Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, July 27, 2023 · City Council Digest

3. REGULAR BUSINESS

Comprehensive Plan: New Regulations

90 min · Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager · packet pp.3–63

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 1:07 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the July 27, 2023, meeting is to review and discuss the first draft of housing policies for the state required 2024 Comprehensive Plan Periodic Update.

4. REPORTS

Council Update

Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager

5. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.65–66

▶ Watch from 1:19:24 Open packet at p.65 ↗

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

1994 segments .txt ↗

0:04 ↗ good evening everyone

0:06 ↗ I'd like to call to order the July 27th

0:09 ↗ meeting of the planning policy

0:10 ↗ commission to order it is currently

0:13 ↗ 6 31 PM tonight's meeting is a hybrid

0:16 ↗ meeting the planning policy commission

0:18 ↗ is in person but staff or members of the

0:21 ↗ public may be attending virtually or in

0:23 ↗ person

0:24 ↗ Thomas do we have a quorum tonight

0:29 ↗ chair voice we have a quorum

0:31 ↗ I may proceed

0:34 ↗ moving on to the second item on our

0:36 ↗ agenda public comment there's currently

0:38 ↗ nobody in the room other than staff and

0:41 ↗ our commissioners is there anyone who's

0:43 ↗ signed up virtually

0:44 ↗ no one has signed up virtually at this

0:46 ↗ time

0:47 ↗ okay

0:49 ↗ thank you I would like to acknowledge we

0:51 ↗ have received comments from a few

0:54 ↗ interested parties some of them came in

0:56 ↗ late I'm hoping everybody had a chance

0:57 ↗ to at least receive them if not read

0:59 ↗ them quite yet and also commissioner

1:02 ↗ Milligan has sent in some comments as

1:04 ↗ well

1:07 ↗ we will move on to regular business and

1:09 ↗ tonight our next item is the housing

1:12 ↗ element overview

1:13 ↗ for the comprehensive plan Stephen Padua

1:16 ↗ our long-range planning manager will be

1:18 ↗ presenting on this item tonight

1:20 ↗ Steven the floor is yours

1:26 ↗ thank you chair voice

1:33 ↗ okay thank you commissioner seem to do a

1:35 ↗ long-range planning manager with CPD

1:38 ↗ um

1:38 ↗ tonight we are taking an initial look at

1:41 ↗ the draft goals and policies for the

1:43 ↗ housing element

1:47 ↗ the direction needed for tonight is do

1:50 ↗ the draft goals policies accurately

1:51 ↗ reflect the state and County policies

1:53 ↗ part of your attachments for tonight's

1:56 ↗ materials

1:57 ↗ are there is specific issues that need

2:00 ↗ to be addressed and is there additional

2:02 ↗ information that would be helpful in

2:03 ↗ evaluating the proposed path to false

2:05 ↗ policies

2:07 ↗ so as I'm going through tonight's

2:09 ↗ presentation

2:11 ↗ I'll be asking some of these questions

2:12 ↗ as we go through each of the slides

2:14 ↗ we can also wait until the very end it's

2:17 ↗ kind of up to their voice will help us

2:19 ↗ to address the questions

2:23 ↗ so just as a reminder with the

2:24 ↗ comprehensive plan it the intent of the

2:26 ↗ conference plan is is really to be the

2:30 ↗ placeholder for

2:32 ↗ our goals and policies for the city that

2:35 ↗ that provide guidance on the city's

2:37 ↗ vision for various topics

2:40 ↗ where we have implementation of those

2:44 ↗ goals of policy is actually contained in

2:46 ↗ the development standards our land use

2:48 ↗ code Title 18 the architectural

2:50 ↗ standards as well as our affordable

2:52 ↗ housing strategy work plan

2:55 ↗ so those contain a lot of more of the

2:58 ↗ actions and strategies around how we are

3:00 ↗ implementing and achieving the vision

3:02 ↗ the goals and policies are a much higher

3:04 ↗ level getting guidance of much of that

3:06 ↗ implementation

3:10 ↗ the other portion that Commissioners

3:13 ↗ asked is to address with the

3:14 ↗ comprehensive plan is monitoring so we

3:16 ↗ do provide a state mandated report card

3:18 ↗ every five years or will be required for

3:21 ↗ providing this report card as well as we

3:23 ↗ provide our annual housing report card

3:25 ↗ that provides updated information and

3:27 ↗ data on housing

3:34 ↗ the other thing to consider with our

3:36 ↗ housing element is from the King County

3:38 ↗ Planning policies we now have affordable

3:41 ↗ housing targets and this is a little

3:44 ↗ different from what's required we are

3:47 ↗ required to have these targets within

3:49 ↗ the City of Issaquah we are not

3:51 ↗ necessarily having to require specific

3:53 ↗ properties to have these Ami percentages

3:56 ↗ with new development it's more about

3:58 ↗ incorporating policies similar to what

4:00 ↗ we'll discuss tonight that address how

4:02 ↗ best to achieve these targets

4:05 ↗ are there any questions about this

4:08 ↗ I have a quick question so are these

4:10 ↗ actual these percentages of Ami are

4:13 ↗ those set by the city

4:15 ↗ these were set at the county but in

4:18 ↗ coordination with a lot of the Cities

4:19 ↗ each city was given their own set of

4:22 ↗ targets

4:27 ↗ how often is the Ami updated

4:32 ↗ so this is actually new for all of our

4:35 ↗ cities so some of the discussion is

4:38 ↗ figuring out how best to achieve the

4:39 ↗ targets but the updates is something

4:41 ↗ that will probably be achieved with each

4:43 ↗ of the conference plan periodic updates

4:45 ↗ okay

4:47 ↗ all right

4:49 ↗ any other questions

4:54 ↗ the other thing to consider with our

4:56 ↗ goals and policies is we had to take a

4:58 ↗ look at new legislation uh specific to

5:00 ↗ housing there's the house bill 1220

5:02 ↗ House Bill 1110 and house bill 1337.

