Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, March 28, 2024 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of March 14, 2024

packet pp.3–7

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Thursday, March 14, 2024

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

House Bill 1220: Emergency Shelters and Supportive Housing, (D)

50 min · Christen Leeson, Senior Planner · packet pp.9–18

Topics: HousingPublic Safety

Previously discussed: Planning Policy Commission · Mar 14, 2024

▶ Watch from 1:36 Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the March 28

Comprehensive Plan: Draft Housing Element Revised Policies, (D)

40 min · Christen Leeson, Senior Planner · packet pp.19–96

Topics: HousingLand Use

▶ Watch from 41:02 Open packet at p.19 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the March 28

5. REPORTS

Council Update

Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.97–99

▶ Watch from 1:12:35 Open packet at p.97 ↗

Staff report:

 Middle Housing Standards Update  Housing Analysis

1708 segments .txt ↗

0:03 ↗ good evening everyone I would like to

0:05 ↗ call the March 28th planning policy

0:07 ↗ Commission meeting to order it is

0:09 ↗ currently 6:33 p.m. today's meeting is a

0:13 ↗ hybrid meeting the planning policy

0:15 ↗ commission is in person but staff or

0:17 ↗ members of the public may be attending

0:19 ↗ virtually or in person staff do we have

0:22 ↗ a quorum this evening chair of voice you

0:24 ↗ have a quorum tonight and commissioner

0:27 ↗ Kennedy is excused tonight great thank

0:29 ↗ you

0:30 ↗ we'll begin with the approval of last

0:32 ↗ meeting's minutes um those would be the

0:34 ↗ minutes for March 14th are there any

0:37 ↗ corrections to the draft March 14th

0:39 ↗ minutes that were provided in your

0:40 ↗ agenda

0:42 ↗ packet yes I have one this is vice chair

0:44 ↗ Bader on page three of five of the

0:47 ↗ minutes um it says that Vice chair Bader

0:50 ↗ myself um asked if schools are included

0:52 ↗ and then um State large common areas and

0:54 ↗ so on um and that was commissioner

0:55 ↗ Kennedy so I want to make sure she gets

0:57 ↗ credit for um her point there

1:02 ↗ great thank you Vice chair Bader um are

1:04 ↗ there any other further

1:07 ↗ Corrections all right with those noted

1:09 ↗ Corrections uh those minutes are

1:10 ↗ approved and we will now move on to our

1:13 ↗ public

1:14 ↗ comment has anyone signed up at this

1:17 ↗ time Stephen whether

1:19 ↗ virtually I guess only virtually to make

1:22 ↗ public comment this evening sh voice we

1:24 ↗ have nobody in the room and no one

1:26 ↗ attending virtually at the moment okay

1:28 ↗ we will skip that boiler plate

1:30 ↗ stuff and move on to our regular

1:32 ↗ business we have two items this evening

1:36 ↗ under regular business and the first is

1:38 ↗ a follow-up discussion for House Bill

1:40 ↗ 1220 Emergency Shelters in Supportive

1:43 ↗ Housing Kristen Leon our City Senior

1:46 ↗ planner will be presenting tonight so

1:48 ↗ Kristen when you are ready please go

1:57 ↗ ahead all right there we go good evening

2:00 ↗ yes I am uh Kristen Leon senior planner

2:03 ↗ with the longrange planning division so

2:06 ↗ yes this is a review or second review of

2:08 ↗ our amendments to House Bill

2:10 ↗ 1220 not to House Bill 1220 excuse me

2:14 ↗ regarding House Bill

2:16 ↗ 1220 so the purpose is to review and

2:19 ↗ pride comments on the second

2:21 ↗ draft and Direction needed think about

2:25 ↗ while you're doing this and maybe you

2:26 ↗ already have do the changes reflect your

2:28 ↗ previous concerns and are there

2:30 ↗ additional concerns that need to be

2:34 ↗ addressed just as a reminder Hospital

2:36 ↗ 1220 became effective on

2:39 ↗ September uh

2:41 ↗ 2021 and it says that all jurisdictions

2:44 ↗ must allow for Emergency Shelters

2:46 ↗ emergency housing permanent Supportive

2:48 ↗ Housing and transitional housing and you

2:50 ↗ may regulate reasonable occupancy

2:54 ↗ intensity and spacing of these uses but

2:58 ↗ you cannot do it go so so far as to

3:01 ↗ prohibit these uses from within your

3:05 ↗ jurisdiction so the first thing we had

3:07 ↗ to do was change our policy because one

3:09 ↗ of the things that you'll see that we

3:10 ↗ did was change the name of Emergency

3:12 ↗ Shelters to day centers slight shelters

3:17 ↗ because after talking to Specialists we

3:19 ↗ found out that that is what these are

3:21 ↗ really called today so we changed H

3:25 ↗ policy C5 and the housing element to

3:28 ↗ allow emergency or allow emergency

3:31 ↗ housing day centers and night

3:33 ↗ shelters I'll get into the rest with our

3:35 ↗ next piece um so the biggest changes

3:40 ↗ that we need needed to make with this

3:42 ↗ were to definitions because there was so

3:44 ↗ much blurring between the line and the

3:46 ↗ definitions that um they needed to be

3:49 ↗ fixed so uh again we talked to our

3:52 ↗ in-house specialist thank you Miss

3:55 ↗ altimore and worked some of this out so

3:58 ↗ emergency housing everything that's in

4:01 ↗ Black was already there and the red is a

4:03 ↗ change the short-term indoor

4:06 ↗ accommodations address essential

4:09 ↗ needs um it's for perience people

4:11 ↗ experiencing homelessness or who are at

4:13 ↗ risk of experiencing

4:15 ↗ homelessness they often include onsite

4:18 ↗ case management to Aid people to stable

4:21 ↗ permanent housing which we did not

4:22 ↗ include in the last one they may or not

4:25 ↗ may or may not require a lease or an

4:28 ↗ agreement but if they do do require a

4:30 ↗ lease or an agreement this may uh mean

4:33 ↗ that they fall under the state landlord

4:35 ↗ tenant law which we talked about last

4:37 ↗ time which is when if there is an issue

4:40 ↗ say criminal acts have taken place on

4:42 ↗ site then the facility has to go through

4:45 ↗ the state and through the courts to

4:47 ↗ remove that person from the property the

4:51 ↗ Vic

4:52 ↗ them again we changed this from

4:54 ↗ Emergency Shelters to day centers and

4:57 ↗ night shelters they are temp orary day

5:00 ↗ night or 27 247 shelters for those who

5:04 ↗ are experiencing homelessness they may

5:06 ↗ address essential needs not necessar not

5:08 ↗ always though and often includes on-site

5:11 ↗ case management to Aid persons to stable

5:13 ↗ permanent housing

5:14 ↗ now this was the one I think that where

5:17 ↗ we had most confusion because Emergency

5:21 ↗ Shelters we originally had in our code

5:23 ↗ that this would be for State emergencies

5:26 ↗ Declarations of emergencies through

5:28 ↗ local and it's not not the same thing

5:30 ↗ because there was an aha moment when we

5:32 ↗ realized there was an emergency

5:33 ↗ management plan so we talked I believe I

5:37 ↗ sent you all a link the Emergency

5:38 ↗ Management plan and we talked to our

5:40 ↗ Emergency Management person uh manager

5:44 ↗ and we also talked with human services

5:46 ↗ and that has covered things like

5:49 ↗ flooding and heat and uh earthquakes

5:53 ↗ those are all covered under the

5:55 ↗ Emergency Management plan and there are

5:57 ↗ already agreements in place and yes they

5:59 ↗ cover schools so therefore you don't

6:00 ↗ need the distance requirements anymore

6:03 ↗ like we talked about last time so all of

6:05 ↗ that comes out and this is

6:07 ↗ simply you have you know they can't be

6:10 ↗ you know closer than a half a mile to

6:12 ↗ each other they um do have to go through

6:16 ↗ the permitting process they are

6:17 ↗ permanent sites there and they can't

6:19 ↗ have more than 50 people

6:24 ↗ okay um we had

6:27 ↗ also talked about allowing them when we

6:30 ↗ weren't sure where they we were talking

6:32 ↗ about allowing them everywhere because

6:34 ↗ they were going to go in schools

6:35 ↗ Community facilities public facilities

