Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, January 11, 2024 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of Dec. 7, 2023

packet pp.5–11

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Thursday, December 7, 2023

4. PUBLIC HEARING

Recommendation on Proposed Central Issaquah Pioneer Program, (A)

90 min · Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager Jen Davis Hayes, Economic Development Manager Public Hearing Order: Commissions Commission Policy Commission Meeting Materials · packet pp.13–22

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.13 ↗

Staff report:

The Planning Policy Commission (PPC) will hold a public hearing on the following proposed amendments to IMC 18.514 to create a Pioneer Program for Central Issaquah.

5. REGULAR BUSINESS

Comprehensive Plan Docket

Discussion · 20 min · Valerie Porter, Associate Planner · packet pp.23–26

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 1:39:13 Open packet at p.23 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the January 11th

6. REPORTS

Council Update

Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager

7. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.27–29

▶ Watch from 1:56:36 Open packet at p.27 ↗

Staff report:

Staff Support: Stephen Padua Staff Support: Valerie Porter 7/11/24 7/25/24

2521 segments .txt ↗

0:04 ↗ um so there here right yeah right right

0:06 ↗ there record and transcribe I need my

0:08 ↗ classes thank you okay go recording has

0:12 ↗ started there we go recording is started

0:14 ↗ go well good evening

0:16 ↗ everyone first let me just say I

0:18 ↗ appreciate everyone uh being able to

0:20 ↗ make it today whether virtually or in

0:23 ↗ person I know the weather's been playing

0:25 ↗ Havoc with us for the last week or so

0:29 ↗ and it's playing Havoc traffic at the

0:32 ↗ current

0:33 ↗ moment like to call this meeting of the

0:35 ↗ January 11th joint planning policy and

0:38 ↗ economic Vitality commissions to order

0:41 ↗ and it is

0:43 ↗ currently 638 638

0:47 ↗ PM today's meeting is a hybrid meeting

0:50 ↗ both the planning policy commission and

0:52 ↗ the economic Vitality commission are in

0:54 ↗ person as well as online and before we

0:58 ↗ begin uh planning policy needs do a

1:00 ↗ little bit of housekeeping we have some

1:02 ↗ minutes to approve and these are the

1:04 ↗ December 7th minutes from last

1:07 ↗ year uh this is probably going to work a

1:09 ↗ little funny because we have to look at

1:11 ↗ our commissioners on this meeting as

1:12 ↗ well as those in person but are there

1:14 ↗ any objections to the meeting minutes

1:16 ↗ that were provided in your agenda

1:19 ↗ regarding December

1:24 ↗ 7th right hearing none de 7th meeting

1:27 ↗ minutes are approved we are now going to

1:30 ↗ move into general public comment for the

1:32 ↗ planning policy commission I do ask

1:35 ↗ those that uh are in attendance we do

1:37 ↗ have two people in attendance um as well

1:39 ↗ as people who are joining us online that

1:41 ↗ if you are here to comment as far as the

1:44 ↗ Pioneer program to wait until we begin

1:47 ↗ the public hearing that way your

1:48 ↗ comments do get recorded so right now

1:51 ↗ it's just general public comments for

1:53 ↗ the good of the planning policy order uh

1:55 ↗ the good of the planning policy

1:56 ↗ commission and do we have anyone who

1:59 ↗ would like to speak

2:06 ↗ Connie would you like to speak during

2:08 ↗ public

2:09 ↗ comment there was

2:11 ↗ a yes okay so we do have a I would I

2:16 ↗ just join VI my phone because it kicked

2:18 ↗ me off I'm sorry what was that

2:21 ↗ Connie I would like to speak during

2:23 ↗ public comment I just had to rejoin dur

2:25 ↗ with my phone because it kicked me off

2:28 ↗ so okay well go okay and this is General

2:31 ↗ TPC wait wait I'm sorry Connie take a

2:34 ↗ pause for a moment we need to read the

2:35 ↗ rules real quick okay sorry than um for

2:40 ↗ all who would like to speak during

2:41 ↗ public comments speak clearly and pause

2:43 ↗ frequently state your name each time

2:46 ↗ before speaking in Connie or anyone else

2:49 ↗ who's attending virtually by computer or

2:51 ↗ by phone um in addition to the above

2:54 ↗ please mute your microphone when you're

2:56 ↗ not speaking and if you're having any

2:57 ↗ technical issues try joining the meeting

2:59 ↗ using a different device such as a

3:01 ↗ smartphone or a tablet using the call in

3:04 ↗ information and the meeting invite to

3:05 ↗ call into the meeting so that's

3:07 ↗ obviously not just for Connie but for

3:09 ↗ anyone else who would like to make a

3:11 ↗ general public comment at this

3:14 ↗ time okay and before we start I'd like

3:17 ↗ to note that uh the planning policy

3:19 ↗ commission does have a quorum um Carolyn

3:22 ↗ has an excused

3:25 ↗ absence might will just do attendance

3:27 ↗ Jen do you want to let us know about the

3:29 ↗ e see um yes so we have two

3:32 ↗ Commissioners here in person Chris

3:33 ↗ Richley and Kim Lee and we have three

3:36 ↗ Commissioners online Christy Gard new

3:39 ↗ and Jennifer Larson I'm sorry I knew i t

3:43 ↗ i don't know how to pronounce your last

3:44 ↗ name without

3:46 ↗ but You' like to tell us share with us

3:48 ↗ so I can

3:50 ↗ uh H yeah here

3:54 ↗ okay thank

3:57 ↗ you okay um first I want to check is

3:59 ↗ anyone in the room want to speak during

4:01 ↗ public comment right now okay this is

4:03 ↗ General comment yeah General comment I

4:04 ↗ didn't think so so Connie finally you

4:07 ↗ are

4:11 ↗ up okay so Connie Marsh I live up on

4:14 ↗ squawk and my general public comment is

4:18 ↗ pointed at the comprehensive plan docket

4:22 ↗ and

4:24 ↗ um the docket to me is an informational

4:29 ↗ item that gives a summary glimpse into

4:32 ↗ changes that are expected within the

4:34 ↗ next year in the comprehensive plan so

4:38 ↗ when I saw just the generalized language

4:40 ↗ saying that it is the

4:43 ↗ 2024 updates I did not think that that

4:47 ↗ was uh sufficient and I didn't want to

4:52 ↗ go to the effort of trying to find out

4:54 ↗ what that summary information was for

4:57 ↗ each of those topics so what I would

5:00 ↗ request is like a summary page for those

5:05 ↗ big updates that you're doing that at

5:07 ↗ least gives the high points of it so

5:10 ↗ that someone who is by chance looking at

5:13 ↗ the docket would at least get some idea

5:16 ↗ of what you're talking about rather than

5:18 ↗ just well it's what we're doing and and

5:21 ↗ so um if you could add a link like that

5:25 ↗ for each of those topics that would be

5:28 ↗ informative and wonderful thank

5:37 ↗ you there is no one else who would like

5:39 ↗ to

5:42 ↗ speak no additional public comment we

5:44 ↗ will move on

5:46 ↗ to our public hearing for the Pioneer

5:49 ↗ program and tonight we are holding a

5:52 ↗ public hearing regarding the proposed

5:54 ↗ language Pioneer program in the interest

5:57 ↗ of time please reserve comments for

6:00 ↗ deliberation I will open the public

6:02 ↗ hearing at 6:43 6:43 p.m. thank you

6:07 ↗ Jesse than

6:09 ↗ vill the public hearing will work as

6:12 ↗ follows staff will go ahead and make

6:14 ↗ their presentation all Commissioners uh

6:17 ↗ EVC as well as BBC will ask clarifying

6:20 ↗ questions we'll open the comment period

6:24 ↗ then we will close the public hearing

6:26 ↗ the EVC will be allowed to deliberate

6:27 ↗ amongst themselves

6:30 ↗ and after that we will take a five

6:32 ↗ minute break and then the PPC will come

6:35 ↗ back and deliberate as well as make a

6:37 ↗ recommendation and just to clarify um

6:39 ↗ when we take that break that means that

6:41 ↗ the the EVC meeting has been adjourned

6:44 ↗ and so EVC Commissioners can stay and

6:46 ↗ listen of course but if you would like

6:48 ↗ to uh leave the meeting you're allowed

6:50 ↗ to yeah and again I know the weather's

6:53 ↗ been you guys want to split we don't

6:55 ↗ take it personally but uh you are more

6:57 ↗ than welcome to stay in observed

7:00 ↗ but for this it's kind of going back to

7:02 ↗ the pandemic right so we can't

7:04 ↗ necessarily mute ourselves but I would

7:06 ↗ ask PPC to uh basically become wallpaper

7:10 ↗ uh because at this point um at that

7:13 ↗ point we'll hand it over to share richly

7:16 ↗ but I

7:17 ↗ believe right now staff can go ahead

7:20 ↗ with your

7:22 ↗ presentation

7:24 ↗ great and I am going to uh start the

7:28 ↗ presentation hopefully those of you at

7:30 ↗ home can see this my name is Jen Davis

7:33 ↗ Hayes I'm the economic development

7:34 ↗ manager for the city of isall we're here

7:36 ↗ tonight to talk about the Pioneer

7:38 ↗ program Central squa Pioneer program and

7:41 ↗ to take comments um regarding proposed

7:43 ↗ amendments to IMC 18514 affordable

7:46 ↗ housing

7:48 ↗ code um there are two uh major

7:51 ↗ components of the pioneer program that

7:53 ↗ will be um one is uh adjusting the

7:57 ↗ affordable housing requirements um

8:00 ↗ currently the proposed amendment

8:02 ↗ requires 8% of the units to be

8:05 ↗ affordable at 60% area Medan income Ami

8:10 ↗ um or lower this is in place of both the

8:14 ↗ inclusionary zoning that's required for

8:16 ↗ any development in this area as well as

8:20 ↗ the uh development bonus

8:26 ↗ program so um the uh pineer program that

8:30 ↗ we in the code we're Rec we are

8:32 ↗ recommending that we to we allow two

8:35 ↗ projects within the the urban core and

8:39 ↗ the mixed use Central isqua areas and so

8:41 ↗ this is a map of those areas in central

8:43 ↗ isqua these are the areas that are have

8:45 ↗ currently had the amenities such as Jobs

8:49 ↗ Transit um and services and we have only

8:52 ↗ seen 344 units built in this area since

8:55 ↗ the the passage of the plan in 2012 and

8:58 ↗ those that is in the mix use uh Central

9:01 ↗ isquat

9:03 ↗ Area there is a a a an update we need to

9:07 ↗ let you know about that was changed

9:09 ↗ after the original packet was sent um we

9:12 ↗ realized um in our multiple changes TR

9:15 ↗ changes that there was a

9:17 ↗ duplication um so this is under the

9:19 ↗ validity so it talks about how long a

9:21 ↗ Pioneer program application will be

9:24 ↗ valid and again we we have this section

9:26 ↗ in here with multiple other uh

9:28 ↗ requirements to ensure that when a

9:31 ↗ developer because again we're going to

9:32 ↗ have two projects when a developer is um

9:35 ↗ approved for one of the two that they're

9:37 ↗ not going to not move forward or build

9:40 ↗ and because it's really important to

9:41 ↗ that we um see action on this so the

9:44 ↗ change here is merely removing uh number

9:48 ↗ six which says the building permits

9:50 ↗ associated with the project must be

9:51 ↗ submitted to the city um that's already

9:55 ↗ said in number five so we're just merely

9:58 ↗ uh removing that okay I wasn't sure of

10:00 ↗ you're reading

10:01 ↗ that um so again uh we're here to uh

10:07 ↗ recommend the approval of the proposed

10:09 ↗ amendment to create the central isqua

10:11 ↗ Pioneer program um that it does include

10:13 ↗ an affordability adjusting the

10:15 ↗ affordability requirements it does also

10:17 ↗ require uh or allow for the provision of

10:20 ↗ an eight-year multif family tax

10:22 ↗ exemption but because that is not in

10:24 ↗ Title 18 that is not uh under discussion

10:28 ↗ tonight

10:29 ↗ and um so uh after tonight's

10:31 ↗ deliberation this recom the

10:33 ↗ recommendation from um planning policy

10:36 ↗ commission will go to the February 6th

10:39 ↗ Planning Development and environmental

10:41 ↗ Count Council environment Council

10:43 ↗ committee um and then potentially uh go

10:46 ↗ to city council for uh action on March

10:49 ↗ 4th very

10:51 ↗ basic thank you

10:53 ↗ Jen all right so at this point we will

10:56 ↗ open it up to all of our commissioners

10:57 ↗ evbc as well well as PPC online and in

11:01 ↗ person this is going to be a little bit

11:04 ↗ funny so I don't really know uh we're

11:07 ↗ looking for hands on the screen I'm G

11:11 ↗ stop sharing thank you that would be

11:12 ↗ helpful and then how about if we start

11:14 ↗ in the room first and then we'll look up

11:16 ↗ at the screen and there's clarifying

11:18 ↗ questions yeah I know question so we'll

11:21 ↗ start with the questions inhouse first

11:23 ↗ and then we'll gotcha followup button

11:24 ↗ there on the screen right that when we

11:26 ↗ only have to look at one place fair

11:28 ↗ enough and for all the Commissioners uh

11:31 ↗ in person and as well as online if you

11:33 ↗ could introduce yourself by uh stating

11:35 ↗ your name I don't want to busher

11:37 ↗ anybody's name so if you could do that

11:39 ↗ that would be helpful for the recorders

11:41 ↗ thank you um yeah we can start in the

11:44 ↗ room if anyone like to

11:47 ↗ go commissioner Milligan thank you

11:50 ↗ commissioner Milligan thank you chair

11:52 ↗ can you remind me please what the

11:54 ↗ inclusionary zoning is that is being

11:57 ↗ replaced sure sure so in the urban core

12:01 ↗ so again there's two different

12:03 ↗ requirements within two different zones

12:04 ↗ Urban core it's

12:06 ↗ 12% at 60%

12:10 ↗ Ami and in the um mixed use Central isoa

12:15 ↗ it

12:16 ↗ is eight 8% sorry and it's a sliding

12:20 ↗ scale so it's like it's like pardon me

12:22 ↗ Mike that's what I thought so it's 12%

12:26 ↗ um and then it goes down to seven and a

12:27 ↗ half percent

12:29 ↗ ver in urban

12:35 ↗ core okay and what's the what's the

12:37 ↗ lower

12:39 ↗ one the big use no

12:44 ↗ okay let me get I'm G I can pull up

12:48 ↗ previous it's a sliding scale so you

12:51 ↗ have a high and a low for each one and

12:54 ↗ the high would be 12% and you do more

12:56 ↗ units or you do the lower percent like

12:59 ↗ say 60% with fewer units and that's

13:02 ↗ different for each zone so it's Urban

13:05 ↗ core and then mixed juice and then

13:06 ↗ there's also the uh vertical mix juice

13:08 ↗ overlay so it's different for each each

13:10 ↗ of those three areas so I'm going to

13:12 ↗ Quick quickly um share my screen um this

13:17 ↗ was from a previous

13:19 ↗ presentation but

13:21 ↗ um so this is again this the urban core

13:24 ↗ so the inclusion areas up top and the

13:26 ↗ and the development bonuses down below

13:28 ↗ as far as that's the next question about

13:30 ↗ developing bonus requirements this is

13:32 ↗ urban core only but but it gives you an

13:33 ↗ idea so like she said there's a a choice

13:36 ↗ a developer

13:39 ↗ choice so while you have the slide I

13:42 ↗ describe to us um the exemption for the

13:45 ↗ heighten far to sure so um although the

13:49 ↗ the base um sounds like a base that's

13:51 ↗ where you can build starting to that's

13:53 ↗ actually the maximum you can build to

13:56 ↗ before you have to use the development

13:58 ↗ bonus which which again is a voluntary

14:00 ↗ program so if you want to build for

14:02 ↗ instance in the urban core higher than

14:04 ↗ 60 ft you must provide um additional

14:07 ↗ affordable housing and there's a formula

14:10 ↗ according to the amount of square

14:11 ↗ footage that a third of it has to be at

14:13 ↗ 80% Ami and then you have a choice three

14:16 ↗ things and the remaining of it but that

14:18 ↗ means that you can build up to 125 fet

14:22 ↗ in the urban core um we know from what

14:26 ↗ has been developed or proposed in these

14:27 ↗ areas in the past

14:29 ↗ um and just the type of construction we

14:31 ↗ don't type we don't believe that 125

14:33 ↗ will be built right now because of the

14:35 ↗ the economics of building steel which

14:38 ↗ you would be required to build that High

14:40 ↗ um are not uh here yet for isaa so um we

14:43 ↗ don't anticipate that buildings will be

14:45 ↗ built to 125 but it could potentially it

14:47 ↗ is allowed so so again you can build

14:51 ↗ normally you can build a 60 by adopting