5:05 ↗ I'll talk about these as I'm going

5:06 ↗ through the goals and policy updates for

5:08 ↗ tonight what is required from House Bill

5:12 ↗ 1220 is the accommodation and planning

5:15 ↗ for moderate low very low and extremely

5:17 ↗ low from households

5:19 ↗ combination planning for emergency

5:21 ↗ housing Emergency Shelters and permanent

5:23 ↗ Supportive Housing

5:25 ↗ adopting anti-displacement policies as

5:27 ↗ well as providing inventory and

5:29 ↗ monitoring of housing

5:33 ↗ for House Bill Leviton and 1337

5:37 ↗ previously back in March the commission

5:39 ↗ was updated on these house bills with

5:41 ↗ information that was not quite adopted

5:44 ↗ yet by the legislation what is now

5:47 ↗ required for jurisdictions is what's on

5:51 ↗ the screen now we are still working

5:53 ↗ through a lot of what the bill is

5:55 ↗ requiring from us and working through

5:56 ↗ strategies of how best to do it but you

5:58 ↗ can expect some of these draft policies

6:00 ↗ to address some of the compliance for

6:02 ↗ these bills so we'll have further

6:04 ↗ conversations with code updates for full

6:07 ↗ compliance with details but we are still

6:09 ↗ working through a review of these as we

6:11 ↗ haven't received final recommendations

6:13 ↗ or

6:15 ↗ guided guidance from the Department of

6:17 ↗ Commerce

6:23 ↗ tonight's discussion is organized in the

6:26 ↗ structure that will first be going

6:27 ↗ through

6:29 ↗ the new policies being recommended for

6:31 ↗ the housing element and one thing to

6:34 ↗ note is uh housing element is now

6:36 ↗ structured Within These different uh

6:38 ↗ sections based on the goals that we've

6:41 ↗ now are establishing for the housing

6:43 ↗ element

6:44 ↗ for the new

6:46 ↗ proposals we don't have anything new for

6:49 ↗ the special needs section or the

6:50 ↗ regional resources section we do have

6:53 ↗ amendments for all the sections just so

6:54 ↗ you know why some of that's not being

6:57 ↗ addressed

7:01 ↗ so getting started for housing Supply we

7:03 ↗ have a goal achieve a variety of

7:04 ↗ neighborhoods housing types and

7:06 ↗ densities throughout the city

7:08 ↗ oh I need to go back actually

7:10 ↗ so in your packet you have housing

7:15 ↗ Supply and neighborhood character as

7:16 ↗ different sections we omitted having the

7:20 ↗ neighborhood character goal as in your

7:23 ↗ materials that'll be part of your your

7:26 ↗ materials for the next meeting and we'll

7:27 ↗ discuss that further but it doesn't

7:29 ↗ change any of the policies that were in

7:30 ↗ the Imperial for tonight

7:35 ↗ so for the goal of housing Supply we're

7:37 ↗ proposing

7:38 ↗ several new policies

7:40 ↗ these policies these first three

7:44 ↗ X1 is primarily focusing on a higher

7:46 ↗ density diversity of housing focused in

7:49 ↗ the regional growth Center this is

7:51 ↗ something that is actually required by

7:52 ↗ the state and County and so we are in

7:55 ↗ compliance with those requirements with

7:57 ↗ this policy

7:58 ↗ with X2 develop regulations and

8:00 ↗ prioritize needs of cross Burton

8:03 ↗ populations this is also a requirement

8:05 ↗ from the state and County to address

8:07 ↗ within the conference plan

8:09 ↗ for X3 remedy historical inequities in

8:12 ↗ and expand access to home ownership

8:13 ↗ opportunities this is also a policy

8:15 ↗ required by state

8:18 ↗ are there any questions on this set of

8:20 ↗ policies I know we didn't get to it

8:22 ↗ maybe we'll start with each slide

8:25 ↗ we'll stop and see if anyone has any

8:26 ↗ questions about it and then we'll see

8:28 ↗ how we're doing on time if it looks like

8:30 ↗ we're uh not burning through it quite

8:33 ↗ properly we'll maybe speed up so let's

8:34 ↗ try it see what happens here any

8:37 ↗ questions as far as these three policies

8:44 ↗ foreign

8:46 ↗ I have a question on the policy X2

8:49 ↗ because it kind of reads us two things

8:52 ↗ um or maybe it's like two parts

8:54 ↗ and so the first part around

8:56 ↗ collaborating with populations most

8:58 ↗ disproportionately impacted by housing

9:00 ↗ cost burden

9:02 ↗ um that piece feels like it shouldn't

9:04 ↗ just be limited to housing Supply

9:06 ↗ um and so I think that that kind of

9:08 ↗ collaborating right should exist through

9:11 ↗ all of these sections and so is there a

9:13 ↗ way to call that out

9:15 ↗ um and then the second part right around

9:16 ↗ in developing regulations that

9:18 ↗ prioritize the needs and solutions

9:19 ↗ articulated by these disproportionately

9:22 ↗ impacted populations feels like

9:24 ↗ like and then right right I don't know

9:29 ↗ it makes sense as one but I also feel

9:31 ↗ like that collaborating piece should be

9:32 ↗ pulled out and applied to others

9:34 ↗ I guess that's not really a question but

9:36 ↗ uh no that I think that's actually

9:37 ↗ really good uh comment Vice chair Vader

9:40 ↗ and one thing

9:42 ↗ to that I just want to highlight it you

9:44 ↗ know for the housing element we wanted

9:46 ↗ housing specific this being a county and

9:48 ↗ state requirement we have to address the

9:51 ↗ housing specific we are looking at

9:53 ↗ similar policies within the other

9:54 ↗ elements to address that coordination

9:56 ↗ that you're kind of talking to

9:58 ↗ um but we do have to have it specific to

10:00 ↗ housing within the housing element just

10:02 ↗ to address what's required for this

10:04 ↗ and I think that's a good point and

10:05 ↗ hopefully for those who are watching or

10:08 ↗ who will watch this later to realize and

10:10 ↗ to listen carefully that some of these

10:12 ↗ are State and County requirements

10:13 ↗ these are high negotiations correct

10:17 ↗ um there is a little bit of leeway in

10:19 ↗ how you word it in terms of like

10:20 ↗ coordination with the other elements

10:22 ↗ we'll be looking at that but

10:24 ↗ um a lot of How It's where it is based

10:26 ↗ on what we see is being required of us

10:28 ↗ from the county

10:32 ↗ okay

10:35 ↗ any other questions on this set of

10:37 ↗ policies

10:44 ↗ so the next set of new policies is under

10:46 ↗ the housing affordability goal that's to

10:49 ↗ realize affordable ownership and Rental

10:51 ↗ opportunities throughout the city for

10:53 ↗ households of all economic segments of

10:57 ↗ the community

11:02 ↗ so for this for this goal the first

11:05 ↗ three policies is the first is going to

11:07 ↗ be the prioritization of 50 Ami or lower

11:11 ↗ second is to

11:15 ↗ address emergency housing Emergency

11:17 ↗ Shelters and transitional shelters as

11:21 ↗ what's now required of his house bill

11:23 ↗ 1220 and the third policy is the

11:26 ↗ amendment of regulations to present that

11:28 ↗ present barriers to Equitable housing

11:29 ↗ that's actually a county requirement to

11:31 ↗ address as a policy

11:34 ↗ any questions on this particular slide

11:37 ↗ I do have one and this actually comes

11:39 ↗ from comments or delivered late today

11:44 ↗ the lower than 50 Ami

11:47 ↗ where does that come from where does

11:48 ↗ that number come from so this is

11:50 ↗ actually going back to my previous slide

11:53 ↗ on targets

11:55 ↗ so this is being a requirement from King

11:57 ↗ County to have a dress in our

11:59 ↗ comprehensive plan we have a majority of

12:02 ↗ Target of that Target units at 50 or

12:05 ↗ lower

12:06 ↗ and so by prioritizing it we're showing

12:09 ↗ that as a priority and that actually

12:10 ↗ being acquired policy on showing how

12:13 ↗ you're prioritizing the majority of

12:15 ↗ these uh the targeted units it is I know

12:18 ↗ it's all legalistic the word prioritize

12:21 ↗ what how does the city Define that

12:24 ↗ we have some of this is a more Market

12:26 ↗ forces correct

12:28 ↗ a lot of his Market forces and so that's

12:30 ↗ the thing with targets is we can set the

12:31 ↗ policies and a lot of the foundational

12:35 ↗ um regulations around how best to

12:37 ↗ encourage or achieve these housing

12:39 ↗ targets but the Market's really going to

12:41 ↗ be driving what actually

12:43 ↗ so for this particular policy

12:49 ↗ this is actually complying with the

12:52 ↗ requirement of how best we're achieving

12:54 ↗ or showing that we're achieving those

12:56 ↗ targets as a policy

13:01 ↗ smart

13:03 ↗ one question I have on um

13:06 ↗ policy number X4 what's the difference

13:09 ↗ between X4 and policy E4 and more so

13:15 ↗ with x-forces prioritize 50 or less

13:19 ↗ and E4 says 30 or below Ami

13:28 ↗ and I can read it if you and so this is

13:31 ↗ work with local Regional and national

13:34 ↗ resources to increase public and private

13:37 ↗ dollars available on a local and

13:39 ↗ Regional level for affordable special

13:42 ↗ needs housing

13:44 ↗ especially has an affordable to

13:47 ↗ households at or below 30 percent Ami

13:51 ↗ that uh that amendment is actually or so

13:54 ↗ the amendment for E4 is actually a

13:56 ↗ clarification of what Cal King County

13:58 ↗ defines very low income which is the 30

14:01 ↗ percent of the rate

14:04 ↗ okay and then X4 is the prioritization

14:08 ↗ for the city of okay correct

14:20 ↗ the next two policies X7 is reduction of

14:23 ↗ barriers to ownership of 80 Ami or lower

14:26 ↗ X8 is the mitigation uh displacement

14:30 ↗ from large-scale investment Market

14:31 ↗ pressure and land use

14:35 ↗ and both of these are required by state

14:37 ↗ and County to incorporate as part of our

14:38 ↗ policies

14:42 ↗ yeah sorry I should have asked this

14:43 ↗ before

14:44 ↗ um when we are talking about the

14:46 ↗ percentages is that saying that these

14:49 ↗ are housing units that would be like

14:50 ↗ income

14:52 ↗ and enter there'd be like an income

14:53 ↗ requirement to purchase these or is it

14:55 ↗ just

14:57 ↗ something that somebody says if you're

14:59 ↗ you can afford right if you make this

15:01 ↗ much

15:03 ↗ it is the latter so it's the

15:05 ↗ affordability of the housing so they're

15:07 ↗ not like income restricted

15:09 ↗ so Theory someone with a higher income

15:11 ↗ who could purchase that could purchase

15:13 ↗ that house or that property

15:16 ↗ yes so oftentimes you have to be income

15:20 ↗ restricted to be purchasing for those

15:22 ↗ properties