6:37 ↗ this is what we had proposed this is now

6:39 ↗ where they would be proposed to be

6:41 ↗ allowed and this is what the state

6:42 ↗ requires is that they're allowed within

6:44 ↗ places anywhere where hotels are

6:50 ↗ allowed permanent support of housing we

6:52 ↗ change this whole thing up

6:56 ↗ yes here can uh is this the time if if

6:59 ↗ we're going to we have topics like we

7:00 ↗ did last time it's a good time to pause

7:03 ↗ and um see if we have any questions

7:04 ↗ about this particular section do you

7:06 ↗ want to go through the whole thing and

7:07 ↗ then Circle back you can go ahead what

7:10 ↗ do you want to do

7:11 ↗ chair I've got about three more slides

7:13 ↗ well I want you go through and then

7:14 ↗ we'll we'll take you back okay okay

7:16 ↗ thank you sure okay so permanent

7:19 ↗ Supportive Housing is permanent

7:22 ↗ housing uh housing assistance is

7:25 ↗ provided to help people move into a

7:27 ↗ permanent you know Independent Living

7:29 ↗ Supportive Services are also provided

7:31 ↗ for households with at least one member

7:34 ↗ with a

7:35 ↗ disability and this would be both

7:37 ↗ physical or mental disability and the

7:40 ↗ household meets the definition of

7:41 ↗ chronically

7:45 ↗ homeless so disability we haven't put

7:47 ↗ this in there yet but we're considering

7:49 ↗ putting this in there this is the

7:50 ↗ definition from

7:52 ↗ HUD and it's any individual with a

7:55 ↗ physical or mental impairment that's

7:58 ↗ sustainab that's substant limits one or

8:00 ↗ more of their major life activities it's

8:03 ↗ an individual with a record of such

8:05 ↗ impairment or it's an individual who is

8:08 ↗ regarded as having such an impairment so

8:11 ↗ we're still discussing whether or not

8:12 ↗ we're going to put this one in there but

8:14 ↗ because we've now included the word

8:15 ↗ disability it may be a good idea to

8:17 ↗ Define it because it's not currently

8:19 ↗ defined anywhere else in the

8:22 ↗ city chronically homeless is another one

8:25 ↗ that we are we have included a

8:26 ↗ definition because that also is

8:28 ↗ mentioned under permanent support

8:29 ↗ housing chronically homeless is in there

8:32 ↗ so it means they live in a place not

8:34 ↗ meant for human habitation they've been

8:36 ↗ homeless for at least 12 months or on at

8:38 ↗ least four separate occasions in the

8:40 ↗ last three years and it's longer

8:42 ↗ definition you all have a copy of it

8:44 ↗ it's been res this person has been or

8:46 ↗ this family has been residing in an

8:48 ↗ Institutional care facility for fewer

8:49 ↗ than 90

8:51 ↗ days and is a family with an adult head

8:54 ↗ of the household who meets all the

8:55 ↗ criteria of this

8:57 ↗ definition transitional house housing uh

9:01 ↗ whoops I should have changed the title

9:02 ↗ but their proposed is housing and

9:04 ↗ supportive services to persons or fam

9:07 ↗ families experiencing homelessness or

9:09 ↗ are at imminent risk of becoming

9:10 ↗ homeless this was not included in our

9:12 ↗ last

9:14 ↗ definition um and it allows them to stay

9:16 ↗ there for up to two years it facilitates

9:19 ↗ movement of Homeland persons to

9:21 ↗ independent living and provides

9:22 ↗ Supportive Services as

9:24 ↗ well so as I mentioned uh we in our

9:28 ↗ proposed regulations we proposed

9:29 ↗ changing emergency shelter to day Center

9:32 ↗ and night shelter and then we removed

9:33 ↗ all language about waving a process for

9:35 ↗ declared emergencies because that is no

9:37 ↗ longer

9:39 ↗ needed okay so just quick quick overview

9:42 ↗ of the timeline your initial reviews

9:44 ↗ last week uh going from from here on we

9:47 ↗ have our public hearing on April 11th a

9:50 ↗ we take it to the Planning Development

9:51 ↗ and environmental committee on May 1st

9:54 ↗ for a recommendation and then Council

9:56 ↗ action would likely take place on June

9:58 ↗ 3rd

10:00 ↗ okay so again that is our those are the

10:02 ↗ questions that we have for you and now

10:05 ↗ question I think commissioner Milligan

10:07 ↗ has a

10:12 ↗ question would anyone else like to go

10:18 ↗ first um since I closure I was absent

10:23 ↗ last meeting uh Kristen this is new

10:26 ↗ stated mandated does this go to the 66

10:29 ↗ 69 units that are being mandated by the

10:31 ↗ state this definition of transitional

10:33 ↗ support of housing well the definition

10:36 ↗ doesn't but if they come in here yes

10:38 ↗ then those that's what they mean by per

10:39 ↗ there's right 300 someon units are at

10:42 ↗ 30% below permanent support of housing

10:44 ↗ yes that is what this is that number

10:45 ↗ that 669 that is basically mandated um

10:49 ↗ that's not something that isqua came up

10:50 ↗ with that mandated you know by 244 these

10:54 ↗ units would go towards that number they

10:56 ↗ would and just a correction they're not

10:57 ↗ mandated that's a Target provided by the

11:00 ↗ county just like our just like our

11:02 ↗ regular growth targets that's a Target

11:03 ↗ provided by the county that doesn't mean

11:05 ↗ that we have to have that number of

11:06 ↗ units and who would be in charge of

11:09 ↗ financially taking care of these

11:11 ↗ different the

11:13 ↗ organizations potenti I I know that um

11:16 ↗ commissioner altimore can speak more to

11:17 ↗ that but you know say hopefully comes or

11:21 ↗ um uh porch light or another group like

11:24 ↗ that comes in and decides to build it

11:26 ↗ they would they would be the ones to

11:27 ↗ build and provide the services and food

11:30 ↗ so this wouldn't come out of like the

11:31 ↗ city's general fund no okay no that's

11:35 ↗ helpful oh but correction we do give

11:38 ↗ money um to a regional Co Regional

11:42 ↗ Coalition for housing that to their

11:43 ↗ general fund and that does go to help

11:46 ↗ fund

11:48 ↗ okay altimore I just wanted to add that

11:51 ↗ that man or the not the mandated but the

11:53 ↗ target of the 664 is 30% and Below but

11:57 ↗ not necessarily targeted to people who

11:58 ↗ exper experienced homelessness so very

12:01 ↗ low income very very low income but not

12:03 ↗ necessarily exiting

12:05 ↗ homelessness so these units are for

12:08 ↗ people exiting homelessness or currently

12:10 ↗ homeless that we're talking about with

12:12 ↗ these definitions under 1220 and again

12:14 ↗ for layman's terms and again this not

12:17 ↗ quite my area of expertise but for more

12:19 ↗ or less use the vulgarity but like a

12:22 ↗ halfway home right like you're

12:25 ↗ transitioning I mean again I'm just

12:27 ↗ trying to get my head around what we're

12:28 ↗ talking about shelter if you were

12:30 ↗ thinking of um the the concept of a

12:33 ↗ halfway home where uh it would be uh

12:36 ↗ more congregate living um where you'd

12:38 ↗ have shared rooms or more of a dormatory

12:41 ↗ style uh but the services are there that

12:43 ↗ could be more on the shelter side of

12:45 ↗ things once you get to transitional

12:47 ↗ housing or permanent Supportive Housing

12:49 ↗ it's um it's a little bit more of a a

12:52 ↗ permanent living situation so you have a

12:54 ↗ bedroom you have a door those types of

12:56 ↗ okay and the reason I ask is we were

12:58 ↗ actually involved in a project in ble

13:00 ↗ like eight or nine years ago and they

13:02 ↗ had like a common area but again

13:04 ↗ everybody had their own um it was

13:06 ↗ basically kind of set up like a condo

13:08 ↗ but they did have like their own meeting

13:10 ↗ space where they had games and like that

13:12 ↗ but for the most part each family had

13:13 ↗ their own kitchens I'm just again just

13:16 ↗ trying to get my head around it what

13:17 ↗ we're

13:25 ↗ talking commissioner

13:27 ↗ Milligan okay now um

13:33 ↗ [Music]

13:54 ↗ [Music]

14:17 ↗ [Music]

14:22 ↗ [Music]