14:53 ↗ this Central isqua Pioneer program they

14:56 ↗ will be required to provide 8% at 60%

15:00 ↗ Ami and they can build up to 125 ft so

15:04 ↗ that's there you go the

15:06 ↗ max explain the exemption the oh in the

15:10 ↗ far yeah yeah usually don't get to that

15:12 ↗ so thank you um so the f is floor area

15:15 ↗ ratio and so that um again the same

15:18 ↗ thing with um the base is the ba is what

15:21 ↗ you can build up to so if you're

15:22 ↗ calculating your f for your project and

15:24 ↗ it was uh more than 3.0 then you would

15:27 ↗ have to you could use the development

15:29 ↗ bonus program to get up to the 5.0 but

15:31 ↗ again they can go up to the 5.0 f um

15:35 ↗ automatically so the 125 fet or F and

15:38 ↗ that's uh you you can't you can't build

15:41 ↗ 1. 5.1 F and 120 feet right you have to

15:45 ↗ make sure that you're below both of

15:47 ↗ those for how you do

15:49 ↗ that I am a liting

15:53 ↗ planner okay I'm gonna stop sharing so

15:55 ↗ we can see people on the screen

15:57 ↗ again question

15:59 ↗ maybe we can come back

16:00 ↗ obviously I I have a couple so

16:03 ↗ commissioner Kim Ley I'm on the ecity

16:06 ↗ commission

16:08 ↗ um the term uh in in the actual code it

16:13 ↗ says relaxed incentives under the one

16:17 ↗ are we just talking

16:19 ↗ about not having to comply with the

16:22 ↗ inclusionary housing requirements that

16:23 ↗ would meant by relaxed

16:27 ↗ incentives you

16:31 ↗ sorry yes but but but that's confusing

16:35 ↗ then we should yeah I I was pretty sure

16:39 ↗ but it just seemed a little vague so

16:41 ↗ just to kind of tighten that up so folks

16:43 ↗ know exactly what relaxed and I'm always

16:44 ↗ looking for it relax intentive sometimes

16:46 ↗ so

16:48 ↗ right um and then so back on this B the

16:51 ↗ exemptions piece so if we are this this

16:57 ↗ says that you are EX exempting folks

16:59 ↗ from having to uh comply with the

17:01 ↗ development bonus

17:03 ↗ program but we not exempting they're not

17:06 ↗ exempt from having to comply with the

17:07 ↗ base building requirements or the F

17:10 ↗ requirements it's just yeah they are

17:13 ↗ complet exempt from having to comply

17:16 ↗ you're saying minimum or base it says

17:18 ↗ base you're you're exempt from having to

17:21 ↗ comply with the base height you can go

17:23 ↗ right so right now you go to the base

17:26 ↗ and if you want to go above the base

17:27 ↗ then you have to do development bonus so

17:29 ↗ we're saying you can go all the way to

17:30 ↗ 125 ft and not have to do development

17:32 ↗ bonus so that really does sort of exempt

17:34 ↗ you from that base height okay not the

17:39 ↗ minimum because there's a minimum in

17:40 ↗ urban core as well but the base okay so

17:44 ↗ it's

17:44 ↗ so you can still achieve the max height

17:48 ↗ and the max F without providing

17:51 ↗ additional

17:52 ↗ development uh without without addition

17:55 ↗ right without it's just a little I don't

17:56 ↗ know if anybody read that a little

18:00 ↗ clunky okay great I'm with you because I

18:03 ↗ know what what's meant by this but I

18:06 ↗ think if people didn't have the benefit

18:08 ↗ of this discussion in all the previous

18:10 ↗ ones um I don't know that they would get

18:12 ↗ the full extent of what so this is e um

18:17 ↗ two and

18:19 ↗ three okay so to to clarify that what

18:24 ↗ that means

18:27 ↗ basically

18:32 ↗ and I think goes back to your point Jen

18:35 ↗ is I think

18:36 ↗ Bas commissioner Le Point those people

18:39 ↗ off so okay but it can't it's in

18:43 ↗ everywhere else so yeah right we can't

18:45 ↗ change it yeah because there is a

18:46 ↗ minimum F that's why I was wondering you

18:48 ↗ saying minimum because you still have to

18:49 ↗ have a minimum but sure

18:52 ↗ yeah any other questions in the

18:56 ↗ room like I said we'll come back so

19:00 ↗ commissioner crass ask first yeah no we

19:02 ↗ can start with the our online panel yeah

19:05 ↗ H commissioner crass if you'd like to go

19:06 ↗ ahead hello this is John crass uh

19:10 ↗ PBC um so just I want to Quick refresher

19:15 ↗ I think the last time we talked about

19:16 ↗ that there was two

19:18 ↗ different um levels to consider one was

19:22 ↗ the 8 at 60 which is what you had in

19:24 ↗ here and then the other one was 10 at 80

19:27 ↗ so 10% of the units and 80% of median

19:31 ↗ and if I recall the

19:33 ↗ conversation um if the goal was to get

19:36 ↗ more people in there's going to be more

19:38 ↗ people you want to make sure you don't

19:41 ↗ lose the base of people who can actually

19:43 ↗ move in so I just wasn't

19:45 ↗ sure how we came to the 8 and 60 and I

19:49 ↗ wasn't sure if that got resolved between

19:51 ↗ the last meeting here and just

19:52 ↗ understanding the rationale behind it

19:55 ↗ now that's a great question so yeah we

19:57 ↗ wanted to get feedback about these two

19:59 ↗ options and we also went to city council

20:01 ↗ and had the same discussion with the

20:02 ↗ full Council and there was definitely as

20:05 ↗ you might remember in the last meeting

20:07 ↗ um of a joint planning policy commission

20:10 ↗ and economic Vitality commission um that

20:13 ↗ there's you know some people on one side

20:15 ↗ saying we should do you know lower we

20:17 ↗ should do higher we should do both and

20:20 ↗ um after looking and talking with Arch

20:22 ↗ and some other folks uh in their

20:23 ↗ leadership um really the importance of

20:27 ↗ the affordable housing since is a

20:29 ↗ relaxed uh incentive uh to reduce the

20:33 ↗ amount we want we felt that the 60% Ami

20:36 ↗ which is harder uh to get and not as

20:39 ↗ available in our community was more

20:41 ↗ important um and that's where our

20:42 ↗ recommendation came from so that is our

20:44 ↗ Administration recommendation but again

20:46 ↗ we we look to um input and other

20:50 ↗ thoughts on

20:57 ↗ that

21:03 ↗ I'm going to get it do you want to a

21:05 ↗ new would you like just you have a

21:08 ↗ question yeah um so in one of the

21:10 ↗ earlier presentations actually I think

21:11 ↗ in the last time that we got together we

21:14 ↗ had a population distribution chart um

21:17 ↗ that showcased what percentage of the

21:19 ↗ population right now fell in which Ami

21:23 ↗ bucket and we had at the time I remember

21:26 ↗ it was under 30% 30 to 50 and then 50 to

21:29 ↗ 80 so at the time we had asked for a

21:32 ↗ split of you know 60 and below and 80

21:36 ↗ and Below because right now everything

21:37 ↗ is just like grouped together I'm just

21:39 ↗ wondering if we got that data so that

21:42 ↗ that data I think is truly what is going

21:44 ↗ to inform um at least from me the

21:47 ↗ decision on what makes more sense

21:50 ↗ because we need to know how many

21:51 ↗ additional people will be including by

21:54 ↗ going 60 and under or if we have enough

21:59 ↗ demand in the 60 to 80 bucket so that we

22:02 ↗ can expand the number of units by

22:04 ↗ keeping it at under 80% Ami so thank you

22:08 ↗ for that question and I I know we we

22:10 ↗ have somebody here from Arch who can

22:11 ↗ expound a little bit more um but we that

22:14 ↗ information is provided to us by King

22:16 ↗ County and they do not split it out by

22:18 ↗ you know 50 60 70 80 it's the the

22:21 ↗ category is 50 to 80 you know and then

22:25 ↗ you know 80.1 to 100 so we we did some

22:29 ↗ research and and Kristen and um right we

22:32 ↗ were just talking we were just uh

22:33 ↗ talking about this and you can we can

22:35 ↗ break it down by who lives in those the

22:37 ↗ populations that live in those units now

22:39 ↗ but we can't break it down by need

22:41 ↗ there's no way for us to do that

22:43 ↗ understood so then if that is I mean we

22:47 ↗ the data is the data that we have right

22:49 ↗ can we just pull that chart up again

22:52 ↗ because I'm pretty sure most people

22:54 ↗ would not remember exactly what those

22:56 ↗ numbers said um at least that can help

22:58 ↗ inform what we're doing right now just

23:01 ↗ so that because my personal perspective

23:04 ↗ is given the fact that we cannot split

23:07 ↗ out between what is under 60 and what is

23:09 ↗ under 80 more units is better because

23:14 ↗ then we'll be able to increase the

23:17 ↗ amount of affordable housing that is

23:19 ↗ available which is right now a known

23:21 ↗ shortage in

23:24 ↗ isqua so can you clarify when you saying

23:27 ↗ um so we're not deliberating yet we're

23:29 ↗ asking clarifying questions right

23:30 ↗ correct so but I um so when you say more

23:34 ↗ housing is better or more units is

23:38 ↗ better are you meaning that

23:40 ↗ the can you explain what that means for

23:43 ↗ you so we have two options right we have

23:45 ↗ one that says 8 at 60 Ami or below or

23:49 ↗ 10% at 80 Ami or below we're actually

23:52 ↗ only Administration is only presenting

23:54 ↗ eight at 60% we're not so there was a

23:58 ↗ question about why not the 10 and we

24:01 ↗ explained that but right now so during

24:03 ↗ deliberation you can have that

24:05 ↗ conversation I believe but right now

24:07 ↗ during public hearing that's not a

24:08 ↗ clarifying

24:09 ↗ question okay I I brought it up because

24:13 ↗ I think we received a public letter

24:15 ↗ earlier today that said that that was a

24:17 ↗ request that came

24:19 ↗ in yeah yes so right now this is right

24:22 ↗ so what you're what you're and again I'm

24:24 ↗ learning public uh hearing rules but

24:26 ↗ what you're talking about right now is

24:27 ↗ liberating the the the merits of the

24:31 ↗ project and that is the next portion

24:34 ↗ after public hearing okay my bad sorry

24:37 ↗ no no I'm learning this too that's why

24:38 ↗ I'm looking at people when I say this

24:42 ↗ okay anyone else have a question who's

24:45 ↗ visiting us

24:50 ↗ virtually commissioner Bader yeah I I

24:53 ↗ think my question has kind of been

24:54 ↗ answered but I'll ask it anyway um

24:57 ↗ because I wasn't here for the first

25:00 ↗ discussion so I don't know if this was

25:01 ↗ touched on but like the why not both um

25:05 ↗ if the goal of this is really just to

25:08 ↗ incentivize development Housing

25:10 ↗ Development period um and hopefully like

25:12 ↗ affordable housing is a nice bonus on

25:14 ↗ that why not give developers the option

25:18 ↗ um for both um and I heard you say that

25:22 ↗ um there's more of a need at the 60% and

25:24 ↗ that's why you landed there but given

25:27 ↗ that there 's been no real Housing

25:30 ↗ Development it's like why not just open

25:33 ↗ the options up and hopefully we get

25:35 ↗ something yeah and I think in addition

25:37 ↗ to the the need um also that because we

25:41 ↗ are changing the affordability

25:43 ↗ requirements uh a lot uh that you know

25:47 ↗ against uh okay if we're not asking if

25:50 ↗ we're asking for Less what's uh let's

25:53 ↗ make sure we get some 60% Ami and that's

25:57 ↗ the

26:01 ↗ recommendation any other Commissioners

26:03 ↗ thank you commissioner

26:05 ↗ B uh commissioner

26:07 ↗ es I said it WR sorry yes so

26:11 ↗ commissioner s um I guess one question I

26:14 ↗ have is what happens to the people above

26:18 ↗ 60% Ami and will they be captured under

26:22 ↗ something else or right now it's just

26:24 ↗ focused to that 8% of of 60% and be

26:28 ↗ and this may have been answered

26:30 ↗ previously

26:31 ↗ but no yeah that wasn't that wasn't

26:34 ↗ asked or answered before um so there you

26:37 ↗ know we'd be looking to other

26:38 ↗ developments that would provide that

26:39 ↗ potentially so um we do have another

26:42 ↗ project that can County Housing

26:44 ↗ Authority the transit Oran development

26:45 ↗ project that um will uh be across next

26:48 ↗ to the transit center they have varying

26:50 ↗ degrees of affordability so you know

26:53 ↗ this one project is not going to solve

26:55 ↗ every level of affordability um so yeah

26:59 ↗ unfortunately if somebody was at 65 80

27:02 ↗ 75 79 they they would not qualify for

27:05 ↗ these units now they could go and rent a

27:08 ↗ market rate plus but they would have to

27:11 ↗ play market rate rent but we also have

27:13 ↗ development agreements that require

27:15 ↗ affordable housing in those and those

27:17 ↗ can be up to 80% and then we have um you

27:19 ↗ know any other development within

27:21 ↗ Central isqua that wants to build above

27:22 ↗ the base they'll have to participate in

27:24 ↗ the development bonus program and those

27:27 ↗ uh could be up there as

27:29 ↗ well okay thank

27:33 ↗ you thank you commissioner

27:36 ↗ crass hello again I just like pushing

27:38 ↗ the little hand thing um on teams so uh

27:42 ↗ just another uh uh question of in the

27:46 ↗ packet it had the uh minimum of 100

27:50 ↗ units I'm curious I know we wanted we

27:53 ↗ discussed having it be sizable enough to

27:56 ↗ to to warrant doing so you don't want to

27:58 ↗ have a bunch of onesie twosies um what's

28:00 ↗ the background of how the 100 came

28:02 ↗ because that's still a

28:04 ↗ sizable project and one one thing I'm

28:09 ↗ fearful of is if the minimum is so large

28:12 ↗ then nothing gets done in this so then

28:14 ↗ you get zero done so I'm curious whether

28:17 ↗ it was debated whether it's 50 100 or

28:19 ↗ how and how it landed at 100 yeah yeah

28:22 ↗ great question so we know that of the

28:25 ↗ projects like for instance the the

28:27 ↗ transit Orient development project you

28:28 ↗ just talked about is 375 units we know

28:31 ↗ that the proposals for two other

28:33 ↗ projects that we that in the central

28:34 ↗ isqua area in the urban Corps have been

28:37 ↗ above two or have been like high high

28:41 ↗ 200s uh mid 300s right and so did I say

28:45 ↗ 275 375 yeah um so 375 for Tod so um so

28:50 ↗ we know that um in order to get

28:53 ↗ feasibility Etc now that it also depends

28:56 ↗ on the size of the lot so um so that's

28:59 ↗ where the hundred came is that if there

29:01 ↗ is a lot that is smaller um again they

29:04 ↗ need to to meet minimum density

29:06 ↗ requirements with f and other things so

29:08 ↗ they have to build up um and so again we

29:12 ↗ thought that 100 would help to make sure

29:14 ↗ there was a smaller lot but we have been

29:16 ↗ seeing every project that's been looking

29:18 ↗ to be in that uh High 200 to you know

29:23 ↗ mid 300 area and for just for a for an

29:27 ↗ example Veil de development is 110 units

29:32 ↗ how that was my next question so if you

29:35 ↗ do 100 units not granted the Pioneer

29:38 ↗ program is not about affordability but

29:41 ↗ we are including it and if you do 100

29:43 ↗ units you're still only going to get

29:45 ↗ eight affordable units so 100 is

29:51 ↗ reasonable okay uh commissioner

29:55 ↗ Larson good evening Jennifer for Larson

29:57 ↗ economic Vitality commission and I just

30:00 ↗ have a quick clarifying question it may

30:01 ↗ have been something that came up uh in a

30:04 ↗ previous meeting but how does issaqua

30:06 ↗ currently compare in terms of number of

30:10 ↗ affordable units available in relation

30:12 ↗ to the other communities surrounding

30:15 ↗ us I'm gonna pass it over to Mike

30:18 ↗ Stanger from

30:20 ↗ Arch hi uh Mike Stanger I'm a senior

30:22 ↗ planner with regional Coalition for

30:25 ↗ housing and uh

30:27 ↗ I would need a few minutes to look that

30:30 ↗ those numbers up but

30:33 ↗ um I think I could say in a broad sense

30:36 ↗ isqua has um is among the the cities

30:41 ↗ with the most affordable units of any of

30:44 ↗ our member

30:45 ↗ cities um created from uh land use

30:51 ↗ incentives or um direct Public Funding

30:56 ↗ when you take them as as a whole a lot

30:58 ↗ of

30:59 ↗ them probably the majority of them are

31:02 ↗ in the

31:03 ↗ highlands um but and they've been

31:05 ↗ created over the last 20 25 years but

31:12 ↗ um the distinction I would say is that

31:15 ↗ the affordability level of those units

