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

Council / Members (7)

Voiss

Vice-Chair Bader

Commissioners Altimore

Esemuede

Krass

Milligan

Patterson

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