14:29 ↗ that says it may fall under tenant law

14:32 ↗ and what does uh put it under tenant

14:37 ↗ law again this isn't a shelter so it's

14:41 ↗ not an overnight or a come in for the

14:43 ↗ day so they can there is a potential

14:45 ↗ that they please correct me if I'm wrong

14:46 ↗ but there is a potential that they could

14:47 ↗ have individual rooms share rooms

14:49 ↗ they're not likely going to have

14:50 ↗ kitchens or anything in there um but

14:53 ↗ they can stay there and sort of sign up

14:55 ↗ to you know be residents there for I

14:58 ↗ don't know how long it is but they can

15:01 ↗ still require because they will be

15:03 ↗ residents in that space for a while they

15:05 ↗ can still require leases not leases but

15:08 ↗ likely agreements and if they require

15:11 ↗ agreements then they would fall under

15:14 ↗ the state tenant law so it would be the

15:15 ↗ same thing and shortterm no is not

15:18 ↗ defined we need to we should Define that

15:20 ↗ shortterm should be defined yeah okay

15:22 ↗ and then let me follow up with um was

15:24 ↗ one of and maybe I could ask my fellow

15:26 ↗ Commissioners if I'm um going down path

15:29 ↗ was one of the concerns about landlord

15:33 ↗ tenant law is the difficulty in evicting

15:36 ↗ someone who is not following the

15:38 ↗ agreement because those laws are so uh

15:42 ↗ complicated

15:43 ↗ and um can be very timec consuming so

15:46 ↗ then the um

15:48 ↗ environment doesn't have the opportunity

15:51 ↗ to enforce its own rules because it's uh

15:55 ↗ has to answer to a higher regulatory

15:58 ↗ power

16:00 ↗ that part of the concern well I I'll

16:02 ↗ just but in here real quick I think it's

16:05 ↗ a national story right now with

16:06 ↗ squatters right so you have different

16:08 ↗ areas that are coming up with squatters

16:10 ↗ laws because of this actual particular

16:12 ↗ thing where they're going through the

16:14 ↗ court so slowly I know Florida just

16:16 ↗ passed for example so add to

16:19 ↗ commissioner Milligan's question what

16:21 ↗ does that do I'm I'm not an attorney and

16:24 ↗ I'm not hugely familiar with the with

16:26 ↗ the law it looks like commissioner Al

16:29 ↗ more though has yeah please I'm also not

16:32 ↗ an attorney I just pay them uh to tell

16:36 ↗ me things um so the landlord tenant law

16:40 ↗ is triggered mostly because of if you

16:43 ↗ stay like if you're assigned a room it

16:45 ↗ doesn't matter if there's a lease or not

16:47 ↗ that then brings in landl tenant law and

16:50 ↗ so um it's not up to the program

16:53 ↗ provider but so if it's a night shelter

16:54 ↗ so the first definition where someone

16:57 ↗ shows up at a certain time and then if

16:59 ↗ there's a bed available they're able to

17:00 ↗ stay that does not fall under landl

17:02 ↗ tenant but if they live in a place and

17:05 ↗ they are they are there whether it's in

17:07 ↗ an indiv individual room or if it's like

17:10 ↗ the shelters that uh in my day job that

17:12 ↗ we run their apartment and so you have a

17:15 ↗ key and a lock and all that stuff so all

17:17 ↗ of that falls under ly L tenant and

17:18 ↗ that's really that's Washington state

17:20 ↗ law that has nothing to do with what

17:22 ↗ this definition would include or not um

17:25 ↗ but I think it is a good I obviously I

17:29 ↗ uh put some voice in here and I think

17:31 ↗ it's a good reminder for people to

17:34 ↗ understand that it isn't up to the

17:35 ↗ operator it is up to state law which is

17:37 ↗ why I think it's important for it to be

17:40 ↗ here Richard crass so um you keep us

17:44 ↗ honest on these things which is good um

17:46 ↗ so it we had the conversation last time

17:49 ↗ because it came around the code of

17:50 ↗ conduct so the code of conduct is

17:53 ↗ they're doing drug illegal drugs but if

17:56 ↗ they're there for more than one night in

17:59 ↗ a row they become essentially a tenant

18:01 ↗ like I'll use the Motel 6 as an example

18:03 ↗ so it's very hard to get them out so I

18:05 ↗ think the only thing that we could

18:07 ↗ discuss is the placement of where those

18:09 ↗ are

18:10 ↗ allowed because if we can't change the

18:13 ↗ rules on that one the only thing I think

18:14 ↗ we control are where those are allowed

18:16 ↗ to be within the city so I think that's

18:18 ↗ probably part of the going back to the

18:21 ↗ map of where those are you want to make

18:23 ↗ sure they're not in someone's

18:25 ↗ neighborhood and you have people who are

18:26 ↗ right essentially I'll use the term

18:28 ↗ squatters again we just get in there and

18:30 ↗ then do what they want and then get them

18:32 ↗ out and that's helpful two two different

18:34 ↗ definitions though I mean the the day

18:37 ↗ centers night

18:39 ↗ shelters are allowed to be they're

18:41 ↗ required to allow to be where hotels are

18:45 ↗ allowed and the city is requiring that

18:47 ↗ they are at least half a mile apart

18:50 ↗ emergency housing the state requires

18:52 ↗ that they are allowed to go wherever

18:54 ↗ hotels are allowed and wherever

18:56 ↗ residential uses are allowed any

18:58 ↗ residential

19:00 ↗ uses so we can't we can't change that so

19:03 ↗ we can't so so that says they could be

19:05 ↗ anywhere in the city then that

19:08 ↗ almost so who is responsible for the

19:12 ↗ code of conduct and again I apologize I

19:13 ↗ wasn't here but is that set up by

19:15 ↗ hopelink that set up by the city it's

19:17 ↗ set up it's set up by the managing the

19:20 ↗ by The Operators of that facility and as

19:23 ↗ it came up l in last meeting um they

19:26 ↗ they would develop the code of conduct

19:28 ↗ and they are usually they're required to

19:30 ↗ do this if they get federal or state

19:31 ↗ funding they're required to provide a

19:33 ↗ code of conduct or an operational plan

19:35 ↗ which would include a code of conduct um

19:38 ↗ with their funding does the city have

19:40 ↗ any power over that through the permit

19:41 ↗ process

19:45 ↗ or so some cities have chosen to adopt

19:49 ↗ regulations and what should be included

19:51 ↗ in those operational plans from what I

19:52 ↗ can see it would be everything that's

19:54 ↗ standard you know who are the managing

19:57 ↗ people uh who who the who are the

19:59 ↗ contact people how many people how many

20:01 ↗ employees will be on site at any time

20:03 ↗ how many beds will be here that kind of

20:04 ↗ thing we have opted not to do that

20:07 ↗ because of the liability and if we

20:09 ↗ included something that other places

20:10 ↗ don't include then they could sue the

20:12 ↗ city uh for not allowing these uses

20:15 ↗ making it impossible for uses to locate

20:17 ↗ here in the

20:20 ↗ city thank

20:23 ↗ you commissioner

20:25 ↗ Milligan uh thank you so um thank you

20:27 ↗ for bringing that up commissioner C are

20:29 ↗ you reminding me that if a a person

20:34 ↗ staying in emergency housing as the

20:37 ↗ opportunity to stay there more than one

20:39 ↗ night it's

20:40 ↗ automatically considered something that

20:42 ↗ would be a lease or come under tenant

20:45 ↗ law uh okay uh we haven't defined

20:48 ↗ shortterm yet um could short term be one

20:52 ↗ night therefore and what I'm thinking of

20:55 ↗ is protecting the people who manage the

20:58 ↗ facility for those who want to live

21:01 ↗ there and want to live their or not live

21:02 ↗ there but to stay there and Avail

21:04 ↗ themselves of the services of of safe

21:06 ↗ emergency housing in in a safe place so

21:10 ↗ that they can um provide it uh

21:12 ↗ consistently without coming up against

21:14 ↗ these vulnerabilities that present

21:17 ↗ themselves because of ten

21:20 ↗ law I'm exploring an

21:24 ↗ idea so what do you think of that or is

21:26 ↗ that

21:27 ↗ possible question is can shortterm be

21:30 ↗ one night yeah and for the reason of

21:34 ↗ avoiding tenant law that then would

21:38 ↗ restrict the ability of the operating

21:41 ↗ agreement to be enforced for the safety

21:43 ↗ of the tenants no I think I I'm I again

21:47 ↗ I think that would be prohibitive I that

21:49 ↗ that um defeats the purpose of having

21:53 ↗ emergency housing or protective housing

21:55 ↗ for

21:55 ↗ people but I'm going to uh commissioner

21:59 ↗ well I think that the whole reason was

22:01 ↗ to provide emergency safe protective

22:04 ↗ housing and in some cases that's very

22:06 ↗ difficult when you can't get rid of

22:08 ↗ somebody who's making it unsafe for

22:12 ↗ others wasn't trying to defeat the

22:16 ↗ purpose one so um as mentioned uh two

22:20 ↗ weeks ago so apologies for a little

22:22 ↗ repeat but uh the way the law is stated

22:25 ↗ you can't have anything in your

22:27 ↗ agreement for the person to live there

22:29 ↗ that undermines landl tenant law or goes

22:31 ↗ against fair housing and so they have to

22:33 ↗ be in alignment you cannot override that

22:35 ↗ in any way and then uh the second piece

22:38 ↗ is that the code is only one tiny piece

22:42 ↗ of the puzzle you have to fund what

22:44 ↗ you're doing and so if you are an agency

22:48 ↗ like um Union Gospel Mission that

22:50 ↗ doesn't take any public funds they have

22:52 ↗ a lot more leeway in how they go about

22:55 ↗ implementing their programs they still

22:57 ↗ have to meet you know B basic safety and

22:59 ↗ they they do a great job but they have

23:01 ↗ more leeway than if you take public

23:03 ↗ funds and if you take public funds

23:05 ↗ there's lots of rules and regulations

23:07 ↗ that come along with that and so they

23:09 ↗ answer a lot of the questions that this

23:11 ↗ body I think is is discussing right now

23:14 ↗ so there's the piece under the code and

23:16 ↗ then there's the piece under how you

23:17 ↗ fund the work that you do um but the the

23:21 ↗ one day thing that you're talking about

23:22 ↗ the person would have to remove their