15:28 ↗ you're good

15:29 ↗ yeah

15:33 ↗ the next set of goal housing

15:36 ↗ affordability goal

15:39 ↗ insurer conference plan goals policies

15:41 ↗ are accompanied by effective

15:43 ↗ implementing regulations programs and

15:45 ↗ funding

15:48 ↗ so this is on results and accountability

15:50 ↗ for a new policy so we

15:54 ↗ are introducing a five-year evaluation

15:56 ↗ of regulations which is now a state

15:57 ↗ requirement

16:00 ↗ the x10 five-year update of housing

16:02 ↗ strategy work plan this is something

16:03 ↗ that actually is already adopted within

16:05 ↗ the housing strategy work plan it's just

16:06 ↗ now being incorporated into the

16:07 ↗ comprehensive plan

16:09 ↗ X11 is identify gaps in Partnerships and

16:12 ↗ resources which is also a requirement

16:15 ↗ from the state and County to incorporate

16:17 ↗ in our policies and then the X12 annual

16:20 ↗ housing report card that's actually

16:21 ↗ something that's already adopted by the

16:23 ↗ city

16:26 ↗ yeah just a question on that five-year

16:29 ↗ refresh is it um agile enough for I know

16:33 ↗ you it takes time to actually realize if

16:36 ↗ a client is working but with the annual

16:39 ↗ report card is it agile enough where

16:42 ↗ let's say year two or year three you see

16:45 ↗ something is at work in that something

16:48 ↗ could be tweaked through of course

16:51 ↗ um on meetings and legislation and

16:53 ↗ whatnot yes absolutely with any of our

16:56 ↗ plans we can always if we see something

16:57 ↗ wrong that we need to update we'll

17:00 ↗ absolutely update it before that

17:01 ↗ five-year requirement is up but this is

17:03 ↗ just saying we are required to require

17:05 ↗ at least every five years

17:07 ↗ thank you

17:12 ↗ Mr Bader yeah um all right lots of

17:15 ↗ questions

17:16 ↗ um a question on like where the

17:19 ↗ monitoring fits in and what we're

17:20 ↗ monitoring so we're just monitoring like

17:22 ↗ progress towards some of these like

17:25 ↗ numerical targets or are we monitoring

17:27 ↗ progress towards the things like

17:29 ↗ reducing right

17:31 ↗ um impact on marginalized populations

17:34 ↗ um are we monitoring like some of those

17:37 ↗ like more

17:38 ↗ the qualitative

17:40 ↗ it's all the above so some of this with

17:43 ↗ the monitoring is you know we have the

17:45 ↗ monitoring with the housing report card

17:46 ↗ it doesn't incorporate all what's now

17:48 ↗ required of us at the state so that's

17:50 ↗ something that we'll need to update uh

17:51 ↗ following the conference

17:58 ↗ please proceed okay

18:02 ↗ so now we're moving to the amended

18:04 ↗ housing policies that are proposed

18:09 ↗ so with housing Supply these first three

18:11 ↗ policies maintain adequate land Supply

18:13 ↗ to meet needs of the city

18:16 ↗ this is a city requirement but or a city

18:19 ↗ policy but it is kind of addressing some

18:22 ↗ of what's required from the King County

18:23 ↗ Planning policies A2 allow and promote

18:26 ↗ variety of housing that is the state

18:28 ↗ money requirement and then the adoption

18:31 ↗ regulations to maintain neighborhood

18:33 ↗ character that's the Amendments that are

18:36 ↗ being proposed is really just clarifying

18:37 ↗ uh what the language should be saying

18:41 ↗ some of that is trying to bring some of

18:43 ↗ our policies to what we are wanting out

18:45 ↗ of the conference plan rather than

18:47 ↗ what's in our functional plans or

18:48 ↗ implements

18:54 ↗ thank you Bader

18:56 ↗ I took that this is what happens when I

18:58 ↗ like have my notes in front of me um on

19:01 ↗ B1 just a question the like as

19:03 ↗ identified by King County county-wide

19:05 ↗ Planning policies in the final draft

19:07 ↗ will those be linked to this so like a

19:09 ↗ lay person knows what that means yes

19:11 ↗ yeah so in in the next draft of the

19:14 ↗ housing element you'll see what those

19:16 ↗ policies are it's primarily addressing

19:18 ↗ the uh

19:19 ↗ Ami targets that were on the previous

19:21 ↗ slide

19:33 ↗ for these next three policies A4 require

19:36 ↗ attributes that contribute to the public

19:37 ↗ realm

19:38 ↗ this is consistent with the land use

19:42 ↗ code language uh what was updated in

19:45 ↗ title 18. A5 allow flexibility and

19:48 ↗ standards this is the change is

19:50 ↗ primarily just clarifying making it more

19:52 ↗ actionable

19:53 ↗ um something that we also were trying to

19:55 ↗ achieve with Alfred's Plan update and

19:56 ↗ then A6 higher density housing near

19:58 ↗ Commercial standards this removed

20:00 ↗ because it's actually repetitive of a

20:02 ↗ few other policies that were proposed

20:04 ↗ for the element

20:09 ↗ that one seems pretty self-explanatory I

20:11 ↗ think you can I'm happy to answer any

20:13 ↗ questions if you have any yeah no

20:21 ↗ okay we can move on

20:29 ↗ so for this first set of policies

20:32 ↗ um these are actually addressed in the

20:34 ↗ land use element so we'll be we remove

20:37 ↗ this policy primarily because it is

20:39 ↗ repetitive of what's in the land use

20:40 ↗ element

20:41 ↗ for A10 this is diversities and ease

20:44 ↗ this is repetitive of the other policies

20:46 ↗ A2 and A5 and then for a11 this uh the

20:50 ↗ language on edus and variety of

20:52 ↗ densities clarified makes it a little

20:54 ↗ more actual

21:00 ↗ any questions on this app

21:10 ↗ okay for the next policy B3 this one is

21:12 ↗ support development preservation near

21:14 ↗ Transit

21:15 ↗ this is actually one of the state and

21:16 ↗ County requirements so it's amended over

21:18 ↗ existing policy

21:20 ↗ E2 strategies to address affordability

21:22 ↗ and special needs this one was clarified

21:25 ↗ to be a little more actionable

21:27 ↗ and then goal C this is actually

21:30 ↗ repetitive policies so we're proposing

21:31 ↗ to actually remove this goal and

21:33 ↗ incorporate its set of policies as part

21:35 ↗ of the housing affordability goal and

21:38 ↗ section

21:41 ↗ any questions on this side

21:49 ↗ commissioners

21:50 ↗ we'll just clarify so you see like

21:53 ↗ section c or like policy C you're you're

21:58 ↗ removing the whole section so we it's

22:01 ↗ it's primarily just the goal not the

22:03 ↗ policies so it was previously goal C in

22:07 ↗ the existing comprehensive plan and

22:09 ↗ housing element we're proposing to

22:11 ↗ remove that goal incorporate all the CE

22:14 ↗ policies into the housing affordability

22:17 ↗ sector okay

22:20 ↗ it just seemed repetitive of what we

22:23 ↗ already had so we figured we'd

22:24 ↗ consolidate those sections

22:29 ↗ any other questions

22:34 ↗ okay

22:37 ↗ the next policy C1 this one's uh

22:40 ↗ avoiding

22:41 ↗ disproportional impacts when making land

22:44 ↗ use changes this is a state county

22:46 ↗ requirement City to incorporate as a

22:48 ↗ policy

22:49 ↗ C2 offer incentives for development and

22:51 ↗ preservation another requirement of the

22:53 ↗ state and County then C6 prioritize

22:56 ↗ affordable housing on Surplus land this

22:58 ↗ one that was amended to be clarified as

23:01 ↗ more actionable

23:05 ↗ materialism

23:07 ↗ and just a question on C1 I know it's a

23:10 ↗ state and County requirement

23:13 ↗ um do they Define what disproportional

23:15 ↗ impacts are

23:17 ↗ there's no vagueness on it or are we

23:21 ↗ able to massage the language they

23:23 ↗ provide some definitions on what that

23:26 ↗ means but the city will be working

23:28 ↗ through our own definitions on this for

23:30 ↗ the conference okay good that would be

23:32 ↗ attached to what's disproportionately

23:34 ↗ okay yeah we can we can provide that

23:37 ↗ okay and will it be in this document or

23:40 ↗ for us to look at or it would be in the

23:43 ↗ conference plan document and then use

23:45 ↗ further within our implementation and

23:47 ↗ functional plan okay thank you

23:51 ↗ foreign

23:53 ↗ if there's other terms that you see that

23:55 ↗ we can help identify or at least call

23:57 ↗ out at least provide Clarity within the

24:00 ↗ comfort zone please let us know that as

24:01 ↗ well

24:02 ↗ well if any other questions

24:05 ↗ I I've got a couple on these two slides

24:08 ↗ or this one slide

24:10 ↗ um so I believe it's a King County

24:12 ↗ policy and I know you attached uh

24:14 ↗ encounter these policies here it says

24:17 ↗ avoid disproportional changes

24:21 ↗ um I think it's age 20 expanding housing

24:23 ↗ and neighborhoods in the King County

24:25 ↗ policies

24:27 ↗ mitigate displacement risk consideration

24:30 ↗ given the preservation I guess as well

24:33 ↗ as cultural communities as well as

24:34 ↗ Investments and low very very low

24:37 ↗ I guess it is that's what I'm trying to

24:39 ↗ figure out is that is the idea to not

24:44 ↗ I guess is the idea against

24:45 ↗ gentrification

24:48 ↗ when they say displacement

24:50 ↗ or disproportional impact

24:53 ↗ it's not necessarily gentrification that

24:55 ↗ they're addressing though it's one of

24:57 ↗ the things that get addressed it's it's

25:00 ↗ primarily just taking into account the

25:02 ↗ existing residents or tenants

25:05 ↗ of

25:07 ↗ the land that's going to be developed

25:09 ↗ and making sure that you are considering

25:11 ↗ displacement and with the high cost of

25:14 ↗ land going up we want to make sure that

25:17 ↗ we're not completely displacing a lot of

25:20 ↗ the existing

25:22 ↗ right so how best to address that in the

25:24 ↗ policies right and I guess that's where

25:26 ↗ some of the language is uh open to

25:29 ↗ interpretation you have a void

25:31 ↗ so again I bought one person considers

25:34 ↗ avoid I'm thinking of like old town

25:36 ↗ right a bunch of older

25:39 ↗ single-family residential houses

25:42 ↗ is the idea that again when you say

25:44 ↗ avoid it is that just obviously that's

25:46 ↗ just city land

25:47 ↗ not talking about private resident

25:49 ↗ houses which you can sell to whoever

25:50 ↗ they want

25:53 ↗ yes and no so

25:56 ↗ um it's not necessarily city land that

25:57 ↗ we're looking at or you know city

25:59 ↗ property that we're looking at it's also

26:01 ↗ just the development of the neighborhood

26:02 ↗ and so if

26:04 ↗ um when talking about neighborhood

26:06 ↗ characteristics