31:17 ↗ tends to be higher than in um Redmond

31:22 ↗ and Kirkland for example but in terms of

31:24 ↗ sheer numbers Isa has a high

31:30 ↗ count thank

31:34 ↗ you so commissioner Chris Richley chair

31:37 ↗ for the economic Vitality commission so

31:39 ↗ with that said um that my my clarified

31:42 ↗ question is if we are the highest you're

31:44 ↗ saying and I'm I've been reading all

31:47 ↗ this saying we're not the high you know

31:49 ↗ we need to change it because there's no

31:51 ↗ development that's going to happen based

31:53 ↗ on the current so I guess my clarified

31:55 ↗ question is why even change what's

31:59 ↗ happening now if we are the highest why

32:02 ↗ why why make this

32:03 ↗ change in in numbers if we are the

32:06 ↗ highest already and that would tell me

32:08 ↗ that it's working if I look at it by a

32:09 ↗ public eye you're saying so why are we

32:12 ↗ looking to change it now be is it

32:14 ↗ because the developers are asking us to

32:16 ↗ change it because they all of a sudden

32:17 ↗ want to develop and lower the standard

32:20 ↗ or is it because the city wants to see

32:22 ↗ more development and we're going to just

32:25 ↗ lower our what was seems you just said

32:28 ↗ it was one of the highest so is it

32:32 ↗ because we're doing what I guess it

32:34 ↗ leads to that question what are we

32:35 ↗ what's the intent at point to changing

32:38 ↗ the number so again this project is not

32:41 ↗ about affordable house creating

32:42 ↗ affordable housings the correct to Spur

32:44 ↗ housing where has not occurred in

32:45 ↗ central isop area and to do that

32:48 ↗ pioneered uh um proof of Market um when

32:53 ↗ he says the highest so a lot of those

32:55 ↗ units that he talked about in the

32:56 ↗ highlands would because of the

32:57 ↗ development agreement we only have 11

33:01 ↗ units because of this the land use code

33:03 ↗ incentives which is the bonus density

33:06 ↗ development bonus program at fail so um

33:09 ↗ we have not seen any others occur

33:11 ↗ because of that so in the development

33:13 ↗ agreements we have requirements that do

33:16 ↗ require that and that's not going to

33:17 ↗ change they don't get to you know

33:19 ↗ participate in this program to to change

33:21 ↗ that but um I I don't know if if Mike or

33:24 ↗ Kristen who's Kristen's also been here

33:26 ↗ uh the whole time for the central Spa

33:28 ↗ plan if there's anything else to add no

33:31 ↗ that that's what I was going to

33:33 ↗ say oh thank you that and and again that

33:36 ↗ just that's the point that we we

33:38 ↗ discussed in the joint meeting was it

33:40 ↗ it's a more of a development plan let's

33:42 ↗ be honest it's not an affordable housing

33:44 ↗ plan so I think when the public looks at

33:46 ↗ it they they see it as affordable and I

33:48 ↗ just don't want it to get tied up with

33:49 ↗ affordable it's the Pioneer project has

33:52 ↗ affordable piece of it but it's not

33:55 ↗ truly an affordable housing project so

34:00 ↗ thank

34:05 ↗ you I'd be remiss to not ask if anyone

34:08 ↗ else has any other questions uh online

34:10 ↗ or in

34:16 ↗ person all right well thank you

34:19 ↗ Commissioners and thank you staff um we

34:22 ↗ are now going to open the public hearing

34:24 ↗ for public comment

34:27 ↗ and I know we have some

34:29 ↗ speakers um but I also know we have a

34:32 ↗ couple of

34:34 ↗ R now Christ let me ask you real quickly

34:36 ↗ our rules for public hearing comments

34:38 ↗ are the same yes okay so let me just say

34:41 ↗ this real quickly whether you're joining

34:43 ↗ online or in person we ask that you

34:45 ↗ state your name speak clearly and pause

34:48 ↗ frequently limit your comments to five

34:51 ↗ minutes and if you are using a

34:53 ↗ microphone go ahead and mute that when

34:54 ↗ you are

34:55 ↗ finished I think with that being said we

34:58 ↗ can begin our public comment portion is

35:01 ↗ there anyone in the room who would like

35:03 ↗ to

35:04 ↗ speak just you can be up there next jul

35:07 ↗ yeah and just uh state your name

35:12 ↗ please sure um I'm Brian rberg and I am

35:16 ↗ U representing the U ownership and the

35:20 ↗ design for for potential design rather

35:23 ↗ for the red Ren uh site in Pickering

35:26 ↗ place and also for clarification I guess

35:29 ↗ before we start uh Jesse Clawson who was

35:32 ↗ going to be on here can't attend at the

35:34 ↗ last minute a minute or two a I run

35:39 ↗ over it's up to

35:41 ↗ you thank you uh again yeah we've been

35:45 ↗ represent representing that uh Red Robin

35:48 ↗ site it's in the urban Corps uh and a

35:51 ↗ potential candidate for this Pioneer

35:53 ↗ program we appreciate the support and

35:55 ↗ consideration for the pro that Pioneer

35:58 ↗ program and um we've been engaged in the

36:02 ↗ discussion on this for some 10 months

36:03 ↗ through several consecutive meetings and

36:06 ↗ and committees and I I guess reflecting

36:09 ↗ back on many of the past comments uh

36:11 ↗ throughout all these committees have

36:13 ↗ been with stood out consistently was

36:15 ↗ desire to fulfill the vision for the

36:17 ↗ central isqua plan which is is a great

36:21 ↗ plan and in fact is What attracted us

36:23 ↗ our group to purchase the former red

36:25 ↗ side male in the beginning couple years

36:28 ↗ ago it's a wellth thought out regional

36:30 ↗ growth plan and it's appropriate vision

36:33 ↗ for responsible mixed use growth in the

36:36 ↗ next

36:37 ↗ decades um we feel this site as an

36:41 ↗ example as a potential candidate program

36:43 ↗ as well as our team with with a vast

36:45 ↗ amount of housing experience is the

36:47 ↗ ideal test project or guinea pigs if you

36:50 ↗ will uh for this project the site has

36:52 ↗ great Transit it's got great Services

36:54 ↗ got open space it's got the

36:56 ↗ infrastructure structure and as if

36:57 ↗ tonight will tell us anything about the

37:00 ↗ traffic this is where Urban density and

37:02 ↗ growth really needs to go um and we are

37:06 ↗ well also well aligned with the

37:08 ↗ objective to get more affordable housing

37:11 ↗ and housing and um as requested uh by

37:15 ↗ the

37:16 ↗ administration as part of the evaluation

37:18 ↗ process for us as a as a guinea bigger

37:20 ↗ test on this um in evaluating this

37:23 ↗ Pioneer program criteria we worked

37:26 ↗ collabora ly and very transparently with

37:28 ↗ with Arch with Mike and with Jen to

37:31 ↗ assess and arrive at what might

37:34 ↗ financially work or I.E what would

37:36 ↗ pencil as many folks have have have

37:38 ↗ talked about and what collaboratively we

37:41 ↗ landed on with Arch was that option one

37:44 ↗ and option two which you're what we were

37:46 ↗ just

37:47 ↗ discussing um it's not surprising that

37:50 ↗ these models landed on uh what is

37:53 ↗ existing and working in other

37:55 ↗ comparative markets and I'll use an

37:57 ↗ example in the B red Corridor um lending

38:01 ↗ institutions uh for market rate projects

38:04 ↗ uh in comparative markets know this 80%

38:08 ↗ model worth mftd works it's established

38:11 ↗ and it's an industry Benchmark that that

38:13 ↗ works um we are not asking for anything

38:17 ↗ outside of of that and what would be

38:19 ↗ comparable in other markat uh some

38:21 ↗ discussion for clarity we can't just

38:23 ↗ because of construction constraints and

38:26 ↗ what of this type of construction we

38:27 ↗ don't come close to maxing out F or some

38:30 ↗ of the other in set of so it's primarily

38:33 ↗ this this mix of these programs and some

38:36 ↗ of this is outside of our control of

38:37 ↗ what we need um that said our group and

38:41 ↗ again some of the discussion here would

38:43 ↗ would have preference over option two

38:46 ↗ both options and again working with Arch

38:49 ↗ came to the same yield on cost which was

38:52 ↗ the metric we all agreed on with work

38:55 ↗ and so they they do have the the same

38:57 ↗ Financial

38:58 ↗ capacity um option two however for none

39:01 ↗ other reason gives gives this a a

39:04 ↗ broader financing opportunities as I

39:07 ↗ mentioned the lending institutions are

39:09 ↗ used to seeing the 80% number and

39:11 ↗ will'll have far more choices and

39:13 ↗ opportunities at the end of the day to

39:14 ↗ get some financing options um and it

39:18 ↗ does again to move the project forward

39:20 ↗ it does yield in in our this example 20%

39:23 ↗ more affordable units also allows

39:26 ↗ somebody as it was described here

39:27 ↗ somebody at 61% Ami to be in one so it

39:32 ↗ does really open up a lot more it yields

39:35 ↗ about it yields can yield about 30 more

39:38 ↗ units um there's a couple other things I

39:41 ↗ just want to clarify because there were

39:42 ↗ some other conversations in some of the

39:44 ↗ previous meetings we've had to clarify

39:46 ↗ on even before the market had changed 18

39:50 ↗ months ago with interest rates and

39:52 ↗ whatnot there is no Market or mixed use

39:56 ↗ project that can carry that current

39:58 ↗ policy at 12 and a half% of that 50 to

40:01 ↗ 60% Ami range without some significant

40:05 ↗ financial offset for an example on the

40:08 ↗ model that we work collaboratively with

40:11 ↗ with arjan here where it landed on using

40:15 ↗ the current policy you'd have to

40:16 ↗ contribute the land for zerow to make it

40:19 ↗ get the same uh Finance you know Finance

40:22 ↗ model to make it work that's a pretty

40:25 ↗ heavy subsidy versus is having this 80%

40:28 ↗ in the MFD program so the the the

40:31 ↗ options here for us are very very

40:34 ↗ obvious further the Pioneer program uh

40:37 ↗ does not take away any resources the MFD

40:40 ↗ is a wellestablished program it's proven

40:42 ↗ program it's used in many other markets

40:44 ↗ as was T discuss does not create other

40:47 ↗ cost impacts for isqua residents it's a

40:50 ↗ merely a tax deferral so I wanted to

40:52 ↗ make that clear I just got a couple

40:53 ↗ closing statements the tradeoff here

40:56 ↗ aside from the potential of 30 housing

40:59 ↗ units if we can if we can also include

41:01 ↗ option two as a viable option this is

41:05 ↗ $125 investment into your city we're

41:08 ↗ enthused about it we've got you know the

41:11 ↗ team has over 30 years experience in

41:13 ↗ this and a well healed group to do this

41:16 ↗ we believe we can get this done Pioneer

41:19 ↗ program and and our potential inclusion

41:22 ↗ in that program aligns perfectly with

41:24 ↗ your central esqua plan

41:26 ↗ it's a great vision it was well written

41:29 ↗ again I said and it's appropriate place

41:31 ↗ for this growth we appreciate the

41:32 ↗ support the endorsement uh of this

41:35 ↗ program to fulfill your vision um one

41:38 ↗ clarifying thing the other thing we were

41:40 ↗ asking was in the Mela Hill letter was

41:44 ↗ suggesting u a small adjustment from the

41:48 ↗ two-year period to a three-year because

41:50 ↗ the markets are you know we all know

41:52 ↗ Market little difference two years might

41:54 ↗ be a little tight in being able to

41:56 ↗ execute that so that was the other thing

41:58 ↗ and again appreciate your your ear in uh

42:02 ↗ assessment of this and I would remain

42:05 ↗ available for any questions for cl thank

42:12 ↗ you is there anybody online who would

42:14 ↗ like to speak if you raise your

42:19 ↗ hand okay Connie Marsh you're

42:25 ↗ up

42:28 ↗ you're muted if you're

42:33 ↗ speaking had to find it different format

42:36 ↗ I am Connie Marsh again and I live up on

42:39 ↗ squawk and uh I finally was able to send

42:43 ↗ my email on this topic but it was pretty

42:46 ↗ late

42:48 ↗ so um I have two things I have been

42:53 ↗ around and helped to work on the Cent

42:56 ↗ Central isqua plan which was meant to be

42:59 ↗ a

43:00 ↗ longterm plan and long-term means

43:04 ↗ patience it was supposed to take 30 40

43:08 ↗ years and what happened with the central

43:10 ↗ isqua plan is the developers developed

43:13 ↗ in the areas that it was easiest to

43:15 ↗ develop without uh as many rules so we

43:20 ↗ got a large amount of housing in the

43:23 ↗ central isqua area we just did not get

43:25 ↗ it in the Urban core we've continued to

43:28 ↗ get more development in isqua high

43:31 ↗ Highlands and Talis and all of this was

43:34 ↗ mainly in housing and so we are very

43:37 ↗ much on line with what has been required

43:40 ↗ of isqua for housing and we are well

43:43 ↗ ahead of many of our neighboring towns

43:47 ↗ in our requirements frankly what we're

43:49 ↗ lacking is we are lacking jobs and

43:54 ↗ that that sort of interesting that all

43:57 ↗ of the sudden we're part of the housing

43:59 ↗ problem when we were one of the cities

44:01 ↗ that was providing this massive quantity

44:03 ↗ of housing for years and years and years

44:07 ↗ and so with the central isqua plan I am

44:09 ↗ not a fan of using the multif family tax

44:13 ↗ exemption to try to promote something

44:16 ↗ before it's time when the land value in

44:19 ↗ the Central isqua Area will support this

44:22 ↗ type of development it will happen and

44:25 ↗ it is time for us to be a little bit

44:27 ↗ patient and try to figure out how we're

44:29 ↗ going to deal with things like our

44:31 ↗ infrastructure to support the population

44:33 ↗ which was never appropriately addressed

44:35 ↗ during the central isqua plan

44:37 ↗ Transportation as you know is a big deal

44:40 ↗ and so we have plenty of problems to try

44:43 ↗ to solve before we try to promote

44:45 ↗ further housing now so I'm not a fan uh

44:50 ↗ but I am even less a fan of code

44:53 ↗ language because this is code language

44:55 ↗ that they are proposing today that um is

45:00 ↗ not understandable and so I would send

45:03 ↗ this back for

45:05 ↗ tightening uh it is this is going to be

45:08 ↗ part of the land use code and things

45:11 ↗ like the word relaxed which I heard you

45:13 ↗ all say relaxed is not a defined term

45:16 ↗ nor does it have particular meaning um

45:20 ↗ it is difficult to understand the word

45:24 ↗ unit which is a very specific definition

45:30 ↗ in the city code meaning dwelling unit

45:31 ↗ there's many other types of dwelling

45:34 ↗ information but do you really want to be

45:37 ↗ very specific in what type of housing

45:40 ↗ unit you're discussing in this I don't

45:43 ↗ know I don't know that you've had the

45:45 ↗ conversation I don't understand how this

45:49 ↗ um is going to combine with the central

45:52 ↗ isqua plan for multiuse where you're

45:54 ↗ supposed to be living and shopping and

45:57 ↗ working all at the same time and these

45:58 ↗ are many of the overarching goals of the

46:00 ↗ central isqua plan that I don't think

46:03 ↗ are adequately addressed in this

46:05 ↗ particular code language or at least

46:07 ↗ it's unclear they didn't provide you

46:10 ↗ with the language around this language

46:13 ↗ to see how it would fit in with all of

46:17 ↗ the other supporting language which

46:20 ↗ makes it very hard to make a good

46:22 ↗ decision because it's hard to understand

46:24 ↗ what they're actually talking talking

46:26 ↗ about within all of the rest of it um

46:32 ↗ so for

46:33 ↗ me

46:36 ↗ uh this Gap in you're you're supposed to

46:41 ↗ fill out an application but they don't

46:44 ↗ really tell you what must be contained

46:47 ↗ in the

46:48 ↗ application

46:50 ↗ so there's going to be Zero review it's

46:53 ↗ level one which means it's

46:54 ↗ administratively done and we don't know

46:56 ↗ what's in the application that they're

46:58 ↗ supposed to provide and and so it

47:03 ↗ disappears from the public viewing until

47:06 ↗ it gets into the land view section and

47:09 ↗ starts to actually go through that

47:11 ↗ process which is very expensive for a

47:13 ↗ developer to get to that point in time

47:15 ↗ so I would like to see this more

47:17 ↗ daylighted I would actually like to see

47:19 ↗ component parts of what an application

