Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, January 22, 2026 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of January 8, 2026

packet pp.3–5

▶ Watch from 1:05 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Thursday, January 8, 2026

4. PUBLIC HEARING

2026 Docket of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments (A)

Kate Kaehny, Principal Planner Public Hearing Order: Commission · packet pp.7–10

Topics: Land Use

Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

On January 22, the Planning Policy Commission (PPC) will hold a public hearing and then deliberate on the 2026 Docket of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments. A

5. REGULAR BUSINESS

Housing 101

Discussion · Christen Leeson, Planning Manager · packet pp.11–12

Topics: Housing

▶ Watch from 2:44 Open packet at p.11 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of the January 22 meeting is to provide an overview of housing in the region and in Issaquah in preparation for anticipated 2026 Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Code amendments.

6. REPORTS

Council Update

7. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.13–15

▶ Watch from 1:25:28 Open packet at p.13 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission 2026 Schedule (subject to change) 1/9/26 1/22/26

1853 segments .txt ↗

0:10 ↗ Good evening everyone. We're going to

0:12 ↗ call the January 22nd Planning Policy

0:14 ↗ Commission meeting to order and it

0:16 ↗ currently is right on the dot 6:30 p.m.

0:20 ↗ Today's meeting is a hybrid meeting. The

0:22 ↗ planning policy commission is in person,

0:25 ↗ but staff or members of the public may

0:27 ↗ be attending virtually or in person. Uh

0:31 ↗ Kristen, do we have a quorum this

0:32 ↗ evening?

0:33 ↗ >> We do. And commissioners Zacharov and

0:35 ↗ Patterson are excused.

0:37 ↗ >> Okay. And we might see and I do see

0:42 ↗ Commissioner Millinder Irwin. So,

0:44 ↗ perfect timing.

0:47 ↗ Okay. Give her a second to get settled

0:50 ↗ and then we'll look at the minutes.

1:02 ↗ All right. So, our first item of

1:03 ↗ business this evening is to take action

1:05 ↗ to approve the minutes for the January

1:07 ↗ 8th, 2026 PPC meeting. Um,

1:11 ↗ commissioners, and there any corrections

1:13 ↗ to the draft minutes that were provided

1:14 ↗ in your agenda packet?

1:19 ↗ Hearing none. Seeing none, uh, those

1:22 ↗ minutes are approved. We're going to

1:24 ↗ move on right now to public comment. And

1:27 ↗ tonight we're actually holding a public

1:28 ↗ hearing. So, we're going to have two

1:30 ↗ opportunities to speak. Right now, we

1:32 ↗ just ask for uh those who would wish to

1:35 ↗ speak speak in general terms, speak uh

1:37 ↗ for the good of the order. Um, but if

1:40 ↗ you actually are here to speak on the

1:42 ↗ adoption of this year's amendments,

1:44 ↗ you'll want to wait till we get to the

1:46 ↗ public hearing.

1:48 ↗ Has anyone signed up to speak this

1:50 ↗ evening?

1:51 ↗ >> I do have two

1:54 ↗ um people that have signed up. I'm not

1:56 ↗ sure if they are for the general public

1:58 ↗ comments or um the public comments.

2:02 ↗ >> Sure. Um I guess I'm looking and do we

2:07 ↗ have any virtual speakers?

2:09 ↗ >> We do not.

2:10 ↗ >> Okay. So to those of you in the

2:11 ↗ audience, are you here to speak

2:13 ↗ generally or for the public hearing? I'm

2:16 ↗ not sure who signed up.

2:19 ↗ Oh, fair enough. That check-in sheet

2:22 ↗ gets everybody. Okay. So, no general

2:25 ↗ comments,

2:28 ↗ specific ones for the public hearing.

2:30 ↗ Perfect. Okay. All right. Um, then we're

2:34 ↗ going to skip over the public comment

2:36 ↗ guidelines for the moment so we can move

2:39 ↗ on

2:41 ↗ and we are going to begin that public

2:43 ↗ hearing. This is our first item of

2:44 ↗ regular business and we are holding a

2:48 ↗ hearing regarding the docket of proposed

2:50 ↗ comprehensive plan amendments. The

2:52 ↗ purpose of this public hearing is to

2:54 ↗ provide a formal opportunity for the

2:55 ↗ public to comment on that docket.

3:04 ↗ We'll open the public hearing which will

3:06 ↗ be followed by a presentation from staff

3:09 ↗ and then the PPC will have an

3:11 ↗ opportunity to ask follow-up questions.

3:14 ↗ After that, we'll take public testimony,

3:17 ↗ close the public hearing, and then the

3:18 ↗ planning policy commission will

3:20 ↗ deliberate and make a recommendation on

3:22 ↗ this item. Kate Kaney, our principal

3:25 ↗ planner, will be presenting tonight. So,

3:28 ↗ Kate, when you are ready, please go

3:29 ↗ ahead.

3:52 ↗ Okay. Apologies for the delay.

3:55 ↗ Everything set up here. Okay. Um, thank

3:58 ↗ you. Um, and good evening. My name is

4:00 ↗ Kate Kaney and I am here to provide an

4:03 ↗ overview of the proposed 2026 docket of

4:08 ↗ comprehensive plan amendment. I will

4:10 ↗ also discuss a little bit about the

4:12 ↗ amendment process.

4:15 ↗ So, we are here not only to uh have the

4:18 ↗ public hearing on the 2026 docket of

4:21 ↗ proposals, but also to provide an

4:23 ↗ opportunity for the commission to

4:25 ↗ deliberate and uh provide their

4:28 ↗ recommendation on proposals to forward

4:30 ↗ to council. Uh tonight is not uh for the

4:34 ↗ commissioners. It's not about approving

4:36 ↗ items on the docket. It's about uh

4:39 ↗ forwarding a recommendation for council

4:42 ↗ to establish the proposals on the final

4:46 ↗ docket which will receive further

4:48 ↗ analysis and consideration through an

4:50 ↗ amendment process in the next in

4:52 ↗ throughout this this year.

4:55 ↗ So in terms of a little background um

4:58 ↗ both the state and the city have

5:00 ↗ requirements for amending the

5:01 ↗ comprehensive plan. The state requires

5:04 ↗ cities to establish a process so that

5:06 ↗ the comprehensive plan can be open to

5:08 ↗ the public and that changes can be made.

5:11 ↗ Those changes are limited to one time a

5:13 ↗ year. Amendments just once a year. Um

5:16 ↗ the amendment process is sometimes

5:18 ↗ called a docket process. Docket meaning

5:20 ↗ list, reviewing the list of proposals.

5:23 ↗ Um the city in the city's code um also

5:26 ↗ establishes procedures and criteria for

5:30 ↗ amending the comprehensive plan. The

5:32 ↗ criteria is established for private the

5:36 ↗ evaluation of privately initiated

5:38 ↗ amendments and as discussed with the

5:40 ↗ commissioners at their last meeting um

5:43 ↗ there were no proposals received from uh

5:46 ↗ private individuals or groups this year.

5:47 ↗ So all of the proposed amendments are um

5:50 ↗ initiated by the city. Um the code also

5:55 ↗ um establishes uh procedures for how the

5:58 ↗ docket will be reviewed um at this

6:01 ↗ preliminary phase, how council will

6:03 ↗ establish a final docket uh and it moves

6:06 ↗ through the amendment process after

6:08 ↗ that.

