Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, March 23, 2023 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of February 2, 2023

packet pp.3–19

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Page 3 of 38 APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 02-02-23 Planning Policy Commission Meeting Minutes

Minutes of February 23, 2023

packet pp.21–27

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 13, 2023

Open packet at p.21 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION JOINT MEETING 6:30 p.m. - Thursday, February 23, 2023

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Comprehensive Plan: Housing and Land Use, (D)

Christen Leeson, Senior Planner Mike Stanger, ARCH · packet pp.29–35

Topics: HousingLand Use

▶ Watch from 2:57 Open packet at p.29 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the March 23, 2023, meeting is to review and discuss existing conditions and new potential and required changes.

5. REPORTS

Council Update

Christen Leeson, Senior Planner

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.37–38

▶ Watch from 1:20:28 Open packet at p.37 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission 2023 Schedule (subject to change) 2022 1/12/23 1/19/23 1/26/23 (Special Meeting) Title 18 – Final Draft Introduction Public Hearing: Title 18 – Final Draft Public Hearing: Title 18 – Final Draft  Part 1 – General Provisions  Part 5 – Specified Use Standards

2008 segments .txt ↗

0:04 ↗ good evening good evening Commissioners

0:07 ↗ good evening staff

0:08 ↗ feels like I'm starting to see you guys

0:10 ↗ less and less after a big uh beginning

0:13 ↗ to 2023 but it's good to see everyone

0:16 ↗ tonight

0:17 ↗ I'd like to call the March 23rd planning

0:19 ↗ policy commission to order and it is

0:21 ↗ currently

0:24 ↗ stole my clock

0:26 ↗ it's 34. 6 34 pm

0:29 ↗ tonight's meeting is a hybrid meeting

0:30 ↗ the planning policy commission is in

0:32 ↗ person but staff member or members of

0:35 ↗ the public may be attending virtually or

0:37 ↗ in person

0:38 ↗ uh Kristen

0:40 ↗ do we have a quorum this evening we do

0:43 ↗ have a quorum and commissioner Milligan

0:45 ↗ is has an excused absence tonight great

0:47 ↗ thank you

0:49 ↗ our first item of business is to take

0:51 ↗ care of some house cleaning we have some

0:53 ↗ minutes to approve

0:55 ↗ uh it's our expectation that everyone's

0:58 ↗ read their packet so we'll begin with

0:59 ↗ the February 2nd meeting minutes are

1:02 ↗ there any corrections to the draft

1:04 ↗ minutes that were provided to you

1:07 ↗ hearing none the February 2nd minutes

1:09 ↗ are approved

1:11 ↗ as well as a February 23rd meeting

1:13 ↗ minutes are there any corrections uh

1:16 ↗ staff needs to be made aware of

1:19 ↗ the February 23rd meeting minutes are

1:21 ↗ approved

1:22 ↗ in our next item of business is public

1:25 ↗ comment

1:27 ↗ the guidelines for public comments are

1:30 ↗ as follows for all of those who would

1:32 ↗ like to speak during public comments

1:33 ↗ speak clearly and pause frequently state

1:36 ↗ your name each time before speaking and

1:39 ↗ if you are attending virtually by

1:40 ↗ computer or by phone and would like to

1:42 ↗ speak during public comments in addition

1:45 ↗ to the above please mute your microphone

1:47 ↗ when you're not speaking and if you're

1:49 ↗ having any technical issues please try

1:51 ↗ to join the meeting using a different

1:52 ↗ device

1:54 ↗ you can use the call and information and

1:56 ↗ the meeting invite to call in

1:58 ↗ public comments are important we take

2:01 ↗ them seriously and they are factored

2:03 ↗ into the decisions that the planning

2:04 ↗ policy commission makes

2:06 ↗ comments may be general or related to

2:08 ↗ the topics we're going to discuss

2:09 ↗ tonight

2:11 ↗ please note that our comments are

2:13 ↗ limited to five minutes

2:15 ↗ do we have any comments tonight Stephen

2:19 ↗ sure voice we don't have any attending

2:21 ↗ virtually or in person for public

2:23 ↗ comment

2:24 ↗ I'm gonna have you pause for a minute

2:26 ↗ because there's a technical issue with

2:28 ↗ the video

2:30 ↗ oh

2:37 ↗ I think we all remember that one evening

2:38 ↗ right

2:51 ↗ keep going

2:53 ↗ all right well there being no public

2:55 ↗ comments we're going to move on to our

2:57 ↗ regular business it's the evening and

2:59 ↗ that is the comprehensive plan the

3:01 ↗ housing element overview

3:03 ↗ I believe this is a continuation of our

3:05 ↗ 101 with staff

3:06 ↗ as far as what we're going to be

3:08 ↗ learning and doing over the next coming

3:10 ↗ months

3:11 ↗ staff will be presenting existing

3:13 ↗ conditions state and County requirements

3:16 ↗ and gaps in issaquah's housing stock

3:19 ↗ well Kristen please go ahead with your

3:21 ↗ presentation when you're ready

3:25 ↗ good evening

3:27 ↗ so Kristen Leeson senior planner with

3:29 ↗ the community planning and development

3:30 ↗ department and I have my friend Mike

3:32 ↗ Stanger with me from Arch a regional

3:33 ↗ Coalition for housing you all might

3:35 ↗ remember him he came earlier this year

3:37 ↗ and talked to us with about affordable

3:39 ↗ housing then

3:40 ↗ so as with any element or anything that

3:43 ↗ you're doing or want to change you

3:46 ↗ probably need to know what it is in the

3:48 ↗ first place so tonight we're going to

3:50 ↗ talk about not just affordable housing

3:53 ↗ but housing in general the cost of

3:55 ↗ housing what you know how many people

3:57 ↗ are owners how many people are renters

3:58 ↗ how much we have how much we're supposed

4:00 ↗ to have that kind of thing so that when

4:02 ↗ you do make your decisions you have a

4:04 ↗ better basis for decision making

4:08 ↗ that doesn't want to work

4:11 ↗ so I've already said what our purpose is

4:13 ↗ there we go

4:15 ↗ Direction needed so tonight at the end

4:19 ↗ we'll while we're talking you all

4:21 ↗ consider a few things one is does the

4:22 ↗ housing Vision correctly capture the

4:24 ↗ intent of the housing element and the

4:25 ↗ policies and goals that are in there are

4:28 ↗ there other specific topics that you all

4:30 ↗ want to cover primarily what we're

4:32 ↗ covering are state requirements County

4:34 ↗ requirements and is then is there

4:36 ↗ anything else that you guys want to

4:38 ↗ consider as a policy change and then any

4:40 ↗ is there any information or feedback

4:42 ↗ that you guys will need to help you make

4:44 ↗ a decision that we haven't provided so

4:45 ↗ far okay

4:49 ↗ so if we're going to ask you to consider

4:51 ↗ the vision we had to tell you what the

4:52 ↗ vision is so preserve and enhance

4:55 ↗ neighborhoods while improving improving

4:57 ↗ housing opportunities for the city's

5:00 ↗ diverse population and local Workforce

5:03 ↗ that's what it is now okay

5:07 ↗ currently we have or as of April 1st of

5:10 ↗ 2022

5:12 ↗ we had 17 849 housing units in the city

5:16 ↗ this is we every year we submit

5:19 ↗ information which I'm about to do again

5:21 ↗ but we submit information to the office

5:23 ↗ of financial management about how many

5:25 ↗ things have been permitted how many how

5:27 ↗ many units have actually been completed

5:29 ↗ then they put together and how many

5:32 ↗ units are included in each of those

5:33 ↗ building permits and then they submit

5:35 ↗ back to us our total count and along

5:39 ↗ with population estimates for us and

5:41 ↗ populate population estimates for each

5:43 ↗ type of housing too because they

5:45 ↗ estimate that you know maybe 2.4 people

5:47 ↗ live in a single family house but maybe

5:49 ↗ 1.7 people live in a five unit or more

5:54 ↗ um complex

5:57 ↗ so for existing housing and the

5:58 ↗ breakdown we have just over 8 000 single

6:01 ↗ family houses here

6:03 ↗ 520 duplexes

6:05 ↗ 930 try and four plexes and five and up

6:11 ↗ or eight that more than eight thousand

6:14 ↗ uh five units and Ops of multi-family

6:16 ↗ buildings

6:18 ↗ again that's from the office of

6:19 ↗ financial management so of these of our

6:23 ↗ units 60 of them are owned and 40 of

6:26 ↗ them are rented

6:29 ↗ by the way you guys feel free to jump in

6:31 ↗ and ask questions at any time you don't

6:33 ↗ have to wait

6:36 ↗ so I'm going to talk about housing

6:37 ↗ Target so we have just you know almost

6:40 ↗ 18 000 housing units right now right

6:43 ↗ so

6:44 ↗ in 2018 we were 2019 we were at last to

6:48 ↗ do a building a a buildable lands

6:51 ↗ inventory which shows us how much land

6:53 ↗ is vacant how much is redevelopable and

6:55 ↗ how much can't be built on at all

6:58 ↗ so

6:59 ↗ when we did that we look at everything

7:01 ↗ that's built up through 2018 right and

7:04 ↗ at that point we had 12 159 we had room

7:08 ↗ for 12 159 Acres okay so we go through

7:13 ↗ these negotiations with the county and

7:15 ↗ all the other jurisdictions that are

7:16 ↗ called core cities which is what we are

7:18 ↗ of a certain size

7:19 ↗ and we determine targets that are then

7:23 ↗ approved by King County by the Puget

7:25 ↗ Sound Regional Council and then adopted

7:28 ↗ by our city as well

7:31 ↗ um our Target from 2019

7:35 ↗ through 2044 so 25-year period is that

7:39 ↗ we need to accommodate

7:41 ↗ 3 500 units out of the 12 000 that we

7:44 ↗ have available which leaves us a

7:46 ↗ capacity of still 8

7:48 ↗ 659 units so our adopted housing Target

7:51 ↗ is 3 500 units so that's much less than

7:54 ↗ our actual capacity for housing

7:58 ↗ I'm going to let Mike jump in here

8:06 ↗ I was going to forget

8:09 ↗ that so we're going to dive in a little

8:12 ↗ bit the shallow end of the affordable

8:15 ↗ housing topic here

8:18 ↗ um

8:20 ↗ and just to refresh your memory we'll

8:22 ↗ cover some basic

8:24 ↗ definitions and

8:26 ↗ guidelines so that which will come into

8:29 ↗ play with some of the data that I

8:31 ↗ present later

8:32 ↗ so

8:33 ↗ um

8:34 ↗ one term that we need to understand to

8:37 ↗ begin with is the area median income

8:39 ↗ this is the basis for income limits in

8:42 ↗ affordable housing as well as they are

8:45 ↗ used to calculate rent or Price limits

8:47 ↗ for affordable housing

8:50 ↗ it's the standard uh use that that is

8:54 ↗ published by Hud every year usually in

8:57 ↗ the spring

8:58 ↗ and the area in the area median income

9:02 ↗ they generally correspond to

9:04 ↗ Metropolitan statistical areas if you're

9:07 ↗ familiar with that term or that are

9:09 ↗ defined by the Census Bureau

9:12 ↗ and in our case our area is King and

9:16 ↗ Snohomish County combined

9:19 ↗ so basically HUD takes the immediate

9:22 ↗ family incomes that are found in the uh

9:27 ↗ American Community survey

9:30 ↗ the most recent one and then they update