47:21 ↗ must have so that we could understand

47:25 ↗ what what this is actually supposed to

47:27 ↗ look like what is a complete application

47:30 ↗ because you got two but it doesn't it

47:34 ↗ just doesn't say so for

47:38 ↗ me mly written just I'm pretty it's

47:43 ↗ poorly written code and you should send

47:46 ↗ the code back for refinement uh but you

47:49 ↗ should also just say no thank

47:52 ↗ you thank

47:54 ↗ you

47:57 ↗ uh Mr rard Jim rard hello this is James

48:01 ↗ rard withm development my address is

48:04 ↗ actually Spokane Washington but uh we

48:07 ↗ develop throughout the pet sound

48:09 ↗ primarily Seattle and

48:11 ↗ bellw and I just wanted to address two

48:14 ↗ comments that I heard tonight quickly if

48:16 ↗ I could um the first is I I would ask

48:18 ↗ Mike from Arch if he could dig a little

48:21 ↗ bit deeper because I think it's an

48:22 ↗ important distinction in discussing uh a

48:25 ↗ affable housing in the creation because

48:27 ↗ I uh the housing in the highlands I

48:30 ↗ think is different than what has been

48:31 ↗ created in the last 5 or 10 years in the

48:33 ↗ urban core or I I would say not created

48:36 ↗ you know I think that isqua I think it's

48:38 ↗ a fair statement and I think the numbers

48:40 ↗ would support it if Mike had time to

48:42 ↗ pull them up for us um that isqua has

48:46 ↗ created far less affordable housing near

48:48 ↗ to Urban Corps and even in the multif

48:50 ↗ family than other communities on the

48:52 ↗ east side such as Redmond um and even

48:54 ↗ bellue where the mfte program and the

48:58 ↗ affordable requirements to go with it

49:00 ↗ are purely optional they are not a

49:02 ↗ requirement but they are creating

49:04 ↗ affordable housing through an aggressive

49:06 ↗ mfte program that you know in in rough

49:09 ↗ statements requires

49:10 ↗ 80% to be at uh 20% at 80% for 12 years

49:15 ↗ and in return there's a tax abatement

49:17 ↗ for 12 years and then that affordability

49:20 ↗ goes away whereas in isqua even with

49:22 ↗ what were is being proposed these

49:26 ↗ requirements um extend beyond the mfte

49:30 ↗ so they're they're Perpetual so it's a

49:32 ↗ much better program with this EA and its

49:34 ↗ requirement even with what what we are

49:36 ↗ proposing here so but I don't don't

49:39 ↗ believe it's correct that they are

49:40 ↗ creating units in in the last five or 10

49:41 ↗ years the same uh rate as the other

49:44 ↗ communities on the east side they are

49:46 ↗ they are lagging that I'm I'm pretty

49:47 ↗ sure and I I say that from some what an

49:51 ↗ authority um in that we do have an

49:53 ↗ affordable housing arm and and back to

49:55 ↗ the 2,000 units or so that that uh were

49:59 ↗ started in 2023 about 15% are ours of

50:03 ↗ which uh all of them are either

50:05 ↗ Workforce or affordable housing

50:08 ↗ units um so we we pay a lot of attention

50:11 ↗ to that so the requirements within isqua

50:14 ↗ they stand now are much more restrictive

50:16 ↗ much more punitive and much more

50:18 ↗ difficult to work with with uh

50:20 ↗ lenders the other thing that I just want

50:22 ↗ to point out is with the mfte is it's a

50:25 ↗ question that's come up a few times is

50:27 ↗ is the mfte is really it's it's a tax

50:29 ↗ abatement property tax abatement of

50:31 ↗ which most of that goes to the county so

50:33 ↗ effectively What the isqua residents are

50:36 ↗ doing are subsidizing in my opinion the

50:39 ↗ other communities that are using mfte um

50:42 ↗ you know such as Redmond Belleview where

50:44 ↗ they do have an mft program to sent

50:46 ↗ developers and and compensate them for

50:49 ↗ the affordability requirements um you

50:52 ↗ know most of those taxes go to the

50:53 ↗ county and it's a countywide program and

50:57 ↗ in this case this qua not taking

50:59 ↗ advantage of it um to compete with these

51:01 ↗ other communities it really I don't

51:03 ↗ think makes a lot of sense why they

51:05 ↗ wouldn't take advantage of this with the

51:06 ↗ other communities um it's a real

51:08 ↗ advantage to them and it's an advantage

51:10 ↗ for the developers to make this

51:12 ↗ affordable at the outset of the project

51:14 ↗ so that they can provide that

51:15 ↗ affordability long term so those are my

51:18 ↗ two comments I appreciate it very much

51:19 ↗ thank

51:24 ↗ you is no one else to

51:29 ↗ speak all right well thank you for

51:30 ↗ everyone who chose to speak this evening

51:33 ↗ and being no other public comments we

51:35 ↗ will close the public

51:38 ↗ hearing at 7:29 p.m. this is the portion

51:42 ↗ where we are going to hand it off to EVC

51:44 ↗ to deliberate amongst themselves um

51:46 ↗ planning policy I guess if you're online

51:49 ↗ you can go ahead and mute your

51:51 ↗ microphones and turn off your camera for

51:53 ↗ the time being and for us person will

51:56 ↗ turn it over to chair Richley as well as

51:59 ↗ commissioner Lee and the rest of the

52:03 ↗ evbc thank you

52:09 ↗ chair so I just will say real quick

52:11 ↗ because we don't have a quorum in the

52:12 ↗ room that's our rules we tonight will

52:15 ↗ can do the deliberation and provide that

52:17 ↗ so basically PPC is listening right they

52:20 ↗ can't respond we can't ask them direct

52:22 ↗ questions but they will they can take

52:23 ↗ that information into account when they

52:25 ↗ have their deliberation and their

52:27 ↗ recommendation period which again we

52:29 ↗ can't ask them questions during that

52:30 ↗ time um but we are not as an EVC making

52:34 ↗ a recommendation to we cannot make a

52:36 ↗ recommendation to PPC or the city

52:38 ↗ council because we do not have that form

52:40 ↗ in the room so I just wanted to clarify

52:42 ↗ a little bit what we're doing here but

52:44 ↗ it's still valuable to talk at but not

52:47 ↗ to the

52:49 ↗ bbz so yeah wallpaper gotta talk to the

52:54 ↗ wall yeah well certainly thank you for

52:57 ↗ this time um PBC commission and chair

53:00 ↗ boss um we'll start with the room

53:04 ↗ commission leave you have any yeah I'll

53:07 ↗ I'm happy to start um you know I I think

53:11 ↗ given that this program is really

53:15 ↗ intended to promote

53:17 ↗ housing and you know a lot of the spirit

53:21 ↗ of this the process has been in

53:23 ↗ collaboration with development community

53:25 ↗ I think we would be remissed if we

53:30 ↗ ignored uh the comments that we've

53:33 ↗ received about having the optionality I

53:36 ↗ understand that Administration is is

53:37 ↗ recommending the the 8% of the unit at

53:40 ↗ 60% of Ami but if at the end of the day

53:44 ↗ you know there are some pros and cons

53:48 ↗ between both

53:49 ↗ options and you know the development

53:51 ↗ Community is telling us that it's a

53:53 ↗ matter of projects moving forward

53:55 ↗ forward or not I think we would all feel

53:57 ↗ pretty disappointed if we said no it has

54:00 ↗ to be 8% it's 60% and then the projects

54:03 ↗ didn't get built or the units didn't get

54:06 ↗ built so um I'm in full support of

54:09 ↗ including both options uh and allowing

54:12 ↗ the developer to elect which option

54:14 ↗ they're selecting uh through the

54:15 ↗ enrollment

54:17 ↗ process um I would also advocate for

54:21 ↗ tightening up some of this language um

54:23 ↗ with some of the the comments that we've

54:25 ↗ already clarified earlier uh

54:29 ↗ particularly the validity section that

54:31 ↗ talks about how long um you know the the

54:35 ↗ approval would be vested I know we don't

54:37 ↗ like the word vested um but I think that

54:39 ↗ that's really important um and whether

54:42 ↗ it's two years or three years you know I

54:45 ↗ think a lot of people would advocate for

54:47 ↗ longer rather than shorter just given

54:49 ↗ that they don't have full the applicant

54:51 ↗ doesn't have full control over what the

54:53 ↗ permit process um time frame is I think

54:57 ↗ uh to the extent that this approval can

55:00 ↗ just move forward with the entitlement

55:03 ↗ with the project through its entitlement

55:04 ↗ project uh timeline um I think is

55:08 ↗ aligned with the intent of the language

55:09 ↗ but really tightening that up I think

55:10 ↗ would be really

55:15 ↗ benal thank you commissioner Lee and

55:17 ↗ then I'm just add those comments I think

55:20 ↗ you know I agree 100% with commissioner

55:22 ↗ Le's comments around um but my thoughts

55:25 ↗ in it is is you public comment that says

55:29 ↗ affordability as well you know if

55:31 ↗ they're able to offer more affordable

55:33 ↗ housing and and we've hear this commonly

55:36 ↗ and it's like well there is no

55:37 ↗ affordable housing or if there is it's

55:38 ↗ in only one area so if we want to make

55:42 ↗ it a development project then make it a

55:43 ↗ development project but I think we have

55:45 ↗ an opportunity to commission at least

55:47 ↗ point if we give options why are we

55:50 ↗ going to turn down one option if it

55:52 ↗ offers more affordable housing if that's

55:53 ↗ truly what some of the public wants as

55:56 ↗ opposed to one option that we're getting

55:58 ↗ recommended to take basically doesn't

56:02 ↗ have as many units if that makes sense

56:05 ↗ so we can have both of both gr to have

56:07 ↗ both options I would agree with commiss

56:09 ↗ Lee's comments on you know have both

56:12 ↗ options available developers what makes

56:14 ↗ sense as far as the cost wise for them

56:16 ↗ it's gonna it's GNA we have the best

56:18 ↗ above above

56:20 ↗ worlds my opion so we have development

56:23 ↗ that we have before hous

56:29 ↗ Jenner I

56:33 ↗ knew thank you this is anali um so my I

56:39 ↗ mean just listening to the public

56:41 ↗ comments that came through I completely

56:43 ↗ agree with the idea of having

56:46 ↗ optionality and letting the builders

56:48 ↗ choose but given what we've heard from

56:51 ↗ the construction community in the past I

56:53 ↗ think we know where we're going to where

56:55 ↗ they are going to lean um having said

56:58 ↗ that the comment from the public just

57:01 ↗ now actually did bring back a a concern

57:06 ↗ that I even raised in the previous

57:07 ↗ meeting when we are thinking about

57:10 ↗ introducing 100 to 400 units in central

57:13 ↗ core areas um the Planning Commission I

57:17 ↗ think this Falls within the purview of

57:19 ↗ the Planning Commission has to make sure

57:21 ↗ that the infrastructure required to

57:23 ↗ support this additional population

57:26 ↗ within the city's Urban core is first

57:30 ↗ developed looking forward forward

57:33 ↗ looking planning for the infrastructure

57:35 ↗ before we actually get the people in

57:37 ↗ we've heard from our the from an EVC

57:40 ↗ standpoint my primary P my primary goal

57:43 ↗ is to drive business and make small

57:45 ↗ businesses more successful in isaka and

57:47 ↗ we've heard from them through our

57:49 ↗ Outreach in the past that traffic

57:51 ↗ congestion utilities availability EX Etc

57:55 ↗ housing availability space availability

57:57 ↗ have been a big concern for them so

58:01 ↗ while they will get additional um uh

58:05 ↗ customers who are living within the city

58:07 ↗ and hopefully even employees who can

58:09 ↗ live within the city within some of

58:10 ↗ these aordable units it is important to

58:13 ↗ make sure that the other infrastructure

58:15 ↗ required such as roads utilities Etc are

58:18 ↗ first planned and provided for before we

58:21 ↗ go ahead and have these constructions go

58:24 ↗ up one of the locations that was

58:25 ↗ mentioned was Red Robin it's behind

58:28 ↗ Costco the shop and it's also close to

58:32 ↗ Costco's now global headquarters I

58:36 ↗ shudder to think if there are 100 houses

58:38 ↗ coming let's ass with even 50 cars what

58:41 ↗ the traffic situation will be there on a

58:42 ↗ two-lane road

58:44 ↗ um that is not amenable to the business

58:50 ↗ Community especially the small business

58:51 ↗ Community who have anecdotally told us

58:54 ↗ that that they have seen a drop in

58:55 ↗ footfall because of traffic issues and

58:58 ↗ parking

58:59 ↗ availability so I would implore the PPC

59:02 ↗ to First think about the supporting

59:04 ↗ infrastructure before going ahead and

59:07 ↗ actually having 100 families or 400

59:10 ↗ families mov

59:14 ↗ in commiss

59:18 ↗ Larson thank you I just wanted to

59:21 ↗ comment that I absolutely agree on

59:22 ↗ tightening the language I also think the

59:24 ↗ comment uh updating from two years to

59:26 ↗ three years makes sense uh just in in

59:29 ↗ just in regards to time frames for

59:31 ↗ things these days I did hesitate though

59:34 ↗ I do agree options would make be

59:37 ↗ sensible but from a personal perspective

59:40 ↗ and from a business perspective I do

59:42 ↗ feel that one of the critical areas of

59:44 ↗ affordability is at the

59:46 ↗ 60% um Ami so I I would tend at least my

59:51 ↗ thoughts would tend to be to keep that

59:53 ↗ in place even recognizing that it would

59:55 ↗ be slightly fewer units um but that's at

59:59 ↗ least my my initial

1:00:05 ↗ reaction thank you commissioner

1:00:07 ↗ Larson any other EC

1:00:11 ↗ comments I think the only other person

1:00:13 ↗ was um a new of your hand up

1:00:17 ↗ again just Christie is the only other

1:00:19 ↗ commissioner chrisy what about you

1:00:22 ↗ Christie hi

1:00:27 ↗ can you hear me now you can okay great

1:00:31 ↗ um I um nothing really to add but the

1:00:34 ↗ conversation is really compelling and

1:00:35 ↗ I'm um really in um intrigued by by this

1:00:40 ↗ conversation and and how the PPC will

1:00:44 ↗ receive it and um and how it'll impact

1:00:46 ↗ the recommendations but really really

1:00:48 ↗ good conversation thank you thank you

1:00:51 ↗ commissioner

1:00:53 ↗ G

1:00:56 ↗ we're

1:01:02 ↗ good all right well thank you chair

1:01:04 ↗ Richley and again I want to say thank

1:01:06 ↗ you to EVC all of you for not only

1:01:09 ↗ tonight but also the work that we did

1:01:11 ↗ late last year um I think I can speak on

1:01:14 ↗ behalf of arch mention that it was

1:01:16 ↗ fantastic and I hope we get to do it

1:01:17 ↗ more often having said that I do want to

1:01:21 ↗ give you guys the opportunity to leave

1:01:23 ↗ if you'd like uh please know you are

1:01:25 ↗ more than welcome to stay and observe

1:01:28 ↗ we'd be happy to have you but I also

1:01:29 ↗ know commissioner Lee commissioner

1:01:31 ↗ Richley and staff um are actually here

1:01:34 ↗ physically I know most likely our

1:01:36 ↗ commissioners live in city limits I know

1:01:38 ↗ staff probably do not so I do want to

1:01:40 ↗ take a fem minute break and allow those

1:01:42 ↗ who would like to leave to take off and

1:01:44 ↗ then we will pick up uh the planning

1:01:46 ↗ policy's deliberation thereafter thank

1:01:53 ↗ you

1:01:59 ↗ are you stay

1:02:00 ↗ yeah

1:02:23 ↗ see

1:05:49 ↗ Jason I have a question when you guys

1:05:50 ↗ are

1:05:53 ↗ ready

1:06:23 ↗ what

1:06:53 ↗ he

1:07:22 ↗ the

1:08:11 ↗ [Music]

1:08:42 ↗ can you hear us now yes thank you

1:08:46 ↗ yes all right well welcome back everyone

1:08:49 ↗ um we are now going to have the planning

1:08:51 ↗ policy deliberate for this portion of

1:08:53 ↗ the meeting

1:08:54 ↗ and I'm just going to go ahead and look

1:08:57 ↗ around if I see Hands on the screen I

1:08:59 ↗ will try to answer but since I do have a

1:09:02 ↗ couple Commissioners to my left and

1:09:03 ↗ right I'll start with them again

1:09:06 ↗ obviously we can come back around again

1:09:07 ↗ so we not going to miss

1:09:12 ↗ anybody all we have to do before

1:09:16 ↗ before someone like to make a motion on

1:09:19 ↗ the proposed amendments that are

1:09:22 ↗ currently on the

1:09:30 ↗ floor oh Vice chair

1:09:33 ↗ Bader yeah I can get us started so um I

1:09:37 ↗ move to recommend approval of the

1:09:39 ↗ proposed amendments to imc1

1:09:41 ↗ 18514 affordable housing adding Section

1:09:45 ↗ 18.