6:10 ↗ So tonight um I will give an overview of

6:13 ↗ the five city initiated proposals. Uh I

6:17 ↗ will go through in the next slides each

6:19 ↗ proposal one by one.

6:22 ↗ Starting with this first amendment. Um

6:26 ↗ this uh proposal uh has two goals

6:29 ↗ really. Um and they both have to do with

6:31 ↗ the land use designations that are in

6:33 ↗ the comprehensive plan. So what is a

6:35 ↗ land use designation? Um you can see on

6:38 ↗ the screen uh the the brightly colored

6:40 ↗ squares those are from the legend um of

6:43 ↗ that comprehensive plan map that you see

6:45 ↗ to the right. The land use designations

6:48 ↗ and there are nine in Isiqua identify

6:51 ↗ the type of development and land use

6:54 ↗ that's allowed in certain areas and the

6:57 ↗ comprehensive plan map that you see um

7:00 ↗ illustrates where those land use

7:03 ↗ designations allow those certain uses.

7:05 ↗ So the the goals of this proposal are to

7:09 ↗ um add descriptions full descriptions of

7:11 ↗ the land use designations and also to

7:14 ↗ add information that identifies um the

7:17 ↗ land use designations and how they are

7:19 ↗ implemented by specific zones um from

7:23 ↗ the zoning map and from the land use um

7:26 ↗ code. So

7:29 ↗ whoops, sorry about that. um

7:33 ↗ that table. Uh this is that second part

7:37 ↗ uh of the amendment uh that lists those

7:39 ↗ nine land use designations and their

7:41 ↗ comparable zones. And the reason that

7:43 ↗ this is important is to make sure that

7:46 ↗ there's consistency between the type of

7:48 ↗ land uses allowed through land use

7:49 ↗ designations in the comprehensive plan

7:52 ↗ and the types of zones and zoning that

7:55 ↗ are in the zoning code. State law

7:58 ↗ requires that development regulations

8:00 ↗ implement the comprehensive plan. So

8:03 ↗ this helps us increase consistency

8:05 ↗ between those two things.

8:10 ↗ Okay. Now uh the second amendment um

8:14 ↗ also has to do with land use

8:16 ↗ designations and zones. This proposal

8:19 ↗ actually was on the docket in 2025 last

8:23 ↗ year, but there were not enough staff

8:25 ↗ resources to fully address and implement

8:28 ↗ uh this amendment. So, the goal here is

8:31 ↗ to clarify the names of the lowdensity

8:33 ↗ and multifamily land use and zoning

8:36 ↗ designations to ensure compliance with

8:38 ↗ the state's middle housing requirements

8:40 ↗ and also to clarify their role and their

8:43 ↗ capabilities. Um what you can see in the

8:46 ↗ table to the right is low density

8:49 ↗ residential is one of the designations.

8:52 ↗ That designation also allows middle

8:54 ↗ housing uses but you don't see low to

8:57 ↗ moderate or that kind of name change. So

9:00 ↗ staff will be evaluating name changes uh

9:03 ↗ for both the land designations and the

9:05 ↗ zones to clarify the capabilities of

9:07 ↗ both designations.

9:11 ↗ Okay. So proposal number three

9:15 ↗ um this proposal would um update

9:19 ↗ uh the uh the goals and the plan

9:22 ↗ actually would update uh the policies

9:25 ↗ for Isiqua's regional growth center. So

9:28 ↗ just uh to give folks an idea of where

9:30 ↗ the growth center is. If you look at the

9:32 ↗ map to the right, you can see the you

9:34 ↗ can see Isiqua with the black boundary.

9:36 ↗ And in that central area in the purple,

9:39 ↗ that is the boundary identified in the

9:41 ↗ central Isiqua plan for the central

9:43 ↗ Isiqua neighborhood. Within that

9:46 ↗ neighborhood, that green um shaded area

9:50 ↗ is the city's designated regional growth

9:53 ↗ center. And that growth center was

9:55 ↗ designated by the Puet Sound Regional

9:56 ↗ Council in 2015. That designation um is

10:02 ↗ part of a uh larger system of regional

10:05 ↗ growth centers across the region and

10:08 ↗ with it are some requirements from Puget

10:10 ↗ Sound Regional Council um that have been

10:13 ↗ changed the last few years. And what

10:16 ↗ this proposal is going to do is to

10:19 ↗ address some of the the changes in the

10:21 ↗ in the new plan or policy framework for

10:25 ↗ the regional growth center from Puget

10:26 ↗ Sound Regional Council. Um this is kind

10:29 ↗ of a limited update of things. It's

10:31 ↗ really to um align the uh information on

10:36 ↗ our regional growth center with the

10:38 ↗ population, job and housing targets from

10:41 ↗ the 2024 major update of Isiqua's

10:44 ↗ comprehensive plan. Um and uh address

10:47 ↗ any other issues that arise from uh our

10:50 ↗ evaluation of the the new Puget Sound

10:53 ↗ Regional Council goals for regional

10:55 ↗ growth centers.

10:59 ↗ Okay. So, the fourth proposal is an

11:03 ↗ update related to the 2024 park system

11:06 ↗ plan update. Um, that update uh changed

11:10 ↗ some of the names uh for things like the

11:12 ↗ name of this plan. Uh the park system

11:15 ↗ plan uh it changed the name of the green

11:18 ↗ necklace concept for open space and

11:20 ↗ trails that was in just that isqua

11:23 ↗ central plan. Now the creeks to peaks

11:26 ↗ concept is a citywide concept and so

11:29 ↗ there will be some kind of uh

11:30 ↗ administrative work to change the names

11:32 ↗ and make sure the nomenclature uh works

11:34 ↗ across plans. Um there's also an issue

11:39 ↗ uh that is being looked at by park staff

11:42 ↗ regarding level of service for parks

11:44 ↗ facilities. Uh currently it's very

11:46 ↗ quantitative approach and uh the parks

11:50 ↗ department is moving into a more

11:51 ↗ qualitative approach. So we will be

11:53 ↗ doing some learning and analyzing on

11:55 ↗ that as uh we work with park staff on

11:57 ↗ those amendments.

12:01 ↗ Okay. The last proposal, amendment

12:03 ↗ number five, um is really a placeholder

12:06 ↗ uh for potential amendments that may

12:08 ↗ arise from the work on the Isiqua

12:11 ↗ climate action plan update that is

12:13 ↗ taking place this year. So, we are

12:16 ↗ working closely with the city

12:17 ↗ sustainability manager on um that

12:20 ↗ process and this uh set of potential

12:24 ↗ amendments is available in case uh

12:27 ↗ anything arises from that plan update

12:30 ↗ that might lead to a policy change in

12:33 ↗ the comprehensive plan.

12:35 ↗ So, that was an overview of the five

12:38 ↗ proposals um in the 2026 docket. Now I'm

12:42 ↗ just going to talk through uh some

12:44 ↗ process uh for this docket itself. Um

12:47 ↗ tonight's public hearing also the

12:49 ↗ recommendation from the commissioners uh

12:52 ↗ is what it will be happening tonight.