9:32 ↗ it to the current year using the

9:36 ↗ Consumer Price Index and local housing

9:38 ↗ costs and other factors and they

9:41 ↗ determine a median family income for a

9:46 ↗ family of four

9:48 ↗ and we sometimes call that the 100 Ami

9:53 ↗ for a family of four

9:55 ↗ then to come up with income limits for

9:58 ↗ affordable housing programs we adjust

10:00 ↗ that for family sizes

10:03 ↗ um

10:04 ↗ 70 percent of the

10:07 ↗ four-person family will be a one-person

10:10 ↗ family and eighty percent of that will

10:11 ↗ be for two people and a ninety percent

10:14 ↗ for three people and so on

10:17 ↗ then if the city has or a program has

10:20 ↗ affordability

10:23 ↗ goals or limits that are you know below

10:26 ↗ a hundred percent median that say at

10:29 ↗ fifty percent or eighty percent then

10:31 ↗ we'll take

10:32 ↗ that percentage of those

10:36 ↗ figures

10:37 ↗ those then become the income limits for

10:40 ↗ initial eligibility to live in an

10:43 ↗ affordable housing

10:46 ↗ I just provided a few sample figures

10:48 ↗ here to give you an idea of what those

10:51 ↗ look like

10:52 ↗ um

10:53 ↗ but it's also interesting I checked

10:56 ↗ these against the minimum wage

10:59 ↗ so if you're interested interested a one

11:02 ↗ person minimum wage is because fifteen

11:05 ↗ dollars

11:07 ↗ 47 74 or something so annually that's

11:11 ↗ thirty two thousand seven hundred and

11:13 ↗ forty dollars a year if you work full

11:15 ↗ time and that equates to 34 percent of

11:18 ↗ Ami for one person

11:21 ↗ a couple two full-time minimum wage

11:26 ↗ earners

11:27 ↗ uh would be 65 000 about 65 500 and

11:32 ↗ that's about 61 percent of median if if

11:35 ↗ there are just two people in the family

11:37 ↗ but if it's a three-person family

11:40 ↗ then that uh equates to 54 Ami and if

11:45 ↗ they have a four-person household then

11:47 ↗ it would be 47 Ami so you can see how

11:51 ↗ these things are scaled according to the

11:55 ↗ family size which is

11:57 ↗ a reflection of

11:59 ↗ um then becomes a reflection of how much

12:01 ↗ money you need to be able to support

12:03 ↗ that family

12:06 ↗ I should also note here that if you

12:10 ↗ compare this to King County figures or

12:12 ↗ Seattle or some others you may find some

12:14 ↗ slight differences because there are

12:16 ↗ different agencies or programs may have

12:19 ↗ different uh

12:21 ↗ ways of calculating we calculate from

12:25 ↗ the 100 Ami four-person HUD also

12:29 ↗ published publishes a 50 Ami

12:32 ↗ and those are used by some agencies to

12:36 ↗ calculate income and rent limits so it

12:39 ↗ can be confusing sometimes somebody says

12:41 ↗ well how come

12:43 ↗ you know this program has these income

12:45 ↗ limits and you have these well

12:48 ↗ there's just some flexibility to Define

12:50 ↗ things a little differently but they're

12:52 ↗ usually within a hundred dollars or so

12:54 ↗ of each other

13:01 ↗ okay so let's convert this to what

13:04 ↗ people can then can actually afford to

13:07 ↗ pay and how the rent limits are set as

13:12 ↗ you probably know housing is considered

13:15 ↗ affordable if it costs less than 30

13:17 ↗ percent of the residence gross income

13:20 ↗ in our the land use or tax incentive

13:23 ↗ programs that we administer we set the

13:27 ↗ rent limits at 30 percent of the maximum

13:30 ↗ income of an eligible household

13:32 ↗ regardless of the household that's

13:35 ↗ actually living in the unit so

13:38 ↗ um

13:40 ↗ the household may have a lower income uh

13:45 ↗ or bigger household or something but

13:47 ↗ they're but the rents will be based on

13:50 ↗ this schedule

13:51 ↗ that's a little different than what you

13:54 ↗ might hear from some public housing or

13:57 ↗ subsidized programs where they actually

13:59 ↗ the resident actually pays 30 percent of

14:02 ↗ their own income

14:04 ↗ most land use tax exempt exemption

14:07 ↗ programs things of that nature use this

14:10 ↗ method where they're they're just you

14:12 ↗ know regardless of who you are this is

14:14 ↗ what your maximum rent could be

14:18 ↗ but still we do the adjustments for the

14:21 ↗ the size of the unit the number of

14:22 ↗ bedrooms and the affordability level

14:25 ↗ that the city is looking for

14:31 ↗ sure I mean he could do this too but in

14:35 ↗ the city

14:36 ↗ um we have 1032 affordable units and

14:40 ↗ when I say affordable units in this case

14:41 ↗ that means that these are units that

14:43 ↗ have covenants attached to them so they

14:45 ↗ are affordable for either 50 years or

14:48 ↗ for the life of the project

14:50 ↗ and we have 819 that are at or below 80

14:54 ↗ percent of the area median income and

14:57 ↗ 213 that are between 81 and 120 percent

15:01 ↗ of area median income

15:03 ↗ yes I'm curious of those units how many

15:07 ↗ locations is that how are they spread

15:09 ↗ across the city

15:11 ↗ I actually have a map of it but not with

15:13 ↗ me and it's coming up just did the draft

15:16 ↗ um but most of those the ownership is in

15:20 ↗ the highlands escort Highlands

15:23 ↗ um well everything from 80 80 81 to 120

15:27 ↗ those ownership units are in the

15:29 ↗ highlands there are

15:33 ↗ I can't remember exactly how many in the

15:35 ↗ highlands but they're only 33 in the

15:37 ↗ highlands that aren't ownership

15:41 ↗ at that at that level but as far as the

15:43 ↗ rest of them they're spread out pretty

15:45 ↗ evenly throughout the city

15:47 ↗ yeah

15:48 ↗ but Highlands for those who don't know

15:50 ↗ God so many they had 350 at 80 percent

15:52 ↗ of below that they were supposed to

15:54 ↗ provide in 350 between 81 and 120 as

15:58 ↗ part of the development agreement so

16:00 ↗ that is why the Highland that's one of

16:01 ↗ the reasons the highlands has so many

16:06 ↗ so this doesn't include project-based

16:09 ↗ vouchers correct so like Discovery

16:11 ↗ Heights for example has a certain number

16:12 ↗ of Project based but that because that's

16:14 ↗ not covenanted that wouldn't be in this

16:16 ↗ number

16:17 ↗ well they actually do have a land use

16:19 ↗ Covenant as well they do okay

16:22 ↗ um and this this doesn't include

16:26 ↗ tenant-based vouchers but it does

16:28 ↗ include project face it includes sources

16:30 ↗ uh other than uh City incentives as well

16:34 ↗ it has some um

16:36 ↗ uh housing authority projects and some

16:40 ↗ tax credit projects as well anything

16:42 ↗ that's that's regulated in some form

16:51 ↗ yeah okay

17:02 ↗ so

17:04 ↗ um let's talk about the the population

17:05 ↗ overall the current population in

17:08 ↗ Issaquah majority of the households make

17:10 ↗ over 120 120 percent of median income

17:16 ↗ 35 percent make uh less than the median

17:22 ↗ and

17:23 ↗ 27 make uh 80 Ami or less

17:29 ↗ including 11 at the lowest income group

17:32 ↗ that's zero to Thirty Ami

17:37 ↗ now let's compare that to the

17:39 ↗ affordability of the housing that we

17:42 ↗ have now

17:43 ↗ and this is this is data from the

17:46 ↗ American Community survey So based on

17:48 ↗ what people reported are their housing

17:50 ↗ costs

17:52 ↗ and

17:53 ↗ here the housing costs make 37 percent

17:57 ↗ of the homes affordable for people

18:00 ↗ making median income

18:03 ↗ or 17 percent are affordable to anyone

18:07 ↗ making 80 percent of median or less

18:11 ↗ there's not a lot not a wild discrepancy

18:14 ↗ but a noticeable one there

18:17 ↗ but the affordable uh affordability

18:21 ↗ shortage becomes more acute when you

18:23 ↗ consider that many middle and higher

18:26 ↗ income people spend less than 30 percent

18:29 ↗ of their incomes and housing

18:32 ↗ so my family for example bar have lived

18:36 ↗ in the same house for 20 years and we

18:38 ↗ didn't buy up when our incomes Rose we

18:41 ↗ stay in the same house so

18:43 ↗ and the Housing Industry doesn't build

18:46 ↗ lower cost housing without subsidies or

18:49 ↗ incentives

18:51 ↗ so that means that

18:53 ↗ fewer and fewer housing units are

18:56 ↗ available as the city grows

18:59 ↗ and its consequence lower income people

19:01 ↗ are have higher cost housing to choose

19:04 ↗ from and we end up with people who are

19:07 ↗ what we call housing cost burden they're

19:09 ↗ spending more than 30 percent of their

19:11 ↗ incomes on housing

19:14 ↗ if they're spending more than 50 percent

19:16 ↗ on housing and we call that severely

19:18 ↗ cost burdened and we find that those are

19:21 ↗ people who

19:23 ↗ the housing costs are eating in so much

19:25 ↗ of what they would otherwise spend on

19:29 ↗ medical costs or food clothing and so

19:32 ↗ forth that they're really on the edge of

19:35 ↗ becoming homeless

19:38 ↗ at the last count

19:40 ↗ 20 percent of the renters in Issaquah

19:43 ↗ were severely cost per another 22

19:46 ↗ percent were cost pardoned

19:55 ↗ so one of the requirements that's being

19:58 ↗ considered right now is by the county is

20:01 ↗ that they would assign affordable

20:04 ↗ housing targets to

20:07 ↗ individual jurisdictions so in the past

20:09 ↗ we've all just sort of accepted the

20:11 ↗ County's Target which was we want 40 of

20:14 ↗ our units to be affordable but that just

20:17 ↗ isn't coming out right regionally and

20:19 ↗ the spread it's just it's hard to

20:21 ↗ achieve for one and it just it hasn't

20:25 ↗ produced a good balance so what the

20:27 ↗ county is doing is that they have looked

20:30 ↗ at

20:32 ↗ the targets the thought that 3 500

20:34 ↗ number that I gave you every city has a

20:36 ↗ different Target right you know

20:38 ↗ Kirkland's is like 21 000. Redmond's is

20:40 ↗ 22 000. ours is 3 500. so they look at

20:44 ↗ the targets and of those

20:46 ↗ new units that are coming in they're

20:48 ↗ also looking at what affordable units we

20:51 ↗ have in place already we're saying

20:52 ↗ they're looking at it saying there are

20:54 ↗ gaps

20:55 ↗ in the 80 to 100 percent area so

20:59 ↗ Issaquah needs to take more of those but

21:02 ↗ they're looking at our Target and

21:03 ↗ they're saying X percentage of your

21:05 ↗ units need to be affordable extra

21:08 ↗ percent of your new units be need to be

21:10 ↗ affordable and we're breaking it up into

21:12 ↗ these different Ami categories does that

21:14 ↗ make sense

21:18 ↗ right so this is actually coming from uh

21:22 ↗ changes in the growth of States growth

21:24 ↗ management act that were enacted a

21:26 ↗ couple years ago and it says and that

21:29 ↗ every housing element has to include

21:30 ↗ inventory and Analysis of existing and

21:33 ↗ projected housing needs that identifies

21:35 ↗ the number of housing units necessary to

21:38 ↗ manage projected growth that's the 3500.