26:07 ↗ if you are wanting to I mean

26:11 ↗ maintain certain characteristics within

26:14 ↗ each neighborhood that you want to

26:15 ↗ consider at least

26:17 ↗ the income different income levels

26:19 ↗ particularly with the targets that we

26:20 ↗ need to maintain now uh within the

26:22 ↗ comprehensive plan

26:24 ↗ I guess so in my mind I'm thinking of

26:26 ↗ like Clyde Hill it was the idea to make

26:28 ↗ sure that something like Clyde Hill

26:29 ↗ never happens here

26:31 ↗ not necessarily

26:34 ↗ um it's primarily just being conscious

26:36 ↗ of the existing resident evidence and so

26:39 ↗ making sure that they still have a home

26:40 ↗ and we're not people aren't feeling like

26:42 ↗ they're getting pushed out

26:44 ↗ I'm sure you can talk to some people

26:46 ↗ inside he'll feel like they're getting

26:47 ↗ pushed out but you know for those who

26:50 ↗ are staying without the exception of us

26:52 ↗ their uh property tax they're also

26:54 ↗ seeing their land value yeah

27:00 ↗ um and then I'm just going to mention

27:01 ↗ this quickly because we got a another

27:04 ↗ comments about incentives we're not

27:07 ↗ taking any incentives away there was a

27:09 ↗ comment about far the floor area ratio

27:12 ↗ waving impact fees we already do those

27:15 ↗ things those aren't going away correct

27:17 ↗ right I just wanted to make sure that

27:18 ↗ person that they are watching knows that

27:21 ↗ those those incentives are still there

27:23 ↗ for the development right and and

27:25 ↗ identification of those specific tools

27:27 ↗ which we need to offer as part of

27:29 ↗ incentives or incentivizing a lot of the

27:31 ↗ housing development that we want

27:33 ↗ um a lot of that gets addressed in the

27:34 ↗ housing strategy work plan so that's

27:35 ↗ kind of that different level of

27:37 ↗ comprehensive plan versus the functional

27:39 ↗ plans

27:40 ↗ foreign

27:41 ↗ again

27:45 ↗ I want to explain how the city views

27:46 ↗ prioritize when it's looking at policy

27:49 ↗ C6 that one is in an attempt to make it

27:53 ↗ a little more actionable because the

27:54 ↗ previous language uh was considered

27:58 ↗ giving priority

27:59 ↗ and changing its priority actually makes

28:01 ↗ it as that it identifies actually

28:03 ↗ priority for the city which it is and so

28:05 ↗ being able to change that language helps

28:08 ↗ us emphasize how important it is for the

28:11 ↗ city so

28:12 ↗ is there any

28:14 ↗ discussion on

28:16 ↗ keeping the existing language versus

28:17 ↗ what's being proposed I'm just thinking

28:20 ↗ of like Talus and Issaquah Highlands

28:21 ↗ right that was Surplus land at one time

28:24 ↗ is the idea that when you say when the

28:26 ↗ city says prior to prioritize affordable

28:28 ↗ housing are we talking about a

28:30 ↗ percentage of Issaquah Highlands are we

28:31 ↗ talking about the whole thing should

28:33 ↗ have been affordable housing up on that

28:34 ↗ Hill

28:35 ↗ it's primarily just showing that

28:36 ↗ affordable housing is a priority not

28:38 ↗ necessarily that we're designating in

28:39 ↗ each of the neighborhoods a certain

28:40 ↗ percentage of affordable housing

28:46 ↗ I'm satisfied anybody else

28:48 ↗ there we go

28:52 ↗ um

28:53 ↗ I know it's it's just actionable

28:56 ↗ prioritize but how would you how would

29:00 ↗ you implement it or measure it

29:02 ↗ that would be a discussion with the

29:05 ↗ update with the housing strategy

29:07 ↗ um with implementation and I know it's

29:09 ↗ very hard to stay out of a lot of the

29:12 ↗ actions and that's really kind of the

29:13 ↗ level we're trying to keep it at

29:15 ↗ primarily to also satisfy some of the

29:17 ↗ requirements from the county and state

29:19 ↗ when it comes to this even though this

29:21 ↗ is actual this is actually a policy that

29:23 ↗ is required of us from the King King

29:25 ↗ County in the State uh we are just

29:28 ↗ amended because it was already existing

29:29 ↗ policy

29:32 ↗ okay I think the key thing is that it's

29:34 ↗ uh

29:35 ↗ the land is city land

29:38 ↗ and then when somebody wants to develop

29:41 ↗ on it right yes how would they

29:45 ↗ have a discussion on prioritizing

29:47 ↗ affordable it would it just be a

29:49 ↗ discussion or would there be

29:51 ↗ a have 20 percent

29:54 ↗ with Nea Surplus land you would evaluate

29:57 ↗ it for what kind of development the city

29:59 ↗ wants to do that's something that we're

30:01 ↗ currently going through right now is a

30:03 ↗ update to our evaluation of a lot of our

30:06 ↗ Circle plans to give a recommendation of

30:08 ↗ what to do with it

30:09 ↗ um so yes it would be a discussion of

30:11 ↗ what we should do with that Surplus plan

30:12 ↗ to benefit City goals or at least what

30:15 ↗ we're trying to achieve is the division

30:16 ↗ of our facilities as well as the

30:19 ↗ community

30:20 ↗ and I guess it may be depend on how much

30:23 ↗ affordable housing you have at the time

30:25 ↗ as well

30:27 ↗ yes so it's it's kind of always a moving

30:29 ↗ Target in terms of like how you're best

30:31 ↗ achieving your own targets yeah so that

30:33 ↗ I think where I'm getting that is that I

30:36 ↗ mean I get there right now but provide

30:38 ↗ more definition to it to say we may not

30:42 ↗ this may have to go beyond this this

30:44 ↗ commission but

30:46 ↗ um where we have definition where it

30:48 ↗ says if there's only this much

30:51 ↗ affordable housing at this date and more

30:54 ↗ needs to be added than we need to add 10

30:56 ↗ or 20 in that Surplus land yeah so it

31:00 ↗ gives more definition and guidance for

31:03 ↗ the people adjudicated the use of that

31:07 ↗ land

31:07 ↗ yeah and and a lot of this provides you

31:10 ↗ know it gives us guidance in terms of

31:12 ↗ like when we're having those discussions

31:13 ↗ with each individual Surplus property

31:15 ↗ for the city because we don't want to

31:17 ↗ give specific percentages when it might

31:20 ↗ not make sense to do it with certain

31:21 ↗ properties whether it's the size of the

31:23 ↗ property or even the timing in terms of

31:25 ↗ like how much we've been able to achieve

31:26 ↗ with affordable housing within the city

31:27 ↗ at the time of when the Surplus property

31:29 ↗ we wanted to develop a surplus property

31:32 ↗ at some point right because I think it

31:34 ↗ nuts but in but if get me wrong I know

31:36 ↗ the city's trying to move away from

31:37 ↗ development agreements but what would

31:39 ↗ happen is that would be worked out

31:40 ↗ through attorneys with the city and it's

31:42 ↗ at the city council administrative level

31:44 ↗ it's not a boarding commission like you

31:47 ↗ said we're just trying to give

31:48 ↗ it might be a public hearing but

31:50 ↗ ultimately that's that's at that higher

31:52 ↗ level with attorneys

31:55 ↗ yes and no so you know if we have a

31:58 ↗ surplus property that we're wanting to

31:59 ↗ develop and we're wanting uh it's

32:01 ↗ significant enough for the community we

32:03 ↗ would probably get community feedback on

32:05 ↗ how what we want to achieve with the

32:06 ↗ property whether it's uh to sell it as a

32:10 ↗ surplus property or provided to as an

32:12 ↗ amenity for Community groups like

32:14 ↗ there's there's ultimately going to be

32:16 ↗ some type of community discussion

32:21 ↗ yeah we don't want to restrict it make

32:24 ↗ it too restrictive but we also don't

32:26 ↗ want to make it too loose as well it's

32:29 ↗ always kind of a balancing act with the

32:31 ↗ comprehensive plan policies of just

32:33 ↗ providing enough guidance so that we

32:35 ↗ know how to take action exactly thank

32:38 ↗ you

32:43 ↗ I think you're good okay

32:52 ↗ the next goal is Special Needs housing

32:54 ↗ is Chief housing opportunities for

32:56 ↗ residents with disabilities or other

32:58 ↗ housing special needs

33:01 ↗ this one currently has one proposed

33:04 ↗ policy encourage accessible housing for

33:05 ↗ those with disabilities the proposed

33:08 ↗ amendment is primarily just clarifying

33:10 ↗ what we're actually wanting to the

33:11 ↗ policy

33:13 ↗ is there a reason you guys left that

33:14 ↗ word encourage looks like you've

33:16 ↗ stripped it from pretty much every other

33:18 ↗ part of it is also addressing

33:23 ↗ a lot of it is actually addressed within

33:25 ↗ the human services element and the Human

33:26 ↗ Services strategic plan and so

33:29 ↗ um and some of it is also addressed

33:30 ↗ within the Ada transition fund and so

33:33 ↗ it's primarily just a

33:36 ↗ recognizing that coordination with those

33:39 ↗ other functional plans

33:41 ↗ and the other element

33:53 ↗ the next goal Regional resources

33:54 ↗ cooperate with other jurisdictions to

33:56 ↗ address the Region's housing needs

34:00 ↗ and so for these

34:03 ↗ proposed events for these policies E1

34:05 ↗ support legislation promoting promoting

34:07 ↗ housing goals and policies this one was

34:09 ↗ simplified

34:11 ↗ E3 cooperate with others to assess local

34:13 ↗ region and Regional needs and this one

34:15 ↗ was also clarified to get to the intent

34:18 ↗ of what we were trying to achieve and E4

34:20 ↗ worked with local Regional and national

34:21 ↗ resources for 30 in my households this

34:25 ↗ is actually a state and County

34:26 ↗ requirement this is the one they uh

34:28 ↗ commissioner has more they had brought

34:29 ↗ up earlier

34:32 ↗ are there any questions on these

34:44 ↗ okay

34:45 ↗ the next one results in accountability

34:47 ↗ this is amended policy

34:50 ↗ ensure regulations exist to implement

34:52 ↗ goals and policies this is actually a

34:54 ↗ policy that was turned into a goal to

34:56 ↗ address the new section of policies that

34:59 ↗ are introduced with a proposal

35:04 ↗ any questions on this one

35:10 ↗ before I get into the next steps is

35:11 ↗ there any other gold policies that

35:14 ↗ Commissioners like me to revisit

35:17 ↗ moisture Bader yeah it's not related to

35:19 ↗ any of the ones that you like covered so

35:22 ↗ I hold it or

35:25 ↗ is it is it the overall the housing

35:29 ↗ element it's related to one of the it's

35:31 ↗ kind of like a general it's related to

35:33 ↗ one of the policies

35:34 ↗ [Music]