12:55 ↗ February 3rd is scheduled for the

12:57 ↗ council committee. The planning

12:59 ↗ development and environment committees

13:01 ↗ review and recommendation. And then on

13:04 ↗ February 23rd the uh proposals and

13:07 ↗ recommendations will go to the full

13:08 ↗ council for action. And what council

13:11 ↗ will be doing is acting on a resolution

13:13 ↗ to establish the final docket of

13:15 ↗ proposals that will then be uh taken

13:18 ↗ through an amendment process.

13:21 ↗ And this slide outlines what that

13:24 ↗ amendment process looks like. So after

13:27 ↗ the final docket has been established,

13:29 ↗ staff will go back and analyze uh

13:31 ↗ different things as necessary and draft

13:34 ↗ the full amendments uh related to each

13:36 ↗ of those five proposals that I just went

13:38 ↗ through. Um it will uh start uh

13:42 ↗ immediately after we hear from council

13:44 ↗ and go through uh this summer um August

13:47 ↗ September uh uh probably um I am new

13:51 ↗ here so I imagine that's when the

13:53 ↗ process uh will come to a head with full

13:55 ↗ drafts from um staff and then we will

13:58 ↗ come back to the public and to the

14:01 ↗ commission on this review process. Also

14:04 ↗ a public hearing will be held. There

14:06 ↗ will be another uh planning, development

14:09 ↗ and environment committee review and

14:11 ↗ then city council adoption by the end of

14:13 ↗ 2026.

14:15 ↗ Uh this is very important um because

14:18 ↗ again uh cities can only uh amend their

14:21 ↗ comprehensive plans once a year.

14:25 ↗ So um some slides that we shared with

14:28 ↗ the commission uh in advance of their

14:30 ↗ deliberation at the last meeting um are

14:33 ↗ included in this deck. considerations uh

14:36 ↗ before you make your recommendation. Are

14:38 ↗ the amendments uh proposed? Uh are there

14:42 ↗ any that are not relevant or necessary?

14:44 ↗ Um should refinements uh be made to the

14:47 ↗ end of any of the amendments presented?

14:49 ↗ Um recommendation uh from the commission

14:52 ↗ can add, amend or delete the proposals.

14:58 ↗ So, one last reminder, uh the uh goal

15:01 ↗ today is not a recommendation on full

15:04 ↗ amendments, but on the docket items that

15:06 ↗ you want to forward for further

15:08 ↗ consideration as part of the final

15:09 ↗ docket that council will establish.

15:12 ↗ So,

15:15 ↗ I believe uh

15:19 ↗ yes, that was it for my presentation.

15:23 ↗ >> All right. Well, thank you, Kate. So,

15:24 ↗ right now again, we're going to open

15:26 ↗ this up for the commissioners for

15:27 ↗ clarifying questions. Um, we'll have a

15:30 ↗ opportunity to type to deliberate and

15:33 ↗ debate the merits again, but right now

15:36 ↗ before the public, we want to just make

15:38 ↗ sure we get all their questions out

15:39 ↗ there. So, when they make their public

15:41 ↗ presentation, if they choose to, they

15:43 ↗ will have all the same information that

15:44 ↗ we have. So, again, right now,

15:46 ↗ clarifying questions. Are there any

15:54 ↗ Commissioner Malberu.

15:55 ↗ >> Yes, Commissioner Voice. Last time I

15:59 ↗ looked at the zoning the the city's

16:01 ↗ zoning maps, I noticed that the that a

16:06 ↗ uh table that is common in other urban

16:09 ↗ areas, a table that talks about the

16:12 ↗ various uses within each zone and for

16:16 ↗ the commercial properties that was not a

16:19 ↗ part of the isiqua

16:21 ↗ uh comprehensive plan. That was not a

16:23 ↗ part of the isiqua's system. for for

16:27 ↗ knowing what goes where.

16:30 ↗ Maybe it was fixed. I don't know. Maybe

16:33 ↗ it is a part of the whatever this thing

16:37 ↗ is we're looking at. But if it's not, it

16:41 ↗ would seem that Isiqua should make sure

16:44 ↗ that whatever it does

16:47 ↗ that there's a formula so you can figure

16:48 ↗ out what uses could go within what

16:51 ↗ zones.

16:52 ↗ >> Isiqua does have one. It's in our land

16:54 ↗ use code. That's where that's where

16:55 ↗ that's where all cities put them as into

16:57 ↗ their land use or zoning codes.

16:59 ↗ >> Okay. It was reintroduced then because

17:00 ↗ it was I know it was missing for a

17:02 ↗ period.

17:03 ↗ >> No, it's it's it's always been in the

17:06 ↗ land use code.

17:07 ↗ >> Yes.

17:07 ↗ >> The table.

17:08 ↗ >> Yes.

17:09 ↗ >> Okay.

17:11 ↗ >> All right. Thank you.

17:12 ↗ >> And it Sorry, just to clarify what what

17:14 ↗ may have been confusing is that there

17:16 ↗ was a table in the comprehensive plan

17:18 ↗ that had land use designations and the

17:20 ↗ zones that implemented them. That's what

17:22 ↗ we're replacing as part of that first

17:24 ↗ proposal. So maybe the maybe that was

17:26 ↗ confusing.

17:28 ↗ >> All right. Thank you, Commissioner

17:29 ↗ Molber. Any other questions?

17:36 ↗ >> Okay.

17:38 ↗ Again, this is pretty technical stuff.

17:40 ↗ The whole idea is to get this off the

17:42 ↗ ground so once it's approved, then it

17:44 ↗ does come back to PBC and we can

17:45 ↗ deliberate on merits and other things

17:47 ↗ like that.

17:50 ↗ All right. Um, we're going to open the

17:52 ↗ public hearing

17:55 ↗ and it is currently 6:48 p.m. We're

18:00 ↗ going to ask uh staff, has anyone signed

18:02 ↗ up to speak?

18:08 ↗ >> No, they haven't.

18:09 ↗ >> Okay. So, no one online

18:11 ↗ >> and there is no one online.

18:13 ↗ >> Okay. Now, since we have a few people in

18:16 ↗ the audience this evening, would anyone

18:18 ↗ like to speak?

18:29 ↗ Okay, seeing none, we're close the

18:32 ↗ public hearing at 6:48 p.m. So, there is

18:37 ↗ formal action that's requested on this

18:38 ↗ agenda item. So, before we can even

18:40 ↗ begin to talk about it, discuss it, we

18:43 ↗ will need a member of the commission to

18:45 ↗ make a motion.

18:48 ↗ Uh, Commissioner. Yeah, Commissioner

18:50 ↗ Kra, please.

18:51 ↗ >> I make a motion to approve the docket as

18:54 ↗ presented today.

18:55 ↗ >> Is there a second?

18:58 ↗ >> Commissioner,

18:59 ↗ >> a second.

19:00 ↗ >> Thank you, Commissioner Oler.

19:03 ↗ Okay. So, the motion to recommend

19:06 ↗ approval of the docket of proposed

19:07 ↗ comprehensive planned amendments as

19:09 ↗ presented. Now, we can have some time

19:11 ↗ for discussion if there is any.

19:15 ↗ And we should probably start with the

19:16 ↗ person who made the motion,

19:18 ↗ >> Commissioner Grass, if you'd like.