21:41 ↗ as provided by the Department of

21:43 ↗ Commerce including units for moderate

21:46 ↗ low very low and extremely low income

21:48 ↗ households

21:50 ↗ and emergency housing Emergency Shelters

21:53 ↗ and permanent Supportive Housing

21:57 ↗ so what we had at isqua in 2019 is in

22:02 ↗ the top line there

22:04 ↗ 30 Ami

22:07 ↗ breaking up the the income groups from

22:10 ↗ 30 Ami and breaking up the 30 and Below

22:12 ↗ into permanent Supportive Housing

22:15 ↗ or not that's what the psh stands for

22:20 ↗ and then the middle row 24 20 20 44

22:25 ↗ total need

22:27 ↗ is what the Commerce Department said

22:32 ↗ well Commerce gave each County

22:35 ↗ county-wide figures and that the county

22:39 ↗ wat the King County groups in

22:40 ↗ collaboration with

22:42 ↗ city planners elected officials and so

22:46 ↗ forth have come up with an allocation

22:48 ↗ member method which is shown in that

22:51 ↗ middle row

22:52 ↗ and so these are the numbers that are

22:55 ↗ proposed for Issaquah

22:58 ↗ and then the the difference is in that

23:00 ↗ bottom row

23:03 ↗ that bottom row from in the tan colored

23:06 ↗ columns to the right of emergency that

23:09 ↗ those add up to the 3500. total growth

23:12 ↗ Target

23:15 ↗ so um

23:18 ↗ actually

23:19 ↗ little clarification

23:21 ↗ it's not 3 500 because that would mean

23:24 ↗ that every unit that came in every new

23:25 ↗ unit that came in we would expect to be

23:27 ↗ affordable so it actually but it does

23:29 ↗ come out to like 3 100 units that

23:33 ↗ they're hoping would be affordable to up

23:35 ↗ to 120 percent

23:41 ↗ this is the uh the same data just shown

23:43 ↗ in percentages kind of comparing the

23:46 ↗ Baseline to what the total need is

23:51 ↗ um and I want to make clear that what

23:53 ↗ the uh comp plan is accountable for here

23:58 ↗ um

24:00 ↗ is to plan for and accommodate is the

24:03 ↗ words that are in the the growth

24:05 ↗ management Act and the countywide

24:07 ↗ planning policies

24:09 ↗ housing for these needs by 2044.

24:14 ↗ the city won't be held accountable for

24:17 ↗ what actually gets built or what the

24:20 ↗ actual affordability is

24:22 ↗ as long as the city implements the plan

24:26 ↗ so you can't adopt you know a housing

24:29 ↗ element that says we'll do these things

24:31 ↗ and then set it aside and not do it

24:35 ↗ that would make the city vulnerable

24:38 ↗ but you do have to you also have to have

24:40 ↗ a plan that shows it's

24:44 ↗ you know it's reasonably possible these

24:47 ↗ are my words these are not official

24:48 ↗ words I'm trying to paraphrase that's my

24:51 ↗ ability here but it has to be a

24:53 ↗ reasonable plan that that shows that

24:57 ↗ that affordability left sort of those

25:00 ↗ needs could be met

25:02 ↗ over uh the next 20 years

25:08 ↗ so we wanted to take a little bit of

25:10 ↗ time here just to reflect on what this

25:13 ↗ cause already doing what some options

25:15 ↗ are

25:16 ↗ you know by looking at what other cities

25:19 ↗ have been doing

25:20 ↗ and then

25:23 ↗ see where our conversation goes oh that

25:25 ↗ we want to talk a little bit more about

25:27 ↗ the state law okay

25:29 ↗ so if you might recall from the last

25:33 ↗ time I was here Lindsay Masterson I

25:35 ↗ talked about some of your programs

25:38 ↗ and issco has done a lot over the last

25:42 ↗ 30 years

25:44 ↗ to create and preserve affordable units

25:46 ↗ the vast majority of those about 860 of

25:51 ↗ them I think came through development

25:53 ↗ agreements

25:54 ↗ mostly on Issaquah Highlands as Kristen

25:57 ↗ said

25:59 ↗ but there are other Provisions in the

26:01 ↗ code that you know provide opportunities

26:04 ↗ for development agreements like for

26:06 ↗ cluster housing and things that also

26:09 ↗ lead to Affordable units

26:12 ↗ um you have inclusionary zoning and

26:14 ↗ Central Issaquah District

26:16 ↗ which has only produced 11 you

26:19 ↗ affordable units so far but has a lot of

26:22 ↗ potential to do more there I believe all

26:25 ↗ or nearly all the affordable units in

26:28 ↗ Issaquah have received a fee waivers or

26:31 ↗ partial fee waivers or exemptions from

26:33 ↗ Impact fees that kind of thing

26:35 ↗ um

26:36 ↗ and then the cities contributed a lot to

26:39 ↗ the arch trust fund which has leveraged

26:43 ↗ funding from other Arch members and

26:47 ↗ other funders to help produce

26:49 ↗ affordable housing here and

26:51 ↗ across Arch sphere

26:55 ↗ and the city has actually been also one

26:58 ↗ of the leaders in

27:00 ↗ offering public land either free or

27:03 ↗ reduced costs for to make feasible

27:08 ↗ housing by non-profit housers

27:14 ↗ the big difference between Issaquah and

27:16 ↗ other Arch members from my standpoint

27:19 ↗ other cities have relied more heavily on

27:22 ↗ inclusionary zoning there's a mandatory

27:24 ↗ affordability that comes as a result

27:27 ↗ from up zoning

27:29 ↗ or things of that nature and other

27:32 ↗ cities have also used the multi-family

27:36 ↗ tax exemption

27:38 ↗ Issaquah has a provision ready to go

27:41 ↗ and if the city decides to make that

27:45 ↗ available on a wider

27:47 ↗ Geographic part of the city I think that

27:49 ↗ will

27:51 ↗ probably get a lot of use

27:53 ↗ commercial linkage fees I have to admit

27:56 ↗ are not a real thing yet

27:59 ↗ it's kind of something that one or two

28:03 ↗ cities have adopted but haven't

28:05 ↗ made much use of but all of our cities

28:08 ↗ are looking closely at this as a kind of

28:11 ↗ a equivalent of an inclusionary housing

28:13 ↗ for commercial development where the

28:17 ↗ developers would pay a fee

28:19 ↗ to help support affordable housing for

28:23 ↗ the demand for housing they're created

28:26 ↗ through their increased employment

28:29 ↗ and like Issaquah other cities have used

28:31 ↗ uh have

28:33 ↗ funded the trust fund and

28:37 ↗ helped projects with public land

28:43 ↗ we should also

28:46 ↗ um

28:47 ↗ not feel like the city has to do

28:50 ↗ everything here

28:52 ↗ that a comp plan can and and really

28:55 ↗ should

28:56 ↗ um

28:57 ↗ spread the responsibility around right

29:00 ↗ after all the city doesn't build housing

29:03 ↗ we know that

29:04 ↗ um

29:05 ↗ the King County Housing Authority does

29:08 ↗ and has been active in Issaquah for a

29:11 ↗ long time

29:12 ↗ but there are other actors that

29:15 ↗ I think it's fair to say should be part

29:19 ↗ of this plan and the

29:23 ↗ cpps and state law actually require that

29:27 ↗ the plan include collaboration

29:29 ↗ collaboration actions in concert with

29:33 ↗ other

29:34 ↗ other actors so

29:36 ↗ so that will be part of the planning

29:39 ↗ process going forward

29:44 ↗ foreign the affordable housing

29:48 ↗ needs are just one of the challenges in

29:52 ↗ this housing element update

29:54 ↗ and

29:56 ↗ the you'll see a lot of

29:59 ↗ cross-pollination between the GMA

30:01 ↗ amendments and the new CPP amendments

30:04 ↗ I've bulleted here what I think are some

30:08 ↗ of the major substantive additions or

30:10 ↗ changes some of the other

30:13 ↗ cpps and there are several pages of

30:16 ↗ housing

30:17 ↗ policies but they may they have stronger

30:21 ↗ language now than they used to but

30:23 ↗ they're they're basically not changed

30:24 ↗ these are some of the things that I

30:26 ↗ think reflect the emphasis of the cpps

30:29 ↗ that we'll have to take into

30:31 ↗ consideration for the housing element

30:33 ↗ update

30:35 ↗ there we've just shown you a tip of the

30:38 ↗ iceberg on the data that we have but the

30:41 ↗ cpps require some quite a bit of

30:45 ↗ additional data and Analysis

30:48 ↗ that will present to you

30:52 ↗ that would be part of the process of

30:54 ↗ actually evaluating the effectiveness of

30:56 ↗ the programs that you have in place and

30:59 ↗ the resources that have been available

31:01 ↗ in the past and trying to identify

31:05 ↗ gaps also there is emphasis on

31:10 ↗ identifying and documenting racially

31:14 ↗ discriminatory and exclusive land use

31:18 ↗ and housing policies risk of

31:22 ↗ displacement

31:24 ↗ other exclusions in housing and policies

31:27 ↗ to

31:29 ↗ make up for those gaps

31:32 ↗ and then

31:36 ↗ the cpps also provide for a new level

31:41 ↗ of comp plan review that has then has

31:45 ↗ been done in the past so

31:48 ↗ I can't say exactly what this is going

31:50 ↗ to look like I'm not sure anybody knows

31:52 ↗ for sure they're still working on the

31:54 ↗ policies that will Define what the

31:57 ↗ process will be but

31:59 ↗ um

32:01 ↗ the both the affordable housing

32:04 ↗ committee and the growth management

32:05 ↗ planning come out Council of King County

32:08 ↗ will be examining all of the housing

32:12 ↗ elements closely to try to make sure

32:15 ↗ that

32:17 ↗ um as I indicated earlier that

32:19 ↗ the policies and strategies and the

32:22 ↗ plans

32:23 ↗ you know show a reasonable level of

32:27 ↗ support and confidence that those needs

32:30 ↗ can be met in the future

32:36 ↗ so as I mentioned they were both County

32:38 ↗ and state requirements that we're doing

32:40 ↗ and they overlapped quite a bit as Mike

32:42 ↗ said so the inventory and Analysis the

32:45 ↗ state is requiring they want to identify

32:47 ↗ capacity of land for all housing units

32:49 ↗ so from very very low income up to 120

32:51 ↗ percent up to special needs

32:54 ↗ um identify and address policies that

32:56 ↗ result again in racially disparate

32:58 ↗ impacts and displacement and exclusion

33:00 ↗ and then address and begin to undo

33:03 ↗ racially disparate impacts displacement

33:05 ↗ and inclusion on housing

33:10 ↗ so

33:12 ↗ I don't know why I find that funny um in

33:14 ↗ 2021 the state adopted house bill 1220.

33:19 ↗ and it requires that cities accommodate

33:22 ↗ and plan for

33:23 ↗ very low income through uh

33:26 ↗ or extremely low income through moderate

33:28 ↗ income housing so everything that we've

33:30 ↗ talked about

33:31 ↗ and we do that we allow it everywhere

33:34 ↗ right now

33:36 ↗ they also ask that we accommodate and

33:38 ↗ plan for emergency housing Emergency

33:39 ↗ Shelters and permanent Supportive

33:41 ↗ Housing those we don't do so that'll

33:44 ↗ have to be a change both in our policies

33:46 ↗ and in our development regulations

33:50 ↗ and then adopt anti-displacement

33:53 ↗ policies which we don't have in our code

33:55 ↗ and inventory and monitor we actually

33:57 ↗ have an inventory right now

34:01 ↗ what I told you I just map but haven't

34:02 ↗ bring with me and to monitor it which we

34:06 ↗ kind of do but we haven't we do we

34:08 ↗ monitor it pretty well it comes out in

34:09 ↗ the housing report card every year so

34:11 ↗ not a whole lot of changes here but

34:13 ↗ there are some that need to be made in a

34:14 ↗ big discussion that needs to be had

34:16 ↗ because there are different ways to

34:17 ↗ accommodate for the emergency housing

34:19 ↗ and the Emergency Shelters

34:23 ↗ and then one that's being talked about

34:24 ↗ it's been passed in the house and it's

34:26 ↗ on its way to the Senate and will likely

34:28 ↗ be passed as house bill 1110.