35:37 ↗ in the county

35:39 ↗ um

35:41 ↗ that I just didn't see reflected in the

35:43 ↗ policies and I don't know if I should

35:44 ↗ say that now or if there's go ahead and

35:47 ↗ ask the question now so it's um policy

35:50 ↗ the county policy h18

35:53 ↗ um

35:54 ↗ which gets to expanded housing and

35:57 ↗ neighborhood choice for all residents

35:58 ↗ and I know that there's like the cottage

36:00 ↗ housing and micro units and all of that

36:02 ↗ that I think start to get to that but I

36:04 ↗ think there's an issue that like if

36:07 ↗ affordability more generally right like

36:09 ↗ outside of just affordability as a

36:10 ↗ percentage of like Ami but like how do

36:14 ↗ we is there like an opportunity to have

36:16 ↗ like policies that also like

36:19 ↗ or like family like we couldn't move to

36:21 ↗ Issaquah now right and we you know

36:23 ↗ fortunate enough not to fall within

36:24 ↗ those Ami categories but there's no way

36:26 ↗ we could afford our house today that we

36:28 ↗ bought three years ago

36:30 ↗ um and so is there some way in the

36:32 ↗ policies to just kind of promote like

36:33 ↗ overall affordability

36:36 ↗ um because I think it gets a little bit

36:37 ↗ to this like all residence that like

36:39 ↗ anyone who wants to come to Issaquah

36:41 ↗ should be able to like find the house

36:42 ↗ that they want right and this shouldn't

36:45 ↗ be an exclusive community

36:47 ↗ um and we're doing a lot of work which

36:48 ↗ is wonderful right to bring in those at

36:51 ↗ lower income tiers but I also think it

36:52 ↗ might be that missing middle I'm not

36:54 ↗ sure how we Define that but

36:56 ↗ um it feels like it's like catering

36:58 ↗ right market rate is catering to the

37:00 ↗ very high income right now and then we

37:02 ↗ have a lot of effort going on right at

37:04 ↗ the very low tiers and then there's this

37:06 ↗ entire middle group that I don't see

37:08 ↗ represented

37:09 ↗ um in the housing policy and I don't

37:11 ↗ know if that's appropriate and that's

37:13 ↗ how it should be or if there's a way to

37:15 ↗ somehow address that you know we can

37:16 ↗ take a look at that a little bit closely

37:18 ↗ to see if we can add a little more

37:20 ↗ language to answer your question I know

37:23 ↗ there's a balance of keeping at the high

37:25 ↗ level with a conference plan which

37:27 ↗ there's I think two policies right now

37:29 ↗ that kind of address middle housing but

37:31 ↗ to the language that's in age 18 of the

37:34 ↗ King County policies it gets more into

37:36 ↗ the strategy but I think you're right

37:38 ↗ that we can potentially have a few more

37:40 ↗ policies that kind of address this

37:43 ↗ let me ask you this real quickly and

37:45 ↗ then commissioner asked Moana

37:47 ↗ um so you burn through all the slides

37:50 ↗ Commissioners yeah this is your time

37:53 ↗ and uh I will ask something right after

37:56 ↗ commissioner

37:57 ↗ what up

38:00 ↗ um and to the point that commissioner

38:02 ↗ better talked about the the that missing

38:05 ↗ middle I see that for the Ami you have

38:08 ↗ up to 120 Ami but of course sometimes

38:12 ↗ that middle class may be a little bit

38:15 ↗ above that as well so that that's I

38:18 ↗ think a concern for a certain amount of

38:20 ↗ people in this community that if you

38:23 ↗ look at the Ami and the cost of housing

38:26 ↗ in Issaquah at Ami

38:30 ↗ um that on which location Issaquah they

38:33 ↗ may not be able to afford

38:35 ↗ the current

38:36 ↗ um inventory of houses right now let

38:40 ↗ alone you get a little bit above that

38:42 ↗ Ami level so I'm looking for that Ami I

38:47 ↗ think is is a good start but to

38:50 ↗ um commissioner voter's point is to also

38:53 ↗ look at

38:54 ↗ um

38:55 ↗ not only address it of course the higher

38:58 ↗ earners and the lower earners but that

39:01 ↗ that that missing middle as well or the

39:04 ↗ statement yeah so missing middle you

39:06 ↗ know primarily this middle just provides

39:08 ↗ a wider spectrum of housing types within

39:09 ↗ so it doesn't necessarily solve or

39:11 ↗ address a lot of the affordable housing

39:13 ↗ needs of the city it primarily just

39:15 ↗ provides more options it helps built in

39:17 ↗ more of the housing Supply to address

39:19 ↗ some of the affordability yeah

39:22 ↗ hmm I never unmetered myself prepared

39:25 ↗ for it to share more apparently

39:28 ↗ um because I'm thinking of things like

39:30 ↗ utilities right like cost of utilities

39:33 ↗ things that impact home ownership

39:34 ↗ outside of just the cost of purchasing a

39:37 ↗ home

39:37 ↗ that might be within the realm probably

39:41 ↗ not the comprehensive plan I don't know

39:43 ↗ um things like you know transparency

39:46 ↗ with like how are we

39:48 ↗ like using City funds for infrastructure

39:50 ↗ and then asking for like property tax

39:52 ↗ levies like that sort of stuff that gets

39:54 ↗ to

39:55 ↗ just the cost of owning a home right

39:57 ↗ outside of the

39:58 ↗ cost of a home does that make sense

40:01 ↗ I think so are you looking for a

40:03 ↗ specific policy in terms of

40:05 ↗ how we're addressing that or yeah I just

40:07 ↗ don't know if that like does that exist

40:09 ↗ somewhere because it it's more about

40:11 ↗ like affordability of home ownership

40:13 ↗ than

40:14 ↗ like

40:15 ↗ so it's like once you own the home right

40:17 ↗ how do you afford to stay in the home

40:19 ↗ especially with like how much everything

40:21 ↗ is going up right now

40:22 ↗ and is there a way that like we can plan

40:25 ↗ for that

40:26 ↗ um

40:27 ↗ so that we're not being forced out of

40:29 ↗ homes because of these like major

40:32 ↗ increases in property tax for example

40:34 ↗ you know I'll

40:36 ↗ I'll meet with my team to kind of

40:38 ↗ discuss that I don't know if any

40:40 ↗ and I recognize the comprehensive plan

40:42 ↗ maintenance possibly not the place for

40:44 ↗ that right right

40:48 ↗ good evening Commissioners

40:51 ↗ um great conversation and great topic I

40:53 ↗ think um from a policy standpoint you

40:56 ↗ guys could come up with a new policy so

40:57 ↗ this is what we have but if this is

41:00 ↗ missing to work with existing residents

41:02 ↗ to be able to keep their affordability

41:05 ↗ you know and that could be evaluation of

41:08 ↗ cities policies of you know

41:12 ↗ we don't control some of those things

41:15 ↗ that you know uh the market will dictate

41:17 ↗ but but how do we invest in existing

41:21 ↗ infrastructure and others to keep the

41:23 ↗ cost low to keep the residents that have

41:25 ↗ enjoyed you know or or open up for it so

41:28 ↗ I think some of the other disparate um

41:30 ↗ you know

41:32 ↗ any kind of assessment of the impact of

41:35 ↗ any City's policies there could be

41:37 ↗ Financial there could be investment of

41:39 ↗ infrastructure you know where is the

41:41 ↗ city's capital projects going uh going

41:44 ↗ and assisting with

41:46 ↗ um the neighborhoods that have not

41:48 ↗ historically been invested in those kind

41:51 ↗ of things could be set you know added as

41:53 ↗ new policies if based on your discussion

41:56 ↗ there's consensus that that's missing

41:58 ↗ from the complain

42:01 ↗ so this the I think the list that you

42:03 ↗ have is what the state required and then

42:06 ↗ what

42:07 ↗ um we had to change just to make it more

42:09 ↗ clear but if there's other things you'd

42:12 ↗ like to uh perhaps add that could go

42:14 ↗ into that category

42:16 ↗ that's really helpful that was my answer

42:18 ↗ to the like what's needed for Issaquah

42:20 ↗ um question so

42:22 ↗ what's unique about our city here that

42:26 ↗ um is still meeting the the state and

42:30 ↗ the county gold and all that kind of

42:31 ↗ stuff I think I think listening to your

42:33 ↗ conversation about King County

42:34 ↗ county-wide Planning policies and

42:36 ↗ targets you know I think we've kind of

42:38 ↗ talked about it but it is confusing and

42:40 ↗ it gets those are just to plan for and

42:42 ↗ accommodate those numbers it's not

42:45 ↗ you're going to get that you know you

42:47 ↗ may get more than that the market will

42:49 ↗ drive some of those things but we have

42:51 ↗ to be ready to serve that many units in

42:54 ↗ those categories so the the new

42:55 ↗ county-wide planning policy that haven't

42:57 ↗ been adopted is my understanding have

43:00 ↗ this affordability level so our Target

43:03 ↗ numbers of 3 500 were then split into

43:06 ↗ zero to thirty percent fifty percent you

43:08 ↗ know in that Spectrum so as we do the

43:11 ↗ comprehensive plan we have to plan for

43:13 ↗ and accommodate so we can't have rules

43:15 ↗ and regulations or policies that

43:17 ↗ prohibit the that type of mix to go in

43:23 ↗ um but it doesn't mean Issaquah is going

43:25 ↗ to get that many you know a lot of

43:27 ↗ factors will go into whether you know

43:29 ↗ there is subsidies there's Market driven

43:32 ↗ incentives and but the regulations have

43:35 ↗ to have that lens of you know is there

43:38 ↗ at a density bonus for instance for

43:40 ↗ lower Ami versus higher Ami so those

43:44 ↗ kind of things will will be evaluated as

43:47 ↗ we get into the the application of these

43:49 ↗ schools so the implementation

43:53 ↗ yeah but the the numbers really come

43:56 ↗ from a regional level the you know the

43:59 ↗ forecast that happens for this three

44:01 ↗ County region is x amount then each of

44:04 ↗ these cities get their allocation that

44:06 ↗ they have to plan for and accommodate so

44:08 ↗ ours was 3 500. and then now it's

44:11 ↗ finally uh you know one step further to

44:14 ↗ say how many of those percentages and

44:16 ↗ how that 3500 gets split into

44:19 ↗ um

44:20 ↗ I don't know if that's helpful but I

44:22 ↗ think a lot there's always confusion

44:24 ↗ about what are these targets they're

44:26 ↗ just targets for the city to plan for

44:28 ↗ and accommodate those numbers so that or

44:31 ↗ we have lower capacity water capacity

44:33 ↗ schools other things to serve that kind

44:36 ↗ of growth in those segments

44:43 ↗ now the other question with the targets

44:46 ↗ that were provided by the state and

44:48 ↗ County 3 500 now

44:51 ↗ does that number is that does that

44:54 ↗ number fit Issaquah from the sense of

44:57 ↗ hey

44:57 ↗ why isn't it

45:00 ↗ 3510 or are we just are we accepted the

45:04 ↗ 3500 yeah the projections work at the

45:07 ↗ region level you know you can't get that

45:09 ↗ that fine-grained correct numbers at a

45:13 ↗ city boundary level because a lot of you

45:16 ↗ know things can impact the affordability

45:18 ↗ being one of them but also the cost of

45:20 ↗ development the the other environmental

45:23 ↗ factors and how much developable land we

45:25 ↗ have but we we can't Zone you know one

45:27 ↗ house per five acres kind of thing and

45:29 ↗ then not accommodate a 3 500 people so

45:33 ↗ our capacity has to be at least 3 500.