19:20 ↗ >> Um, I think it's pretty straightforward

19:22 ↗ and we went through this in our last

19:24 ↗ meeting, so I I'm I feel comfortable

19:27 ↗ having the staff move forward with what

19:29 ↗ they present.

19:30 ↗ >> Great. Thank you, Commissioner Crafts.

19:34 ↗ >> Would anyone else like to speak?

19:38 ↗ >> All right. So, to sum it up, again, this

19:40 ↗ is basically uh just a process. This is

19:43 ↗ part of it. Again, the idea we're not

19:45 ↗ actually deliberating about the merits

19:48 ↗ of this. This is giving the permission

19:51 ↗ to for it to move forward for council to

19:54 ↗ uh review it. Ultimately, if it does get

19:57 ↗ okayed by council, then it does become

19:59 ↗ staff work which eventually does come

20:01 ↗ back to the PPC. So again, this is just

20:04 ↗ a formal process that is undertaken.

20:07 ↗ Um, all right. So, because there is a

20:11 ↗ motion on the floor, we'll just repeat

20:13 ↗ it one more time. Uh, this motion is to

20:16 ↗ approve the approval of the docket of

20:17 ↗ proposed comprehensive plan amendments

20:19 ↗ as presented. All in favor, please say

20:22 ↗ I.

20:23 ↗ >> I.

20:24 ↗ >> I. So, that was unanimous.

20:27 ↗ Great. Thank you, commissioners.

20:30 ↗ Um, we are going to move along and the

20:34 ↗ next item of regular business is we're

20:37 ↗ going to have a housing 101 session.

20:40 ↗ It's probably why everybody's here. This

20:43 ↗ should be a lot of fun introduction to

20:46 ↗ how uh the city looks at planning and

20:48 ↗ things like this. So, Kristen Leon, our

20:50 ↗ planning manager, and Mike Stanganger, a

20:53 ↗ senior planner with the regional

20:55 ↗ coalition housing will be presenting on

20:57 ↗ this topic. Kristen, when you are ready,

21:00 ↗ please go ahead.

21:04 ↗ >> Good evening. I'm Kristen Leon, planning

21:06 ↗ manager with the city of Isiqua. And

21:08 ↗ yes, it's a it's a housing 101. Uh we

21:11 ↗ anticipate this year that there will be

21:13 ↗ several discussions and potentially many

21:15 ↗ amendments regarding housing and

21:17 ↗ bringing more housing development into

21:19 ↗ the city. And so in order to have

21:21 ↗ informed discussions when those come to

21:23 ↗ you, we needed to make sure that you all

21:25 ↗ understand what's behind it all and

21:27 ↗ what's what's involved in housing in

21:29 ↗ this area.

21:31 ↗ So first of all, um topics tonight we're

21:35 ↗ going to talk about what is affordable

21:37 ↗ housing, who needs it,

21:41 ↗ why are we this involved in it, what is

21:42 ↗ the state and regional planning context

21:44 ↗ and where do we fit in? and then the

21:46 ↗ arch arch a regional coalition for

21:48 ↗ housing and is our relationship and the

21:51 ↗ roles that we play in housing.

21:59 ↗ Before we get started,

22:01 ↗ most of this tonight is going to be

22:03 ↗ focused on affordable housing, but we

22:04 ↗ need to recognize that it's not just

22:06 ↗ about affordable housing. Everybody

22:08 ↗ needs a housing that they can afford.

22:10 ↗ So, you run the continuum. The city, we

22:13 ↗ have our planning department. We work on

22:14 ↗ the policies and the regulations and the

22:16 ↗ programs and we work with Arch who helps

22:18 ↗ us do all of this and to monitor and so

22:20 ↗ forth and we permit those developments

22:22 ↗ that come in. We also have our human

22:24 ↗ services element of this and they work

22:27 ↗ with homeless and underserved

22:29 ↗ populations to help them find places to

22:31 ↗ live to help them find services that

22:33 ↗ they need. And then we also have our

22:34 ↗ economic development group who monitors

22:37 ↗ our investment program that we have that

22:39 ↗ we call IHIP and they and other funding

22:42 ↗ that we have to work with developers to

22:44 ↗ bring developers into the city to see

22:46 ↗ what we can do to get housing. So that

22:47 ↗ is all a part of what we like to call

22:49 ↗ our housing continuum in the city.

22:53 ↗ So what is affordable housing?

22:55 ↗ And I'm going to let Mike take over for

22:58 ↗ a while. So this is Mike Stanganger. Um

22:59 ↗ I will jump back in in a bit and Feel

23:04 ↗ free to raise your hands and ask

23:06 ↗ questions along the way because I will

23:08 ↗ settle in. Um, this is gonna it's going

23:10 ↗ to be a long discussion so feel free to

23:12 ↗ ask questions along the way.

23:16 ↗ >> Hi and good evening. Um, again my name

23:18 ↗ is Mike Stanger. I'm a a longtime

23:20 ↗ planner with a regional coalition for

23:22 ↗ housing. um helped city staff and uh

23:26 ↗ city council on a number of uh issues

23:28 ↗ over the years and um I'm glad to be

23:32 ↗ back with you and um orienting you

23:35 ↗ toward this work.

23:38 ↗ This I will say upfront that there this

23:41 ↗ is a lot of information. And I know you

23:43 ↗ probably already feel, you know, the

23:44 ↗ fire hose effect. And so I'll echo what

23:48 ↗ Kristen said about feeling very

23:51 ↗ comfortable to ask questions. Um, even

23:54 ↗ if we don't get through everything

23:56 ↗ tonight or you still have questions,

23:58 ↗ we're happy to come back as often as you

24:01 ↗ need to or or help as much as as we can.

24:06 ↗ Usually when um I give presentations of

24:10 ↗ this nature, the most common the first

24:14 ↗ question out of people's mouths is what

24:15 ↗ do we mean by affordable housing? And so

24:18 ↗ I think there's really two ways that we

24:22 ↗ uh commonly think of it. the more

24:25 ↗ general um uh definition to it and the

24:30 ↗ one that's standardized in state, local,

24:34 ↗ and federal programs is to think of what

24:37 ↗ any given household can afford for a

24:41 ↗ given home. So if there if you're

24:43 ↗ spending more than 30% of your income on

24:47 ↗ housing and expenses directly related to

24:50 ↗ the home then uh the government

24:53 ↗ considers that to be too much then then

24:56 ↗ you would be housing cost burdened. And

24:59 ↗ so we we think a home is affordable

25:03 ↗ if

25:04 ↗ uh to uh households who can spend less

25:09 ↗ than 30% to live there, but is

25:11 ↗ unaffordable if they uh have to spend

25:14 ↗ more than their than that to live there.

25:17 ↗ And so affordability really depends on

25:19 ↗ the cost of the home that you're talking

25:22 ↗ about and the h the income of the

25:24 ↗ household.