34:31 ↗ and it says that we must allow three

34:33 ↗ units per every lot that is that allows

34:37 ↗ primarily housing on it or every every

34:40 ↗ Zone that has that's

34:43 ↗ zoned for primarily residential use so

34:46 ↗ that would pretty much be our

34:47 ↗ multi-family High zoning all the way

34:49 ↗ down through Conservancy residential

34:52 ↗ and then you would be required to allow

34:55 ↗ six units within one half mile walking

34:58 ↗ distance of a major Transit stop they

35:00 ↗ haven't quite defined what major Transit

35:02 ↗ stop is yet right now based on the

35:04 ↗ definition we don't have one

35:06 ↗ because we don't have rapid Area Transit

35:09 ↗ yet any kind of so um but it hasn't been

35:11 ↗ fully defined so we'll see what that

35:12 ↗ turns into and then four units would be

35:15 ↗ allowed anywhere in the city on a parcel

35:19 ↗ as long as one of those units is

35:20 ↗ Affordable at 60 or 80 to 60 percent

35:23 ↗ uh was it 60 rental and 80 ownership

35:27 ↗ so those are things that are being

35:28 ↗ talked about they will probably get

35:30 ↗ passed and there's a little more to it

35:32 ↗ but I didn't you know we'll get into the

35:35 ↗ finer details once they figure it out

35:37 ↗ themselves so

35:40 ↗ so that's what we have as far as

35:42 ↗ presentation again we want to we want

35:44 ↗ you guys to start talking to us now

35:45 ↗ let's have a discussion about the vision

35:48 ↗ which take your time with the vision it

35:50 ↗ has to doesn't have to be done tonight

35:51 ↗ when I do Visions I will actually write

35:54 ↗ out my outline first and then go okay

35:55 ↗ here's the thesis of the vision so you

35:57 ↗ know people work in different ways so it

35:59 ↗ doesn't have to be decided tonight and

36:02 ↗ are there any topics that aren't

36:03 ↗ addressed here that are being required

36:04 ↗ by the state and County that you want to

36:06 ↗ see us talk about and then is there

36:09 ↗ information or feedback that will help

36:10 ↗ you that we didn't provide aside from

36:12 ↗ the map that shows everything that we

36:13 ↗ have and where

36:15 ↗ so that's it

36:19 ↗ would you like me to stop sharing

36:21 ↗ no I think we can keep these up okay

36:24 ↗ well thank you Mr Stanger thank you

36:26 ↗ Kristen

36:28 ↗ commission it's our turn

36:31 ↗ please

36:33 ↗ yes it was commissioner Alma um just a

36:37 ↗ quick question the what's been proposed

36:40 ↗ in that bill is that the minimum or or

36:44 ↗ the maximum for in in regards to six

36:48 ↗ units and or or three units per lot

36:53 ↗ if a developer oh go on please the

36:56 ↗ minimum okay very well thank you

37:02 ↗ and if I understand this correctly

37:04 ↗ Kristen both bills these are what's

37:06 ↗ allowed it's not necessarily that it's

37:09 ↗ what's going to be built so am I getting

37:11 ↗ this right this these bills don't have

37:13 ↗ as much teeth as it sounds

37:15 ↗ it's true it's like our targets they say

37:17 ↗ that we have to plan for and accommodate

37:18 ↗ 3 500 units but we don't have to build 3

37:21 ↗ 500 units we're not developers so same

37:23 ↗ thing here

37:24 ↗ right is that they would say that you

37:26 ↗ have to allow three lots or three units

37:29 ↗ per lot but we don't have to build that

37:31 ↗ we don't have to require that you just

37:33 ↗ have to allow it right because that was

37:35 ↗ something in the very beginning I'm

37:36 ↗ getting a little hung up on I understand

37:38 ↗ how it works with development agreements

37:40 ↗ I understand how it works with

37:41 ↗ multi-family how does that work with

37:43 ↗ like a single family house like a single

37:45 ↗ family residential that someone is

37:47 ↗ either using a builder or building

37:49 ↗ themselves I mean does that even equate

37:51 ↗ does that even become part of the

37:53 ↗ calculation or

37:54 ↗ not really I mean I see how it works

37:57 ↗ with multi-family I just I can't get in

37:59 ↗ my head like single residential housing

38:01 ↗ how any of this works so there are a few

38:04 ↗ different I live in Kirkland where this

38:05 ↗ is already allowed

38:07 ↗ and there are a few different scenarios

38:09 ↗ you know I know in one case I just saw a

38:11 ↗ house that was for sale

38:12 ↗ and there was an existing house and they

38:15 ↗ built 280 use behind it and in Kirkland

38:17 ↗ you're allowed to sell those adus

38:20 ↗ even if it's on one lot

38:23 ↗ so that person went in they had their

38:25 ↗ single family house they had a really

38:26 ↗ big backyard they put in two much

38:28 ↗ smaller single-family houses and they

38:29 ↗ sold those

38:30 ↗ or on another one where they're doing

38:33 ↗ more of is you have a deeper older lot

38:36 ↗ and you put three small houses on there

38:39 ↗ with a driveway that accesses all of

38:41 ↗ them so when it comes to private

38:43 ↗ property it's more about enticing either

38:45 ↗ the

38:46 ↗ the seller or the property owner to be

38:49 ↗ able to utilize the land a little bit

38:51 ↗ better to make a profit themselves sell

38:53 ↗ it and then offer more affordable

38:54 ↗ housing to

38:56 ↗ the next group of people that are moving

38:58 ↗ in behind them right and again these

39:00 ↗ don't have to be affordable the three

39:01 ↗ units they can be one of those adus was

39:04 ↗ selling for over a million dollars so

39:06 ↗ they don't have to be affordable

39:08 ↗ self-subjective right okay they just

39:11 ↗ they have to be allowed now if you're

39:13 ↗ going to do four one of those does have

39:14 ↗ to be affordable

39:19 ↗ Louis

39:20 ↗ I'm curious I think one of the holdups

39:22 ↗ for me as I've been following this bill

39:24 ↗ is thinking about level of service and

39:26 ↗ specifically for our community how we

39:28 ↗ think about sewer water

39:31 ↗ transportation right that there's um

39:34 ↗ there's more to the story than just

39:36 ↗ housing units and how the state expects

39:39 ↗ us to be able to accommodate for that in

39:41 ↗ a community like ours that has a very

39:43 ↗ geography right it's very interesting to

39:45 ↗ me because not all communities are the

39:47 ↗ same we're very unique and I think that

39:50 ↗ this right now leaves a lot of questions

39:52 ↗ that Issaquah needs to be prepared to

39:54 ↗ say this is what we will and won't do

39:56 ↗ which means having policy discussions

39:59 ↗ with the public in these forums to be

40:01 ↗ able to say this is how and where we're

40:03 ↗ going to do it to be very specific

40:04 ↗ because as I read it it means that when

40:07 ↗ we get single Lots asking to have zoning

40:10 ↗ up you know to be up zoned right now we

40:13 ↗ say well we want it in the valley floor

40:14 ↗ right we're following our policy

40:16 ↗ decisions but this changes that pretty

40:18 ↗ dramatically and so it it's um

40:21 ↗ concerning might be a good word right

40:25 ↗ right and you know you bring up a very

40:27 ↗ good point and we've had lots of

40:28 ↗ conversations about that internally and

40:30 ↗ our mayor has spoken with other Mayors

40:33 ↗ and legislators and said our topography

40:36 ↗ doesn't allow for this in some ways

40:38 ↗ because we need transit to accommodate

40:40 ↗ all these people but we can't get

40:42 ↗ transit up on the top of squawk mountain

40:43 ↗ or up Tallis those roads are too steep

40:47 ↗ especially when it's snowy or yeah the

40:49 ↗ infrastructure we need water we need

40:51 ↗ sewer we need all these things and we

40:52 ↗ have to be able to accommodate that in

40:55 ↗ in some places it's just not possible

40:58 ↗ so I think what's interesting then is to

41:00 ↗ think about how we measure

41:02 ↗ um

41:04 ↗ how we measure the The Fallout right

41:07 ↗ what we know we need to meet and how we

41:09 ↗ do it means what are the things that

41:11 ↗ need to come in line for it if you're

41:12 ↗ going to build in this way then what are

41:14 ↗ the other costs that are going to be

41:15 ↗ associated with it

41:17 ↗ um you know obviously these homes aren't

41:19 ↗ going to be able to have um

41:21 ↗ a septic drain field so that means that

41:23 ↗ we need to think about how our system is

41:25 ↗ able to accommodate just you know our

41:26 ↗ Wastewater alone it's a complicated

41:30 ↗ um puzzle

41:35 ↗ yeah this is Sarah Vader um this might

41:38 ↗ be a dumb questions because I don't

41:39 ↗ really know how the process works but is

41:42 ↗ some of that

41:43 ↗ well some of those like can this law

41:46 ↗ accommodate this or not just kind of

41:47 ↗ happen naturally through like land use

41:49 ↗ code or building code

41:52 ↗ um that sort of thing so that this

41:53 ↗ development can only happen on lots that

41:55 ↗ actually can

41:56 ↗ accommodate and just kind of increase

41:58 ↗ density right there's not going to be

42:00 ↗ any there you know there wouldn't be any

42:02 ↗ lot line adjustments to make sure that

42:04 ↗ all the Lots can accommodate this or

42:06 ↗ anything like that yeah it would just be

42:07 ↗ a matter of amending our code to say

42:09 ↗ this is allowed here yeah and then if if

42:13 ↗ you can fit three great do three

42:15 ↗ you know

42:18 ↗ commissioner Kennedy

42:21 ↗ well one I'm really looking forward to

42:23 ↗ that map because that was my question

42:24 ↗ too I wanted a map with all kinds of

42:27 ↗ dots of where single-family homes were

42:29 ↗ multi-family homes versus affordable

42:30 ↗ housing so I'm looking forward to your

42:32 ↗ map question

42:34 ↗ um we have to accommodate for this

42:36 ↗ housing but what I'm hearing you say is

42:38 ↗ it's not mandatory so is there a system

42:41 ↗ for encouraging it

42:43 ↗ how does that work if it's we have to

42:46 ↗ accommodate for it but we

42:48 ↗ we're not builders

42:50 ↗ how does that work do we have

42:52 ↗ enticements

42:54 ↗ for affordable housing yes

42:57 ↗ um you know Mike mentioned all the

42:58 ↗ incentives that we have with the fee

43:00 ↗ waivers and land and sometimes we

43:04 ↗ actually require it in the case of

43:05 ↗ affordable housing like inclusionary

43:07 ↗ zoning or if you're going to do

43:08 ↗ development bonus then you're going to

43:10 ↗ go above your base height or above your

43:12 ↗ base if we are then you're required to

43:13 ↗ do it but as far as the market rate

43:15 ↗ housing goes no you're right you just

43:18 ↗ have to say in your code

43:20 ↗ this is allowed here

43:21 ↗ and then if somebody wants to come build

43:24 ↗ it I don't think that there's going to

43:26 ↗ be a whole lot of enticing that has to

43:27 ↗ be done in some cases in some locations

43:30 ↗ but

43:31 ↗ um yeah they would uh there's no forcing

43:34 ↗ of it

43:40 ↗ yeah that was something I was looking at

43:42 ↗ too is as far as

43:44 ↗ Mr stanger's presentation it shows you

43:47 ↗ know the things that were working

43:49 ↗ and that was another question I wanted

43:51 ↗ to ask but as far as the things that are

43:52 ↗ working we have the development

43:54 ↗ agreements we have waivers City Partners

43:57 ↗ like Arch

43:58 ↗ funding through the city through Arch

44:01 ↗ and then even a little bit of land use

44:03 ↗ but ultimately

44:04 ↗ seems like those are the ways people get

44:06 ↗ it again like you said you can have

44:07 ↗ inclusionary zoning if you're starting a

44:09 ↗ new development like Talus or is it

44:11 ↗ called Highlands I don't know how many

44:12 ↗ more of these down the pipe but for the

44:14 ↗ most part it sounds like enticing people

44:16 ↗ is how we're going to get what we want

44:19 ↗ and then allowing certain developers to

44:21 ↗ build which kind of scares me a little

44:23 ↗ because once they have that uh that Long

44:27 ↗ Leash they can you know we don't want

44:28 ↗ tenements by any means

44:30 ↗ but am I getting that right it really

44:32 ↗ has been enticements for the last

44:35 ↗ 20 years yeah

44:38 ↗ yeah I'm trying to pull up I am

44:40 ↗ listening to you

44:41 ↗ I make this cool idea

44:51 ↗ I I pulled up the map I'm going to share

44:54 ↗ it with you

44:55 ↗ this is just not the best way to see it

44:57 ↗ do you see it

44:59 ↗ well I'm gonna let's see I'll just try

45:01 ↗ it this way

45:13 ↗ okay

45:17 ↗ uh yeah this is going to be hard to see

45:19 ↗ because I don't know how to make this

45:21 ↗ little ribbon go away

45:28 ↗ but

45:34 ↗ starting from the top you can see we

45:37 ↗ have two unit we have some units over

45:39 ↗ here South Cove Providence Point we

45:41 ↗ don't have any affordable units up there

45:43 ↗ you can see that in Issaquah Highlands

45:45 ↗ there are quite a few and these are all

45:47 ↗ the 80 belows quite a few and it's quite

45:50 ↗ Highlands and then you get a lot down

45:51 ↗ here you start to get some in Old Town

45:53 ↗ and down on Old Town and squawk Mountain

45:56 ↗ down here so really kind of this Central

45:59 ↗ and South Southeast parts of the city

46:02 ↗ and then over here in Dallas this is

46:05 ↗ Rose Crest that has 50 units and then

46:07 ↗ there's only one unit right here in

46:08 ↗ Dallas but then this map also includes a

46:12 ↗ table of

46:13 ↗ all the units the names where they're

46:15 ↗ located whether they're rental or

46:16 ↗ ownership total units affordable units

46:20 ↗ um and then at what Ami each of those

46:23 ↗ units is so this hopefully will come out

46:26 ↗ next week and I'll send you guys the

46:27 ↗ link but there's one in here for the up

46:29 ↗ to 80 and there's also one that's above

46:32 ↗ 80 and you can see that this is Issaquah

46:35 ↗ Highlands and that's where they're all

46:36 ↗ located

46:42 ↗ chair voice I think to your point I

46:43 ↗ remember uh this commission did a lot of

46:45 ↗ joint commission meetings back in I

46:48 ↗ think 2016 2017 we spent about two years

46:50 ↗ really trying to work a lot on how we

46:52 ↗ were going to get a more affordable

46:55 ↗ housing in the City of Issaquah and it

46:57 ↗ was very interesting because we had a

46:58 ↗ lot of options in front of us and we all

47:00 ↗ wanted the enticing route right we all

47:02 ↗ wanted the carrot and not the stick we

47:04 ↗ looked at a lot of different things and

47:06 ↗ we chose that as a community and I think

47:08 ↗ what's really interesting is to think

47:10 ↗ about how we're tracking it whenever we

47:13 ↗ do our housing report card we like to

47:14 ↗ see who's utilizing what what's being

47:16 ↗ used what do we need to kind of think

47:18 ↗ about how we're changing those

47:20 ↗ incentives and what's working and not

47:22 ↗ working but being able to track what are

47:25 ↗ we getting a real result from it's going

47:26 ↗ to be a very interesting thing moving

47:28 ↗ forward in terms of especially the state

47:30 ↗ Bill and making sure that we're

47:33 ↗ attracting and managing it in a way

47:36 ↗ that's kind of slow rolls that I think

47:37 ↗ in a way that we're able to get a hold

47:39 ↗ of

47:49 ↗ I know we got more questions in this we

47:51 ↗ got more questions in the tank

47:53 ↗ Vice chair Bader

47:55 ↗ yeah I have questions to take us down a

47:57 ↗ little bit of a different path

47:59 ↗ [Music]