23:24 ↗ items every day or and and ultimately it

23:27 ↗ comes down to the City attorney the City

23:29 ↗ attorney will determine if the police

23:31 ↗ are able to remove that person or

23:36 ↗ not yeah that's how night shelters do

23:39 ↗ it

23:41 ↗ yeah as opposed to emergency

23:47 ↗ housing commissioner Sima yeah just a

23:50 ↗ quick thing I think um um one of the key

23:53 ↗ things of course is and it's been spoken

23:55 ↗ before just defining what short short

23:57 ↗ term is we know it's more than one day

24:00 ↗ and possibly less than two years because

24:02 ↗ that's the transitional definition but

24:05 ↗ get more definition to that and then as

24:09 ↗ it pertains to I guess a code of conduct

24:12 ↗ if we go down that path we need to

24:14 ↗ Define what that is and to say okay if a

24:19 ↗ person breaks this or breaks that or

24:21 ↗ breaks that and that that that you would

24:24 ↗ have to who would adjudicate that per se

24:27 ↗ and I know I'm just

24:29 ↗ talking the way it stands is the way

24:31 ↗ it's going to stand right now but I want

24:34 ↗ to caution on that as well because we

24:36 ↗ also have to look at um the individuals

24:38 ↗ who are going to be staying at those

24:40 ↗ shelters or at those emergency housings

24:43 ↗ as well to protect them as well right

24:46 ↗ and no no other city has provided

24:48 ↗ actually what would go into the code of

24:51 ↗ conduct it says that an operational plan

24:53 ↗ has to include a code of conduct and to

24:55 ↗ do that we can't that's that's us

24:57 ↗ telling them how they have to operate

24:59 ↗ their services inside there and that

25:02 ↗ that's just can of worms a can of worms

25:04 ↗ I was say p of bees but yes either way

25:08 ↗ Mr grass so totally agree I mean the

25:10 ↗ only thing we could say is they have to

25:12 ↗ have a code of conduct and then they

25:13 ↗ have to Define it but the the red

25:15 ↗ herring is they're totally unenforceable

25:19 ↗ meaning they can have a code of conduct

25:21 ↗ but you can't do but because of the uh

25:24 ↗ landlord tenant laws that are totally

25:26 ↗ unenforcable is something that that's

25:29 ↗ what we're trying to figure out is there

25:30 ↗ a way to help make those enforcable but

25:34 ↗ I don't

25:35 ↗ see us to be able to do that except for

25:38 ↗ if we had some way of regulating where

25:40 ↗ they are but you're saying we can't do

25:42 ↗ that either so I'm at a

25:48 ↗ loss yeah great discussion I kind

25:52 ↗ of VI yeah I guess I'll add like a

25:54 ↗ little bit of like a rose-colored

25:56 ↗ glasses perspective to this because I

25:58 ↗ worry that we're like doing a little bit

26:00 ↗ of compleation of like individuals

26:02 ↗ experiencing homelessness with drug

26:04 ↗ users and I want to like step back and

26:05 ↗ realize that this actually provides or

26:08 ↗ has a potential to provide like a really

26:11 ↗ essential service to members of our

26:13 ↗ community who may need it um and that

26:15 ↗ doesn't mean that there won't be um

26:18 ↗ individuals who use you know illegal

26:20 ↗ drugs that doesn't mean in any apartment

26:23 ↗ building in the city there won't be

26:25 ↗ individuals who use illegal drugs and so

26:27 ↗ I just want to kind of CAU us from like

26:29 ↗ doing too much um conflation of the two

26:32 ↗ um in a way that might limit um

26:35 ↗ essential

26:37 ↗ Services yeah I think I just added that

26:39 ↗ eventually again this all has to be

26:41 ↗ built out by nonprofits and other

26:43 ↗ organizations that do this day in day

26:47 ↗ out uh I'll speak for just you know

26:50 ↗ someone who's lived around here 20 years

26:52 ↗ um I think Vice chair Bader's point I

26:55 ↗ agree but at the same time I have seen

26:58 ↗ itional housing that has not worked out

27:00 ↗ well and that is I think the fear I

27:02 ↗ think most isqu would

27:05 ↗ probably agree with and because it we

27:07 ↗ don't have it so how does that look like

27:10 ↗ the whole idea of being on the

27:11 ↗ commission is you only get one

27:13 ↗ opportunity to build out your city so we

27:16 ↗ don't want to make grave mistakes that

27:19 ↗ we all end up paying for 20 years not

27:21 ↗ saying we would but again uh there's

27:24 ↗ certain parts of certain city across

27:26 ↗ Lake Washington that um I'm very

27:29 ↗ familiar with like I said those some of

27:31 ↗ those neighborhoods look very

27:32 ↗ different that was that would be my

27:34 ↗ honest fear but again that's why we're

27:37 ↗ having a

27:40 ↗ conversation I guess I have another

27:42 ↗ question because I haven't been here for

27:43 ↗ 20 years why is there none of this in

27:46 ↗ Isa we do have emergency housing over in

27:50 ↗ Motel 6 which has come up um I I'm going

27:53 ↗ to you know I don't know um I think that

27:57 ↗ the homeless

27:58 ↗ in isqua has grown in recent years prior

28:02 ↗ to that I think people just didn't see

28:04 ↗ the need for it it was more in you know

28:07 ↗ Seattle where it's denser denser

28:09 ↗ communities um but now there's a need

28:11 ↗ for it plus now we have um someone

28:13 ↗ that's what she does and she focuses on

28:16 ↗ it and said this is a need here's our

28:17 ↗ count this is our need so she's thought

28:20 ↗ to get it

28:24 ↗ and commission

28:26 ↗ timore is wanted to respond to um Vice

28:30 ↗ chair baders so there are several

28:33 ↗ properties uh Rosecrest uh YWCA there's

28:36 ↗ some others that were built with tax

28:38 ↗ credit funding and in order to get the

28:40 ↗ points to establish those tax credits

28:43 ↗ they did have to say that a certain

28:44 ↗ number of the units were targeted for

28:46 ↗ people exiting homelessness and so it

28:48 ↗ does it's not permanent Supportive

28:50 ↗ Housing it's called permanent housing

28:52 ↗ with services and so that's what you've

28:55 ↗ got at those locations so it is here

28:57 ↗ it's just not falling under

29:00 ↗ 1220 yeah we I think I mentioned last

29:02 ↗ time we have about 35 39 units here and

29:07 ↗ um yeah they're all at 30% and

29:10 ↗ below and then I apologize if this is in

29:12 ↗ the document somewhere does arch

29:15 ↗ like for you does arch maintain like a

29:17 ↗ waiting list for

29:20 ↗ those

29:21 ↗ no go

29:24 ↗ ahead um not for those units I don't

29:26 ↗ think so I know that they do for

29:29 ↗ rental units and they do for sale units

29:33 ↗ there's not a super great process for

29:35 ↗ placing people but they they have the

29:37 ↗ lists and the waiting lists but you

29:41 ↗ had so um the providers it depends if

29:46 ↗ they have to go through coordinated

29:47 ↗ entry for all which many of them do and

29:49 ↗ so that you go through one of those

29:51 ↗ either two11 or through one of those

29:53 ↗ entry points to be able to then get on

29:55 ↗ the list to get placed in those units so

29:57 ↗ Arch keeps the affordable home ownership

29:59 ↗ and then they have a list of subsidized

30:01 ↗ housing um but that's a list of the

30:03 ↗ housing locations not a list to get on

30:06 ↗ uh if it is specifically for someone

30:08 ↗ experiencing homelessness in most cases

30:10 ↗ you have to go through coordinated entry

30:12 ↗ for all which is operated by the King

30:14 ↗ County Regional

30:15 ↗ homeless and then my final I'm just

30:17 ↗ trying to understand like what the need

30:19 ↗ is here um does isqua like I don't know

30:22 ↗ if it's a Seattle point in time count or

30:24 ↗ County point in time count but does

30:26 ↗ isqua have like a point in time count uh

30:28 ↗ we uh we

30:30 ↗ do it's part of the East King County

30:33 ↗ count but they are able to to separate

30:37 ↗ out who has

30:42 ↗ what any further

30:47 ↗ questions should really all right I

30:50 ↗ believe we're

30:53 ↗ done I think she's moving on to the next

30:56 ↗ definition okay yes good than okay uh

30:59 ↗ permanent support of housing um under

31:03 ↗ that one I made a

31:08 ↗ note I'm sorry my

31:11 ↗ my little thing is in the way of the

31:13 ↗ word here okay so where it says um with

31:17 ↗ a disability in achieving housing with a

31:20 ↗ disability in achieving housing

31:22 ↗ stability and the household meets the

31:24 ↗ definition of chronically homeless um I

31:28 ↗ wondered if at the word

31:31 ↗ and because last meeting we were talking

31:34 ↗ about Leo and Leo would um be um serving

31:41 ↗ those who have the disability um

31:43 ↗ definition but not necessarily the um

31:47 ↗ chronically homeless definition so when

31:50 ↗ we're talking about permanent Supportive

31:52 ↗ Housing does Leo fall under that and

31:53 ↗ then would that word have to be

31:55 ↗ or they do not fall under that

31:59 ↗ yeah oh so why did we talk about it last

32:02 ↗ time why do we talk about they don't

32:04 ↗ meet it I I was talking about how I had

32:06 ↗ had a discussion with Arch and whether

32:08 ↗ or not they meet it and they

32:11 ↗ don't s you had the discussion uh so

32:13 ↗ permanent support of housing is going to

32:15 ↗ be an addition to things that allow Leo

32:18 ↗ to go into neighborhood correct okay

32:21 ↗ okay good doesn't prevent them

32:24 ↗ from

32:26 ↗ okay

32:35 ↗ I don't have a it's not a is a comment

32:37 ↗ are we just like discussing right now or

32:38 ↗ am I supposed to ask for frame by things

32:41 ↗ I think go ahead for the discussion

32:42 ↗ might produce more questions um just I

32:45 ↗ wanted to plus one the inclusion of the

32:47 ↗ disability definition um because as I

32:50 ↗ was reading this I realized it wasn't

32:51 ↗ clear and that disability could be

32:53 ↗ interpreted one way or another on the

32:55 ↗ reader so I just wanted to kind of plus

32:57 ↗ one

32:59 ↗ um commissioner

33:02 ↗ alore so we were wordsmithing this along

33:06 ↗ the way the other day and just the way

33:08 ↗ uh this landed where it says

33:11 ↗ um Supportive Services are provided to