1:09:46 ↗ 514.5 5 to establish the central isqua

1:09:49 ↗ Pioneer

1:09:52 ↗ program all right thank you Vice chair's

1:09:56 ↗ that is there a

1:10:02 ↗ second commissioner Patterson I'll

1:10:04 ↗ second that motion wonderful thank you

1:10:07 ↗ all right now we can open it up for

1:10:11 ↗ deliberation would anyone like to go and

1:10:13 ↗ vice chair Bader your hand is still up

1:10:16 ↗ so no all right commissioner

1:10:22 ↗ craft can't hear got un

1:10:26 ↗ mute sorry for not being there in person

1:10:28 ↗ after sitting for 20 minutes without

1:10:30 ↗ moving I figured the best course of

1:10:32 ↗ action was holl at back home so um

1:10:36 ↗ hopefully you all can hear me all right

1:10:38 ↗ the I guess I look at this if and we've

1:10:41 ↗ discussed what's the metric of success

1:10:44 ↗ the metric of success is somewhat binary

1:10:47 ↗ either things will get built or things

1:10:48 ↗ don't get built and in the last 12 years

1:10:52 ↗ there hasn't been AC action and the

1:10:55 ↗ point of this was can you drive action

1:10:58 ↗ and so then the question is if you want

1:11:00 ↗ to get let's say two things built and

1:11:04 ↗ learn from those what does it take to do

1:11:06 ↗ those um I liked the discussion of of

1:11:11 ↗ having some flexibility and maybe you

1:11:13 ↗ have a choice of 10 at 80 or 8 at 60 but

1:11:16 ↗ the goal is to get something built and

1:11:20 ↗ if we make it too

1:11:21 ↗ restrictive then we'll be

1:11:24 ↗ having a conversation a year from now

1:11:26 ↗ and saying no one did anything um so I

1:11:30 ↗ just think that is the discussion of

1:11:32 ↗ what's the metric of success and is it

1:11:34 ↗ really number one to see if we can get a

1:11:38 ↗ couple of these that are 100 units or

1:11:40 ↗ more um getting some traction um

1:11:45 ↗ understanding that yes there needs to be

1:11:47 ↗ infrastructure for some of these for

1:11:49 ↗ that to make sense but those these could

1:11:50 ↗ all happen in parallel so that's all I

1:11:52 ↗ had to say

1:11:55 ↗ thank you commissioner crafts

1:11:56 ↗ commissioner

1:11:59 ↗ timore thank you Megan timore um I had a

1:12:03 ↗ couple thoughts based on the public

1:12:04 ↗ testimony and uh thought that was really

1:12:08 ↗ helpful um I do agree with commission

1:12:12 ↗ crass that we are looking you know the

1:12:14 ↗ ultimate goal is to get something built

1:12:16 ↗ but I also know as an employer in the

1:12:19 ↗ region and uh dealing with this work on

1:12:21 ↗ a daily basis that the opportunity for

1:12:24 ↗ some affordability is in fact a missed

1:12:27 ↗ opportunity and the city that I work in

1:12:30 ↗ I see an unbelievable number of

1:12:32 ↗ apartment units that were built where

1:12:34 ↗ that that opportunity was absolutely

1:12:36 ↗ missed and so I don't want to see isqua

1:12:38 ↗ um go to that in listening to the uh

1:12:42 ↗ testimony specifically about the Red

1:12:44 ↗ Robin uh location what struck me about

1:12:48 ↗ that was one that the um the testifier

1:12:52 ↗ stated that that it is economically the

1:12:55 ↗ same between those two options between

1:12:58 ↗ the 8% uh or the at 60% Ami or the 10%

1:13:02 ↗ at 80% Ami um and that it was a

1:13:06 ↗ difference for financing which is not uh

1:13:08 ↗ which is not something to be ignored but

1:13:10 ↗ the fact that it was economically the

1:13:11 ↗ same really struck me the second is when

1:13:14 ↗ you think about where that as an example

1:13:17 ↗ because they seem to be uh a project

1:13:20 ↗ that is ready to roll somewhat and as an

1:13:24 ↗ example the corporate employees for

1:13:26 ↗ Costco would be in the market rate units

1:13:30 ↗ the warehouse employees would need that

1:13:32 ↗ to be the

1:13:34 ↗ 60% units and when he stated this would

1:13:37 ↗ allow someone at 61% to go into an 80%

1:13:40 ↗ unit I can tell you again as an employer

1:13:42 ↗ that is not viable they cannot afford

1:13:45 ↗ those rents or they become incredibly

1:13:47 ↗ overburdened by their rent and then that

1:13:50 ↗ leads to Great housing instability and a

1:13:52 ↗ lot of a lot of Mobility that we don't

1:13:54 ↗ necessarily want to see

1:13:57 ↗ in so with all that being said um the

1:14:00 ↗ vast majority of the incentive based

1:14:02 ↗ programs in our region are at that 80%

1:14:04 ↗ level which is still a very high rent so

1:14:07 ↗ my personal uh recommendation for this

1:14:10 ↗ as a commissioner is that we go for the

1:14:12 ↗ 8% at 60 um Ami which is the

1:14:15 ↗ recommendation and it's for those

1:14:17 ↗ reasons and one last thing that I want

1:14:18 ↗ to mention is uh several people have

1:14:20 ↗ mentioned traffic tonight and and uh

1:14:24 ↗ being able to have people who fill these

1:14:26 ↗ jobs that are in those areas so again

1:14:27 ↗ using that Red Robin site example you've

1:14:30 ↗ got Michaels there you've got PCC you've

1:14:32 ↗ got several restaurants you have of

1:14:35 ↗ course Costco uh you Lowe's Etc you have

1:14:38 ↗ jobs that would need those 60% Ami and

1:14:40 ↗ those are cars that we're taking off the

1:14:42 ↗ road so that's my that's my reasoning

1:14:45 ↗ also saying that this is still a very

1:14:46 ↗ low number of units that we're talking

1:14:48 ↗ about

1:14:50 ↗ thanks commissioner Sima

1:14:54 ↗ yes commissioner Sima um from plan and

1:14:57 ↗ policy committee uh I'm actually in

1:14:59 ↗ agreement of that 8% 60 um mainly

1:15:04 ↗ because yes the ultimate goal is to um

1:15:07 ↗ bring that development or or Kickstart

1:15:10 ↗ development but the other reality is

1:15:13 ↗ that you also have to have that piece of

1:15:15 ↗ affordable housing as well for some of

1:15:17 ↗ those people who may actually end up

1:15:20 ↗ working in isqua as well who may not be

1:15:22 ↗ able to afford for um housing in other

1:15:25 ↗ areas as well and so I I'm actually for

1:15:28 ↗ that um um possibly um you could factor

1:15:33 ↗ in the the um the higher amount where

1:15:36 ↗ it's 80% of Ami um but I feel going in

1:15:41 ↗ that direction I think contractors or

1:15:44 ↗ developers would choose that possibly

1:15:46 ↗ over over the 60% so it may be better to

1:15:49 ↗ actually focus in on the lower amount

1:15:51 ↗ even even though it's 8% per

1:15:56 ↗ s thank

1:15:59 ↗ you any other

1:16:01 ↗ comments commissioner Milligan Jesse

1:16:05 ↗ you commissioner Nina Milligan planning

1:16:08 ↗ policy commission and uh I have a few

1:16:11 ↗ things to say bear with me I don't have

1:16:14 ↗ all my technology so it might take me a

1:16:15 ↗ minute uh number one uh it's about the

1:16:19 ↗ affordable housing this is um this code

1:16:23 ↗ comes in under the chapter of affordable

1:16:25 ↗ housing and and it

1:16:27 ↗ relaxes our affordable housing objective

1:16:31 ↗ and and for that reason alone I would

1:16:34 ↗ say I would not be in favor of this

1:16:36 ↗ we're uh several people in the room

1:16:39 ↗ people commenting in public and and

1:16:42 ↗ Commissioners are saying it looks like

1:16:43 ↗ we have a choice between this

1:16:45 ↗ Administration recommendation and that

1:16:48 ↗ Administration recommendation but we

1:16:49 ↗ also have the opportunity of keeping

1:16:51 ↗ things the way they are uh the way they

1:16:54 ↗ are have I uh if I understand it

1:16:56 ↗ correctly would yield a higher number of

1:16:58 ↗ affordable housing units which I would

1:17:00 ↗ prefer uh we have a lot of housing units

1:17:04 ↗ in isqua we don't uh the the thing I'd

1:17:08 ↗ like to incentivize is jobs that is that

1:17:10 ↗ in our targets we have a bigger Gap to

1:17:12 ↗ jobs than we have to housing and uh one

1:17:15 ↗ thing that is working in the

1:17:17 ↗ technology um our housing Target growth

1:17:20 ↗ uh in our next Target is in 300

1:17:24 ↗ something and we have 3400 housing units

1:17:28 ↗ already well entitled L side shelter

1:17:32 ↗ Holdings in isqu Highlands uh in

1:17:34 ↗ preliminary review a unit of 450 and

1:17:37 ↗ another in land use review of 35 which

1:17:39 ↗ equals four 3,400 housing units getting

1:17:43 ↗ more housing units is not our problem so

1:17:45 ↗ the problem statement here is we want

1:17:48 ↗ housing units in Central isqua and these

1:17:50 ↗ mixed Ed regions around central isqua

1:17:54 ↗ and for that we have the central isqua

1:17:57 ↗ plan we work very hard to add

1:17:59 ↗ inclusionary zoning that increased the

1:18:02 ↗ um the affordable housing allocation I

1:18:06 ↗ thought that was really important I was

1:18:07 ↗ really excited about that and and a few

1:18:10 ↗ years in to say hey well you know I'd

1:18:12 ↗ rather have some house some affordable

1:18:15 ↗ housing these affordable housing units

1:18:17 ↗ are forever this is this is a great

1:18:19 ↗ investment when the time comes that we

1:18:21 ↗ can build these and we will have them

1:18:23 ↗ and we will have them forever so I think

1:18:26 ↗ the options are the two different um

1:18:29 ↗ proposals that the administration made

1:18:31 ↗ or none of them and if I have an so you

1:18:36 ↗ can tell I am not in favor of the

1:18:38 ↗ proposals from the administration I'd

1:18:40 ↗ like to keep Central supp PL plan the

1:18:43 ↗ way that we have um engineered it mostly

1:18:47 ↗ because I'm interested in the affordable

1:18:49 ↗ housing um uh allocation

1:18:55 ↗ if I am the only person who is not for

1:18:59 ↗ this I really absolutely think that this

1:19:02 ↗ pilot program needs to be moved out of

1:19:04 ↗ the affordable housing chapter because I

1:19:07 ↗ think it's very misleading to leave it

1:19:09 ↗ in there it's a housing

1:19:12 ↗ program thank you thank you commissioner

1:19:16 ↗ P thank you uh it's very exciting it's

1:19:19 ↗ like the most differing opinions I

1:19:21 ↗ think very very exciting stuff I love it

1:19:24 ↗ great discussion um I sharing my

1:19:28 ↗ personal opinion I'm kind of closer to

1:19:30 ↗ the idea of having the two existing

1:19:33 ↗ options so the eight for 60 and the 10

1:19:36 ↗ for 80 um kind of in play and the reason

1:19:40 ↗ why is uh kind of going back to the

1:19:42 ↗ problem statement right is like what

1:19:43 ↗ what's the point of this program what

1:19:44 ↗ are we trying to do and I think we've

1:19:46 ↗ heard from ch ch rley and the public uh

1:19:49 ↗ comments have come up it's this is not

1:19:51 ↗ an affordable housing initiative this is

1:19:52 ↗ a shortterm two project limit powder

1:19:57 ↗ spark to try and initiate development in

1:20:00 ↗ the area where we want it to start

1:20:02 ↗ happening that it hasn't been happening

1:20:04 ↗ in so when I think about that you know

1:20:06 ↗ we're trying to we we have the

1:20:08 ↗ opportunity to build in affordable

1:20:10 ↗ housing uh to it um and and to the

1:20:14 ↗ public comment earlier about it being a

1:20:16 ↗ long-term plan um that's where the bulk

1:20:19 ↗ of the affordable housing will come with

1:20:22 ↗ the existing Central sad plan right

1:20:24 ↗ we're kind of like it's kind of like

1:20:25 ↗ making a few I guess sacrifices up front

1:20:28 ↗ for the long-term gain of what we set it

1:20:31 ↗ up to do but what we set up isn't

1:20:33 ↗ happening and so the way I keep thinking

1:20:35 ↗ about it and I think chair rley had made

1:20:38 ↗ a comment earlier about as like the

1:20:40 ↗ priority is spurning development um and

1:20:43 ↗ so how do we do that and and

1:20:46 ↗ commissioner craft the whole like

1:20:47 ↗ measuring success of like if we're at

1:20:49 ↗ the same point in two you know one to

1:20:51 ↗ five years you know it's all for not so

1:20:54 ↗ what can we do to spurn the development

1:20:57 ↗ and I think the options put out there uh

1:21:00 ↗ both of them that the 8% at 60 and the

1:21:03 ↗ 10% at 80 um I think they should both be

1:21:06 ↗ in play and the reason I I I I support

1:21:08 ↗ both is because of the public comments

1:21:10 ↗ we've received particularly from

1:21:11 ↗ developers who are our target audience

1:21:14 ↗ with this I think are in support of the

1:21:16 ↗ the 10 10 of 80 um and so I you know to

1:21:21 ↗ commissioner cft's point I would hate to

1:21:22 ↗ miss the mark by going with one and not

1:21:26 ↗ you know getting our target audience to

1:21:28 ↗ to partake in uh their favored option uh

1:21:32 ↗ that we know is at least to at one point

1:21:34 ↗ was in play um so with that I'm I'm in

1:21:38 ↗ support of of either of the two options

1:21:40 ↗ that were put forth with the Pioneer

1:21:42 ↗ program uh and I will pause there great

1:21:45 ↗ thank you commissioner

1:21:47 ↗ patters don't know who went first but

1:21:50 ↗ since Vice chair Bader hasn't gone go

1:21:54 ↗ I wasn't first so I don't know if um you

1:21:58 ↗ want know how much order matters here

1:22:02 ↗ um but um okay I'll I'll I'll go um I

1:22:07 ↗ like commissioner Patterson just took a

1:22:09 ↗ lot of the words right out of my mouth I

1:22:11 ↗ feel very similar to him and I'm say

1:22:13 ↗ that like as someone who's very like Pro

1:22:16 ↗ affordable housing and wants to find

1:22:18 ↗ opportunities for affordable housing I

1:22:19 ↗ think like the theory behind this um

1:22:22 ↗ resonates with me and that you know if

1:22:24 ↗ we can get a couple of like Kickstart