47:59 ↗ um

48:00 ↗ my first question is is there a waiting

48:03 ↗ list

48:04 ↗ um for affordable housing in the city

48:09 ↗ we don't keep a waiting list per se we

48:12 ↗ have

48:13 ↗ um what we we call it a mailing list or

48:16 ↗ a contact list or kind of a registry of

48:18 ↗ people who are interested in affordable

48:22 ↗ housing through our programs and you

48:25 ↗ know in our community so we'll contact

48:26 ↗ them when opportunities become available

48:29 ↗ whether it's home ownership or rental

48:32 ↗ okay

48:33 ↗ so do we have a sense of like I know we

48:36 ↗ have our targets but like to actually

48:37 ↗ meet demand for affordable housing how

48:40 ↗ many units we would need or

48:43 ↗ how many off we are

48:46 ↗ to meet uh to not from that waiting list

48:51 ↗ which your question makes me think of

48:53 ↗ though is that is

48:55 ↗ you know how you know just basically how

48:58 ↗ many to me do we need right and the

49:01 ↗ county is defining that is telling us

49:03 ↗ what that is that's that number okay and

49:06 ↗ then

49:07 ↗ um in terms of those whatever it was 3

49:10 ↗ 100 units that kind of fall and that do

49:13 ↗ we have targets for how many of those we

49:15 ↗ want to be rentals versus ownership

49:18 ↗ good question no that that's not defined

49:21 ↗ in there

49:24 ↗ you know the city could Define that

49:26 ↗ yourselves

49:27 ↗ because I'm thinking about like then the

49:29 ↗ kind of goals and policies around like

49:31 ↗ discouraging displacement and that sort

49:33 ↗ of thing and like encouraging paths to

49:35 ↗ home ownership

49:36 ↗ as part of this the um uh I think

49:41 ↗ there's kind of a natural

49:43 ↗ um

49:45 ↗ I'm not sure what the right word is uh

49:48 ↗ barrier is not exactly what I'm looking

49:50 ↗ for but

49:51 ↗ um

49:52 ↗ home ownership would is is going to be

49:55 ↗ very difficult for people who make less

49:57 ↗ than 50 percent of median uh regardless

50:00 ↗ even if the entry prices is Affordable

50:03 ↗ to them so that's going to limit your

50:06 ↗ ability to produce affordable units you

50:10 ↗ know at those price points

50:13 ↗ and then last thing and that I think

50:16 ↗ would be interesting to see too is we

50:19 ↗ kind of talked about numbers as a whole

50:21 ↗ but to see that kind of um the same

50:23 ↗ breakdown by race and ethnicity and what

50:25 ↗ that looks like across the city

50:28 ↗ um I think would be another kind of good

50:29 ↗ data point to have going into these

50:31 ↗ conversations

50:33 ↗ I'm sorry would you repeat that just

50:35 ↗ looking at the data by race and

50:36 ↗ ethnicity instead of just the population

50:38 ↗ level yeah yeah we

50:43 ↗ commissioner altimore thank you I just

50:45 ↗ wanted to speak to Vice chair Bader's

50:47 ↗ first question

50:48 ↗ um so if I take off my commissioner head

50:50 ↗ and put on my day job hat this is what I

50:52 ↗ do all day and I didn't recognize you

50:54 ↗ Mike when I walked in because I don't

50:55 ↗ normally see you here

50:57 ↗ um but uh it's hard to talk Geographic

51:00 ↗ city lines when you have the need

51:02 ↗ conversation because the there is we're

51:05 ↗ also close together right if you're

51:06 ↗ looking at Snoqualmie versus Bellevue uh

51:09 ↗ is called red or Redmond Kirkland

51:11 ↗ but I know that the work I'm a member of

51:13 ↗ the Eastside housing Roundtable and the

51:15 ↗ work that we've been doing on the needs

51:16 ↗ assessment around what those needs are

51:20 ↗ the numbers are astronomical and so the

51:22 ↗ big conversation was do we actually put

51:25 ↗ out the real number because it would

51:28 ↗ freak people out too badly or do we put

51:31 ↗ out a number that is a little bit more

51:33 ↗ accessible right that that people could

51:35 ↗ actually accept and as an employer here

51:38 ↗ on the east side that is non-profit so

51:40 ↗ we pay unfortunately lower wages I know

51:43 ↗ that our staff continue to live further

51:45 ↗ and further and further away and so

51:47 ↗ that's another part of the need in

51:49 ↗ speaking to what is the need in the City

51:50 ↗ of Issaquah versus what is the need for

51:53 ↗ the employers within this region to

51:55 ↗ actually be able to have people who live

51:57 ↗ closer so the numbers that when I

52:00 ↗ mentioned a couple weeks or months ago

52:02 ↗ about the targets being the floor I

52:05 ↗ really do see the targets being the

52:06 ↗ floor because the the need is so

52:09 ↗ excessive for people who don't make the

52:11 ↗ the very highest wages in the region

52:18 ↗ again

52:19 ↗ your day job will come in handy

52:25 ↗ thank you commissioner altimore

52:28 ↗ how do we compare to other cities I know

52:31 ↗ it's you don't have to name them

52:32 ↗ but as far as Issaquah in terms of our

52:36 ↗ disparities with people at different

52:38 ↗ Amis

52:40 ↗ are we as out of whack or out of balance

52:44 ↗ as other cities are we doing better I

52:46 ↗ mean I know our numbers provided by King

52:48 ↗ County the 3 500 number that's in

52:50 ↗ relation to our size and what our

52:52 ↗ capacity is

52:53 ↗ but as far as how we're doing what like

52:56 ↗ if we were to get a report card would we

52:58 ↗ be doing better than

53:01 ↗ other Puget Sound communities other East

53:03 ↗ Side communities

53:04 ↗ I will be more than happy to bring in uh

53:07 ↗ you know real data that that you could

53:09 ↗ make those comparisons but

53:13 ↗ um

53:14 ↗ having

53:15 ↗ you know done some presentations to to

53:19 ↗ show you know kind of what works and

53:21 ↗ what doesn't including some with Kristen

53:24 ↗ um

53:26 ↗ compares favorably with cities of your

53:29 ↗ size

53:31 ↗ um but if you look at you know the

53:35 ↗ those gaps or that that affordable

53:39 ↗ housing need that you need to plan for

53:40 ↗ for the county-wide planning policies

53:42 ↗ every city is just you know those

53:46 ↗ numbers are enormous and it's

53:50 ↗ um

53:51 ↗ they're all big

53:53 ↗ right and it speaks to commissioner

53:55 ↗ altimore I mean the need right but as

53:58 ↗ far as just as far as we've done so far

54:00 ↗ with what we as far as many cities

54:02 ↗ effort in the past goes it Compares

54:05 ↗ strongly with other Arch communities and

54:08 ↗ the reason I ask is it goes to

54:10 ↗ commissioner Lewis's point about the

54:11 ↗ things that we're doing well you know

54:13 ↗ there's things we can improve on but if

54:15 ↗ if this carrot is continuing to work you

54:18 ↗ know is that the method we want to go so

54:19 ↗ that that's kind of more of where I'm

54:21 ↗ interested in is if we're doing a good

54:23 ↗ job and we're favorable to cities of our

54:25 ↗ size

54:26 ↗ um you know maybe maybe the carrot

54:28 ↗ method is working maybe we just need to

54:30 ↗ expand it to try and reach targets that

54:32 ↗ we're getting hounded down now from the

54:35 ↗ county

54:36 ↗ um

54:37 ↗ see if we can't spice it up a little bit

54:39 ↗ well you know um

54:42 ↗ when I've uh classified the the data

54:46 ↗ there are mandatory programs in their

54:49 ↗ voluntary programs and then there are

54:51 ↗ development agreements which are sort of

54:53 ↗ uh neither fish nor foul right I mean a

54:57 ↗ developer is as I understand it it's

55:00 ↗ kind of worked like this a developer

55:02 ↗ comes into the City of Issaquah and

55:04 ↗ wants to do something different than is

55:06 ↗ allowed in the code

55:08 ↗ and the City offers well we might let

55:10 ↗ you do that but we'd have to do a

55:12 ↗ development agreement

55:14 ↗ and you'd have to convince us that we're

55:16 ↗ getting enough in public benefits as

55:18 ↗ we're as the value that we're changing

55:22 ↗ to allow you to do what you want

55:24 ↗ and if you don't convince us then we're

55:28 ↗ not going to give you the development

55:29 ↗ agreement

55:30 ↗ so

55:31 ↗ I've never been really sure whether to

55:33 ↗ call that mandatory or voluntary

55:36 ↗ um arm twisting

55:38 ↗ and uh issquare has been very productive

55:41 ↗ with their development agreements much

55:43 ↗ more than any other community that I can

55:46 ↗ point to but how much

55:48 ↗ can you continue to do that I don't know

55:51 ↗ well that's yeah that's a point I was

55:53 ↗ going to bring up is that you know most

55:55 ↗ most of our units have come from

55:56 ↗ centralist Aqua development agreement

55:58 ↗ but the city's trying to move away

56:00 ↗ yeah sorry Escala Highlands but the

56:03 ↗ city's trying to move away or is

56:06 ↗ starting to move away from development

56:08 ↗ agreements one is because we don't

56:09 ↗ really have the land to do it anymore

56:10 ↗ and two is because they create an

56:12 ↗ entirely different code

56:14 ↗ and one of the reasons we just did Title

56:16 ↗ 18 was to try and get everything into

56:17 ↗ one place so you know trying to move

56:20 ↗ away from those which means that we need

56:22 ↗ to find other ways like multi-family tax

56:24 ↗ exemption in conjunction with

56:25 ↗ inclusionary zoning or something like

56:27 ↗ that I don't know what it is but that's

56:28 ↗ top of my head yeah oh that's good to

56:31 ↗ know like you said if one of our tools

56:33 ↗ is getting dull need to find something

56:35 ↗ else to replace it

56:41 ↗ commissioner Lewis

56:43 ↗ to talk about this

56:46 ↗ or with our jobs numbers right it's hard

56:48 ↗ to separate the two and I think it's

56:50 ↗ worth bringing up that uh there's been a

56:53 ↗ lot of discussion but not a lot of

56:54 ↗ movement on how we really accommodate

