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 (5)

Jason Voiss

Matt Monahan

Nina Milligan

Sara Bader

Richard Zaragoza, Alternate (acting as regular member)

Staff (5)

Christen Leeson, Senior Planner

Minnie Dhaliwal, Director, CP&D

Lucy Sloman, Land Dev. Manager

Valerie Porter, Assistant Planner

Mike Stanger, ARCH

Excused

Ron Faul

Joy Lewis

Audience commenters (1)

Susan Neville

Recommendations & actions (2)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

Neville continued she wasn’t sure that everything was covered at the last meeting that was requested in the agenda, and exactly what policy direction on zoning was given.
The other Commissioners agreed to another meeting.