could be useful but and one reason why

1:49:48 ↗ i'm i would on one hand

1:49:51 ↗ not be inclined to do that because your

1:49:54 ↗ little

1:49:55 ↗ your little guys who sit on your

1:49:56 ↗ shoulder would say oh so you don't think

1:49:58 ↗ people in affordable housing need cars

1:50:01 ↗ and and the other side of me will say

1:50:03 ↗ hey the market will decide it and the

1:50:06 ↗ developer will balance the value of

1:50:08 ↗ these homes with that hey some they're

1:50:12 ↗ going to need some parking or some kind

1:50:13 ↗ of parking or how can we make these

1:50:15 ↗ homes still attractive and affordable

1:50:19 ↗ that can be

1:50:21 ↗ perhaps something that we can allow the

1:50:22 ↗ market to decide with an incentive

1:50:25 ↗ that makes the housing

1:50:29 ↗ the affordable housing

1:50:31 ↗ developer more able to do it because

1:50:33 ↗ they can save on costs

1:50:36 ↗ and you know what and one thing i worry

1:50:37 ↗ about mostly in that is um in central

1:50:39 ↗ issaquah a lot of the requirements seems

1:50:41 ↗ to be for um structured parking which is

1:50:43 ↗ just ridiculously expensive and makes it

1:50:45 ↗ very difficult to build an affordable

1:50:46 ↗ unit if you have to have structured

1:50:48 ↗ parking for every unit

1:50:50 ↗ so i'm not i'm not quite sure

1:50:52 ↗ where we are on that path but if we

1:50:55 ↗ could maybe go a little further using

1:50:56 ↗ parking as an incentive and allow the

1:50:58 ↗ market to provide the needs that people

1:51:00 ↗ with affordable housing might still like

1:51:02 ↗ to have

1:51:04 ↗ just an idea

1:51:09 ↗ thank you commissioner milligan

1:51:10 ↗ commissioner

1:51:13 ↗ thank you chair i i i wanted to make a

1:51:15 ↗ quick comment about atlas apartments

1:51:18 ↗ they have some affordable

1:51:20 ↗ uh apartments in there i assume

1:51:22 ↗ um no none okay

1:51:25 ↗ okay well that makes sense i was gonna

1:51:26 ↗ say that the parking that is there

1:51:29 ↗ is

1:51:30 ↗ you have to pay extra for that parking

1:51:32 ↗ so it's not like we decided you know

1:51:34 ↗ we're gonna put parking in there so that

1:51:35 ↗ those people have parking they have to

1:51:37 ↗ pay extra and i don't know if it's a

1:51:39 ↗ requirement that affordable housing come

1:51:41 ↗ with free parking but

1:51:44 ↗ if you're putting affordable housing an

1:51:45 ↗ apartment and they're still charging for

1:51:47 ↗ the parking you're not providing

1:51:49 ↗ you know

1:51:50 ↗ cars to affordable housing because they

1:51:52 ↗ can't afford the parking sells

1:51:54 ↗ you know something to think about

1:51:58 ↗ beyond that it just real quick

1:52:00 ↗ expanding affordable housing outside of

1:52:02 ↗ the core makes sense to me i don't see

1:52:04 ↗ why to limit limit there um if we have

1:52:07 ↗ increased density then of course we'll

1:52:09 ↗ have increased uh

1:52:10 ↗ um

1:52:12 ↗ affordable housing in the core and i

1:52:13 ↗ think that makes sense so yeah thanks

1:52:18 ↗ all right

1:52:19 ↗ commissioner voice may i jump in here

1:52:21 ↗ for a minute mr kristen listen

1:52:23 ↗ um and mike you can jump into but you

1:52:25 ↗ guys have both brought up parking and

1:52:28 ↗ what we currently have is that if you

1:52:29 ↗ are in within a quarter mile of a

1:52:31 ↗ transit center

1:52:33 ↗ the transit center um your parking can

1:52:35 ↗ be reduced down to 0.75 spaces per unit

1:52:40 ↗ so and that's for all units not it's not

1:52:42 ↗ just for affordable units so there is a

1:52:44 ↗ reduction there if you're within a

1:52:45 ↗ quarter mile of a transit center but

1:52:47 ↗ then also arch has been talking with all

1:52:48 ↗ of the

1:52:50 ↗ all of their member cities and i believe

1:52:52 ↗ with their executive board

1:52:53 ↗ about

1:52:55 ↗ parking and affordable units and how to

1:52:59 ↗ offset that cost whether it's included

1:53:01 ↗ in the rent or if there's an allowance

1:53:04 ↗ that's given and i don't think

1:53:06 ↗ a decision has completely been made i

1:53:09 ↗ don't think it's

1:53:10 ↗ been decided but but it we are talking

1:53:13 ↗ about how to try and offset that cost

1:53:16 ↗ for affordable units

1:53:22 ↗ thank you i believe we have we're gonna

1:53:25 ↗ wrap it up here real close guys so

1:53:26 ↗ please make your comments pithy

1:53:28 ↗ um

1:53:29 ↗ commissioner milligan

1:53:37 ↗ commissioner sergosa

1:53:44 ↗ all right

1:53:46 ↗ all right well thank you everybody

1:53:48 ↗ wonderful discussion i know we will do

1:53:49 ↗ the deep dive at a later date i do want

1:53:51 ↗ to thank mr stenger

1:53:53 ↗ for his expertise and we're looking

1:53:54 ↗ forward to have a deeper conversation

1:53:56 ↗ with you sir

1:53:57 ↗ but

1:53:59 ↗ we're going to continue because i do

1:54:00 ↗ want to make sure i don't steal too much

1:54:02 ↗ of you guys this thursday evening

1:54:05 ↗ so moving along

1:54:07 ↗ now we're going to do reports

1:54:10 ↗ kristen

1:54:11 ↗ do we have any reports

1:54:15 ↗ i believe last time i mentioned that the

1:54:17 ↗ comprehensive plan and zoning map

1:54:19 ↗ amendments are going to city council

1:54:20 ↗ study session next tuesday november 9th

1:54:24 ↗ um

1:54:27 ↗ that's

1:54:28 ↗ all i have many do you have any council

1:54:31 ↗ reports or ad hoc committee

1:54:34 ↗ no no

1:54:35 ↗ nothing

1:54:36 ↗ new to report on that at this time

1:54:42 ↗ well thank you minnie and thank you

1:54:44 ↗ kristen

1:54:46 ↗ anybody have any

1:54:48 ↗ thing for the good of the order

1:54:54 ↗ all right well thank you to my fellow

1:54:56 ↗ commissioners and thank you again to our

1:54:57 ↗ staff uh valerie it was wonderful to see

1:55:00 ↗ you again

1:55:01 ↗ i know we'll be seeing more of you

1:55:03 ↗ and having no other business

1:55:05 ↗ i'd like to adjourn this meeting of the

1:55:07 ↗ planning policy commission

1:55:10 ↗ at 8 25

1:55:12 ↗ thank you

1:55:38 ↗ you

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (10)

Administration/Staff: Jason Voiss

Christen Leeson

Senior Planner Matt Monahan Minnie Dhaliwal

Director

CP&D Nina Milligan Lucy Sloman

Land Dev. Manager Sara Bader Valerie Porter

Assistant Planner Richard Zaragoza

Alternate (acting as Mike Stanger

ARCH regular member) Commissioners Not Present: Ron Faul

(Excused) Joy Lewis (Excused)