56:56 ↗ the live work play in our mission and so

57:00 ↗ while there is great need and not

57:02 ↗ necessarily everybody wants to live

57:03 ↗ where they work being able specifically

57:06 ↗ to have civil servants teachers

57:08 ↗ firefighters right the vital roles that

57:10 ↗ we need to keep our community moving

57:11 ↗ having the ability for them to be able

57:13 ↗ to live in our community is something

57:15 ↗ that's very difficult right if you make

57:18 ↗ a teaching salary you're not able to

57:19 ↗ afford to to buy an Issaquah right and

57:21 ↗ being able to have that equity and to be

57:24 ↗ able to build true assets for your

57:26 ↗ family is something that's really

57:28 ↗ important and so how we support that how

57:30 ↗ we do that is some A continuing

57:32 ↗ discussion that when we talk about the

57:34 ↗ housing element needs to not be

57:35 ↗ forgotten is how we say yes all people

57:39 ↗ are valuable and there's also very real

57:41 ↗ roles in our community that need to

57:43 ↗ exist and we need to make sure that we

57:45 ↗ make room for them and how do we do that

57:50 ↗ absolutely

57:55 ↗ may I ask what other information can we

57:58 ↗ bring back to you

58:02 ↗ I'd like to know a little bit more

58:06 ↗ about the emergency housing again I I'm

58:09 ↗ you know and I know that's unclear

58:11 ↗ because the bill currently I believe is

58:13 ↗ still going through nope that one's

58:15 ↗ already passed that that one passed

58:17 ↗ that's House Bill 1220. okay so I'd like

58:20 ↗ to hear more about that what that means

58:23 ↗ what that looks like what because you

58:26 ↗ mentioned that there's two areas where

58:27 ↗ Issaquah has been successful or we've

58:29 ↗ already been proactive about it and I

58:31 ↗ think that one is where you said we we

58:33 ↗ haven't really done anything about it

58:35 ↗ um so yeah the two areas where we

58:37 ↗ haven't done much and I know you guys

58:38 ↗ were already going to tell us but yeah

58:40 ↗ that that's a question mark in my mind

58:41 ↗ that one the anti-display displacement

58:45 ↗ policy both those things I'm interested

58:47 ↗ to hear more about

58:52 ↗ and I will let you know so

58:57 ↗ uh the state had asked us to do the

58:59 ↗ emergency shelter requirements to ask

59:02 ↗ cities to do that a long time ago but a

59:04 ↗ lot of cities postponed it for various

59:06 ↗ reasons

59:07 ↗ um so right now we default to the

59:12 ↗ state's draft ordinary ordinance that

59:13 ↗ they've adopted which means that

59:16 ↗ shelters currently can go anywhere where

59:19 ↗ hotels can be located

59:21 ↗ so right now they could come here and it

59:24 ↗ would be under the states but it would

59:25 ↗ be under the state's ordinance

59:28 ↗ yeah yeah I mean again more of the more

59:31 ↗ information about that the better I

59:32 ↗ don't know if these are

59:34 ↗ transitional housing again you know not

59:37 ↗ to get controversial I don't know if

59:38 ↗ these are

59:39 ↗ facilities for people that are having

59:42 ↗ mental health problems or addictions I

59:45 ↗ mean there are two very different things

59:46 ↗ so yeah the more information we can get

59:48 ↗ on that I'm sure the public would

59:50 ↗ appreciate

59:57 ↗ uh one piece of information I always

59:59 ↗ find very interesting is age differences

1:00:01 ↗ right of our population and pouring over

1:00:04 ↗ census data when it's released is always

1:00:07 ↗ really interesting to see especially for

1:00:08 ↗ Issaquah as a community traditionally

1:00:10 ↗ thinks of itself as

1:00:12 ↗ um as a family

1:00:14 ↗ um a family place right and we think

1:00:15 ↗ about that with our housing units is

1:00:17 ↗ what we're accommodating but Evermore I

1:00:19 ↗ think it's over 30 32 percent of our

1:00:21 ↗ population is actually single people and

1:00:23 ↗ being able to have the data of uh who is

1:00:26 ↗ in our community who are we trying to

1:00:28 ↗ serve also along age lines

1:00:31 ↗ um how are what percentage of our

1:00:32 ↗ population is looking to age in place

1:00:34 ↗ and age out right are important factors

1:00:36 ↗ when thinking about housing units and

1:00:38 ↗ what we need also from that perspective

1:00:50 ↗ commissioner Patterson sure thank you

1:00:52 ↗ you mentioned at this point uh they have

1:00:55 ↗ not uh defined what a was it Mass

1:00:58 ↗ Transit Center uh is yet however there

1:01:01 ↗ are requirements like you know the six

1:01:03 ↗ units within a half mile

1:01:05 ↗ um however there's one uh large project

1:01:08 ↗ that comes to mind which is the light

1:01:10 ↗ rail which was within the target of our

1:01:12 ↗ 2044 uh Target Zone here and I'd imagine

1:01:16 ↗ there's a pretty long Runway to identify

1:01:18 ↗ the area and place that goes and the

1:01:20 ↗ development around it so I was just

1:01:22 ↗ curious

1:01:23 ↗ um is there any specifics on that at

1:01:25 ↗ this time of

1:01:27 ↗ where that would go and what the

1:01:29 ↗ development would be around that

1:01:31 ↗ we do have some ideas but Stephen

1:01:35 ↗ were up on that than I am

1:01:37 ↗ so we have an ongoing Trend to study

1:01:39 ↗ that's going to be looking at some of

1:01:40 ↗ that information of figuring out what's

1:01:42 ↗ going to be required from the state

1:01:43 ↗ what's going to be required from Sound

1:01:45 ↗ Transit and also how to coordinate with

1:01:47 ↗ King County Metro and how we're going to

1:01:49 ↗ build out our transit system so that we

1:01:51 ↗ can have a little more comprehensive

1:01:52 ↗ understanding of okay if light rail goes

1:01:55 ↗ here how does that how do we increase

1:01:56 ↗ the access to that via our transit

1:01:59 ↗ system or any other Mobility connections

1:02:01 ↗ we can create in the city and and then

1:02:03 ↗ build on that like now can we build the

1:02:06 ↗ trail systems around that can we build

1:02:07 ↗ walking and biking and that'll help kind

1:02:10 ↗ of influence some of the discussion on

1:02:12 ↗ okay housing commercial how does that

1:02:15 ↗ build out make it so we can make it a

1:02:16 ↗ walkable area we can achieve that vision

1:02:19 ↗ for where this area is for Light Rail

1:02:22 ↗ and so those discussions are coming as

1:02:25 ↗ part of some of this and you'll get more

1:02:27 ↗ information on that in the coming months

1:02:29 ↗ as we discuss more on the land use and

1:02:32 ↗ housing side as well as the

1:02:33 ↗ transportation side gets developed

1:02:35 ↗ through the transit study

1:02:41 ↗ and then I had one more question as far

1:02:43 ↗ as the affordability Mr Stanger so is

1:02:45 ↗ there any type of data that shows the

1:02:48 ↗ people that are utilizing affordable

1:02:50 ↗ housing that are able to either move on

1:02:53 ↗ from to purchasing their own home or to

1:02:57 ↗ be able to get out of that particular

1:02:59 ↗ circumstance

1:03:01 ↗ do we have any data points on that

1:03:03 ↗ that it was being utilized that they

1:03:05 ↗ were able to make the most of it I mean

1:03:07 ↗ again a positive thing we all know that

1:03:09 ↗ home ownership is a weight

1:03:11 ↗ towards middle class so do you guys keep

1:03:13 ↗ track of any of those that information I

1:03:16 ↗ believe that we have made an attempt to

1:03:19 ↗ uh

1:03:20 ↗ ask for information like that it's kind

1:03:23 ↗ of hard to gather from

1:03:25 ↗ rental housing where we are not the

1:03:29 ↗ property managers and uh

1:03:32 ↗ were rarely

1:03:34 ↗ aware of

1:03:36 ↗ when they're

1:03:39 ↗ leaving

1:03:40 ↗ but I think we have

1:03:44 ↗ we may have tried to capture some of

1:03:46 ↗ that voluntarily and all

1:03:48 ↗ I'll try to see what we have yeah just

1:03:51 ↗ be it'd be great to see you know how

1:03:54 ↗ successful the program is to find out

1:03:56 ↗ benchmarks things of that nature

1:03:58 ↗ commissioner altmore

1:04:00 ↗ I should offer the

1:04:02 ↗ answers are not

1:04:03 ↗ go ahead

1:04:05 ↗ okay so um one of the things that I have

1:04:09 ↗ run into again day job um

1:04:12 ↗ so you have a bunch of capital sources

1:04:15 ↗ that go into building these affordable

1:04:17 ↗ units and you have to go to the most

1:04:19 ↗ restrictive of the capital sources and

1:04:22 ↗ follow those rules for those 35 or 50

1:04:24 ↗ years so for instance Arch has a policy

1:04:27 ↗ that says that they do have to move on

1:04:29 ↗ if they reach a certain income threshold

1:04:31 ↗ but home dollars which is a federal

1:04:33 ↗ source that comes down through the

1:04:35 ↗ county

1:04:36 ↗ says you cannot do that and so you have

1:04:39 ↗ to go with the home dollars the city of

1:04:41 ↗ Seattle has the levy so they don't use

1:04:43 ↗ home dollars so the home dollars get

1:04:44 ↗ spread out in the county which is why

1:04:47 ↗ you see that more outside of the city of

1:04:49 ↗ Seattle than in the city of Seattle so

1:04:51 ↗ so yes a lot of the providers like

1:04:53 ↗ imagine housing or or other providers

1:04:55 ↗ would know that information but often

1:04:57 ↗ can't actually do anything about that

1:05:00 ↗ and so it's that relationship building

1:05:01 ↗ it's that engagement with your community

1:05:03 ↗ versus the the stick

1:05:08 ↗ thank you for that inside baseball

1:05:12 ↗ commissioners

1:05:14 ↗ yes so when we when

1:05:17 ↗ um housing units are allotted for the

1:05:20 ↗ afford the for the affordability and

1:05:23 ↗ let's say somebody and this is piggy

1:05:25 ↗ backing off a commissioner Voice's

1:05:27 ↗ question

1:05:28 ↗ um and the individual or family that

1:05:31 ↗ lives in that home moves out