1:22:27 ↗ developments it should spur right in

1:22:30 ↗ theory more um which will give us more

1:22:33 ↗ of our Baseline which right now is

1:22:35 ↗ nothing um and so it feels like to give

1:22:38 ↗ a little bit like I don't remember

1:22:40 ↗ exactly what the percentages are but

1:22:42 ↗ like 4% or whatever it is um in terms of

1:22:44 ↗ the the number of affordable units um

1:22:47 ↗ compared to like what the normal is now

1:22:49 ↗ to in theory right get more development

1:22:53 ↗ and by proxy more affordable units in

1:22:55 ↗ the future it feels like the tradeoff

1:22:57 ↗ there makes sense um again given that

1:23:00 ↗ history shows and it it could be history

1:23:02 ↗ it could be the market who knows like

1:23:04 ↗ what the the fact I have no economic

1:23:06 ↗ expertise to you know theorize and why

1:23:09 ↗ that is but

1:23:11 ↗ um I think it makes sense as a plan um I

1:23:16 ↗ was kind of swaying on like being both

1:23:19 ↗ and then commissioner altimore I'm

1:23:20 ↗ clearly I'm easily swayed um tonight

1:23:23 ↗ kind of con convinced me on the going

1:23:26 ↗ with the um

1:23:28 ↗ 60% um Ami for % of units um and and

1:23:33 ↗ somewhat similar to staff's perspective

1:23:35 ↗ right of that like this is like a

1:23:38 ↗ program where developers are getting

1:23:40 ↗ benefits and so let's like tighten up

1:23:43 ↗ right a little bit um and hopefully they

1:23:45 ↗ you know the benefits outweigh the um I

1:23:49 ↗ don't know if there's cons um of like

1:23:52 ↗ dropping to that uh

1:23:54 ↗ 68 um number that's kind of where I'm

1:23:57 ↗ landing of like moving ahead with this

1:24:00 ↗ because of the theory behind it at the

1:24:03 ↗ option that staff has

1:24:07 ↗ presented thank you Vice chair Vader

1:24:09 ↗ commissioner

1:24:13 ↗ CR you're

1:24:17 ↗ muted double click there we go um so I'm

1:24:20 ↗ going to I'm going to first of all

1:24:22 ↗ I'll start I'll start with my position

1:24:24 ↗ and then I'll say something more

1:24:26 ↗ controversial so my position is once

1:24:30 ↗ again what do we do to get something

1:24:32 ↗ built and giving the developers the

1:24:34 ↗ choice that we mentioned I think is good

1:24:36 ↗ financing is something that I'm not an

1:24:39 ↗ expert on but if things don't get

1:24:41 ↗ financed they don't get built so we have

1:24:43 ↗ to at least you know have the different

1:24:45 ↗ tools that allow things get built and

1:24:47 ↗ once again this is a binary thing for

1:24:49 ↗ just a couple to Spur some development

1:24:51 ↗ in an area

1:24:53 ↗ uh I'm going to respond to um

1:24:55 ↗ commissioner Milligan I'm like with like

1:24:58 ↗ the ying and the Yang on this thing um

1:25:00 ↗ so I'm going to go the other way and say

1:25:02 ↗ if if we want to put something on the

1:25:04 ↗ table of keep it the way it is which

1:25:07 ↗ hasn't hasn't done anything the other

1:25:10 ↗ end of the spectrum is don't have any

1:25:12 ↗ affordable housing have a program where

1:25:14 ↗ you give the tax incentive and see if

1:25:17 ↗ that Spurs something much quicker I'm

1:25:20 ↗ not saying we should do that but if if

1:25:21 ↗ we're going to have all these things on

1:25:23 ↗ the table would that drive development

1:25:26 ↗ in the next two years much faster than

1:25:28 ↗ anything else and then you close that

1:25:29 ↗ door because really we're talking about

1:25:31 ↗ a handful of of units anyway so it

1:25:33 ↗ doesn't in the scheme of things change

1:25:35 ↗ the makeup I'm not saying we should do

1:25:37 ↗ that but once again um if the do nothing

1:25:40 ↗ is part of the equation we should also

1:25:42 ↗ look at the other end of the

1:25:46 ↗ spectrum commissioner

1:25:50 ↗ grass well I have't more comments

1:25:55 ↗ okay um chair voice so the way I feel

1:25:58 ↗ about it is is first and formost is the

1:26:02 ↗ problem I see with having options is we

1:26:04 ↗ know exactly which options the

1:26:06 ↗ developers will use it's it really

1:26:08 ↗ wouldn't be an option it be turned into

1:26:11 ↗ uh the 80% Ami and 80% of the

1:26:15 ↗ units that is what I would

1:26:18 ↗ prefer I also would have preferred more

1:26:21 ↗ projects myself to Spur that

1:26:24 ↗ growth however um what I see is I see

1:26:28 ↗ the Fingerprints of the EVC the PPC as

1:26:31 ↗ well as the city council on this

1:26:33 ↗ document and what makes me really proud

1:26:35 ↗ is this is the way local government is

1:26:36 ↗ supposed to work um I didn't get

1:26:39 ↗ everything I wanted but I really

1:26:41 ↗ appreciate the fact that the mft was

1:26:43 ↗ included because without it I don't

1:26:45 ↗ think we would even have anything

1:26:47 ↗ viable and I know that was one of the

1:26:50 ↗ biggest com concerns with the public um

1:26:54 ↗ I know the council also hears that they

1:26:56 ↗ need more affordable housing that is

1:26:57 ↗ also something they get pressure from

1:26:59 ↗ the public and ultimately we are

1:27:03 ↗ appointments they are going to have to

1:27:04 ↗ face uh the residents of the city for

1:27:07 ↗ their vote so I I see their fingerprints

1:27:11 ↗ on it I see our fingerprints on it

1:27:13 ↗ because again I think they they

1:27:15 ↗ definitely listen to us and I know some

1:27:16 ↗ some Commissioners have come to me in

1:27:18 ↗ the past and they're a little skeptical

1:27:19 ↗ whether or not city council listens to

1:27:21 ↗ us I think this is proof that they do

1:27:23 ↗ and I think they put their land use

1:27:25 ↗ board with their EC economic Vitality

1:27:27 ↗ board I believe they truly listen but

1:27:29 ↗ they also have to listen to their

1:27:30 ↗ constituents which does want more

1:27:32 ↗ affordable housing even though I do

1:27:35 ↗ think this was always supposed to be

1:27:37 ↗ primarily a building and development

1:27:39 ↗ plan which again I would have preferred

1:27:41 ↗ to see the 80% at

1:27:43 ↗ 8 but again that's kind of the given and

1:27:46 ↗ take with local government I don't see

1:27:48 ↗ how the the option splitting them up

1:27:50 ↗ would really be helpful because I think

1:27:52 ↗ we all know again that developers would

1:27:53 ↗ go that route so I'm

1:27:56 ↗ comfortable with the 60% Ami in

1:28:01 ↗ 10% and the only other thing I would say

1:28:03 ↗ is is so much of what we do is in theory

1:28:05 ↗ right I mean we're using we're trying to

1:28:07 ↗ make educated guesses doing historical

1:28:09 ↗ data we're looking not only at our

1:28:12 ↗ community but comparative communities um

1:28:14 ↗ but we're really kind of taking a shot

1:28:15 ↗ out the dark especially with something

1:28:17 ↗ that is quite uh happily named the

1:28:20 ↗ Pioneer program

1:28:22 ↗ we can always come back in a year and

1:28:24 ↗ see if this has spurred development now

1:28:26 ↗ where I guess I would kind of take issue

1:28:29 ↗ with commissioner Milligan is yes we

1:28:31 ↗ have had done a tremendous job building

1:28:33 ↗ out isn't block but we have completely

1:28:35 ↗ failed in the urban core and that is the

1:28:38 ↗ whole point of this Pioneer program so

1:28:41 ↗ I'm comfortable with it I'm actually

1:28:42 ↗ quite proud of the council I'm quite

1:28:44 ↗ proud of uh the evbc and the PPC again I

1:28:47 ↗ see all of our fingerprints all over

1:28:49 ↗ this again is it exactly how I would

1:28:52 ↗ would have written it as Jason voice no

1:28:54 ↗ but again I can see enough of art

1:28:56 ↗ influence on it that I'm comfortable

1:28:58 ↗ with it and again I would have liked to

1:29:00 ↗ seen a couple more projects but two will

1:29:03 ↗ still work and we'll see what happens

1:29:05 ↗ with it and again we can always go in

1:29:06 ↗ the future and and again if we don't see

1:29:09 ↗ anything in a year and a half um we can

1:29:11 ↗ make adjustments I mean that's the

1:29:12 ↗ wonderful thing about all of this is we

1:29:14 ↗ can always come back and put it on the

1:29:16 ↗ dock as far as just uh some other

1:29:19 ↗ comments just real quickly I do agree

1:29:21 ↗ with previous comments as far as

1:29:23 ↗ tightening up some language um

1:29:25 ↗ definitely like I said when you read it

1:29:27 ↗ unless you've been involved in these

1:29:28 ↗ conversations it's a little difficult

1:29:30 ↗ and then to commissioner Milligan's

1:29:32 ↗ point I I mean this is better question

1:29:34 ↗ for staff I don't know if it properly

1:29:37 ↗ belongs in affordable housing I guess if

1:29:39 ↗ that is the case it is a little bit

1:29:41 ↗ misleading because it was always

1:29:42 ↗ supposed to be about develop so I don't

1:29:45 ↗ know if it could be an ad hoc part of

1:29:47 ↗ the code versus I I don't again that's

1:29:50 ↗ something you guys work out in your shop

1:29:52 ↗ know how you do the mechanics but that

1:29:54 ↗ that does seem a little off to me

1:29:55 ↗ because that was never the point and

1:29:57 ↗ that's why again that's why I'm for it

1:29:58 ↗ is because I'd like to see some

1:30:00 ↗ development happen in that particular

1:30:02 ↗ part

1:30:04 ↗ day do you want a response to that sure

1:30:07 ↗ go um so we looked at putting it in

1:30:10 ↗ other parts of our code you know we have

1:30:11 ↗ the overlay section that has

1:30:13 ↗ centralistic qu but that's all about

1:30:15 ↗ design it's not about the actual

1:30:16 ↗ development itself it's about what it

1:30:18 ↗ looks like um we looked sort of at our

1:30:22 ↗ you know regulations but when we look at

1:30:24 ↗ every single other code that is had a

1:30:26 ↗ Pioneer project it's in the affordable

1:30:28 ↗ housing

1:30:33 ↗ section well it it we couldn't figure

1:30:35 ↗ out where else to put it though it

1:30:37 ↗ didn't make sense I mean it applies to

1:30:40 ↗ centralistic we could put it it's a

1:30:42 ↗ revision to the affordable housing

1:30:44 ↗ requirement it is it's yeah it's true

1:30:46 ↗ it's a revision of the affordable

1:30:47 ↗ housing requirement which is what the

1:30:48 ↗ Pioneer program is is it's a revision to

1:30:50 ↗ the affordable housing

1:30:52 ↗ and not anything else I guess that that

1:30:54 ↗ kind of helps Mr Milligan's you know

1:30:56 ↗ concern is that you know going to lose

1:30:58 ↗ out on this versus like you said once

1:31:00 ↗ this once these two projects are up it

1:31:02 ↗ does go back to what is already

1:31:04 ↗ previous I I guess it makes sense I

1:31:06 ↗ don't know if there's any way to clean

1:31:07 ↗ that up and this why you know

1:31:10 ↗ like again you guys you guys can figure

1:31:13 ↗ all this stuff out in your wonderful

1:31:14 ↗ shop but I I can see why there's a

1:31:16 ↗ little bit like like commissioner M said

1:31:19 ↗ a littleit

1:31:20 ↗ swee I mean we we can look at it again

1:31:23 ↗ but you know Mike had a really good

1:31:24 ↗ point in it that's all the revisions

1:31:26 ↗ we're making have to do with what we

1:31:28 ↗ having

1:31:30 ↗ so

1:31:34 ↗ the any further comment commissioner

1:31:36 ↗ Milligan thank you I love this

1:31:39 ↗ conversation and and I love having evbc

1:31:42 ↗ in here this is this is really robust

1:31:44 ↗ and I think we're sending a good record

1:31:46 ↗ to the city council about how

1:31:48 ↗ complicated this is and that there are

1:31:50 ↗ many different points of view M and uh I

1:31:52 ↗ wanted to follow up on a couple I loved

1:31:55 ↗ commissioner crft being bold I don't

1:31:57 ↗ know if that's any better of of an

1:31:59 ↗ opportunity but it it is you know there

1:32:02 ↗ are so many ways of uh slicing this I

1:32:05 ↗ thought that was very interesting I want

1:32:07 ↗ to follow up on commissioner Bader's uh

1:32:09 ↗ comment about the difference is only 4%

1:32:12 ↗ but when you're down between 8 and 12

1:32:15 ↗ you could either say you're getting 50%

1:32:18 ↗ more affordable unit count when you go

1:32:20 ↗ between the number of 8% of 100 units to

1:32:24 ↗ 12% of 100 units it's not a 4%

1:32:28 ↗ difference it's much more significant

1:32:30 ↗ difference I think if I did the math our

1:32:38 ↗ viewers I'm trying and I and I want to

1:32:41 ↗ um really thank you for coming in and

1:32:43 ↗ all the analysis that you've done on

1:32:45 ↗ this really want that project at Red

1:32:48 ↗ Robin the um the way that I've been

1:32:52 ↗ thinking about the incentives is that

1:32:55 ↗ this is a damn hard time to build

1:32:57 ↗ anything and and we're saying gosh we

1:32:59 ↗ got to build something now is so we're

1:33:01 ↗ trying to fit into one of the most

1:33:03 ↗ difficult Financial development markets

1:33:06 ↗ in a long time and

1:33:09 ↗ so why now and why that and why

1:33:12 ↗ sacrifice affortable hous units so let

1:33:15 ↗ me and I'm closed by saying I intend not

1:33:18 ↗ to vote Yes on the motion however I

1:33:22 ↗ don't want to signal that I'm absolutely

1:33:24 ↗ against this program I also want to say

1:33:26 ↗ I don't think this is going to kill us

1:33:28 ↗ to do this there are some things that I

1:33:30 ↗ you know I could have voted no for

1:33:32 ↗ because I thought they were damaging to

1:33:35 ↗ the city I think this is just

1:33:38 ↗ Mis so that's the nature of my objection

1:33:43 ↗ thank thank you

1:33:46 ↗ commission any other comments

1:33:50 ↗ commissioners

1:33:56 ↗ [Music]