33:15 ↗ assist households with at least one

33:17 ↗ member with a disability in achieving I

33:20 ↗ think that it makes it sound like it's

33:22 ↗ the disability

33:24 ↗ that's not allowing them to achieve

33:26 ↗ permanent housing and it's actually just

33:28 ↗ a definition of the household and so

33:31 ↗ we've got to find a way to move that

33:32 ↗ disability so that the Supportive

33:34 ↗ Services to help them achieve permanent

33:35 ↗ housing is together and then it's clear

33:38 ↗ that the household has to have a a

33:40 ↗ member with a disability does that make

33:42 ↗ sense it's just it's just the placement

33:45 ↗ of the words it does but could you

33:46 ↗ please repeat it yes so where it says

33:49 ↗ Supportive Services are provided to

33:51 ↗ assist

33:52 ↗ households in achieving housing

33:54 ↗ stability and then we'd have to say and

33:56 ↗ the family needs to would have at least

33:58 ↗ one member with a

34:01 ↗ disability because right now with the

34:03 ↗ one member with a disability in the

34:04 ↗ middle of that sentence I'm sure there's

34:06 ↗ a grammatical definition of why it's

34:09 ↗ shouldn't sit in the middle I just I

34:11 ↗ wasn't good in that subject I don't know

34:13 ↗ um but that's the only thing is just

34:15 ↗ moving that

34:21 ↗ out Mr Milligan y okay uh looking under

34:26 ↗ chapter 18. five residential use

34:29 ↗ standards

34:31 ↗ B BB uh so this is permanent support of

34:35 ↗ housing transitional housing emergency

34:37 ↗ housing and this um PB under

34:40 ↗ requirements says that permanent support

34:42 ↗ of Housing and transitional housing

34:45 ↗ located in residential zoning districts

34:47 ↗ in accordance with blah blah blah

34:53 ↗ um must be limited in density and

34:56 ↗ occupancy based on the devel velopment

34:58 ↗ regulations of the underlining zoning

35:00 ↗ districts in which this is proposed so

35:04 ↗ um one of the concerns that I expressed

35:09 ↗ at our last meeting was that in a um in

35:13 ↗ the urban core you can you can limit the

35:15 ↗ number of this is a for instance there

35:18 ↗ could be other things you could limit

35:19 ↗ the number of residents to 100 but you

35:21 ↗ couldn't limit the number of people who

35:23 ↗ were living in one of these if it's in a

35:26 ↗ residential district say it's on squ

35:28 ↗ Mountain but when it says the

35:30 ↗ development regulations are the

35:32 ↗ underlying zoning District in which the

35:34 ↗ use is proposed what other things could

35:37 ↗ help and I'm just I'm just trying to

35:39 ↗ alleviate concerns um and we don't say

35:41 ↗ it here um what would make these let's

35:44 ↗ say um don't we have

35:47 ↗ a a regulation that says something about

35:50 ↗ must be part of residential the

35:52 ↗ neighborhood character or you know other

35:54 ↗ things that make it fit in with the

35:56 ↗ neighborhood do we have anything that

35:58 ↗ would make any of these new facilities

36:01 ↗ fit in with a neighborhood in which

36:02 ↗ they're located well if they locate with

36:05 ↗ we have single family residential

36:07 ↗ standards and they have to build within

36:09 ↗ the box every single family house does

36:12 ↗ so if they're going to build something

36:13 ↗ in a single family

36:14 ↗ neighborhood it's going to need the

36:16 ↗ garage it's going to need two parking

36:18 ↗ spaces it will need you know everything

36:20 ↗ else that a regular house is going to

36:21 ↗ need that will regulate it right and

36:24 ↗ parking that brings up an interesting

36:25 ↗ point can you remind me um do we have a

36:28 ↗ maximum allowed parking in a residential

36:32 ↗ Zone do in some of the urban villes in

36:35 ↗ the other I would have to check I think

36:39 ↗ there's something about off-site parking

36:42 ↗ I mean off street parking but I would

36:43 ↗ have to check that one

36:45 ↗ okay okay um just wanted to learn more

36:49 ↗ about about that

36:51 ↗ and the capacity that a building could

36:55 ↗ have that has an unlimited allow number

36:58 ↗ of residents in a residential Zone where

37:01 ↗ infrastructure could be limited streets

37:03 ↗ could be

37:05 ↗ narrow septic could be uh in a place

37:09 ↗ where we have sewer hookup but it's not

37:12 ↗ designed for that much capacity I don't

37:14 ↗ know I'm just trying to think it through

37:16 ↗ what what could um how could we help

37:18 ↗ this be

37:26 ↗ successful

37:38 ↗ I have an update we just check the

37:41 ↗ code and there is a maximum of two off

37:44 ↗ street parking

37:51 ↗ spaces any further questions on this

37:56 ↗ topic

38:02 ↗ course thank you I just uh want to say

38:06 ↗ this is is fairly frustrating

38:08 ↗ because we're responsible to make our

38:12 ↗ neighborhoods safe or also to make them

38:15 ↗ um ability

38:18 ↗ to Transit through them you know or in

38:21 ↗ the scale and the nature of our town and

38:23 ↗ everybody wants to we want to live here

38:25 ↗ and we don't have um

38:28 ↗ um all the tools because the way that

38:31 ↗ this came from the state doesn't give us

38:33 ↗ all the tools to make these good

38:35 ↗ facilities I don't think and so I feel

38:37 ↗ fairly frustrated I also feel frustrated

38:39 ↗ at having emergency housing uh being

38:42 ↗ able to be um located anywhere in the

38:45 ↗ city where it might not have the other

38:46 ↗ facilities that would help make it

38:50 ↗ successful I don't know there a couple

38:51 ↗ things about it that kind of frustrate

38:53 ↗ me um I'm glad that we worked together

38:55 ↗ and got through some of those issues but

38:57 ↗ still I'm still feeling a little

38:58 ↗ frustrated at the at the state for for

39:02 ↗ what was um delivered to us maybe not

39:04 ↗ fully

39:05 ↗ B think I would second commissioner

39:08 ↗ Milligan after looking to the packet

39:11 ↗ again our state and it's not just our

39:14 ↗ state it's throughout the country

39:15 ↗ they're taking part of our zoning

39:17 ↗ abilities away from us asking us to

39:20 ↗ implement things that yeah not giving us

39:23 ↗ so I would second your

39:26 ↗ frustration commissioner

39:28 ↗ altimore so I obviously has a bias that

39:32 ↗ has been laid out here really clearly um

39:35 ↗ but I do operate this and have for 30

39:37 ↗ years and you've driven past them you

39:41 ↗ don't know they're there there aren't

39:43 ↗ huge safety regul or safety issues that

39:45 ↗ don't happen in any multif family

39:48 ↗ because when you have multif family

39:50 ↗ you're bringing lots of people together

39:51 ↗ with different ideas and different

39:53 ↗ things that have happened there are

39:54 ↗ various reasons why people fall into

39:56 ↗ homelessness and sometimes those create

39:59 ↗ challenges for the people around them

40:01 ↗ but most of the time they do not and so

40:04 ↗ I just want to be honest and say that

40:07 ↗ the zoning and sighting of these

40:11 ↗ sometimes are problematic because of

40:13 ↗ belief of how they operate versus

40:16 ↗ knowledge of how they operate and so I

40:18 ↗ encourage anyone who is interested to go

40:21 ↗ visit you can come visit one of the ones

40:23 ↗ that I work with I I can connect you

40:25 ↗ with other people I'm happy to do that

40:27 ↗ but we don't have any more criminality

40:30 ↗ or issues that are happening than a

40:32 ↗ typical multif family or in a lot of

40:34 ↗ cases even single family um where there

40:37 ↗ could be domestic violence or other

40:40 ↗ behavioral health issues so thank you

40:42 ↗ for letting me air my bias I just wanted

40:44 ↗ to put that out

40:45 ↗ there no I certainly appreciate that um

40:48 ↗ again I think for me it's

40:50 ↗ also again it's it's not just this issue

40:54 ↗ it's a few different areas where again

40:55 ↗ the states are jumping into City

40:57 ↗ regulate in a profound way and that I

41:01 ↗ think again part of my frustration not

41:04 ↗ necessarily what you're saying um I've

41:06 ↗ seen successful ones uh we did a field

41:08 ↗ trip love to do another field trip field

41:10 ↗ trips are great but um I also know there

41:13 ↗ are some other stories are definitely a

41:18 ↗ kind of driven past don't look

41:21 ↗ at okay good discussion everyone you

41:25 ↗ ready to move

41:26 ↗ on we're ready for the next topic

41:32 ↗ yeah I don't think we have another topic

41:34 ↗ with you do we we do okay for

41:39 ↗ it commissioner

41:41 ↗ Z yeah just to add I mean this program

41:45 ↗ we just talked about like permanent

41:47 ↗ housing it's also to support or mainly

41:50 ↗ to support people from isqua as well so

41:54 ↗ people who fall into homelessness as

41:56 ↗ well are also residents of isqua as well

42:00 ↗ so I believe we do have that

42:03 ↗ responsibility to be able to take care

42:05 ↗ of our own as well so I just wanted to

42:07 ↗ make that that one

42:11 ↗ statement

42:13 ↗ alore first thanks that was great um but

42:16 ↗ the second thing is I meant to come back

42:18 ↗ to the short-term discussion so uh there

42:22 ↗ have been some changes in the funding

42:24 ↗ structures of programs for people

42:26 ↗ serving

42:27 ↗ uh people who have been homeless and uh

42:31 ↗ they sometimes have taken away the

42:33 ↗ ability to put a time limit on a shelter

42:36 ↗ it's just considered time limited or

42:39 ↗ shortterm and so it's kind of confusing

42:41 ↗ so like transitional housing is actually

42:43 ↗ limited to 24 months but a lot of

42:47 ↗ shelters can't under their funding

42:49 ↗ structure actually put a specific time

42:51 ↗ limit on it so I just what so the

42:54 ↗ definition of shortterm could be

42:56 ↗ difficult at the city level because it's

42:58 ↗ coming out of a lot of other structures

43:00 ↗ that all come together to make that

43:02 ↗ happen I feel bad I always have my back

43:04 ↗ to you when I'm talking to the group

43:06 ↗ um yeah but anyway that I just wanted to