25:27 ↗ But there's a second definition that uh

25:31 ↗ depending on the context that uh you may

25:35 ↗ consider you may hear used in a

25:37 ↗ different way which is that u it's used

25:40 ↗ to refer specifically to housing that is

25:44 ↗ cost controlled meaning the there's a

25:47 ↗ limit on the rent or the uh purchase

25:49 ↗ price of the home and it's reserved for

25:51 ↗ people of certain income levels and uh

25:55 ↗ so that there's a wide range of these

25:57 ↗ things. Some of them are are we're all

26:00 ↗ familiar with the um public housing, but

26:03 ↗ there are other types of subsidized

26:05 ↗ housing. There are there's affordable

26:10 ↗ housing uh that is privately owned, but

26:13 ↗ has uh formal agreements on it to keep

26:17 ↗ it um cost controlled. And so, and we'll

26:20 ↗ get into those later. So in some

26:23 ↗ contexts if I or Chris talk about the

26:26 ↗ number of affordable housing units we

26:29 ↗ may be talking about the ones that are

26:32 ↗ cost controlled with a formal agreement.

26:35 ↗ But in other context, if we're showing

26:37 ↗ you data, for example, from the uh that

26:40 ↗ shows that includes market rate prices,

26:44 ↗ we may be talking about that

26:47 ↗ uh the cost of those homes relative to

26:52 ↗ um a household income. So, um, I hope I

26:56 ↗ didn't make that more confusing, but um,

26:59 ↗ it this leads us into a term that may

27:02 ↗ you may have heard called AMI or area

27:05 ↗ median income. And so, it's a standard

27:08 ↗ for comparing the housing costs and

27:11 ↗ household incomes. As I was mentioning,

27:14 ↗ the median, of course, is where whatever

27:17 ↗ you're counting, half of them are below

27:20 ↗ that number and half are above. So in

27:23 ↗ this context the median income is one is

27:28 ↗ where half of the households earn less

27:31 ↗ and half earn more.

27:33 ↗ Um

27:35 ↗ and that is a number that we use to um

27:40 ↗ not only to measure the affordability of

27:42 ↗ housing in the housing supply. It's also

27:45 ↗ used in housing programs to set uh

27:50 ↗ income limits

27:53 ↗ uh for that determine who's eligible for

27:56 ↗ the housing and the uh maximum prices.

28:00 ↗ That median number is determined by HUD

28:04 ↗ every year and they do it statistically

28:08 ↗ um using uh recent data and we will take

28:13 ↗ that number then and uh turn it into uh

28:18 ↗ income and expense limits that are for

28:21 ↗ the current year are shown here. So the

28:24 ↗ current uh area median income

28:28 ↗ for a fourperson household in our area

28:32 ↗ that is King and Snowomage County is

28:34 ↗ $157,100

28:38 ↗ and then we u scale it from 100% down to

28:43 ↗ 80% or 50% or 30% or whatever level

28:48 ↗ uh we're interested in. Um and then

28:51 ↗ according to the size of the household.

28:54 ↗ Um so um there are you know um

29:00 ↗ factors to multiply to get these figures

29:03 ↗ uh according to the number of people in

29:04 ↗ the household. So a fourperson household

29:07 ↗ as I said the median income would be

29:09 ↗ 157,000

29:11 ↗ dollars. But if it was a oneperson

29:13 ↗ household at 100% a median then that

29:18 ↗ income limit would be $110,000.

29:24 ↗ Now, um, we in a similar way, we take

29:27 ↗ that $157,000

29:28 ↗ to set housing prices in our programs.

29:33 ↗ And the expense limits are based on that

29:36 ↗ 30% maximum that you should spend

29:39 ↗ towards housing.

29:42 ↗ And

29:43 ↗ if the um home has two bedrooms and the

29:48 ↗ maximum is 100% a median, then the

29:51 ↗ maximum monthly cost would be 3535

29:56 ↗ a month. But if it was a studio, it

29:58 ↗ would be 27.49.

30:02 ↗ Or if that studio was

30:04 ↗ a maximum of 50% of median income, then

30:07 ↗ it would be 1375.

30:10 ↗ Again,

30:12 ↗ I don't expect you to get all this all

30:14 ↗ at once and u or maybe maybe you're way

30:19 ↗ ahead of me, but um feel free to ask

30:22 ↗ questions or we can talk about it,

30:24 ↗ clarify it.

30:28 ↗ That will help explain the next um set

30:31 ↗ of uh slides and information. As Kristen

30:35 ↗ said, everyone needs housing that's

30:38 ↗ affordable to them.

30:40 ↗ Um but we find that the uh the lower the

30:45 ↗ income, the harder it is to find that

30:47 ↗ affordable housing.

30:50 ↗ Uh when we were talking about uh

30:53 ↗ percentages

30:54 ↗ of the AMI,

30:57 ↗ then that um as I said uh determines who

31:01 ↗ would be eligible for different

31:04 ↗ affordable housing programs.

31:07 ↗ So, we're interested uh from a planning

31:10 ↗ perspective on who is served by those at

31:14 ↗ those income levels. And this data from

31:17 ↗ the uh state employment security

31:19 ↗ division tells us who um what are

31:23 ↗ typical wages or earnings for um jobs

31:27 ↗ that are common in our communities.

31:29 ↗ often comes up in conversations of those

31:32 ↗ that we want to make sure are um able to

31:36 ↗ find affordable housing.

31:38 ↗ If we apply the those um some of those

31:41 ↗ standard

31:43 ↗ uh income limits

31:45 ↗ or or um such as 80% AMI for one person

31:49 ↗ or 50 for one person. So we're just

31:51 ↗ talking about the income of one person

31:54 ↗ here. registered nurse, for example,

31:57 ↗ typically makes u more than 80% of

32:01 ↗ median income and so does a typical

32:03 ↗ firefighter.

32:05 ↗ But a typical construction worker

32:09 ↗ uh makes less than 80 but more than 50%

32:11 ↗ of AMI. Same for a waitress or a waiter.

32:17 ↗ uh retail salespeople and home health

32:19 ↗ care personal aids in this survey uh

32:23 ↗ make less than 50% of median income

32:26 ↗ if they're a oneperson household

32:29 ↗ uh but more than 30% of median income

32:31 ↗ and minimum wage is set so that if a

32:35 ↗ person is making minimum wage and living

32:37 ↗ alone then their income is just above

32:42 ↗ 30% AMI

32:45 ↗ does that make sense

32:53 ↗ Now, this uh chart uh is meant to

32:56 ↗ illustrate across our sub region, our

33:00 ↗ East King County, which arch uh

33:02 ↗ encompasses

33:04 ↗ um and compare the affordability of

33:07 ↗ housing units and the incomes of

33:09 ↗ households.

33:11 ↗ Oops.

33:14 ↗ So, um

33:20 ↗ down here there are um about 8% of the

33:25 ↗ households in East King County make less

33:29 ↗ than 10% of AMI

33:33 ↗ and only about 2% of the housing units

33:37 ↗ in East King County are affordable at

33:40 ↗ that level. that follow.

33:45 ↗ Um, similarly at between 30 and 50% of

33:49 ↗ median income, you're looking at about

33:52 ↗ 6% of the households

33:55 ↗ uh fit into that income group, but only

33:58 ↗ about 4% of the housing units are

34:01 ↗ affordable.

34:05 ↗ between 50 and 80 AMI, those numbers are

34:08 ↗ pretty similar.