1:33:57 ↗ right need a little hand

1:34:00 ↗ holding so now that we have a motion on

1:34:02 ↗ the floor now again I if there are no

1:34:06 ↗ more comments you can take a vote well

1:34:07 ↗ so how does staff do that how does staff

1:34:09 ↗ kind of take comments made between

1:34:11 ↗ between us as far as tightening language

1:34:13 ↗ I you guys fall down on that okay so the

1:34:16 ↗ only suggestion I heard the only two had

1:34:19 ↗ to do with one possibly moving it and

1:34:21 ↗ read looking at it um two was some

1:34:24 ↗ tightening it up I've been sitting here

1:34:25 ↗ just you know listening and trying to

1:34:28 ↗ come up with some ways to tighten it up

1:34:29 ↗ if you want to see that or you can trust

1:34:32 ↗ us would we have to make a

1:34:35 ↗ motion right so commissioner Milligan

1:34:38 ↗ wanted

1:34:39 ↗ to off to it or change it she'd have to

1:34:42 ↗ actually make that motion cor right if

1:34:44 ↗ you wanted to do that you'd have to make

1:34:46 ↗ a motion someone else would have to

1:34:47 ↗ second it then you deliberate on that

1:34:49 ↗ and then you vote on the amended motion

1:34:51 ↗ question would I have to do that if you

1:34:53 ↗ s a solution to the location does it

1:34:56 ↗ have to be an em motion for you to

1:34:58 ↗ pursue other options on the document

1:35:01 ↗ management side I'm gonna have to check

1:35:03 ↗ with our clerk but I think if the

1:35:05 ↗ language stayed the same and we just I

1:35:08 ↗ I'm gonna have to

1:35:10 ↗ check okay okay okay yeah yeah I trust

1:35:15 ↗ you okay well as everyone knows as

1:35:19 ↗ commissioner uh Vice chair Bader began

1:35:21 ↗ it that is what we have You' just heard

1:35:23 ↗ Kristen kind of reiterated she is

1:35:24 ↗ tightening up the languages we speak but

1:35:26 ↗ ultimately what Vice chair Vader put on

1:35:29 ↗ the floor is what we are going to um

1:35:32 ↗ vote

1:35:34 ↗ on I'm sorry no you've already made the

1:35:36 ↗ motion so can you read the motion out

1:35:38 ↗ loud again to see if there need to be

1:35:40 ↗ any amendments because after this

1:35:42 ↗ discussion there may have been

1:35:45 ↗ people

1:35:50 ↗ sorry gave me the dra so I need to read

1:35:53 ↗ out the motion again correct yes please

1:35:58 ↗ okay hang on if you'll hang on I will

1:36:00 ↗ type it into the chat at the same time

1:36:03 ↗ that help okay so the motion on the

1:36:05 ↗ floor is to recommend approval of the

1:36:08 ↗ proposed amendments to IMC

1:36:13 ↗ 18514 affordable housing adding section

1:36:18 ↗ 18514 comma

1:36:20 ↗ 055 to establish the central as a block

1:36:23 ↗ Pioneer

1:36:28 ↗ program you don't need a second

1:36:31 ↗ right or you can see if there were and

1:36:35 ↗ because um because we have some people

1:36:38 ↗ on that are virtual tonight you need to

1:36:39 ↗ take a roll call and ask it

1:36:41 ↗ individually in instead just got okay so

1:36:44 ↗ you just heard Christen we are actually

1:36:46 ↗ going to do a roll call so I will let

1:36:47 ↗ Kristen call out the commissioner names

1:36:49 ↗ and you can V uh y or n okay and I do

1:36:54 ↗ need to note that commissioner carass

1:36:55 ↗ will be a voting member tonight since he

1:36:57 ↗ is filling in the other regular position

1:37:00 ↗ so I will start with h commissioner

1:37:05 ↗ Milligan uh commissioner Patterson

1:37:09 ↗ n commissioner

1:37:14 ↗ es

1:37:16 ↗ yes Mr

1:37:18 ↗ Bader yay

1:37:23 ↗ commissioner altore

1:37:26 ↗ yay commissioner crft

1:37:29 ↗ yay and uh chair voice y right so the

1:37:35 ↗ motion

1:37:37 ↗ passes put my notes I'm supposed to read

1:37:41 ↗ out pass with five Ys and two Nays

1:37:43 ↗ correct yes thank you thank you Stephen

1:37:47 ↗ wherever you

1:37:49 ↗ are keep his germs there yeah yes um I

1:37:56 ↗ believe that's it I

1:37:57 ↗ believe believe we are done as far as uh

1:38:01 ↗ our public hearing this evening our

1:38:04 ↗ business we forgot to do that but then

1:38:06 ↗ okay did you okay okay was a public

1:38:09 ↗ comment that's right okay sorry so we're

1:38:12 ↗ good yeah now we're going to move on to

1:38:15 ↗ our next item of business and again

1:38:17 ↗ everyone's welcome to stay um this

1:38:38 ↗ just saying some goodbye thank you

1:38:45 ↗ jenate one second I'm gonna move over

1:38:48 ↗ can

1:38:50 ↗ see

1:38:54 ↗ I'm so glad I didn't po that into the

1:38:56 ↗ chat because you should see what's up

1:38:58 ↗ here appal of the proposed amendments to

1:39:02 ↗ Affordable 18

1:39:05 ↗ for it was

1:39:07 ↗ ugly okay you guys know how to close

1:39:10 ↗ this up right yes

1:39:13 ↗ okay okay um so under regular business

1:39:17 ↗ Commissioners tonight we have one item

1:39:19 ↗ on the regular business and it's a

1:39:20 ↗ review of the proposed 2024 docket

1:39:24 ↗ comprehensive plan and tonight I believe

1:39:26 ↗ Valerie

1:39:28 ↗ isec so Valerie is gonna be presenting

1:39:30 ↗ this evening um so please hello my name

1:39:34 ↗ is Valerie Porter associate planner I'm

1:39:36 ↗ standing in first Stephen he's feeling a

1:39:39 ↗ little under the weather so I'm here to

1:39:41 ↗ talk to you guys about the 2024 docket

1:39:43 ↗ of the proposed comprehensive plan

1:39:45 ↗ Amendment so the purpose of today's

1:39:47 ↗ meeting so we're briefly just going to

1:39:49 ↗ discuss the document process and and

1:39:51 ↗ then we're also going to review the

1:39:52 ↗ items that are on the 2024 docket and um

1:39:55 ↗ one thing I'd like to make clear is that

1:39:57 ↗ should the docket be approved you guys

1:40:00 ↗ are not app or the docet will not the

1:40:02 ↗ approval will not approve the items like

1:40:06 ↗ so there's a reone on the docket you're

1:40:08 ↗ not giving approval for the reson you're

1:40:09 ↗ just giving approval to allow staff

1:40:12 ↗ to uh work on the reson so I just want

1:40:16 ↗ to research it research it we'll come

1:40:19 ↗ back with another presentation

1:40:21 ↗ all right so for consideration um things

1:40:24 ↗ to consider are there any amendments

1:40:26 ↗ presented on the docket that are not

1:40:28 ↗ relevant or

1:40:31 ↗ necessary are there any refinements that

1:40:34 ↗ need to be made to the Amendments

1:40:38 ↗ presented so just to give you guys a

1:40:40 ↗ little bit of background um the reason

1:40:42 ↗ why we're doing the docket is because

1:40:44 ↗ it's a state requirement the state

1:40:46 ↗ requires that we have a docket and that

1:40:48 ↗ we have a process in place um for

1:40:50 ↗ reviewing these things um the docket

1:40:53 ↗ typic the state requires that the docket

1:40:55 ↗ is reviewed every 10 years but we can

1:40:57 ↗ review um dockets annually so um last

1:41:01 ↗ year or this year last year happy New

1:41:04 ↗ Year um the city approved um a land use

1:41:08 ↗ a Title 18 where we did some updates and

1:41:11 ↗ part of that update we actually um added

1:41:14 ↗ uh the docket process to the code and

1:41:16 ↗ made it a little bit more clear we

1:41:18 ↗ talked about you know um when uh a

1:41:21 ↗ docket needs to occur who needs to

1:41:22 ↗ review it and then we also really made

1:41:24 ↗ sure that the um criteria for what needs

1:41:27 ↗ to be on the docket was a little bit

1:41:29 ↗ more

1:41:30 ↗ clear so the docket must be reviewed

1:41:33 ↗ prior to starting an amendment process

1:41:34 ↗ so although we've started we brought

1:41:37 ↗ some elements to you guys kind of just

1:41:40 ↗ informally the doet must be approved

1:41:42 ↗ prior to Mak an official s to the

1:41:44 ↗ planning policy commission and then

1:41:46 ↗ reviewing the doc we also need to make

1:41:47 ↗ sure that it's reviewed holistically so

1:41:50 ↗ that it doesn't um impacting other

1:41:52 ↗ elements or

1:41:54 ↗ areas so here I have a snippet of the uh

1:41:57 ↗ table for the docket it's it's over two

1:42:00 ↗ tables so it's not all here on this one

1:42:02 ↗ slide but I just want to briefly go over

1:42:04 ↗ some of the um items that we're going to

1:42:06 ↗ um update one is the population updates

1:42:09 ↗ um we're going to update the um

1:42:11 ↗ population numbers which we get from the

1:42:13 ↗ state of um Office of Financial

1:42:15 ↗ Management um we're also proposing to

1:42:18 ↗ make updates to the designation map and

1:42:21 ↗ so we're going to we're proposing two um

1:42:23 ↗ changes the first one is for the rezone

1:42:26 ↗ of um City Hall Northwest which I'm

1:42:28 ↗ going to get into a little bit later and

1:42:30 ↗ then there's a change in your guys's

1:42:32 ↗ packet which is um a a new proposal

1:42:35 ↗ which is to remove Community facilities

1:42:38 ↗ and Community facilities privately owned

1:42:40 ↗ designation from the land use

1:42:42 ↗ designation map um and basically allow

1:42:45 ↗ for Community facility or parel Zone

1:42:48 ↗ Community facilities to use the the

1:42:50 ↗ zoning um that is um adjacent and

1:42:55 ↗ comparable but

1:42:57 ↗ but that one is being removed from our

1:43:00 ↗ list so we proposed it and

1:43:04 ↗ then we proposed it and we're disregard

1:43:07 ↗ we're taking it

1:43:09 ↗ off realized how much work that that

1:43:12 ↗ item number two is it is no longer

1:43:15 ↗ bottom this one right here the bottom

1:43:17 ↗ part yes the top the top one is on there

1:43:20 ↗ the figure one the land designation Map

1:43:22 ↗ update is on there but the bottom one

1:43:24 ↗ the community facility section is not we

1:43:26 ↗ realize how much work that will

1:43:28 ↗ involveed and we're already doing the

1:43:29 ↗ whole comp plan so we're GNA

1:43:32 ↗ postpone thank you for that

1:43:34 ↗ clarification okay um the um other items

1:43:38 ↗ on the docket are um basically updates

1:43:40 ↗ to all of the elements um there are a

1:43:44 ↗ ton of State um requirements and so a

1:43:46 ↗ lot of or some of the elements are

1:43:48 ↗ getting major overhauls so it's a little

1:43:50 ↗ bit hard to really um go through every

1:43:53 ↗ change that's

1:43:56 ↗ happening all right so here is a map of

1:43:59 ↗ the U proposed rezone which again is a

1:44:02 ↗ city hall Northwest um and so you can

1:44:04 ↗ see right now it's zoned um Community

1:44:08 ↗ facilities um and then tell us what

1:44:11 ↗ we're looking at here this is very oh

1:44:13 ↗ yes sorry so this is um uh this is the

1:44:18 ↗ freeway so just down the street right

1:44:22 ↗ here is City Hall Northwest this is the

1:44:25 ↗ I don't know what the hotel is hotel but

1:44:28 ↗ um hotel and then right over here is um

1:44:32 ↗ P PCC and the commercial area and so as

1:44:36 ↗ you can see right now it's its own

1:44:38 ↗ Community facility because it's owned by

1:44:40 ↗ this the land designation is community

1:44:42 ↗ facility yes yes and so it's owned by

1:44:46 ↗ the um city but they're proposing to do

1:44:48 ↗ a rezone so that uh to mix use which is

1:44:51 ↗ basically comforable the surrounding

1:44:53 ↗ Parcels I'm going to clarify again um

1:44:56 ↗ the land use designation the request is

1:44:58 ↗ by them to change the land use

1:45:00 ↗ designation from Community facilities to

1:45:01 ↗ mixed use and the zoning from Community

1:45:04 ↗ facilities facilities to Urban

1:45:06 ↗ core um we just are showing the Comm the

1:45:10 ↗ uh land use designation on here because

1:45:12 ↗ this is the only part that pertains to

1:45:14 ↗ the

1:45:16 ↗ co and where's that request from soor

1:45:19 ↗ the city okay you guys are

1:45:22 ↗ asking

1:45:25 ↗ C all right so this right here just

1:45:28 ↗ outlines the docket process so the next

1:45:30 ↗ um PBC meeting will be the public

1:45:32 ↗ hearing for the docket and there that's

1:45:35 ↗ where we'll be asking for a

1:45:36 ↗ recommendation to the city council and

1:45:38 ↗ then on March 18th city council will um

1:45:41 ↗ review the docket and then render a

1:45:45 ↗ decision and this right here talks about

1:45:48 ↗ um the comprehensive plan uh so we're

1:45:51 ↗ still working through um the element

1:45:53 ↗ getting all of the um information

1:45:56 ↗ together we plan to have actual drafts

1:45:59 ↗ of the um of each element um quarter one

1:46:02 ↗ quarter two and then we'll have a final

1:46:05 ↗ um review of the comprehensive plan by