43:09 ↗ point that out that that uh even if we

43:11 ↗ put a definition in there I don't know

43:12 ↗ that it would work within the larger

43:14 ↗ structures of the systems that serve

43:16 ↗ people experiencing

43:20 ↗ homelessness commissioner

43:23 ↗ alore then please

43:26 ↗ proceed

43:56 ↗ e

44:13 ↗ I'm having technical difficulties just a

44:15 ↗ moment I'll fill the time for a moment I

44:17 ↗ just want to say how appreciative I am

44:19 ↗ of our commissioners that I don't want

44:21 ↗ to say contentious topics but topics

44:23 ↗ where there can be disagreement um I

44:26 ↗ just really appreciate the way we all

44:27 ↗ able to do it civil respectfully and

44:29 ↗ again ultimately we'll all have the same

44:31 ↗ goal which is trying to plan our city

44:34 ↗ that it'll be a great City for all of us

44:36 ↗ including those who are um suffering

44:40 ↗ from without housing so again it's I

44:43 ↗ think we all want the same thing and I

44:44 ↗ just proud that we all do it so

44:53 ↗ respectfully All Right Moving On

44:57 ↗ topic uh we have the housing element

44:59 ↗ review number two so you all reviewed it

45:04 ↗ you made comments we took it to the

45:06 ↗ Planning Development and environmental

45:08 ↗ Council committee they made comments we

45:11 ↗ brought it back to you we had a

45:12 ↗ discussion we made some changes we sent

45:15 ↗ it off to all the agencies we sent it to

45:18 ↗ Commerce Department of Commerce we sent

45:20 ↗ it to uh P sound Regional Council they

45:22 ↗ sent it to their to tribes and all sorts

45:25 ↗ of people we also sent it to our

45:27 ↗ Consultants who are working on our

45:28 ↗ housing element for us and did our

45:32 ↗ um uh RDI

45:34 ↗ so

45:37 ↗ uh we're just going over some of those

45:39 ↗ comments tonight and just kind of let

45:40 ↗ you see where it's landed and if you

45:43 ↗ have any more changes let us

45:45 ↗ know that's what we're doing uh

45:48 ↗ directions or yeah Direction needa do

45:50 ↗ you agree with the changes that we made

45:52 ↗ based on the comments and were there any

45:55 ↗ agency comments not addressed by us that

45:57 ↗ you feel really need to be

45:59 ↗ addressed so I have only included in

46:01 ↗ here the comments where we made changes

46:04 ↗ but if you all want to bring others up

46:05 ↗ please feel free to do so so the first

46:08 ↗ comment that came up uh was the

46:11 ↗ opportunity to describe Miss Missing was

46:13 ↗ H policy A3 and the opportunity to

46:16 ↗ describe missing hous Miss middle middle

46:19 ↗ housing types in more detail here um I

46:24 ↗ may have put the wrong comment in here

46:25 ↗ but we said

46:28 ↗ prioritize and incentivize instead of

46:30 ↗ higher density diverse housing we just

46:33 ↗ said midrise housing instead because

46:35 ↗ higher density we don't really have a

46:37 ↗ definition for that so what is that um

46:39 ↗ diverse we're trying to get that middle

46:42 ↗ housing is uh diverse so that's how we

46:44 ↗ changed it looking at it right now uh we

46:48 ↗ could probably put midrise middle

46:51 ↗ housing in there um no no no no no never

46:54 ↗ never mind I take it back that's why we

46:55 ↗ did that um excuse

46:58 ↗ me um midrise housing is not the same

47:02 ↗ thing as middle housing so mid-rise

47:03 ↗ housing is going to be um three over two

47:07 ↗ housing or three stories middle housing

47:10 ↗ is more likely going to go into our less

47:12 ↗ dense neighborhoods so it's not the same

47:14 ↗ thing so I think they sort of

47:15 ↗ misunderstood the point of what we were

47:18 ↗ trying to do with that policy I

47:20 ↗ apologize I'm refocusing here

47:23 ↗ okay um this one this we had this come

47:28 ↗ up about two or three times and

47:29 ↗ essentially what they said

47:31 ↗ was um let's see it seems like it would

47:33 ↗ be better to describe all the middle

47:35 ↗ housing

47:37 ↗ types likely worth

47:41 ↗ uh oh my

47:44 ↗ goodness Lou said adopt development to

47:47 ↗ standards that provide for and maintain

47:49 ↗ the distinct aspects and scale of

47:50 ↗ established neighborhoods but allow for

47:52 ↗ the development of affordable Miss

47:53 ↗ Missing affordable middle housing types

47:56 ↗ options in traditionally lower density

47:59 ↗ neighborhoods so I wasn't going to read

48:01 ↗ the whole comment um but it was that we

48:03 ↗ did not

48:05 ↗ address

48:07 ↗ um

48:09 ↗ racially my goodness my words are so

48:11 ↗ gone and I apologize um diversity in

48:15 ↗ different neighborhoods and so we tried

48:18 ↗ to do that here by using traditionally

48:20 ↗ lower density neighborhoods which are

48:22 ↗ usually single family um we combined uh

48:26 ↗ policies be and B3

48:31 ↗ here commissioner Milligan put me in

48:34 ↗ coach I have two questions one is um the

48:37 ↗ comment

48:39 ↗ was a goal of reducing racial

48:43 ↗ disparities but the change doesn't say

48:45 ↗ anything about that and so that's one

48:48 ↗ question and the other is um what is

48:51 ↗ meant by affordable with a small a comma

48:55 ↗ middle housing options when middle

48:57 ↗ housing I understood to be a form type

49:00 ↗ rather than a income qualified category

49:04 ↗ so those are my two questions well the

49:06 ↗ purpose so you're right and thank you

49:07 ↗ for focusing me again uh racial

49:10 ↗ disparities right now what tends to

49:11 ↗ happen in single family neighborhoods is

49:13 ↗ that you get one big single family house

49:15 ↗ on a lot and if you require middle

49:16 ↗ housing in there the reason the state is

49:18 ↗ requiring us to allow middle housing is

49:20 ↗ then that you have smaller and typically

49:22 ↗ therefore typically more affordable

49:24 ↗ options in those neighborhoods therefore

49:26 ↗ you get different diversities that can

49:28 ↗ come in different income levels

49:30 ↗ different people from different cultures

49:32 ↗ all sorts of things who can come in and

49:34 ↗ buy those houses in neighborhoods where

49:35 ↗ they normally couldn't so that is how

49:37 ↗ this is intended to

49:45 ↗ address okay y thank you okay so

49:49 ↗ um if you if the change was intended to

49:54 ↗ have affordable housing

49:57 ↗ I think it would need to be more

49:59 ↗ deliberate because just the fact that a

50:01 ↗ home is a town home or a cottage

50:03 ↗ depending on the

50:05 ↗ market uh will not determine how much it

50:07 ↗ cost what the price is me what the price

50:10 ↗ is of that home I still don't understand

50:13 ↗ the connection between encouraging

50:16 ↗ racial racial diversity and having

50:18 ↗ middle

50:19 ↗ housing people regardless of their race

50:21 ↗ can live where at whatever kind of house

50:23 ↗ they want to live in and it would be

50:25 ↗ seems discrimin to say well if we make

50:28 ↗ smaller houses then we'll get people of

50:30 ↗ different races in they don't appreciate

50:32 ↗ that um

50:35 ↗ stereotype um but anyway uh I think my

50:38 ↗ main complaint is that there's an

50:41 ↗ assumption in the change that middle

50:43 ↗ housing is

50:45 ↗ Affordable and that's one of the

50:47 ↗ arguments that cities and different

50:49 ↗ jurisdictions have had with the state

50:50 ↗ and saying this doesn't necessarily make

50:52 ↗ them less affordable you all saw when we

50:54 ↗ went on our tour uh three essentially

50:57 ↗ adus and one was selling for $1.7

51:00 ↗ million so agreed

51:03 ↗ yeah

51:05 ↗ Mr and one thing I wanted to um harp on

51:09 ↗ and just following or just state is that

51:12 ↗ we have to be careful when if we're

51:13 ↗ addressing racial disparity or

51:16 ↗ affordability because we have to make

51:17 ↗ sure we don't put race with low income

51:21 ↗ because it's not

51:23 ↗ necessarily people it's really people

51:26 ↗ not having

51:28 ↗ access to homes regardless of what

51:33 ↗ income level they are so when you place

51:37 ↗ the language when the language is placed

51:40 ↗ to provide lower um housing for lower

51:44 ↗ income people it's it's it's

51:48 ↗ discriminatory that essentially you're

51:50 ↗ you're place in race with income level

51:54 ↗ saying a certain race is lower income so

51:59 ↗ be there so let me ask you guys a

52:01 ↗ question because in the comments it

52:03 ↗ Associates race with

52:05 ↗ affordability and diverse housing and

52:07 ↗ middle housing the policy does not so is

52:10 ↗ the policy the way it's written okay or

52:13 ↗ do you all want to see changes to

52:15 ↗ that I would say that we're you're

52:18 ↗ addressing two things I'm trying to we

52:21 ↗ were trying to address the comment that

52:23 ↗ was made yeah without pointing out

52:25 ↗ exactly what you're pointing

52:27 ↗ yeah cuz cuz well and that's what I'm

52:28 ↗ saying there's actually two things

52:30 ↗ there's

52:31 ↗ affordability and then there's actually

52:33 ↗ the the racial disparity of even if a

52:36 ↗ person of a certain race has the funding

52:39 ↗ to get a home they may not be able to

52:42 ↗ get a home

52:45 ↗ for other reasons per se and Al so those

52:48 ↗ are two separate

52:51 ↗ issues that the policy should address I

52:55 ↗ know we're not

52:57 ↗ say maybe this isn't supposed to address

53:00 ↗ it but that should be addressed those

53:03 ↗ two separate things as opposed to

53:04 ↗ bunching it into

53:07 ↗ affordability so so we do have our whole

53:10 ↗ affordability section and requiring

53:13 ↗ affordable

53:15 ↗ housing um in the

53:18 ↗ code and we have inclusionary housing

53:20 ↗ and then and and as part of House Bill

53:24 ↗ 1110 they require middle housing

53:28 ↗ everywhere that it's feasible to do you

53:32 ↗ can do up to two units on a lot if you

53:34 ↗ want to do four units then you're

53:36 ↗ required to allow to provide

53:38 ↗ one affordable housing unit with a

53:41 ↗ covenant tied to

53:42 ↗ it that is how the state addressed both