34:11 ↗ But when you get above 80% of median,

34:16 ↗ what we start to think of as moderate or

34:18 ↗ higher income, then you've got more

34:21 ↗ housing units that are

34:25 ↗ um that are affordable at higher income

34:28 ↗ levels and fewer households. So what

34:32 ↗ ends up happening, as you can imagine,

34:34 ↗ is that because there's more households

34:36 ↗ with lower incomes, they're going to

34:38 ↗ have to buy up. In other words, they're

34:41 ↗ paying more. They're living in more

34:45 ↗ expensive housing.

34:48 ↗ And the result of that is that if you

34:51 ↗ look at the households

34:53 ↗ grouped by income level, you find that

34:57 ↗ you can find how many are paying more

34:59 ↗ than 30% or in some cases more than 50%

35:03 ↗ of their incomes on housing. Again, this

35:05 ↗ is across East King County. And in that

35:08 ↗ lowest income group below 30% AMI,

35:14 ↗ 77%

35:16 ↗ are paying more than half of their

35:17 ↗ income for their housing

35:20 ↗ and nine another 9% are paying more than

35:24 ↗ uh 30%. So that's a total of 86%

35:28 ↗ are housing cost burden. If you're

35:30 ↗ paying more than 50% of your income on

35:32 ↗ housing,

35:34 ↗ that's known as severe housing cost

35:37 ↗ burden and that's a level which is can

35:41 ↗ be really unsustainable. Those are

35:42 ↗ people who are in danger of losing their

35:45 ↗ housing.

35:47 ↗ Um the higher up you go on the income

35:50 ↗ scale, the better that picture looks,

35:52 ↗ not surprisingly.

35:54 ↗ But even um at 50% of median or 80% of

35:58 ↗ median, we still have high uh

36:01 ↗ percentages of um households who are

36:05 ↗ cost burdened.

36:09 ↗ If you break that down even further, you

36:12 ↗ find that that cost burden uh falls uh

36:17 ↗ frequently on single parents with

36:19 ↗ children,

36:20 ↗ uh senior renters,

36:23 ↗ um and uh we could also look at people

36:26 ↗ of color and so on. Um the typical rent

36:33 ↗ uh was less than $1,700 10 years ago and

36:38 ↗ uh it's increased more than $1,000 since

36:41 ↗ then.

36:43 ↗ And if you're interested in Isqua, which

36:45 ↗ of course you are, um you'll see that

36:48 ↗ the data are very similar to East King

36:51 ↗ County overall.

37:03 ↗ And so we then start thinking about um

37:09 ↗ what kind of housing can address the

37:12 ↗ needs of people at various incomes and

37:15 ↗ particularly what kinds of affordable

37:17 ↗ housing.

37:19 ↗ Um that is the ones that have the cost

37:22 ↗ controls and income limits.

37:24 ↗ At the lowest income levels,

37:27 ↗ uh 0 to 30 especially and 30 to 50

37:31 ↗ typically uh uh require some sort of um

37:36 ↗ subsidy, public subsidy often. And so,

37:40 ↗ and that's where you'll also find um

37:43 ↗ housing for people with uh special

37:46 ↗ needs, as it's often called, permanent

37:48 ↗ supportive housing that provides

37:50 ↗ services, emergency transitional

37:53 ↗ housing, um other subsidized rental

37:56 ↗ housing.

37:58 ↗ Um we won't go into what uh tax credit

38:01 ↗ housing is, but those that's a federal

38:04 ↗ uh tax incentive program.

38:07 ↗ Most anything up to 50% of median uh

38:12 ↗ most affordable housing is created

38:14 ↗ through some sort of subsidy uh program.

38:18 ↗ Now, you can achieve 50% AMI with land

38:22 ↗ use incentives and t local tax

38:25 ↗ incentives, and we'll talk about that,

38:28 ↗ but it's it's um

38:31 ↗ it's not as common. When you get into

38:34 ↗ the 50 to 80% range, then um

38:39 ↗ that's where uh land use and tax

38:42 ↗ incentives at the local level the city

38:45 ↗ of Isqua could control um

38:49 ↗ uh come into play. And then from 80 to

38:53 ↗ 120% of median um we also see some uh

38:56 ↗ land use programs helpful for that. and

39:00 ↗ uh Kristen will be able to show you uh

39:02 ↗ where that's been done in Isqua.

39:07 ↗ So if we stack all these things on top

39:11 ↗ then you might think that um for

39:15 ↗ instance if you wanted to to uh provide

39:18 ↗ more housing for people in that 50 to 80

39:20 ↗ group such as waiters weight people uh

39:24 ↗ retail sales construction workers and so

39:26 ↗ forth. Then um

39:31 ↗ uh

39:33 ↗ um sorry, land use and tax incentive

39:36 ↗ programs can help with that.

39:39 ↗ Um at lower incomes,

39:42 ↗ uh we can do some things with land use

39:44 ↗ and tax incentives, but uh it will

39:47 ↗ typically take some public money to help

39:51 ↗ uh create that.

39:56 ↗ Um now backing up to a bigger picture uh

40:00 ↗ as um as to what the city can do, what

40:04 ↗ the city is authorized to do, why the

40:07 ↗ city

40:08 ↗ uh needs to do it. Um then uh we want to

40:15 ↗ talk a little bit about this from the

40:18 ↗ uh growth management planning framework

40:20 ↗ that's established in the state of

40:22 ↗ Washington. And so there's this uh

40:25 ↗ foundation that starts with the Growth

40:27 ↗ Management Act, which I'm sure you've

40:29 ↗ you're familiar with already. Um layered

40:32 ↗ on top of that are multi-county planning

40:35 ↗ policies that are established at the um

40:39 ↗ Central Puget Sound Regional Council

40:42 ↗ that guide in turn the the counties, the

40:45 ↗ four counties in the region including

40:48 ↗ King County to set countywide planning

40:50 ↗ policies which are directive toward

40:55 ↗ local comprehensive plans which were

40:57 ↗ just updated uh in the last year. and

41:01 ↗ regulations as well. So those all of

41:04 ↗ your comprehensive planning and uh land

41:06 ↗ use regulations and so forth are all

41:09 ↗ acting to uh help fulfill the guidance

41:12 ↗ of the uh growth management act and

41:15 ↗ particularly countywide planning

41:16 ↗ policies

41:19 ↗ and uh countywide planning policies

41:22 ↗ recently have taken a more uh

41:25 ↗ prescriptive turn and um specified in

41:31 ↗ numerical terms terms the uh numbers of

41:34 ↗ units that each uh city must plan for

41:38 ↗ and accommodate in their comp plans and

41:41 ↗ regulations. So, it's uh I want to

41:44 ↗ stress here um because there's often a

41:47 ↗ lot of confusion that the um GMA and

41:51 ↗ countywide planning policies do not

41:53 ↗ require that the units be built at a

41:56 ↗ certain affordability level. they

41:58 ↗ require that your plans and and

42:01 ↗ regulations support that kind of

42:03 ↗ development.

42:06 ↗ Um but numerically these two charts show

42:10 ↗ um uh what those numbers look like and

42:15 ↗ um corresponding to the the um cost

42:19 ↗ burden analysis that I showed earlier.