1:46:09 ↗ um quarter two and then hopefully

1:46:11 ↗ adoption by no later than quarter

1:46:15 ↗ three so again just considerations are

1:46:19 ↗ amendments presented on the docket that

1:46:22 ↗ are not relevant or necessary and are

1:46:24 ↗ there any refinements that need to be

1:46:26 ↗ made to the Amendments

1:46:28 ↗ presented so again um should uh the

1:46:32 ↗ docket be approved this is just a

1:46:34 ↗ recommendation regarding the list of

1:46:36 ↗ amendments to be processed um it's not a

1:46:39 ↗ recommendation regarding the Amendments

1:46:43 ↗ themselves and when you get to the uh

1:46:46 ↗ recommendation you can approve the

1:46:48 ↗ docket you can move move uh one or more

1:46:52 ↗ items to the following year you can add

1:46:55 ↗ one or more item to the docket or you

1:46:58 ↗ cannot approve the um docket and then we

1:47:00 ↗ would just not processes we do not

1:47:03 ↗ process the

1:47:04 ↗ request and that would be that would be

1:47:06 ↗ our next meeting correct Val correct so

1:47:08 ↗ really all we're doing is is giving you

1:47:10 ↗ guys feedback on the doc um

1:47:12 ↗ Commissioners so again we're not

1:47:14 ↗ debating the merits what's on the docket

1:47:16 ↗ unless you want to add something or

1:47:19 ↗ refine something but tonight we're not

1:47:21 ↗ actually debating the docking

1:47:23 ↗ right questions

1:47:26 ↗ yes please

1:47:34 ↗ questions thank you Val thank sorry

1:47:37 ↗ ladies that you have to tell me this

1:47:39 ↗ again but um and we did change our um

1:47:44 ↗ regulations or our policies about how we

1:47:45 ↗ have a spot zoning and this is changing

1:47:48 ↗ the land use this land right the it

1:47:52 ↗ would be because because the zone change

1:47:56 ↗ request remember I I talked about the

1:47:58 ↗ landu designations or umbrellas and they

1:48:00 ↗ have different zones underne e each of

1:48:02 ↗ them so currently the community

1:48:04 ↗ facilities facility Zone lies under the

1:48:07 ↗ Community facilities land use

1:48:08 ↗ designation they are asking to be an

1:48:10 ↗ urban core Zone which lies under the

1:48:13 ↗ mixed use land use designation so that's

1:48:16 ↗ why there has to be a comprehensive plan

1:48:17 ↗ amendment to go with

1:48:19 ↗ this so either way it's still not

1:48:24 ↗ changing the zones the second part of

1:48:27 ↗ the

1:48:28 ↗ docket that you've of that docket item

1:48:31 ↗ that is now removed seemed to be the

1:48:34 ↗ part that would have made that a more

1:48:38 ↗ legal

1:48:39 ↗ request right now when you just request

1:48:43 ↗ for the change of one parcel aren't you

1:48:48 ↗ um spot zoning

1:48:50 ↗ no and and why not so spot zones have to

1:48:54 ↗ do with a spot Zone would be changing

1:48:57 ↗ that to single family Suburban um with

1:49:01 ↗ nothing no other single family Suburban

1:49:03 ↗ around it it is not it is not um it's

1:49:06 ↗ not similar to any of the adjacent

1:49:08 ↗ zoning so we had a property owner up in

1:49:12 ↗ isqua one time who was com surrounded

1:49:15 ↗ completely by single family estates and

1:49:18 ↗ wanted to rezone the one property to

1:49:20 ↗ mixed use that would have been a spot

1:49:24 ↗ Zone but this one what they want to do

1:49:27 ↗ is Zone the property to what all the

1:49:30 ↗ contiguous properties are Zone it's the

1:49:32 ↗ same thing so it's not a spot Zone this

1:49:34 ↗ is just a um this is called a quasi

1:49:37 ↗ judicial Zone when it is site specific

1:49:40 ↗ as opposed to legislative which would be

1:49:43 ↗ many Parcels all at one time can I

1:49:45 ↗ follow up yeah so I thought we weren't

1:49:47 ↗ going to be doing this anymore that's

1:49:49 ↗ we're doing it but it doesn't come to

1:49:51 ↗ you it goes to the hearing examiner we

1:49:53 ↗ have to approve the do doet and then we

1:49:56 ↗ don't go through the decision and that's

1:49:57 ↗ and that's why we kind of left the

1:49:59 ↗ rezone off of here because you're not

1:50:01 ↗ looking at the rezone you're only

1:50:02 ↗ looking at the comprehensive plan the

1:50:04 ↗ rezone will go to the hearing examiner

1:50:06 ↗ who will make a

1:50:07 ↗ recommendation but this still has to be

1:50:10 ↗ approved in order to make the whole

1:50:11 ↗ rezone

1:50:14 ↗ complete yeah you are you are yeah okay

1:50:18 ↗ so across the street ises the State Park

1:50:20 ↗ and it is a community facilities

1:50:22 ↗ facilities and it's adjacent to mixed

1:50:24 ↗ use just with a just like this one is

1:50:27 ↗ across the street from the mixed use so

1:50:31 ↗ what would if that were the argument the

1:50:35 ↗ state park because it's across the

1:50:36 ↗ street mixed use could change its own no

1:50:39 ↗ well mixed use so it's publicly owned

1:50:43 ↗ which is why it's Community facilities

1:50:45 ↗ facilities that's the way that the city

1:50:46 ↗ has always recognized its public

1:50:47 ↗ properties is through Community

1:50:49 ↗ facilities fac facilities um I want to

1:50:52 ↗ say that they actually have something on

1:50:54 ↗ their property that says that they can't

1:50:56 ↗ change it um I'm not 100% sure but um

1:51:01 ↗ you know we changed the Zoning for this

1:51:03 ↗ area has always been professional

1:51:05 ↗ officer retail for as long as I can

1:51:07 ↗ remember and it was that before we

1:51:09 ↗ annexed the state park so the state park

1:51:11 ↗ was a park before it was annexed we had

1:51:15 ↗ to Zone

1:51:16 ↗ it we it we did have to Zone it but it

1:51:19 ↗ was already Parkland so we do what is

1:51:22 ↗ most comparable which was um last I just

1:51:25 ↗ want to button this up before anybody

1:51:27 ↗ get surrounding press I don't think it's

1:51:29 ↗ a bad

1:51:33 ↗ idea do it the right way we spend so

1:51:36 ↗ much time talking about um how you can't

1:51:39 ↗ do so many of these really um tight

1:51:43 ↗ things and I um I don't think I'm the

1:51:45 ↗ legal Watchdog a legal counsel should be

1:51:48 ↗ telling us what to do but it just didn't

1:51:50 ↗ seem like this was the way we were

1:51:51 ↗ supposed to do it and it's not that we

1:51:52 ↗ don't want people it's not that you

1:51:54 ↗ can't do it and we were getting a lot of

1:51:57 ↗ them but have our bigger concern I think

1:51:59 ↗ was having PPC be the deciders you all

1:52:03 ↗ can have people come in and throw

1:52:04 ↗ opinions at you and get emotional about

1:52:06 ↗ it all the time and having the hearing

1:52:07 ↗ examiner do it is completely objective

1:52:10 ↗ and it takes the pressure off of you all

1:52:13 ↗ from having to make that de decision so

1:52:16 ↗ our decision is go ahead and let the

1:52:18 ↗ hearing Cent decide turn it down or not

1:52:21 ↗ turn it it's valid to go forward and

1:52:23 ↗ there's no

1:52:25 ↗ precedent by allowing

1:52:31 ↗ itam well there is what do what do you

1:52:33 ↗ mean because it is a single parcel you

1:52:37 ↗ guys have had sing no that's what goes

1:52:39 ↗ there so if we were gonna so when we did

1:52:42 ↗ Central L and we

1:52:44 ↗ reasoned 1100 acres of land

1:52:47 ↗ essentially that was a legis ative reone

1:52:50 ↗ that was just a big one blanket cover

1:52:53 ↗ reone and that was legislative and that

1:52:55 ↗ goes to PPC it would still go to PPC but

1:52:58 ↗ if a property owner comes in pretend

1:53:00 ↗ it's not the city but you had those two

1:53:01 ↗ Church property owner you know the two

1:53:03 ↗ different Property Owners come in last

1:53:04 ↗ year they want to try and do that okay

1:53:07 ↗ pay your money fill out the application

1:53:09 ↗ do the work that you need to do and then

1:53:11 ↗ we'll research it and the hearing examin

1:53:13 ↗ will decide and still has to follow the

1:53:17 ↗ criteria yes yes

1:53:20 ↗ yes we're just no longer the judge and

1:53:23 ↗ jury judge and jury yeah we just we

1:53:25 ↗ still set the policy up front prior to

1:53:29 ↗ to correct and there's criteria that

1:53:31 ↗ they have to meet still you know just

1:53:33 ↗ like they had to meet CR criteria we we

1:53:35 ↗ cleaned that up a little bit during the

1:53:37 ↗ title 18 update and we also cleaned up

1:53:39 ↗ the application process too so they have

1:53:41 ↗ to do more we also raise the

1:53:47 ↗ price I saw that today

1:53:50 ↗ was in my head okay thank

1:53:53 ↗ you I'm GNA ask this under the guid of

1:53:56 ↗ there's no dumb questions right my

1:53:57 ↗ protection what's a little blue triangle

1:53:59 ↗ underneath of it oh you know what I

1:54:01 ↗ looked and it's um it has next to it I

1:54:04 ↗ clicked to see it because I thought that

1:54:05 ↗ might be part of the parcel and King

1:54:08 ↗ County has it as unkn so they don't know

1:54:10 ↗ who the property owner is is yeah that's

1:54:13 ↗ it's unknown well it's part of 12th so

1:54:16 ↗ there's a bike path in there somewhere

1:54:20 ↗ well there's a propos there's a proposed

1:54:21 ↗ trail that goes along there so that

1:54:23 ↗ might be washt property yeah could

1:54:25 ↗ easily be I'm trying to put it up for

1:54:28 ↗ the go clean it right

1:54:30 ↗ now s c yeah because I clicked on it to

1:54:34 ↗ see if that needed to be included in the

1:54:36 ↗ map and uh no PPC Park

1:54:42 ↗ maybe any other questions at looking at

1:54:45 ↗ uh our commissioners

1:54:48 ↗ online

1:54:52 ↗ bunch of no so I'll go one more time to

1:54:54 ↗ the commissioner p

1:54:57 ↗ m yeah I don't really have anything to

1:54:59 ↗ add do looks fine um now do you need a

1:55:03 ↗ formal hands up

1:55:05 ↗ or no yeah okay sounds like you guys

1:55:09 ↗ we'll get that next yeah we'll get that

1:55:11 ↗ at the next meeting okay all right well

1:55:14 ↗ that takes care of uh a regular business

1:55:17 ↗ we're going to move into the final part

1:55:18 ↗ of this evening which is reports and we

1:55:21 ↗ will start with city council updates

1:55:23 ↗ Christen Valerie do you have anything

1:55:25 ↗ for us I'm actually G let Stephen do it

1:55:30 ↗ Stephen so uh just a really quick report

1:55:33 ↗ for you all tonight um which great job

1:55:36 ↗ tonight on the public hearing I thought

1:55:37 ↗ you all did fantastic the conversation

1:55:40 ↗ was very diverse and I thought it was

1:55:42 ↗ actually going to be really helpful for

1:55:43 ↗ Council um when they when this uh the

1:55:46 ↗ Pioneer program getss brought to them

1:55:48 ↗ for the council up tonight I just wanted

1:55:50 ↗ to

1:55:52 ↗ um let you all know that Council

1:55:54 ↗ reviewed the Pioneer or um they reviewed

1:55:59 ↗ the Pioneer program previously so you

1:56:01 ↗ can always take a look at those the the

1:56:03 ↗ meeting uh video for see what was

1:56:06 ↗ discussed they also reviewed the um

1:56:10 ↗ comprehensive plan Eis Alternatives at

1:56:13 ↗ the meeting last week so if you're

1:56:15 ↗ interested in learning more about what

1:56:16 ↗ we're doing for the Eis I would

1:56:18 ↗ encourage you to take a look at that

1:56:19 ↗ meeting and feel free to send me any

1:56:21 ↗ questions about that if you're if you're

1:56:23 ↗ curious that's it for Council update

1:56:26 ↗ tonight great thank you Stephen hope

1:56:28 ↗ you're feeling better I'm hoping that

1:56:32 ↗ too okay um that takes care of for city

1:56:36 ↗ council updates any other business or

1:56:38 ↗ announcements from staffs do you think

1:56:40 ↗ just to Valerie no all right is there

1:56:44 ↗ anything our fa Commissioners would like

1:56:46 ↗ to add anything to the order

1:56:50 ↗ all right well thank you everybody thank

1:56:52 ↗ you for joining us this evening

1:56:53 ↗ virtually and in person and we will

1:56:56 ↗ adjourn this meeting of the planning

1:56:58 ↗ policy commission at 8:34 pm thank you

1:57:02 ↗ thanks everyone that was a great

1:57:04 ↗ discussion have a great night thanks all

1:57:07 ↗ thank you thank and have six drive home

1:57:10 ↗ too oh yeah thank

1:57:13 ↗ you

1:57:16 ↗ behind

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

Krass

Milligan

Patterson

Staff (1)

Jen Davis Hayes, Economic Development Manager Christen Leeson, Senior Planner Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager Valerie Porter, Associate Planner 2. Approval of Minutes a) PPC Minutes of 12-07-23 With no comments or concerns, the Minutes were approved. 3