1:05:34 ↗ um is the developer or or HOA or

1:05:37 ↗ whichever

1:05:39 ↗ have to provide that same unit for

1:05:43 ↗ another family within those okay I see

1:05:46 ↗ you shaking here

1:05:48 ↗ are you thinking of a home ownership

1:05:51 ↗ home ownership yes so what happens there

1:05:54 ↗ is that the uh

1:05:57 ↗ when the project is being built then the

1:06:00 ↗ developer in the city have an agreement

1:06:03 ↗ or a covenant on the land that

1:06:06 ↗ determines how

1:06:07 ↗ the uh you know which homes will be

1:06:10 ↗ affordable and how they'll be sold and

1:06:12 ↗ how the buyers will be qualified to buy

1:06:15 ↗ them and so forth

1:06:16 ↗ once the when a buyer comes in and

1:06:19 ↗ closes on the home then they sign a

1:06:22 ↗ covenant with the city and when the all

1:06:26 ↗ the affordable homes are sold then the

1:06:28 ↗ agreement with the developer goes away

1:06:30 ↗ because the developer is out of the

1:06:32 ↗ picture now

1:06:34 ↗ so then the obligation is

1:06:37 ↗ is between the homeowner and the city

1:06:40 ↗ and when they one of the provisions

1:06:43 ↗ there is when the homeowner wants to

1:06:45 ↗ sell then they contact Arch and we begin

1:06:48 ↗ the process of

1:06:51 ↗ you know preparing of setting the

1:06:54 ↗ maximum price that they can sell it for

1:06:56 ↗ the the eligibility of the next buyers

1:07:00 ↗ marketing the home

1:07:02 ↗ uh established or qualifying the

1:07:06 ↗ potential buyer and so forth and and

1:07:08 ↗ then that buyer signs a covenant with

1:07:12 ↗ the city and just so it perpetuates in

1:07:15 ↗ that way

1:07:15 ↗ okay okay very well so and and when

1:07:19 ↗ you're selling that or they're selling

1:07:21 ↗ the home and in in concert or in

1:07:23 ↗ collaboration with the city

1:07:26 ↗ um market value

1:07:28 ↗ would in play a big role in that or will

1:07:32 ↗ it only if the uh Market is going down

1:07:38 ↗ in price there have been occasions where

1:07:41 ↗ the market price is actually becomes

1:07:46 ↗ lower than the maximum affordable price

1:07:48 ↗ because there's a formula attached to

1:07:52 ↗ the resale pricing if that happens then

1:07:55 ↗ then the seller usually has to sell for

1:07:59 ↗ less than that that affordable maximum

1:08:01 ↗ affordable price

1:08:04 ↗ very well thank you yeah

1:08:09 ↗ yeah all right well thank you

1:08:12 ↗ um I'll spell spare you all the pain of

1:08:14 ↗ a round robin does anyone have any

1:08:15 ↗ further questions as far as information

1:08:18 ↗ that they want

1:08:20 ↗ because I'd like to move on to Vision we

1:08:22 ↗ want to supply a staff with any

1:08:24 ↗ suggestions as far as or questions about

1:08:27 ↗ the vision component

1:08:30 ↗ so again I'll spare the round robin but

1:08:34 ↗ okay and obviously we you can always

1:08:37 ↗ email staff more information if it comes

1:08:39 ↗ to you later

1:08:40 ↗ moving on to vision

1:08:42 ↗ anyone would like to either comment or

1:08:45 ↗ add or

1:08:48 ↗ speak about uh

1:08:49 ↗ the vision that they want to see for

1:08:51 ↗ this particular element of the comp plan

1:08:59 ↗ commissioner altmore

1:09:01 ↗ apologies in advance because this is

1:09:03 ↗ kind of vague but when I read this it

1:09:06 ↗ feels very Now versus looking toward the

1:09:08 ↗ future so I would love to see something

1:09:10 ↗ sort of aspirational in the wording

1:09:12 ↗ there to say that we are you know

1:09:14 ↗ prepared for future changes that are

1:09:16 ↗ coming within the community or even

1:09:18 ↗ really the regional needs

1:09:23 ↗ great that's great suggestion

1:09:26 ↗ and these Visions can come to you late

1:09:28 ↗ at night they don't have to happen here

1:09:29 ↗ on the days so

1:09:35 ↗ anyone else commissioner Patterson

1:09:38 ↗ I I'll read my note that it's recorded

1:09:41 ↗ on this

1:09:42 ↗ um to me the vision statement seems to

1:09:44 ↗ be in line with the intent of the

1:09:46 ↗ housing element the housing element

1:09:49 ↗ emphasizes the importance of housing as

1:09:51 ↗ a vital component of a community forming

1:09:54 ↗ neighborhoods and contributing to the

1:09:56 ↗ living environment uh the this idea is

1:09:59 ↗ reflected in the vision statements focus

1:10:02 ↗ on preserving and enhancing

1:10:03 ↗ neighborhoods

1:10:04 ↗ I think the vision statement

1:10:06 ↗ acknowledges the need for improvement in

1:10:09 ↗ housing opportunities for the city's

1:10:11 ↗ diverse population and local Workforce

1:10:13 ↗ which corresponds with the housing

1:10:15 ↗ elements emphasis on promoting a mixture

1:10:18 ↗ of housing types and affordability

1:10:21 ↗ so overall the vision statement appears

1:10:24 ↗ to capture the intent of the housing

1:10:26 ↗ element by focusing on the preservation

1:10:28 ↗ and enhancement of neighborhoods as well

1:10:31 ↗ as improving housing opportunities for a

1:10:33 ↗ diverse population Additionally the

1:10:36 ↗ mention of an updated analysis of

1:10:38 ↗ existing housing income levels and other

1:10:41 ↗ factors for the upcoming update shows

1:10:44 ↗ that the city has a commitment to the

1:10:47 ↗ data-driven decision making and

1:10:49 ↗ addressing the identified gaps in

1:10:52 ↗ housing so in in summary I think it's

1:10:56 ↗ pretty good I mean anything can use

1:10:57 ↗ Improvement but uh overall I mean I

1:11:00 ↗ think that they mirror each other well

1:11:01 ↗ enough to be in concert with each other

1:11:07 ↗ thank you

1:11:10 ↗ thank you commissioner Patterson anyone

1:11:12 ↗ else like to add to the vision

1:11:17 ↗ Vice chair Bader yes I had a very

1:11:19 ↗ similar reaction to it as commissioner

1:11:21 ↗ altimore that it just felt like almost

1:11:24 ↗ like with The Preserve being the first

1:11:26 ↗ word that that means the status quo is

1:11:28 ↗ okay

1:11:29 ↗ um and so I don't know if it's just a

1:11:31 ↗ exiting that and starting with enhancing

1:11:34 ↗ neighborhoods because I crossed the

1:11:37 ↗ board I don't think anyone's going to

1:11:38 ↗ say I don't want my neighborhood to be

1:11:39 ↗ enhanced

1:11:41 ↗ um and so maybe that would help with

1:11:43 ↗ that because I yeah I think starting

1:11:45 ↗ with preserve doesn't feel very

1:11:46 ↗ inspirational or aspirational

1:11:48 ↗ um

1:11:51 ↗ I think there's some probably some

1:11:52 ↗ Nuance around like the affordability

1:11:54 ↗ piece that we could add into here as

1:11:55 ↗ well as

1:11:56 ↗ um

1:11:58 ↗ equity and

1:11:59 ↗ all of that but I'll leave I'm not

1:12:02 ↗ nearly as well I thought I was

1:12:04 ↗ commissioner Patterson

1:12:06 ↗ commissioner Lewis I wouldn't mind my

1:12:07 ↗ neighborhood being enhanced uh my only

1:12:10 ↗ comment on it was I wish there was

1:12:12 ↗ something that addressed the word growth

1:12:14 ↗ right we know that our housing needs to

1:12:17 ↗ be growing and so I think somehow being

1:12:20 ↗ able to have the word where we talk

1:12:22 ↗ about the direction of where we're going

1:12:24 ↗ I wish I'd been into much of a futurist

1:12:26 ↗ as you but for me that was what was

1:12:28 ↗ missing was knowing it more how do we

1:12:31 ↗ want to do more so growth was the best

1:12:33 ↗ word that I could think of because I was

1:12:34 ↗ like oh I know Kristen really likes we

1:12:36 ↗ it's always good for us to be able to be

1:12:38 ↗ like well tweak it a little but it's

1:12:40 ↗ always nice to have real comments so

1:12:47 ↗ all right any further comments

1:12:51 ↗ foreign

1:12:53 ↗ okay well again you can always email

1:12:56 ↗ staff with any ideas that come later as

1:12:59 ↗ far as Vision or again information that

1:13:01 ↗ you want

1:13:02 ↗ I believe that's it

1:13:04 ↗ well there was just one other question

1:13:06 ↗ and it's do you all do you have any

1:13:09 ↗ other topics any other policies that you

1:13:11 ↗ might want to

1:13:13 ↗ discuss

1:13:14 ↗ during this you know potentially include

1:13:17 ↗ I am interested about to Steven's Point

1:13:20 ↗ about how it works with the

1:13:22 ↗ transportation facilities again I won't

1:13:25 ↗ name names that would be rude I've seen

1:13:28 ↗ uh one particular East Side City where I

1:13:30 ↗ think they kind of built out their

1:13:32 ↗ downtown core and lost its charm because

1:13:34 ↗ they thought that's where their Light

1:13:35 ↗ Rail was going to land so that kind of

1:13:37 ↗ concerns me and again that's why I like

1:13:40 ↗ the element Vision preserve and enhance

1:13:42 ↗ but I can be persuaded to drop preserve

1:13:44 ↗ but again keeping our our neighborhoods

1:13:47 ↗ looking all while at the same time

1:13:49 ↗ growing and being enhanced but I'm

1:13:52 ↗ thinking of a particular City that did

1:13:54 ↗ not do that and and change the charm of

1:13:56 ↗ their city and not for the better and it

1:13:58 ↗ was it had a direct it was directly

1:14:00 ↗ because they were trying to plan for

1:14:03 ↗ light rail and I definitely wouldn't

1:14:05 ↗ like to see that I mean I know we need

1:14:07 ↗ to build

1:14:08 ↗ um infrastructure around those places

1:14:09 ↗ but that would be a concern of mine

1:14:14 ↗ commissioner altimore commissioner Lewis

1:14:19 ↗ I'm just wondering if there has been an

1:14:21 ↗ assessment of uh racially disparate

1:14:23 ↗ policies that would we could know about

1:14:25 ↗ that maybe historically that need to be

1:14:27 ↗ addressed

1:14:29 ↗ there has not there has not okay

1:14:32 ↗ but there's a lot of guidance on how we

1:14:35 ↗ would do that so we're hoping to

1:14:38 ↗ capitalize on