45:37 ↗ it's sort of the way it plays out yeah

45:39 ↗ okay thank you

45:41 ↗ yeah

45:44 ↗ any other questions for Manny or Stephen

45:47 ↗ on this particular topic I have a couple

45:50 ↗ um

45:53 ↗ so I guess what I was going to say I'm

45:55 ↗ blocking it out now as far as you said

45:58 ↗ the capacity as far as the homes I guess

46:01 ↗ like you said it's it's market rate

46:03 ↗ that's the thing I think people are not

46:05 ↗ really realizing it's not that the city

46:07 ↗ can I guess for me I what I'm trying to

46:10 ↗ understand is when you say you can't

46:13 ↗ limit or you can't exclude

46:15 ↗ does that mean you just allow anything

46:17 ↗ to be built anywhere as long as they

46:20 ↗ have 30 percent under Ami is a part of

46:23 ↗ their building

46:25 ↗ um there's like age policy A2

46:28 ↗ uh allow and promote a variety of

46:30 ↗ housing types and lot sizes zones that

46:32 ↗ allow residential development

46:34 ↗ including but not limited to accessory

46:37 ↗ dwelling units duplexes so in that

46:40 ↗ policy are we saying you could build a

46:41 ↗ mini mansion

46:43 ↗ uh in the middle

46:44 ↗ I know we had like a

46:47 ↗ a zoning thing a couple years ago where

46:49 ↗ somebody wanted to build a mansion they

46:51 ↗ couldn't

46:52 ↗ yeah I think it's the opposite the house

46:55 ↗ bill 1110 is really getting at missing

46:58 ↗ middle uh and you know like Steven said

47:01 ↗ we're still trying to figure there's a

47:02 ↗ lot that happened at legislature in the

47:05 ↗ last session and and it's pretty complex

47:07 ↗ Department of Commerce is going to give

47:09 ↗ us a guidance they're still working on

47:11 ↗ some of these things so we don't have

47:13 ↗ all the answers to that yet but those

47:16 ↗ will come but I think this policy is

47:19 ↗ really saying allow and promote these

47:23 ↗ um you know missing metal types

47:25 ↗ okay and then I do now it's going back

47:28 ↗ to me so you mentioned Regional

47:30 ↗ even mentioned that these numbers these

47:33 ↗ Ami this is all pretty new I'm not

47:35 ↗ trying to get staff into trouble

47:38 ↗ I know you guys have always worked with

47:39 ↗ other jurisdictions and cities

47:41 ↗ but if this is all new this is I mean

47:45 ↗ how much of this

47:46 ↗ is how much are they trying to dictate

47:49 ↗ the City of Issaquah to do something at

47:51 ↗ the regional level King County that was

47:54 ↗ always our purview

47:56 ↗ yes you can answer that they looked at

47:58 ↗ the housing need in the region and they

48:01 ↗ determined that our region is going to

48:03 ↗ grow this much but there is a

48:05 ↗ significant need for people in these

48:07 ↗ income brackets that have no place to

48:09 ↗ live they're trying to address

48:11 ↗ homelessness they're trying to look at

48:13 ↗ where are these people going to be

48:15 ↗ housed and so

48:18 ↗ yeah how much of issaquah's purview the

48:22 ↗ last year has gone from we had this type

48:24 ↗ of reviewed down to here now because of

48:26 ↗ these interviews

48:28 ↗ we've always had the framework of

48:31 ↗ planning in the state is you've got the

48:33 ↗ growth management act right you know

48:34 ↗ that establishes the framework open

48:37 ↗ promote open spaces and you know have

48:39 ↗ affordable housing that's one of the

48:40 ↗ goals uh all 1990 that's always been the

48:45 ↗ charter now the King County county-wide

48:47 ↗ Planning policies have always been in

48:50 ↗ place our comprehensive plans have to be

48:53 ↗ in compliance with those county-wide

48:54 ↗ planning policies that's how planning is

48:57 ↗ set up in this state

48:59 ↗ and the way the county-wide planning

49:01 ↗ policies go through a growth management

49:02 ↗ policy gmpc that has made you know gets

49:07 ↗ input from the cities they debate and

49:10 ↗ discuss and pass that on to King County

49:12 ↗ Council to adopt and and then there's

49:15 ↗ also an affordable housing committee at

49:18 ↗ the you know that is made up of

49:19 ↗ different

49:20 ↗ cities and and others so there was a lot

49:22 ↗ of public process that went into uh what

49:26 ↗ is this Regional need where how do we

49:29 ↗ plan for an accommodate for this and

49:31 ↗ they came up with this table that it was

49:34 ↗ shown of issaquah's split each City got

49:37 ↗ their numbers split into that so that

49:39 ↗ new table that talks about targets based

49:43 ↗ on affordability is the new piece in the

49:45 ↗ county-wide planning policies but

49:47 ↗ countywide planning policies have always

49:48 ↗ been there they just established this

49:51 ↗ new table

49:52 ↗ for affordability levels based on all

49:55 ↗ the discussion in the region and where

49:57 ↗ we are as a region and how do we

49:59 ↗ accommodate this need for this segment

50:02 ↗ of our population that is going to have

50:04 ↗ this need for they can't afford you know

50:07 ↗ their affordability is x amount and

50:10 ↗ everyone takes this share that's sort of

50:14 ↗ the the discussion that happened

50:15 ↗ at the regional level where we now have

50:19 ↗ to plan for and you know

50:22 ↗ and accommodate it doesn't say we are

50:24 ↗ going to get it uh but each of our

50:26 ↗ policies cannot prohibit

50:29 ↗ some of those things so if we have

50:31 ↗ incentives in our policies how where we

50:33 ↗ put infrastructure waiver of fees for

50:36 ↗ affordable housing you know whatever

50:37 ↗ those uh things at a policy level that

50:41 ↗ the city can do is infrastructure how

50:44 ↗ much does it cost and those kind of

50:45 ↗ things and how do we Zone land and what

50:48 ↗ kind of development regulations what

50:49 ↗ incentives we can give but

50:53 ↗ the the you know some of that stuff will

50:57 ↗ will play out the way it will in in the

50:59 ↗ real world

51:01 ↗ right I know I can only speak for myself

51:03 ↗ I mean

51:04 ↗ I think they're maybe the reason you're

51:06 ↗ not seeing a lot of pushback I think a

51:08 ↗ lot of us probably like the goals and

51:10 ↗ policies that is a cause setting you

51:12 ↗ know some of the new things you guys are

51:13 ↗ introducing I'll be honest the King

51:16 ↗ County ones I'm a little bit more leery

51:18 ↗ of to be quite honest and I just that's

51:21 ↗ going to be one of my questions for

51:23 ↗ Stephen was you know the King County I

51:26 ↗ mean there's a particular one that

51:28 ↗ struck me was age 22 adopt and Implement

51:31 ↗ policies that protect housing stability

51:33 ↗ for rental house

51:35 ↗ that's awfully close to rent control

51:40 ↗ which would be introducing something

51:42 ↗ quite new to his

51:44 ↗ yeah I don't I'm not familiar with the

51:46 ↗ rent con that that the link that you're

51:49 ↗ making between right it's just I just is

51:51 ↗ out we can look into that policy and see

51:53 ↗ what that means yeah struck me is kind

51:55 ↗ of odd yeah we can look further into

51:57 ↗ that policy

51:59 ↗ um yeah but at the end of the day

52:02 ↗ you know Puget Sound Regional Council

52:04 ↗ has to certify the city's company plan

52:07 ↗ and one of their criteria is is

52:09 ↗ consistent with the county-wide planning

52:11 ↗ policies so for the city to apply for

52:14 ↗ Grants to do all of these we have you

52:17 ↗ know and again that umbrella of the

52:18 ↗ framework the certification process from

52:22 ↗ psrc is tied to these county-wide

52:24 ↗ planning

52:25 ↗ so we our comprehensive plan cannot be

52:28 ↗ completely inconsistent with the

52:31 ↗ candidate if there's discretion about

52:33 ↗ what this means or whatever we can

52:34 ↗ debate that and discuss that but we

52:37 ↗ cannot have

52:38 ↗ completely ignore the countywide money

52:42 ↗ right right it's just the language yeah

52:44 ↗ and we're still learning of what that

52:46 ↗ really means again I'm just trying to

52:48 ↗ figure out how closely we stick next to

52:50 ↗ King County because again I mean for all

52:52 ↗ of those who don't follow

52:54 ↗ County the King County Council that's

52:56 ↗ one way very directly

52:59 ↗ which is fine it's what the voters want

53:00 ↗ but I'm just saying is it good for

53:02 ↗ Issaquah

53:03 ↗ and you're saying you can't get

53:04 ↗ certified you can't get grants unless

53:06 ↗ you follow their prescription correct

53:08 ↗ but I think there's a public process to

53:09 ↗ be involved in that

53:11 ↗ county-wide planning policies it isn't

53:14 ↗ just King County there are cities and

53:16 ↗ you know there's a structure for when

53:17 ↗ those are discussed and debate

53:19 ↗ ultimately King County adopts them 70

53:21 ↗ percent of the cities have to ratify the

53:24 ↗ county-wide planning policies for them

53:25 ↗ to become

53:28 ↗ so there's a ratification process even

53:30 ↗ after King County

53:33 ↗ thank you for that I appreciate that

53:37 ↗ Vice chair Bader yeah I'm gonna I have a

53:39 ↗ little comment box actually on that H22

53:41 ↗ nh23

53:44 ↗ um because I think Pathways to housing

53:46 ↗ stability is a good thing right we don't

53:47 ↗ want to get to a place where rents are

53:48 ↗ so out of control that people you know

53:50 ↗ are one page like one last paycheck away

53:52 ↗ right from losing their home we don't

53:54 ↗ want that and so I read that more as

53:55 ↗ like tenant rights

53:57 ↗ um and similarly like the housing

53:59 ↗ healthy and safe homes which is the 23.

54:02 ↗ those are things that I also didn't see

54:04 ↗ like in the housing like how do we

54:06 ↗ ensure that like our existing housing

54:08 ↗ stock is of high quality right that it's

54:10 ↗ healthy for people

54:11 ↗ um and that like landlords right are

54:14 ↗ expected to maintain homes that

54:16 ↗ potentially renters are living and

54:18 ↗ especially like the old and older

54:19 ↗ housing stock that we have here

54:21 ↗ um and I again I don't I'm showing like

54:24 ↗ my just lack of knowledge of how local

54:25 ↗ government works I think like I'm

54:27 ↗ assuming it's not the comp plan but like

54:29 ↗ where do those things exist because

54:32 ↗ they're they're obviously directly

54:33 ↗ related to housing um but it's less

54:35 ↗ about like growth management and again

54:37 ↗ more about like management of existing

54:40 ↗ stock right

54:42 ↗ um

54:42 ↗ so I think a lot of the strategies

54:44 ↗ you're speaking to from the King County

54:45 ↗ buying policies is more of the

54:47 ↗ implementation side of it also it is

54:49 ↗ trying to keep to the higher level that

54:51 ↗ provides guidance but it's really going

54:53 ↗ to be in the housing strategy work plan

54:54 ↗ or any uh housing programs that the city

54:56 ↗ puts in place

55:00 ↗ but like many said we'll we'll take

55:02 ↗ another look at these policies to see if

55:04 ↗ there's anything that we can reduce

55:05 ↗ conference that kind of addresses some

55:07 ↗ of that concern

55:12 ↗ commissioners

55:13 ↗ and something like that

55:16 ↗ um what um commissioner uh bitter just

55:19 ↗ talked about

55:21 ↗ um that would be something that we'd

55:22 ↗ look at at a later date as well yes this

55:25 ↗ is not going to be the only night we'll

55:27 ↗ be talking about these policies we'll be

55:28 ↗ coming back and so uh yes we'll be we'll

55:32 ↗ be coming back to another meeting to

55:33 ↗ introduce

55:35 ↗ um more potential policies or revisions

55:37 ↗ to these some of these based on your

55:38 ↗ comments tonight and at upcoming

55:40 ↗ meetings thank you

55:43 ↗ foreign

55:51 ↗ we're going to get to next steps and

55:55 ↗ pretty much wrap this up so just want to

55:57 ↗ make sure our commissioners are asked

56:00 ↗ what they wanted to ask I mean again for

56:01 ↗ me a lot of this sounds very good so I

56:04 ↗ think that's one of the reasons I'm

56:06 ↗ comfortable with it there's a couple

56:07 ↗ sticking points which for me I brought

56:09 ↗ up but I know I'll hear more from staff

56:13 ↗ so I can go into the next oh I'm sorry

56:15 ↗ it's okay it's okay

56:17 ↗ [Music]