53:45 ↗ of those at one time I guess right now

53:48 ↗ it's it's really it's just focusing on

53:51 ↗ affordability not actually

53:53 ↗ addressing the other item on the racial

53:56 ↗ disparities I think that that's really

53:58 ↗ that's really the key thing so that's

54:00 ↗ not actually addressed the racial

54:02 ↗ disparity in that

54:04 ↗ end it's not here but it is in other

54:07 ↗ policies okay okay there commissioner

54:12 ↗ Patterson I just want to make one

54:14 ↗ observation in assessing the comment on

54:17 ↗ the screen it was actually submitted

54:19 ↗ separately uh half of it was submitted

54:22 ↗ by uh looks like Commerce in relation to

54:25 ↗ the middle housing p piece and then the

54:27 ↗ other half was smid by the Leland

54:30 ↗ Consulting that was more about the

54:32 ↗ racial disparity piece and I think the

54:34 ↗ way it looks on screen and sounds when

54:36 ↗ we're discussing it is that it combined

54:39 ↗ the affordability with the racial aspect

54:42 ↗ but I think in reality the way it was

54:44 ↗ split up there was that one was about

54:47 ↗ the affordability of middle housing

54:49 ↗ being included and the racial disparity

54:52 ↗ had more to do with having that apply

54:54 ↗ Citywide or more broadly as opposed to

54:57 ↗ being restricted is how I interpreted it

55:00 ↗ you're right they were they were I agree

55:01 ↗ and they were they were both both

55:03 ↗ comments were addressing the same two

55:05 ↗ policies

55:06 ↗ and they were from different cons

55:09 ↗ different agencies so we tried to

55:12 ↗ combine them as one if you would like us

55:14 ↗ to see if you'd like to see us separate

55:16 ↗ them we can there are other policies

55:18 ↗ that relate to affordability and

55:22 ↗ um disparity so it

55:27 ↗ but that's why we're here to discuss the

55:28 ↗ policies

55:30 ↗ themselves Z yeah I maybe it would be

55:33 ↗ good to see some of the language

55:35 ↗ elsewhere and then see if we can in

55:39 ↗ discuss to incorporate it it

55:41 ↗ here okay um

55:44 ↗ all I sent I sent a copy of of the

55:47 ↗ entire element is included in the packet

55:49 ↗ okay so if you know if that's something

55:52 ↗ that you want to email me if you go

55:54 ↗ through it and say it's it's just not

55:56 ↗ covered or we really need to fix this

55:58 ↗ one um you can always email that to me

56:01 ↗ too okay because we still have time to

56:03 ↗ go through and change these and if you

56:04 ↗ all want to see it again before it comes

56:06 ↗ back um in July then we can do that too

56:10 ↗ M alore I saw your hand go

56:14 ↗ up uh I really uh commissioner Pon what

56:17 ↗ you said helped me a lot with what I was

56:19 ↗ about to say so thank you for that um

56:22 ↗ looking at that third comment where it

56:24 ↗ says uh to more directly address racial

56:27 ↗ disparities I think that the change

56:29 ↗ really does address that because it is

56:32 ↗ talking about not putting specific

56:35 ↗ requirements in specific neighborhoods

56:37 ↗ for specific housing types which was

56:38 ↗ often previously used to segregate

56:42 ↗ neighborhoods so um with the way you

56:44 ↗ described it in the different places it

56:45 ↗ was coming that's sort of formulated for

56:47 ↗ me so I just wanted to say that in the

56:48 ↗ change language on the right column I I

56:51 ↗ like what how that's written and I think

56:53 ↗ that does address those comments without

56:56 ↗ conflating what we had talked about

56:57 ↗ before affordability and race uh

56:59 ↗ profiling in

57:00 ↗ there Vice J

57:02 ↗ Bader yeah um yeah first of all thank

57:05 ↗ you I same reaction Jessie remembering

57:08 ↗ that this um the comment about

57:10 ↗ maintaining distinct aspects in scale of

57:12 ↗ established neighborhoods as a point um

57:15 ↗ and I think the point in the RDI

57:17 ↗ document that language like that has the

57:20 ↗ potential um to like cause harm right or

57:24 ↗ to not opportunity for um folks who have

57:28 ↗ not always lived in neighborhoods right

57:30 ↗ there's a not to say that it will happen

57:32 ↗ in isqua right um but historically um

57:36 ↗ you know if you want to maintain the

57:37 ↗ distinct aspect of a white neighborhood

57:39 ↗ um what does that look like right and so

57:41 ↗ there is a lot of history behind some of

57:43 ↗ that language that has the potential to

57:45 ↗ cause harm and so I actually think that

57:47 ↗ that was addressed more in the goal that

57:49 ↗ precedes this section

57:52 ↗ um that took out the language on

57:56 ↗ maintaining the quality of the city's

57:57 ↗ neighborhoods and environment and

57:59 ↗ changed it to ensuring that all

58:00 ↗ neighborhoods benefit from high quality

58:02 ↗ services and amenities um and so I also

58:05 ↗ like feel okay with the language and the

58:07 ↗ policy change here and feel like that

58:10 ↗ the point that I think that that line

58:12 ↗ was trying to get at about some of the

58:14 ↗ kind of historic harm um caused by

58:16 ↗ language like that is address that

58:25 ↗ goal he

58:27 ↗ the next one affordable housing

58:28 ↗ opportunities such as micro units and

58:30 ↗ single room occupancy housing seems like

58:32 ↗ it would be better to describe all of

58:33 ↗ the Miss missing all of the middle

58:35 ↗ housing types so we put that in there as

58:38 ↗ a result of the study that was done with

58:40 ↗ our housing study previously um good

58:42 ↗ point on their part though is that we

58:44 ↗ want to ensure that

58:49 ↗ um that it's not just that or that it

58:51 ↗ goes to all housing types so and we just

58:53 ↗ took out the specificity in that

59:01 ↗ so this one also came up from both our

59:05 ↗ consultant and from ESR or

59:08 ↗ Commerce asking what are designated

59:11 ↗ areas well the state designates the

59:13 ↗ areas so we didn't feel like we needed

59:15 ↗ to get really specific about the zones

59:17 ↗ because the state may change the zones

59:19 ↗ they may change the requirements and if

59:21 ↗ they do then we have to change ours so

59:23 ↗ we chose to leave it a little big and

59:25 ↗ just say and they also pointed out we

59:27 ↗ left out transitional housing so we put

59:28 ↗ that in there um but we chose just to

59:31 ↗ say at a minimum those zones identified

59:34 ↗ by the state meaning that if we want to

59:36 ↗ do more and allow it more places we can

59:39 ↗ but we will at least allow it where the

59:40 ↗ state

59:45 ↗ requires uh H go D which we actually

59:50 ↗ just went through sort of I apologize

59:53 ↗ these aren't all in order I went in the

59:54 ↗ order of the comments so neighborhood

59:57 ↗ quality doesn't have the same

59:58 ↗ implications as neighborhood character

1:00:00 ↗ but it's still a little vague and

1:00:01 ↗ maintaining quality still has the Ring

1:00:03 ↗ of being a bit backwards looking so we

1:00:07 ↗ changed it to achieve a variety of

1:00:09 ↗ neighborhoods housing types and

1:00:10 ↗ densities throughout the city ensuring

1:00:12 ↗ all neighborhoods benefit from high

1:00:14 ↗ quality services and

1:00:16 ↗ amenities rather than maintaining the

1:00:18 ↗ quality of the city's neighborhoods and

1:00:20 ↗ environment okay all

1:00:24 ↗ right policy D2 CI should consider

1:00:27 ↗ partnering with organizations that serve

1:00:29 ↗ people of color to ensure that

1:00:30 ↗ information about these types of program

1:00:32 ↗ reaches seniors of

1:00:34 ↗ color um so we put that in here to

1:00:36 ↗ partner with organizations to do so

1:00:38 ↗ including B indigenous and other and it

1:00:40 ↗ did say uh persons of color I changed it

1:00:43 ↗ to seniors of color because that's what

1:00:44 ↗ this is supposed to focus on it says uh

1:00:46 ↗ persons of color I believe in your doc

1:00:48 ↗ in your

1:00:54 ↗ packet policy e one the comprehensive

1:00:57 ↗ evaluation should measure impacts on

1:00:58 ↗ residents and communities of color this

1:01:00 ↗ should be explicit in this policy

1:01:04 ↗ therefore um conduct a comprehensive

1:01:07 ↗ evaluation that measures the

1:01:09 ↗ effectiveness of City housing

1:01:10 ↗ regulations and meeting the housing need

1:01:11 ↗ of all persons who live in work in isqua

1:01:13 ↗ including black indigenous and other

1:01:15 ↗ people of color so I don't think we can

1:01:18 ↗ get more

1:01:19 ↗ explicit ask this to

1:01:22 ↗ do those are all the changes that I

1:01:24 ↗ included excuse me

1:01:26 ↗ um so we are going to finish the entire

1:01:29 ↗ comp plan draft for review uh in April

1:01:33 ↗ and that will be posted for

1:01:35 ↗ comment oh I was wrong July July um

1:01:40 ↗ scratch that and then we will hold a

1:01:42 ↗ public Hearing in early uh Q4 and also

1:01:45 ↗ have Council review in action in

1:01:49 ↗ Q4 so back to the

1:01:53 ↗ questions uh questions former

1:01:55 ↗ commissioners

1:01:58 ↗ or comments please I have a comment

1:02:00 ↗ because I get to follow up on the um

1:02:02 ↗ neighborhood character which was then

1:02:04 ↗ interpreted as quality and I really

1:02:06 ↗ appreciate the way that the um that this

1:02:08 ↗ has been

1:02:09 ↗ revised uh because a lot of times uh

1:02:13 ↗ low-income neighborhoods get the lesser

1:02:16 ↗ of the city sidewalks the city

1:02:19 ↗ maintenance the other uh things in this

1:02:22 ↗ uh there's no there's no real reason for

1:02:23 ↗ that and better to put people

1:02:26 ↗ um who live throughout the city on par

1:02:29 ↗ with the services that the city uh

1:02:31 ↗ provides or the amenities that a city

1:02:34 ↗ requires in um rebuilding a neighborhood

1:02:36 ↗ so I really appreciate the language

1:02:38 ↗ thank

1:02:41 ↗ you any further

1:02:45 ↗ comments yeah I I I appreciate the

1:02:47 ↗ staff's hard work on this um you guys

1:02:49 ↗ were able to synthesize two different oh

1:02:52 ↗ sorry commissioner Patterson yeah go for

1:02:54 ↗ it

1:02:58 ↗ [Laughter]