1:14:40 ↗ on some opportunities on that

1:14:44 ↗ I don't have any clear answers at this

1:14:46 ↗ point one thing I was going to ask to

1:14:49 ↗ piggyback on commissioner altmore real

1:14:50 ↗ briefly is is because Issaquah is a

1:14:54 ↗ smaller Township going into a proper

1:14:57 ↗ City

1:14:57 ↗ would some of that stuff even relate to

1:15:00 ↗ us I mean we're not a Seattle we're not

1:15:01 ↗ in Bellevue I mean again I'm not saying

1:15:03 ↗ it doesn't happen but like you know some

1:15:05 ↗ of those

1:15:07 ↗ things from the past

1:15:09 ↗ um where Seattle might have gotten in

1:15:11 ↗ trouble would that even apply

1:15:13 ↗ to Issaquah when we I mean like I said I

1:15:16 ↗ think we're what 37 000 people

1:15:18 ↗ so and that how much have we grown in 15

1:15:20 ↗ years so again I that's kind of my

1:15:23 ↗ question

1:15:25 ↗ um because we're a smaller Township

1:15:26 ↗ would those things really apply I can

1:15:29 ↗ see trying to build things in for the

1:15:30 ↗ future but how much looking back are we

1:15:32 ↗ doing

1:15:33 ↗ for what has been traditionally a town

1:15:36 ↗ turning into a city

1:15:40 ↗ proper no I I agree and I don't think

1:15:42 ↗ the size of the city which is just over

1:15:44 ↗ forty thousand

1:15:46 ↗ um I don't think I don't think the size

1:15:48 ↗ of the city has anything to do with it I

1:15:50 ↗ think it has you know the government now

1:15:51 ↗ has been governed in the past would have

1:15:53 ↗ something to do with it

1:15:55 ↗ um

1:15:56 ↗ but I do agree I don't think compared to

1:15:58 ↗ other places it's going to be as

1:16:02 ↗ um

1:16:03 ↗ obvious or prevalent as it is in other

1:16:06 ↗ places but it's something we still need

1:16:08 ↗ to look at I mean you know maybe things

1:16:09 ↗ that we haven't thought about before

1:16:11 ↗ that even come into play

1:16:13 ↗ yeah

1:16:15 ↗ thank you Kristen commissioner Lewis

1:16:18 ↗ you know Krista one thing I was trying

1:16:20 ↗ to think about

1:16:21 ↗ um with this

1:16:22 ↗ um last part question is to really think

1:16:25 ↗ of the flip side and is to wonder what

1:16:27 ↗ is our boundary what are we not willing

1:16:28 ↗ to do right what are what are we will

1:16:30 ↗ we've talked a lot about what we want to

1:16:31 ↗ consider but what do we say in Issaquah

1:16:34 ↗ um is not on the table for us and being

1:16:37 ↗ able to clearly Define that I think may

1:16:39 ↗ help as we move forward

1:16:41 ↗ um the transit example is a good is a

1:16:44 ↗ good one we know we recently I think as

1:16:47 ↗ someone who's looked at it a lot I'm a

1:16:49 ↗ big proponent of the lid I think we need

1:16:50 ↗ a lid much like Mercer Island I think

1:16:52 ↗ the 90 divides our community and I think

1:16:54 ↗ a lid would solve a lot of problems and

1:16:57 ↗ the idea that we would just put sound

1:16:59 ↗ let child Transit go wherever they think

1:17:01 ↗ is best is um you haven't met Issaquah

1:17:04 ↗ we do things our own way right and so um

1:17:07 ↗ you know we recently applied for a grant

1:17:08 ↗ and we're denied by Olympia to be able

1:17:10 ↗ to have that study done right there's a

1:17:12 ↗ lot of pre-steps that need to happen

1:17:14 ↗ before we even think about placement and

1:17:16 ↗ so again thinking about where we not

1:17:18 ↗ willing to put things where are we what

1:17:20 ↗ are we not willing to do might be an

1:17:22 ↗ interesting way to also frame the

1:17:23 ↗ conversation when we think about um

1:17:25 ↗ you know what are you know what what

1:17:28 ↗ um what is either the direction of the

1:17:30 ↗ administration or a council or within

1:17:31 ↗ the community that we know it doesn't

1:17:33 ↗ really matter what sound transit says it

1:17:35 ↗ doesn't really matter what developer

1:17:37 ↗ says this is what we're not willing to

1:17:39 ↗ bend

1:17:42 ↗ thank you

1:17:45 ↗ just a point of clarification because

1:17:47 ↗ it's not 100 clear to me where um the

1:17:49 ↗ previous point about this kind of

1:17:51 ↗ harmful policies landed

1:17:53 ↗ um because I think glossing over that or

1:17:56 ↗ saying because we're small is in itself

1:17:58 ↗ kind of a harmful practice

1:18:00 ↗ um and so I want to make sure we give

1:18:03 ↗ this you know these three kind of final

1:18:05 ↗ new elements like their proper do

1:18:08 ↗ because unfortunately structural racism

1:18:10 ↗ exists everywhere and it exists in

1:18:12 ↗ Issaquah whether we want to say it does

1:18:13 ↗ or not

1:18:15 ↗ um and so I think we just need to be

1:18:16 ↗ conscious of that and who and what you

1:18:19 ↗ know I don't I don't know if there was

1:18:20 ↗ like there probably wasn't like

1:18:22 ↗ redlining in the same way there was in

1:18:23 ↗ Seattle and Issaquah right

1:18:25 ↗ um but that's not to say that there is

1:18:27 ↗ not

1:18:28 ↗ um things that have been done that could

1:18:30 ↗ have been done better

1:18:32 ↗ um and so I think it's you know worth

1:18:34 ↗ giving this this 3M

1:18:37 ↗ requirements there they're Fair kind of

1:18:40 ↗ time at the table

1:18:46 ↗ all right

1:18:47 ↗ fantastic discussion thank you everybody

1:18:50 ↗ is there anything anyone would like to

1:18:52 ↗ add before we uh toss it back to staff

1:18:57 ↗ okay Kristen is there one more

1:19:01 ↗ we're really done this time okay thank

1:19:04 ↗ you all

1:19:05 ↗ right well thank you Mr Stanger and

1:19:07 ↗ thank you Kristen fantastic presentation

1:19:09 ↗ uh I believe now we're going to move on

1:19:11 ↗ to reports

1:19:13 ↗ okay just just one last word if if

1:19:16 ↗ you're gonna call her Kristen you can

1:19:17 ↗ call me Mike

1:19:18 ↗ fair enough thank you Mike

1:19:21 ↗ it did sound a little formal saying

1:19:23 ↗ Kristen and Mr Stanger but uh thank you

1:19:25 ↗ Mike we always appreciate you coming in

1:19:27 ↗ and and helping educate us

1:19:30 ↗ all right Kristen or Steven

1:19:32 ↗ who wants to share the reports with us

1:19:36 ↗ I'm looking at Chris and make sure

1:19:37 ↗ there's not one more thing before

1:19:40 ↗ so for Council update just the quick

1:19:42 ↗ update with Title 18 council is going to

1:19:45 ↗ be holding a public hearing on Title 18

1:19:46 ↗ on April 17th

1:19:48 ↗ and then

1:19:49 ↗ um the plan adoption for Title 18 is May

1:19:51 ↗ 1st and so I just want to update you on

1:19:54 ↗ what's remaining of that project

1:20:02 ↗ but on March 28th there's going to be a

1:20:06 ↗ discussion about the comprehensive plan

1:20:07 ↗ with the Planning Development and

1:20:09 ↗ environmental committee if anybody wants

1:20:11 ↗ to see that

1:20:14 ↗ all right

1:20:15 ↗ busy spring

1:20:18 ↗ is there anything else Steph would like

1:20:20 ↗ to ask

1:20:22 ↗ or present

1:20:26 ↗ okay I'm going to move on to other

1:20:28 ↗ business and announcements and um

1:20:30 ↗ I have some very bad news and sad news

1:20:33 ↗ uh that I just learned this evening

1:20:36 ↗ this is commissioner Lewis's last uh

1:20:39 ↗ evening with us and I'm very sad to hear

1:20:42 ↗ that

1:20:43 ↗ commissioner Lewis has not only been a

1:20:45 ↗ leader and a fantastic commissioner to

1:20:47 ↗ work with her historical knowledge

1:20:49 ↗ on our commission has been invaluable

1:20:53 ↗ so this is bad and sad news not only for

1:20:56 ↗ our commission but also for our city and

1:20:58 ↗ on a personal note I'm going to be

1:21:00 ↗ losing a friend on this Deus so

1:21:03 ↗ very sad very bad news but I know Joy

1:21:06 ↗ will be rooting for us wishing him the

1:21:09 ↗ best and providing us commentary

1:21:11 ↗ whenever she feels like it

1:21:13 ↗ uh commissioner Lewis would you like to

1:21:15 ↗ say anything

1:21:16 ↗ uh

1:21:19 ↗ um

1:21:20 ↗ I'm so grateful for my present and past

1:21:23 ↗ Commissioners and staff right we've had

1:21:26 ↗ amazing support and I'm so glad that I

1:21:29 ↗ had the chance to serve so

1:21:31 ↗ thank you for that that was very sweet

1:21:36 ↗ Mr Lewis

1:21:39 ↗ okay no more sad and bad news

1:21:42 ↗ may I say thank you Yes actually step

1:21:46 ↗ please yeah so Joy I've been on here

1:21:47 ↗ since you have actually yeah since you

1:21:50 ↗ came on but um

1:21:52 ↗ I've always appreciated how ridiculously

1:21:54 ↗ prepared you have come to every single

1:21:56 ↗ meeting and it's it's hard work and

1:21:59 ↗ you've done it every time and you've

1:22:01 ↗ always been a good contributor to the

1:22:02 ↗ meetings and I've enjoyed to getting to

1:22:05 ↗ know you besides that so just thank you

1:22:07 ↗ so much for everything that you've put

1:22:10 ↗ into this Commission because I know it

1:22:11 ↗ means a lot to you and it's been a lot

1:22:13 ↗ to us

1:22:19 ↗ second map

1:22:21 ↗ all right everyone if there is no

1:22:23 ↗ further

1:22:24 ↗ um comments from the Commissioners

1:22:26 ↗ anything else anyone like to add we are

1:22:28 ↗ going to adjourn and we will adjourn

1:22:31 ↗ tonight's meeting

1:22:34 ↗ at 7 57 7 56 P.M

1:22:38 ↗ thank you and good night

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 (7)

Voiss

Vice-Chair Bader

Commissioners Altimore

Esemuede

Kennedy

Lewis

Patterson Absence: Commissioner Milligan (excused)

Staff (3)

Christen Leeson, Senior Planner Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager Mike Stanger, Senior Planner, ARCH 2. Approval of Minutes CHAIR VOISS asked for corrections regarding the February 2, 2023 meeting minutes

there were none. The minutes were approved. CHAIR VOISS asked for corrections regarding the February 23, 2023 meeting minutes

there were none. The minutes were approved. 3