56:18 ↗ um

56:19 ↗ I'll promise I'll stop after this just a

56:22 ↗ clarifying question on like the

56:23 ↗ inclusion of the different housing types

56:25 ↗ in like it reads as like all residential

56:28 ↗ zones

56:29 ↗ um when I read that I also like am

56:33 ↗ making an assumption that like our land

56:35 ↗ use code right will restrict some of

56:38 ↗ what is allowed right that my neighbor

56:40 ↗ couldn't sell his property and then

56:42 ↗ build like a 50 unit micro right like

56:46 ↗ apartment complex on the lot next to my

56:48 ↗ house because that's not permitted right

56:51 ↗ by the land use code like they're yes

56:53 ↗ that's kind of how I'm rationalizing the

56:55 ↗ like allowance of these different types

56:58 ↗ in multiple zones that it'll all be kind

57:00 ↗ of regulated by right the policy that

57:02 ↗ we're proposing for the comprehensive

57:04 ↗ plan is primarily just recognizing that

57:05 ↗ requirement from House Bill 1110 the

57:08 ↗ next step in this process is then to now

57:10 ↗ propose development code updates to

57:12 ↗ address it specifically any changes of

57:15 ↗ the zones to allow a lot of these middle

57:16 ↗ housing types that we're addressing

57:19 ↗ yeah

57:21 ↗ I am done

57:24 ↗ uh commissioner Kennedy

57:26 ↗ before we move away from policies

57:28 ↗ actually I have a question about a

57:29 ↗ policy that wasn't edited

57:33 ↗ um it's policy A7 yes

57:37 ↗ um where purchases provide equal access

57:40 ↗ for people of recognize protected

57:41 ↗ classes

57:43 ↗ we broadened that policy

57:46 ↗ um

57:47 ↗ I mean it's a nice long list but what if

57:51 ↗ it and we find out it's not

57:52 ↗ comprehensive whenever you do lists like

57:54 ↗ this it's always nice to be including

57:56 ↗ but not limited to and you know so that

57:59 ↗ if there is needs to be an addition it

58:02 ↗ can

58:03 ↗ easily be added

58:05 ↗ or that class is easily included we're

58:09 ↗ not limiting to just that list

58:14 ↗ the very second one on the

58:17 ↗ um

58:18 ↗ can you repeat the number yeah

58:21 ↗ um it's h policy A7

58:25 ↗ housing Supply

58:28 ↗ ensure that the city's programs

58:29 ↗ regulations and land use practices

58:31 ↗ provide equal access for people of

58:33 ↗ recognized protected classes then

58:35 ↗ there's a parenthetical with a list of

58:37 ↗ classes which is nice and long

58:40 ↗ probably comprehensive

58:42 ↗ but as lists go they can become outdated

58:46 ↗ um

58:47 ↗ can we broaden it

58:50 ↗ um to say you know

58:52 ↗ somehow to say recognized

58:55 ↗ all people including but lot you know

58:57 ↗ without limitation

58:59 ↗ recognize classes yes yeah we can take a

59:02 ↗ look at that

59:08 ↗ thank you for that

59:11 ↗ I just had one quick thing about the

59:14 ↗ the Emergency Shelters and emergency

59:17 ↗ housing permanent Supportive Housing

59:20 ↗ again is that so that to me would seem

59:22 ↗ like the city is required to build

59:24 ↗ whereas again that's just we're making

59:26 ↗ allowances for them we're providing the

59:28 ↗ Zoning for those things to go into

59:29 ↗ correct it's it's the requirements we

59:31 ↗ must allow it it's not requiring us to

59:34 ↗ construct it but we do have Human

59:36 ↗ Services goals around providing some of

59:38 ↗ those services and opportunities I was

59:41 ↗ involved in one of those uh houses with

59:43 ↗ our company one in Bothell and then we

59:46 ↗ took the trip to the one in Kirkland I

59:47 ↗ mean those are great

59:49 ↗ um

59:49 ↗ so again I guess that was more for

59:51 ↗ clarification

59:55 ↗ I think that's about it okay

59:58 ↗ so going back to the questions

1:00:04 ↗ well I guess I'll go back to Next Step

1:00:07 ↗ so right now we're going to be revising

1:00:08 ↗ some of these schools of policies based

1:00:10 ↗ on the feedback we received here

1:00:12 ↗ um also looking at some of the public

1:00:14 ↗ comment of what we received and trying

1:00:16 ↗ to address some of that

1:00:18 ↗ we're going to be coming back with

1:00:19 ↗ another draft and then

1:00:21 ↗ the goal is to aim for State review of

1:00:24 ↗ the draft of the entire plan and then in

1:00:26 ↗ the first quarter early next year put

1:00:29 ↗ together all the final review of the

1:00:31 ↗ elements and then work towards a public

1:00:33 ↗ hearing and adoption process in the

1:00:35 ↗ middle of next year

1:00:39 ↗ your slides disappeared oh

1:00:42 ↗ I apologize

1:00:45 ↗ a pressure but it didn't

1:00:48 ↗ thank you for that

1:00:50 ↗ so going back to the questions

1:00:53 ↗ I think a lot of your comments and

1:00:55 ↗ questions tonight went at the first

1:00:57 ↗ question of do the draft goals policies

1:00:59 ↗ accurate to affect the state and County

1:01:00 ↗ policies

1:01:02 ↗ getting back to the second question I

1:01:04 ↗ know Vice chair Bader has provided some

1:01:07 ↗ of the feedback on other physical

1:01:09 ↗ specific issues that we need to be

1:01:10 ↗ addressing the rules of policies is

1:01:12 ↗ there anything additional to

1:01:14 ↗ in the housing elements maybe something

1:01:16 ↗ that you didn't see in the goals and

1:01:18 ↗ policies that we need to take a look at

1:01:22 ↗ um and then is there you know coming

1:01:24 ↗ back to you this is not going to be the

1:01:26 ↗ first meeting we'll be talking about

1:01:27 ↗ this is there any specific information

1:01:29 ↗ that'd be helpful for you to better

1:01:31 ↗ understand some of these goals and

1:01:32 ↗ policies or at least help us to approach

1:01:34 ↗ them or or how we're not approaching

1:01:36 ↗ them

1:01:39 ↗ um I'll kick it off as far as number two

1:01:42 ↗ so Issaquah specific we spend a lot of

1:01:44 ↗ time

1:01:46 ↗ in our land use code

1:01:48 ↗ figuring out different type of

1:01:49 ↗ boundaries for streams and rivers and

1:01:52 ↗ things like that

1:01:54 ↗ and we also spent a lot of time on

1:01:57 ↗ neighborhoods particularly like old town

1:01:59 ↗ and things like that so how would those

1:02:02 ↗ incentives work

1:02:04 ↗ I mean I guess

1:02:06 ↗ I guess what we put in the land use code

1:02:08 ↗ would Trump any type of comprehensive

1:02:10 ↗ policy so if the setback from a

1:02:13 ↗ protected wet area is what it is you

1:02:16 ↗ regardless if you're trying to build 30

1:02:18 ↗ lower Ami you wouldn't be able to

1:02:21 ↗ encroach on that any more or less than

1:02:23 ↗ what we've already allowed

1:02:25 ↗ yeah

1:02:28 ↗ I think I'm interpreting your question

1:02:29 ↗ right yes so the development the

1:02:31 ↗ development regulations you you need to

1:02:33 ↗ be in compliance with those standards

1:02:35 ↗ but there's always kind of a negotiation

1:02:37 ↗ process with with some developments and

1:02:40 ↗ that you're looking at getting in

1:02:41 ↗ affordable housing in certain areas but

1:02:43 ↗ that is kind of embedded in some of

1:02:45 ↗ those development regulations as well

1:02:47 ↗ same thing with like the Old Town Road

1:02:50 ↗ hold down standard

1:02:52 ↗ yeah if I'm understanding your question

1:02:54 ↗ you're saying can there be incentives

1:02:56 ↗ for

1:02:58 ↗ you know under the development

1:03:00 ↗ regulations so for critical areas no

1:03:03 ↗ generally those are based on science and

1:03:06 ↗ you know it doesn't matter which kind of

1:03:08 ↗ house or whatever but things like extra

1:03:10 ↗ height less parking you know those kind

1:03:14 ↗ of development regulations could could

1:03:16 ↗ be lower to incentivize some of these uh

1:03:20 ↗ addition you know things that are needed

1:03:22 ↗ if that's what

1:03:24 ↗ you know will will make them more

1:03:26 ↗ favorable to be built under that

1:03:30 ↗ provision so as we look at development

1:03:32 ↗ regulations if there are incentives and

1:03:34 ↗ the policies are to have this for this

1:03:38 ↗ Ami or that Mi I think there's that

1:03:40 ↗ cross check that needs to occur with

1:03:42 ↗ your development regulations is it

1:03:44 ↗ meeting the policy that we have to do

1:03:46 ↗ this are these incentives

1:03:48 ↗ okay for

1:03:50 ↗ this type of that type right and I

1:03:53 ↗ appreciate you both interpreting my

1:03:54 ↗ lingo I'm not as good at the city lingo

1:03:57 ↗ Bingo as you guys are but uh yeah that's

1:03:59 ↗ kind of what it's asking so we put in

1:04:01 ↗ all these structures these these

1:04:03 ↗ critical areas things like that and

1:04:06 ↗ again the way I'm reading some of this

1:04:07 ↗ is you prioritize or you must allow or

1:04:10 ↗ you must make way for these type of

1:04:12 ↗ housing or this type of Ami

1:04:14 ↗ okay how is that I imagine that there's

1:04:17 ↗ going to be a point where that's in

1:04:18 ↗ conflict with a certain area what what

1:04:21 ↗ trumps yeah it doesn't mean all your

1:04:23 ↗ development regulations

1:04:26 ↗ is there some that can be used as an

1:04:29 ↗ incentive to promote whatever whatever

1:04:31 ↗ our language ends up being

1:04:33 ↗ um for that type of

1:04:36 ↗ you know development that is required

1:04:39 ↗ for us to plan for

1:04:43 ↗ I understood you do perfectly

1:04:51 ↗ any other additional comments uh we'll

1:04:54 ↗ just take this one two and three I know

1:04:56 ↗ we've already spent a lot of time on one

1:04:57 ↗ but to Steven's Point any comments as

1:05:00 ↗ far as is a quad-specific issue

1:05:10 ↗ all right yeah you know the last thing

1:05:12 ↗ I'll say like we said before is the

1:05:15 ↗ the house bills and the state no the the

1:05:19 ↗ amount of stuff that came from State

1:05:21 ↗ Legislature towards us is going to take

1:05:23 ↗ some time to there are a lot of nuances

1:05:26 ↗ for those bills and so we're waiting for

1:05:28 ↗ some guidance from Department of

1:05:29 ↗ Commerce that's going to come our way

1:05:30 ↗ there's going to be a lot of discussion

1:05:32 ↗ debate about what that means is that

1:05:34 ↗ really what it means so we will you know

1:05:37 ↗ come up with a way to unpack all of

1:05:40 ↗ those for for you all

1:05:42 ↗ um

1:05:43 ↗ but at the same time uh you know

1:05:46 ↗ Issaquah is way ahead of some of our

1:05:48 ↗ cities

1:05:50 ↗ the amount of town homes and other

1:05:53 ↗ missing middle that Issaquah has

1:05:55 ↗ compared to a proportion net share of

1:05:58 ↗ their residential stock is ahead of all

1:06:00 ↗ of our neighboring cities I mean 50 of

1:06:03 ↗ our residential Zone land allows

1:06:06 ↗ multi-family already which is contrary

1:06:08 ↗ to some of the other cities that have

1:06:10 ↗ you know 70 to 80 single family zoning

1:06:12 ↗ so you know we the meniscus done uh good

1:06:17 ↗ work in that area of having missing

1:06:20 ↗ metal already

1:06:22 ↗ you know it's not just going to come

1:06:24 ↗ through the state's work at this point

1:06:26 ↗ we we already have a lot of our housing

1:06:29 ↗ stuff but we have work to do for a

1:06:32 ↗ diversity of housing choices and and you

1:06:34 ↗ know the that's the

1:06:36 ↗ housing action plan information that

1:06:38 ↗ we've previously shared which was a

1:06:40 ↗ community-led effort of

1:06:42 ↗ you know here are the nine strategies

1:06:44 ↗ um but again I think this is

1:06:47 ↗ comprehensive planning is really the

1:06:49 ↗ 20-year plan and planning for and all

1:06:51 ↗ that so it you can go back and forth

1:06:54 ↗ between those two but but this is a

1:06:56 ↗ little bit at a higher level

1:06:59 ↗ I know for me and I can only speak for

1:07:01 ↗ me but sometimes when I think of these

1:07:03 ↗ things I'm trying to think of how it

1:07:05 ↗ goes so I'm thinking of Old Town I'm

1:07:07 ↗ trying to think you know as far as how

1:07:09 ↗ the developer would feel and I'm trying

1:07:11 ↗ to think how the neighbor would feel how

1:07:13 ↗ you know they've got this nice Queen

1:07:16 ↗ two-bedroom house and all of a sudden a

1:07:19 ↗ fourplex goes right up next to them

1:07:21 ↗ and at the same time I'm trying to also

1:07:23 ↗ feel like you know the developer and him

1:07:25 ↗ being able to work within reason and

1:07:28 ↗ then like I said I go back to like Clyde

1:07:30 ↗ Hill and seeing progress there so it's

1:07:33 ↗ all these competing things for me and I

1:07:35 ↗ don't know I don't know if it's like

1:07:36 ↗ that for everybody else but I think a

1:07:38 ↗ lot of people are struggling

1:07:44 ↗ and what

1:07:47 ↗ and really doing it thoughtfully

1:07:50 ↗ yeah I mean that's for me that's one of

1:07:51 ↗ my biggest fears is just making sure as

1:07:53 ↗ the quad develops I mean there's a cause

1:07:55 ↗ a beautiful town and again I know I've

1:07:58 ↗ said it before I've seen cities that did

1:08:00 ↗ not develop well

1:08:01 ↗ I think you know we have an opportunity

1:08:03 ↗ to like you said 20-year plan to make

1:08:05 ↗ sure that fate doesn't happen

1:08:07 ↗ yeah and and you know really not just

1:08:09 ↗ from the aesthetic standpoint but also

1:08:11 ↗ from the infrastructure the sewer the