42:22 ↗ the greatest uh requirements are at or

42:26 ↗ greatest needs are at the lowest income

42:28 ↗ levels. This um

42:32 ↗ below 30 PSH stands for again uh

42:35 ↗ permanent supportive housing

42:38 ↗ and nonPSH means um ordinary

42:43 ↗ uh or housing without permanent

42:45 ↗ supportive uh services.

42:48 ↗ And then um and the the uh hatched uh

42:53 ↗ parts of the bars show um what the city

42:58 ↗ has had to plan for in this most recent

43:00 ↗ update. And the solid green bars are the

43:05 ↗ um the units as they existed uh in 2020.

43:10 ↗ So you can see that the vast majority of

43:12 ↗ the um the change or increases so to

43:16 ↗ speak uh need to be planned for at the

43:20 ↗ lower income levels. And so that's what

43:22 ↗ makes this a particularly acute

43:25 ↗ challenge. Um this slide shows the as a

43:29 ↗ table with the specific numbers. Um, so

43:32 ↗ the countywide planning policies again

43:34 ↗ requiring ISQUA to plan for at least or

43:38 ↗ nearly 3,000 housing units affordable

43:42 ↗ to households with incomes below 80% of

43:45 ↗ median income.

43:47 ↗ Huge challenge.

43:49 ↗ >> Mike, may I jump in real quick? It's

43:51 ↗ just our growth targets citywide are

43:55 ↗ 3,500 units and of those all except for

43:59 ↗ 363 have to be within that affordable

44:02 ↗ uppercase affordable housing range and

44:04 ↗ the rest can be at market rate. That's a

44:06 ↗ big number.

44:09 ↗ >> But again, the challenge is to to plan

44:13 ↗ for and accommodate them.

44:15 ↗ You can't control what happens to the

44:17 ↗ market, but you can be held uh

44:19 ↗ accountable as a city for uh regulations

44:24 ↗ that would not allow that to happen.

44:30 ↗ I see a question.

44:37 ↗ So if based on what you just said, 90%

44:41 ↗ of the housing that gets built in isqua

44:45 ↗ in the in the near term needs to be for

44:48 ↗ the lowest

44:51 ↗ uh

44:53 ↗ income sector.

44:55 ↗ Then what do they do? Say we're stopping

44:57 ↗ now that you've we've built the 350.

45:01 ↗ >> No,

45:02 ↗ the requirement is that the city's uh

45:05 ↗ plans and policies regulations make it

45:09 ↗ possible for that to happen.

45:13 ↗ not for it to actually happen. I'm I

45:18 ↗ struggle as a lot of planners do with uh

45:23 ↗ making this um more clear.

45:26 ↗ >> Do you have something you want to

45:28 ↗ >> Sure.

45:29 ↗ >> add to it? Sure.

45:30 ↗ >> Yeah. So, we're not we're not developers

45:33 ↗ and we can't make people build things.

45:35 ↗ >> We just have to make sure that we have a

45:37 ↗ big enough sandbox to hold all of the

45:39 ↗ toys, if that makes any sense. We're not

45:41 ↗ going to put the toys in there, but we

45:42 ↗ have to make sure that there's enough

45:43 ↗ space to hold all of those toys. So, we

45:46 ↗ have to make sure that all of our zoning

45:48 ↗ will allow for

45:50 ↗ um you know 868

45:53 ↗ units at 30 to 50% AMI. However, a

45:58 ↗ market rate developer may come in and

46:00 ↗ put um you know 868 market rate units in

46:05 ↗ there. We can't control that, but we did

46:08 ↗ accommodate for it.

46:10 ↗ I understand.

46:10 ↗ >> Okay.

46:12 ↗ >> Now, if if the city uh changed all its

46:14 ↗ zoning to allow only single family

46:17 ↗ homes,

46:19 ↗ that would clearly not accommodate

46:22 ↗ >> I understand

46:22 ↗ >> uh housing below 80 AMI. So, that's

46:26 ↗ where you would be vulnerable to appeals

46:29 ↗ at the growth management hearing port

46:32 ↗ and things of that nature.

46:39 ↗ So um why am I here and uh what is ARCH

46:43 ↗ exactly?

46:44 ↗ So ARCH is a partnership of cities on

46:48 ↗ the east side. Most of those that are

46:49 ↗ captured in this uh uh blue or purple

46:52 ↗ line, whatever it is, um not

46:56 ↗ Snowqualami, Northbend, some the cities

46:58 ↗ toward the east are not members at this

47:00 ↗ time, but um ARCH was begun at uh in

47:06 ↗ 1993

47:09 ↗ uh as a partnership with Belleview,

47:12 ↗ Redmond, Kirkland, and King County

47:14 ↗ because at that time, just as now Um

47:19 ↗ people were up in arms about housing

47:21 ↗ affordability

47:23 ↗ and and the uh leaders of those

47:26 ↗ communities thought that uh you know

47:29 ↗ none of them could handle it on their

47:31 ↗ own and maybe it would be a good idea to

47:34 ↗ think about housing economies as a

47:37 ↗ regional or a subreional

47:40 ↗ system and not something that uh

47:42 ↗ individual cities could do on their own.

47:46 ↗ Maybe we could pull some money together

47:48 ↗ and fund some affordable housing

47:50 ↗ projects. Maybe we could share policies

47:53 ↗ and ideas for incentivizing affordable

47:57 ↗ housing, things of that nature. And so

47:59 ↗ that's what they did. And at um uh

48:03 ↗ through the rest of the 90s um uh 12

48:07 ↗ other cities joined Arch and so now we

48:11 ↗ have 15 cities in King County um as

48:14 ↗ members.

48:18 ↗ our uh main um

48:22 ↗ lines of business, if you will, or uh

48:25 ↗ focus uh fall into what we might

48:29 ↗ consider these four areas. The pooling

48:31 ↗ of funding uh for investing in

48:34 ↗ affordable housing

48:36 ↗ is a big one. And uh the second one um

48:42 ↗ that uh directly involves uh production

48:46 ↗ and preservation of affordable housing

48:48 ↗ is uh land use and tax incentives.

48:51 ↗ That's the area that I know most about.

48:54 ↗ I know a lot less about the investment

48:56 ↗ side of it, but um if we go on, you have

48:59 ↗ questions about that, I'll do the best I

49:00 ↗ can. Um then monitoring

49:04 ↗ um and this is an area that we've uh

49:08 ↗ boosted up in the last several years. So

49:11 ↗ I just mentioned that to assure you that

49:14 ↗ once these units are getting created,

49:17 ↗ we're not just letting them go loose. We

49:20 ↗ continue to provide the staffing and

49:22 ↗ oversight to make sure that those homes

49:25 ↗ are

49:27 ↗ are serving eligible households and uh

49:31 ↗ not exceeding the the amount that they

49:34 ↗ can charge and things of that nature.

49:38 ↗ So for the for the monitoring just to

49:40 ↗ let you all know that every house that

49:42 ↗ is under the arch jurisdiction or every

49:44 ↗ unit that is under the heart arch

49:45 ↗ jurisdiction and has been funded by ARCH

49:47 ↗ has a covenant tied to it and all of

49:50 ↗ these covenants in our in our land use

49:52 ↗ code we list minimum requirements for

49:54 ↗ the affordable housing. So um you know

49:58 ↗ about materials used inside it has to be

50:00 ↗ comparable to what is on the market rate

50:02 ↗ units if it's mixed use on the materials

50:04 ↗ on the outside. Um, and then there are,

50:07 ↗ as Mike mentioned, you know, maximum

50:10 ↗ rental rates and ownership rates. And so

50:12 ↗ all these covenants are in place

50:13 ↗ typically for the if they're rental for

50:15 ↗ the lifetime of the building. And Arch

50:18 ↗ monitors uses these covenants to help

50:20 ↗ monitor um and make sure that they're in

50:23 ↗ compliance with these.