1:03:01 ↗ um I understand the RDI is published in

1:03:04 ↗ a draft format fairly

1:03:06 ↗ recently um in those comments that we

1:03:08 ↗ just went over has that feedback or in

1:03:12 ↗ particular the policy evaluation uh been

1:03:15 ↗ applied

1:03:16 ↗ to or the policy sorry but that came up

1:03:19 ↗ today and we haven't done we haven't

1:03:21 ↗ done our policy comparison with the RDI

1:03:26 ↗ I believe that the consultant did and

1:03:27 ↗ that's at the very end of it um but we

1:03:29 ↗ haven't done it ourselves so we still

1:03:31 ↗ need to do that there could be a

1:03:33 ↗ potential that there may be some slight

1:03:35 ↗ changes in the policies based on that

1:03:37 ↗ feedback still Yes okay and then one

1:03:40 ↗ other question on that topic is the GMA

1:03:43 ↗ goals I I noticed it said that those

1:03:46 ↗ policies will not be included in the

1:03:48 ↗ next draft they won't I mean we're

1:03:52 ↗ required to comply with them and they're

1:03:55 ↗ in the R the revised code Washington if

1:03:57 ↗ somebody wants to see them we include

1:03:59 ↗ them we do what they tell us to do right

1:04:03 ↗ they would certify us if we didn't

1:04:06 ↗ deal I'd like introduce uh Stephen who

1:04:09 ↗ hasn't talked tonight uh Stephen our

1:04:11 ↗ long-range planner thank you chair voice

1:04:13 ↗ St long range planning manager so uh

1:04:15 ↗ commissioner Pon you actually brought up

1:04:17 ↗ a good point about the RDI and policies

1:04:20 ↗ that we were proposing for the the

1:04:22 ↗ housing element so when we started a lot

1:04:26 ↗ of this journey to develop the draft

1:04:28 ↗ policies we knew what a lot of the state

1:04:31 ↗ was going to be expecting so we're not

1:04:33 ↗ expecting too much to change we're still

1:04:35 ↗ going to go back through the policies

1:04:37 ↗ now that we have the draft RDI we're not

1:04:39 ↗ expecting too many

1:04:41 ↗ changes

1:04:42 ↗ because because the state had already

1:04:44 ↗ laid out a lot of what

1:04:46 ↗ the getting the new draft housing

1:04:54 ↗ element

1:04:57 ↗ Stephen any further comments questions B

1:05:02 ↗ just a comment and I didn't do this

1:05:04 ↗ homework myself so it might all be in

1:05:06 ↗ there um but there are a

1:05:08 ↗ couple policies that were highlighted in

1:05:11 ↗ the RDI as kind of challenging um Equity

1:05:14 ↗ um and so I feel like and I don't know

1:05:16 ↗ if those match the of agency the

1:05:20 ↗ policies that the agencies had um

1:05:22 ↗ comments on but I think regardless that

1:05:25 ↗ those ones in particular particular like

1:05:26 ↗ are worth at least like making sure that

1:05:30 ↗ um they're doing what we want them to

1:05:37 ↗ do all

1:05:39 ↗ right um I just want to thank staff for

1:05:41 ↗ doing a great job of synthesizing those

1:05:43 ↗ two different reports it's a lot um I

1:05:46 ↗ read through both of them very carefully

1:05:48 ↗ I thought there was a lot of good

1:05:50 ↗ aspirational things I did think there

1:05:52 ↗ were a few things that I hope staff will

1:05:54 ↗ leave out um because I do think you know

1:05:57 ↗ part of it is you're listening to

1:05:58 ↗ Consultants the other part is you have

1:06:01 ↗ the residents so these Consultants are

1:06:03 ↗ at a Portland Oregon they're not part of

1:06:05 ↗ our community so what's important to our

1:06:07 ↗ community is also neighborhood character

1:06:09 ↗ keeping things like that so again there

1:06:11 ↗ were a lot of things that I agreed with

1:06:12 ↗ there were a few that I would actually

1:06:14 ↗ take a little bit of umbrage um that'll

1:06:16 ↗ be for us to parse out but I do think

1:06:18 ↗ like I said there was a lot of good

1:06:19 ↗ stuff in there a lot of aspirational

1:06:21 ↗ things um so yeah great job and I'm

1:06:24 ↗ happy to report that isqua did pretty

1:06:26 ↗ well we've been traditionally a pretty

1:06:28 ↗ welcoming City and I think you can

1:06:31 ↗ actually see it through the report I can

1:06:33 ↗ pick out a few highlights but I won't

1:06:34 ↗ waste your time because I know you guys

1:06:35 ↗ all did the same homework I did and read

1:06:37 ↗ through it um but again it was it was

1:06:39 ↗ gratifying to see that I thought it was

1:06:42 ↗ kind of strange actually that our newer

1:06:45 ↗ area next to Swedish is one of our most

1:06:47 ↗ diverse areas and then you actually look

1:06:49 ↗ at one of the areas that are

1:06:50 ↗ older I want to say poor but and that's

1:06:53 ↗ actually leest ofer I felt that kind of

1:06:57 ↗ interesting um but again you guys have a

1:06:59 ↗ big task ahead of you and I appreciate

1:07:00 ↗ all the hard

1:07:03 ↗ work May I note that if there are

1:07:06 ↗ certain policies that you take Umbridge

1:07:08 ↗ with and would like to like send those

1:07:10 ↗ to us and just we can take a look like I

1:07:13 ↗ said there were very few I think that

1:07:14 ↗ for me there was a couple where they

1:07:16 ↗ wanted I think giving land away for free

1:07:18 ↗ I don't know why we would do that um but

1:07:21 ↗ again maybe you can convince me I know

1:07:23 ↗ they said or at a nominal cost that to

1:07:26 ↗ me right there is kind of a flag because

1:07:28 ↗ land is about the most expensive part of

1:07:30 ↗ that's what prohibits people from being

1:07:32 ↗ able to those yeah okay I guess that

1:07:35 ↗ would be a conversation I'd love to have

1:07:36 ↗ with staff because like I said that one

1:07:38 ↗ kind of got me a little wrong and then

1:07:40 ↗ again I do know that one of the biggest

1:07:42 ↗ things that our residents want is part

1:07:44 ↗ of our Township to continue to have that

1:07:46 ↗ small town feel so when they say you

1:07:49 ↗ know Zone everything for everything I I

1:07:51 ↗ don't think most of our residents would

1:07:52 ↗ agree with some of those my opinion

1:07:55 ↗ you're wrong that's what I've

1:08:01 ↗ heard but my

1:08:05 ↗ piece the RDI is just a document or does

1:08:10 ↗ it live will it live somewhere it will

1:08:13 ↗ live as an appendix in our comprehensive

1:08:15 ↗ plan because there's like and I this

1:08:17 ↗ might not be the forum for this there

1:08:20 ↗ are a couple ways that things are worded

1:08:22 ↗ in there that I think give us a little

1:08:26 ↗ bit of a pat on the back when we

1:08:27 ↗ shouldn't be giving a pat on the back

1:08:30 ↗ um I know you've sent some but if you

1:08:33 ↗ see others um send those to us because

1:08:35 ↗ yeah we don't want to get too into the

1:08:37 ↗ word smithing here so but yeah would

1:08:40 ↗ please send those to us if you all read

1:08:41 ↗ through that and see

1:08:46 ↗ anything okay going once

1:08:52 ↗ twice

1:08:54 ↗ okay

1:08:56 ↗ I believe we're now ready for

1:08:58 ↗ report and I don't and I believe since

1:09:01 ↗ Kristen just walked away I'm I'm going

1:09:03 ↗ to guess Steven's doing them tonight uh

1:09:05 ↗ Stephen any city council updates yes

1:09:08 ↗ thank you and thank you Kristen for the

1:09:10 ↗ great presentation tonight absolutely um

1:09:13 ↗ and quickly walking away right there so

1:09:16 ↗ I have a couple quick Council

1:09:18 ↗ updates so you all may have received the

1:09:21 ↗ email um if you haven't you you can find

1:09:24 ↗ it tonight or when when it's convenient

1:09:27 ↗ there is a event on May 1st with uh

1:09:29 ↗ Arch's offices on they're they're

1:09:33 ↗ holding a housing 101 event and it's for

1:09:36 ↗ elected officials or planning

1:09:37 ↗ commissions to help kind of learn about

1:09:38 ↗ a lot of the work they do and and get um

1:09:42 ↗ conversation around the work that

1:09:43 ↗ they're doing or they're wanting to

1:09:45 ↗ achieve in this if you have questions

1:09:47 ↗ about the event please reach out to us

1:09:49 ↗ and we can help answer what we can or

1:09:52 ↗ direct you to the AR that who help

1:09:54 ↗ answer any more specific

1:09:56 ↗ question March 18th um was a big day for

1:10:00 ↗ a lot of the work that this commission

1:10:01 ↗ has worked on the comprehensive plan

1:10:04 ↗ docket was approved by city council they

1:10:06 ↗ also approved the Pioneer program on

1:10:09 ↗ that date and there was some discussion

1:10:10 ↗ on that so if you want to go and learn

1:10:13 ↗ more you can watch that City C

1:10:15 ↗ additionally um something that we

1:10:17 ↗ haven't talked a whole lot about but

1:10:19 ↗ will be impacting some of what this be

1:10:21 ↗ doing is Council adopted a light rail

1:10:23 ↗ planning document on Mark so you want to

1:10:25 ↗ learn more about what the city is going

1:10:27 ↗ to be planning to do for the next two

1:10:29 ↗ decades to prepare for light rail you'll

1:10:31 ↗ find a lot of that information in that

1:10:35 ↗ guide uh the March 18th city

1:10:40 ↗ council gr so I attended the March 8 uh

1:10:44 ↗ it was a date night for us we came to

1:10:46 ↗ that as you take your

1:10:48 ↗ date they covered a bunch of different

1:10:50 ↗ things the Pioneer it was a really good

1:10:51 ↗ conversation uh on the Pioneer and the

1:10:54 ↗ only it was a 5 to2 votee um I think

1:10:59 ↗ they ended up well with some flexibility

1:11:02 ↗ for the builders they gave good

1:11:04 ↗ presentations the one thing I think is

1:11:06 ↗ really important was there was a lot of

1:11:08 ↗ Kudos given to these groups uh in terms

1:11:12 ↗ of the conversations to get to that

1:11:15 ↗ point so it was nice to see that

1:11:16 ↗ recognized by mayor Paulie and the and

1:11:19 ↗ the rest of the folks um in that

1:11:21 ↗ discussion so made me made me feel proud

1:11:24 ↗ to sit there in the P gallery that one I

1:11:27 ↗ hope you took her somewhere else after

1:11:29 ↗ your date

1:11:33 ↗ man uh Stephen no no uh commissioner

1:11:36 ↗ crass took the words right out of my

1:11:37 ↗ mouth I was gonna say thank you for a

1:11:39 ↗ lot of it that you did receive Kudos

1:11:41 ↗ from the city council and a lot of the

1:11:43 ↗ discussions that it was very helpful for

1:11:45 ↗ their

1:11:47 ↗ discussion please commission

1:11:50 ↗ M uh so Stephen was there any uh

1:11:53 ↗ significant change to the Pioneer

1:11:54 ↗ program in its final adoption from the

1:11:57 ↗ version that our body um

1:12:01 ↗ asked uh yes so the final program will

1:12:04 ↗ be offering both um 10% at 80 or 10% at

1:12:09 ↗ 80% Ami and the 8% at 60% as an option

1:12:14 ↗ for developers go through the program

1:12:17 ↗ and the other major change was changing

1:12:19 ↗ the twoyear to threeyear

1:12:20 ↗ [Music]

1:12:22 ↗ um timeline for construction

1:12:25 ↗ that was one of the that

1:12:35 ↗ we any other business or announcements

1:12:38 ↗ from our city

1:12:40 ↗ staff believe you covered them

1:12:45 ↗ all any final words from our

1:12:50 ↗ commission all right well there being no

1:12:52 ↗ further business before the commission

1:12:54 ↗ we'll adjourn and at 7:45

1:12:58 ↗ p.m.

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Staff (1)

Christen Leeson, Senior Planner Stephen Padua, Long Range Planning Manager 2. Approval of Minutes ➢ Regarding the Minutes of March 14, 2024, Vice-Chair Bader stated that a comment on page three of five regarding school included attributed to Vice-Chair Bader should be attributed to Commissioner Kennedy. There being no further corrections or comments, the Minutes of March 14, 2024 were approved. 3

Recommendations & actions (4)

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

There being no further corrections or comments, the Minutes of March 14, 2024 were approved.
CHAIR VOISS asked if the city has power within the permit process and Leeson replied that some cities have adopted regulations regarding what should be included in operational plans but Issaquah has opted not to due to…
The Comprehensive Plan docket and Pioneer Program were approved on March 18, 2024 by Council, and a light rail planning document has been developed.
COMMISSIONER KRASS stated having attended the March 18, 2024 Council meeting, and that the groups that moved the Pioneer Program forward in discussion were praised.