1:08:14 ↗ water you know all those things to serve

1:08:16 ↗ this area I think some of that work

1:08:18 ↗ we're going to undertake Eis

1:08:20 ↗ on the technical side

1:08:22 ↗ of what does this mean

1:08:24 ↗ in terms of

1:08:26 ↗ utilities

1:08:29 ↗ in parking you know all of those things

1:08:31 ↗ we have some unique areas of the city

1:08:34 ↗ and and where you can't just widen the

1:08:37 ↗ roads and no tell me about it Front

1:08:39 ↗ Street right now is crazy with 18 being

1:08:42 ↗ closed oh my God

1:08:44 ↗ a fight every day

1:08:46 ↗ well thank you Minnie uh commissioner

1:08:49 ↗ Patterson

1:08:50 ↗ saved all my monologues for the end

1:08:52 ↗ um uh on question number two there kind

1:08:56 ↗ of issquare specific issues uh I was

1:08:58 ↗ reviewing the housing report card from

1:09:00 ↗ 2022 and it did specify that there was

1:09:03 ↗ no development in the urban growth

1:09:05 ↗ Center of Central issquare

1:09:08 ↗ um

1:09:09 ↗ now I'm kind of getting the sense that

1:09:10 ↗ the comprehensive plan is very high

1:09:12 ↗ level however given that that is such a

1:09:14 ↗ focus is that worth considering for the

1:09:17 ↗ comprehensive plan being the central

1:09:20 ↗ issqua or Urban growth area

1:09:25 ↗ yeah so in

1:09:28 ↗ and remember which exact policy it is

1:09:31 ↗ we have a policy specifically on uh

1:09:34 ↗ prioritizing the Investments to go into

1:09:36 ↗ the regional growth Center for essential

1:09:38 ↗ as well so that is something before it

1:09:40 ↗ was encouraged

1:09:42 ↗ um we're trying to make it a little more

1:09:44 ↗ actionable now with the amendment that

1:09:46 ↗ we were proposing for that policy so

1:09:48 ↗ kind of getting to your point of yes we

1:09:50 ↗ want to realize it but it's more than

1:09:52 ↗ just the comprehensive plan so we wanted

1:09:55 ↗ identify as kind of a priority for the

1:09:57 ↗ city but we need to have further

1:09:58 ↗ discussion with the housing strategy

1:10:00 ↗ work plan we need to look at the

1:10:01 ↗ centralized coil plan again and then

1:10:03 ↗ also look at any updates to the

1:10:05 ↗ development regulations in order to help

1:10:07 ↗ us realize what we want for simple as

1:10:08 ↗ well

1:10:11 ↗ absolutely okay

1:10:13 ↗ um that's kind of a great segue into my

1:10:15 ↗ question that kind of works on question

1:10:17 ↗ three there which is is there additional

1:10:19 ↗ information

1:10:20 ↗ um the most exciting section I saw like

1:10:23 ↗ I thought all the policies looked great

1:10:24 ↗ and and the goals I think are very ideal

1:10:28 ↗ and a great direction for the city to go

1:10:32 ↗ um but the most exciting thing to me was

1:10:33 ↗ the results in accountability section uh

1:10:36 ↗ because I think as a very data-driven

1:10:38 ↗ person I think that being able to you

1:10:41 ↗ know show the effectiveness or show the

1:10:43 ↗ improvements are being made or or how

1:10:46 ↗ though the effective effectiveness of

1:10:48 ↗ those regulations are you know improving

1:10:51 ↗ the city is an important aspect of a

1:10:53 ↗ plan right like you make a plan how is

1:10:55 ↗ it working

1:10:57 ↗ um it might be a little lofty of an ask

1:11:00 ↗ but is it possible to get uh like a

1:11:04 ↗ combination of like metrics like either

1:11:06 ↗ Baseline metrics that would be

1:11:08 ↗ considered you know five years from now

1:11:10 ↗ what we would measure off of and or is

1:11:13 ↗ there an opportunity

1:11:15 ↗ um

1:11:16 ↗ to see where these things would be

1:11:18 ↗ reflected so for instance like I know

1:11:20 ↗ the comprehensive plan influences the

1:11:22 ↗ housing report card the housing strategy

1:11:25 ↗ work plan

1:11:26 ↗ um you know where could we expect to see

1:11:28 ↗ things like the

1:11:30 ↗ um the policies that we've written up in

1:11:31 ↗ the comprehensive plan where would that

1:11:33 ↗ data be reflected you know to look at

1:11:36 ↗ five years from now

1:11:39 ↗ that's going to be well it's going to be

1:11:41 ↗ in any version we have to the housing

1:11:43 ↗ strategy or the housing report card but

1:11:46 ↗ also that five-year report that we have

1:11:47 ↗ to do for the state as well as going to

1:11:49 ↗ be looking at how well we're achieving a

1:11:51 ↗ lot of those regulations for uh policies

1:11:53 ↗ and goals

1:11:58 ↗ commissioner

1:12:01 ↗ um now that report card

1:12:04 ↗ um is that something that's going to be

1:12:06 ↗ developed later on or it's already okay

1:12:09 ↗ so we have the housing report card now

1:12:11 ↗ um that you can take a look at but the

1:12:13 ↗ the state required five-year uh report

1:12:17 ↗ will be something that will be developed

1:12:20 ↗ okay the five year and then the the

1:12:22 ↗ annual one you'll be utilizing the same

1:12:25 ↗ template basically correct okay

1:12:31 ↗ Vice chair Bader will the like how would

1:12:34 ↗ you call the housing strategy something

1:12:37 ↗ a work plan yeah work plan will that be

1:12:39 ↗ I think it was like the climate one that

1:12:41 ↗ had like the policy and then it had the

1:12:43 ↗ specific targets underneath it

1:12:46 ↗ I think it was a long time ago we looked

1:12:48 ↗ at it and I don't so there's uh the

1:12:51 ↗ housing strategy work plan with the the

1:12:52 ↗ different strategies for housing and

1:12:55 ↗ then we also have the Issaquah climate

1:12:57 ↗ action plan yeah I'm just using that as

1:12:58 ↗ an example of like a template because I

1:13:01 ↗ think that that was the one that had

1:13:02 ↗ like very specific targets under

1:13:04 ↗ policies yes and so will we get to that

1:13:07 ↗ point with the housing strategy where we

1:13:08 ↗ have those like very specific targets

1:13:11 ↗ under each yeah so we're getting more

1:13:14 ↗ into the specific strategies of what

1:13:15 ↗ we're trying to achieve we'll get go

1:13:16 ↗ into the housing strategy

1:13:18 ↗ because I think that's like the

1:13:20 ↗ additional information that would be

1:13:21 ↗ helpful for me because I keep I feel

1:13:23 ↗ like I keep asking like where's where is

1:13:25 ↗ this gonna be and where does this go um

1:13:27 ↗ just like a big picture right of like

1:13:29 ↗ what what are all of the documents and

1:13:31 ↗ even like across the elements I know

1:13:33 ↗ that like we have the titles of the

1:13:35 ↗ elements but like what goes into each

1:13:37 ↗ one of those elements just so I can like

1:13:38 ↗ do some of this like mapping in my own

1:13:40 ↗ brain without having to like have 97

1:13:43 ↗ Post-its on my notes that are like where

1:13:45 ↗ does this fit in the comp plan

1:13:47 ↗ um I think that would be helpful as I'm

1:13:49 ↗ like processing this so we did provide

1:13:51 ↗ in the materials for the the meeting in

1:13:54 ↗ May I'm trying to remember the specific

1:13:55 ↗ date but we did provide the overview for

1:13:57 ↗ the housing element Kristin did to do a

1:13:59 ↗ pretty good job in her Memo of

1:14:00 ↗ identifying all the different uh plans

1:14:02 ↗ and elements and goals and policies that

1:14:04 ↗ are located in the city related to

1:14:05 ↗ housing take a look at that and then let

1:14:08 ↗ us know how we might be able to improve

1:14:09 ↗ them I feel like some of my questions go

1:14:11 ↗ outside of housing that are like housing

1:14:13 ↗ like adjacent

1:14:14 ↗ um like the things like the

1:14:16 ↗ affordability stuff and like lots of

1:14:18 ↗ utilities and it's like not directly

1:14:21 ↗ housing but like like I said my

1:14:23 ↗ questions are always like where where

1:14:24 ↗ where is this like right it's kind of

1:14:26 ↗ the overall picture yeah okay

1:14:34 ↗ any other questions that's easy that's

1:14:36 ↗ not easy

1:14:38 ↗ we'll take a look at it

1:14:42 ↗ all right so that's uh

1:14:44 ↗ I think we're done with number two so

1:14:46 ↗ how about 30 is there any additional

1:14:48 ↗ information well Vice chair Bader just

1:14:51 ↗ did that one bit and I'll ask for

1:14:53 ↗ everybody

1:14:55 ↗ question three

1:14:58 ↗ is there any other additional

1:15:00 ↗ information that would be helpful

1:15:06 ↗ all right

1:15:08 ↗ floor is yours okay

1:15:12 ↗ that's actually all my slides

1:15:20 ↗ I'll stop here on my screen

1:15:24 ↗ that we're done with our regular

1:15:26 ↗ business that's it

1:15:28 ↗ well thank you Stephen and thank you

1:15:30 ↗ Minnie

1:15:32 ↗ thank you Thomas and Jared up here too

1:15:36 ↗ we're going to start with reports

1:15:39 ↗ do we have any city council updates

1:15:43 ↗ you'd like to share you know they met

1:15:45 ↗ Monday night I believe

1:15:51 ↗ good evening yeah I can report on Monday

1:15:55 ↗ so the City of Issaquah won the lead

1:15:59 ↗ um Gold Award for which is the only

1:16:02 ↗ state uh City in the state of Washington

1:16:05 ↗ to get achieve that award

1:16:08 ↗ and only five that are Leed certified in

1:16:11 ↗ Washington state so that's a big

1:16:12 ↗ achievement a lot of credit goes to

1:16:14 ↗ Stacy

1:16:15 ↗ our sustainability manager that took the

1:16:19 ↗ time to apply and all that and there was

1:16:21 ↗ a celebration you know so it's a it's a

1:16:22 ↗ great achievement for the city all the

1:16:24 ↗ things that the city is doing

1:16:26 ↗ we have more work to do and you guys as

1:16:30 ↗ planning Commissioners have played a big

1:16:33 ↗ part into you know discussing those

1:16:34 ↗ policies and debates climate action plan

1:16:37 ↗ came to you all and Mobility master plan

1:16:40 ↗ I mean all those things got points for

1:16:43 ↗ us to win this award so congratulations

1:16:46 ↗ to to you all the other item on Monday

1:16:51 ↗ um night was the budget priorities so

1:16:55 ↗ the community survey that was done

1:16:58 ↗ um had highlighted a few things and that

1:17:00 ↗ that were prioritized into the top

1:17:02 ↗ things you know police

1:17:04 ↗ stuff and then transportation and then

1:17:07 ↗ for us it was uh planning and permitting

1:17:10 ↗ so what we heard from the community

1:17:12 ↗ survey was you know we got good points

1:17:15 ↗ for customer service we got good points

1:17:18 ↗ for online permitting we have some work

1:17:21 ↗ to do on process improvements and

1:17:23 ↗ timeliness of our permit reviews so

1:17:25 ↗ we're working on those

1:17:27 ↗ but we also shared with Council the

1:17:29 ↗ things that were budgeted with the with

1:17:32 ↗ this year's to biennial budget so the

1:17:35 ↗ funding that came to do the

1:17:37 ↗ comprehensive planning Eis because the

1:17:39 ↗ city has developed and you know with

1:17:41 ↗ these development agreements that had

1:17:43 ↗ separate eis's so we're taking a you

1:17:46 ↗ know a big technical part of this is

1:17:48 ↗ evaluating all the um the environmental

1:17:51 ↗ impact statement for the comprehensive

1:17:53 ↗ plan so we did get funding for that the

1:17:55 ↗ council also gave us funding for parking

1:17:57 ↗ study housing diversity options

1:18:00 ↗ um and

1:18:02 ↗ uh and yeah affordable housing uh

1:18:06 ↗ planner we had one position uh in the

1:18:08 ↗ budget uh however we have uh decided to

1:18:12 ↗ have our Economic Development uh manager

1:18:15 ↗ focus on the um on the capital side of

1:18:19 ↗ affordable housing and Kristen and

1:18:21 ↗ Archer providing support for the policy

1:18:23 ↗ objectives on affordable housing so

1:18:25 ↗ really looking at the funding that the

1:18:28 ↗ city got through for House Bill 1406

1:18:30 ↗ which was the state's portion of the

1:18:32 ↗ sales tax

1:18:34 ↗ um that the city got and then the house

1:18:36 ↗ bill 1590 which was the um you know King

1:18:40 ↗ Candy was going to adopt adopted that

1:18:42 ↗ increase in sales tax the City of

1:18:44 ↗ Issaquah did and that funding and how to

1:18:47 ↗ allocate that for the affordable housing

1:18:50 ↗ initiatives so that's what we're doing

1:18:52 ↗ uh in response to the um Community

1:18:56 ↗ survey so we had a discussion with

1:18:58 ↗ Council over that

1:19:00 ↗ yep that's Monday night's meeting that

1:19:04 ↗ sounds like a busy Monday night but that

1:19:06 ↗ sounds wonderful and I did hear about

1:19:08 ↗ the lead certification that's great yeah

1:19:11 ↗ that's a big thing big achievement

1:19:16 ↗ all right

1:19:17 ↗ any other reports

1:19:22 ↗ okay

1:19:24 ↗ are there any other announcements

1:19:26 ↗ anything for the good of the order

1:19:28 ↗ commissioners

1:19:29 ↗ everybody enjoying their dog days of

1:19:32 ↗ summer

1:19:33 ↗ good

1:19:36 ↗ all right well that we will adjourn

1:19:38 ↗ tonight's

1:19:40 ↗ meeting of the planning policy

1:19:41 ↗ commission at

1:19:43 ↗ 7 48 pm thank 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 (6)

Voiss

Vice-Chair Bader

Commissioners Esemuede

Kennedy

Patterson Absence: Commissioner Milligan (Excused)

Commissioner Altimore (Excused)

Staff (1)

Minnie Dhaliwal, CP&D Director Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager 2