50:26 ↗ >> And we're always we're always working

50:28 ↗ for the city. Um we're not an

50:30 ↗ independent. In fact, we don't we're not

50:33 ↗ incorporated. We don't the only charter

50:36 ↗ we have is an interlocal agreement

50:39 ↗ uh with the city. So uh if I'm here work

50:42 ↗ talking to you I try to be a um a staff

50:48 ↗ support for Kristen and for you as if

50:50 ↗ I'm an Isqua employee and and uh not

50:54 ↗ just you know some outsider advocate or

50:58 ↗ something. I'm I'm formerly I'm we are

51:01 ↗ all City of Belleview employees because

51:04 ↗ somebody needs to sign our paychecks.

51:05 ↗ But um

51:08 ↗ but that's how we look at our role is

51:10 ↗ being extended staff for each of the

51:12 ↗ members.

51:14 ↗ And then the fourth area that um which

51:16 ↗ we've uh really focused on a lot in the

51:19 ↗ last few years is to do more outreach

51:21 ↗ and engagement with communities that uh

51:24 ↗ need affordable housing in particular.

51:26 ↗ Um especially communities uh of people

51:30 ↗ who may not have uh regular or be

51:34 ↗ accustomed to interacting with

51:36 ↗ government services or know how to um uh

51:41 ↗ you know what's available and things

51:42 ↗ like that. So um a lot of engagement

51:46 ↗ activities I think have uh opened up our

51:50 ↗ uh programs to a much wider audience.

51:56 ↗ Um I know this is getting long so I'll

51:58 ↗ step through the next couple uh quickly.

52:02 ↗ um of the of all the the investment

52:06 ↗ programs, land use tax incentive

52:08 ↗ programs are both rental and um home

52:11 ↗ ownership. Um right now we have upwards

52:15 ↗ of 2600

52:17 ↗ uh affordable apartments that we

52:19 ↗ monitor. Um and uh I think the number is

52:24 ↗ about 900 uh units in the home ownership

52:27 ↗ program. A great number of those are in

52:29 ↗ as well.

52:33 ↗ On the investment side,

52:36 ↗ um the pool pooling of funding that I

52:39 ↗ mentioned began with the housing the

52:41 ↗ arch trust fund uh on a voluntary basis.

52:45 ↗ Arch members will contribute to th to

52:48 ↗ that annually. Sometime some of that

52:50 ↗ comes from general funding. Some of it

52:52 ↗ comes from other sources. Um, it's

52:56 ↗ collected over $120 million since 1992

53:01 ↗ and helped fund over 6,000 units across

53:05 ↗ the region.

53:08 ↗ Um, Isiqua

53:10 ↗ uh just a couple of years ago

53:11 ↗ established the IHIP that Kristen

53:13 ↗ mentioned earlier and that is funded by

53:16 ↗ a a tenth of a penny on the sales tax

53:20 ↗ established through state law and uh

53:23 ↗ another sales tax s funding source uh

53:27 ↗ mentioned there is HB1406

53:30 ↗ uh development bonus program also

53:32 ↗ collects some inlies and um so that's

53:36 ↗ another local pool that is uh that the

53:39 ↗ city um controls directly.

53:43 ↗ Do you want to add anything to that

53:45 ↗ right now?

53:50 ↗ >> Last year was the first year we were

53:52 ↗ able to use those funds through

53:54 ↗ applications and it went to uh LEO the

53:57 ↗ life enrichment options and they

53:59 ↗ purchased a house in Isiqua and we paid

54:00 ↗ for half of that. that was used I hit

54:02 ↗ funds and then this year we had three

54:04 ↗ applicants for IHIT funds and those are

54:07 ↗ actually going to city council soon.

54:14 ↗ Um, I don't want to uh go through this

54:19 ↗ uh step by step, but this kind of maps

54:23 ↗ out different tools or or funding

54:26 ↗ sources and uh what they what income

54:30 ↗ levels they typically help support.

54:33 ↗ LIHTC is that um low-income housing tax

54:37 ↗ credit program uh of the federal

54:40 ↗ government that is operated through the

54:43 ↗ state of Washington um that I mentioned

54:46 ↗ earlier and the uh arch trust fund IHIP

54:51 ↗ King County has its own sources um and

54:55 ↗ typically when we're talking about

54:57 ↗ subsidized housing uh they want a single

55:01 ↗ project will layer

55:04 ↗ several of these sources along with

55:07 ↗ their own other uh uh investments

55:11 ↗ um independent of outside of government

55:15 ↗ uh oftentimes and uh in order to make a

55:18 ↗ subsidized project work.

55:23 ↗ Um

55:24 ↗ now the idea of the uh uh arch trust

55:29 ↗ fund long-term

55:32 ↗ is I said that the the um the

55:36 ↗ contributions by the members were made

55:38 ↗ voluntarily each year and um

55:43 ↗ uh projects are awarded each year um

55:47 ↗ based on proposals that we get from the

55:50 ↗ um developers

55:52 ↗ And um the idea long term is that where

55:56 ↗ the money comes in and goes back out

56:00 ↗ um in proportion to where to its

56:03 ↗ sources. But um

56:07 ↗ any given project in Isiqua for example

56:11 ↗ will be funded by not only Isiqua but

56:14 ↗ Belleview, Redmond, Kirkland who you

56:16 ↗ know what uh and usually we try

56:20 ↗ um now we try to get a little bit from

56:23 ↗ every city into every project.

56:31 ↗ There's a little mapping to show uh not

56:34 ↗ only the location of the projects but

56:36 ↗ where um units of different types or are

56:40 ↗ serving different populations I I should

56:42 ↗ say uh have turn out. So, um although my

56:46 ↗ color vision isn't that great, but um

56:50 ↗ uh many projects will be a mix of family

56:54 ↗ uh housing reserved for families for

56:57 ↗ people with special needs or people

56:58 ↗ exiting homelessness and or seniors. Um

57:02 ↗ and so you can see how those are

57:04 ↗ distributed geographically.

57:09 ↗ Just a few pictures of of u these are

57:12 ↗ mostly garden apartments. Although the

57:14 ↗ Cambridge Court project in Belleview is

57:17 ↗ actually um uh housing built by a

57:21 ↗ church-based

57:23 ↗ um

57:27 ↗ a church-based nonprofit in Belleview

57:30 ↗ that serves seniors.

57:36 ↗ I talked about uh well actually I'm

57:39 ↗ gonna

57:41 ↗ Where' the land use one go?

57:45 ↗ Inclusionary zoning. Yeah, I'd like to

57:47 ↗ to do this and then come back. Is that

57:50 ↗ all right?

57:52 ↗ Um

57:55 ↗ Oh, this is yours. Sorry.

58:01 ↗ Well, I was going to say that um from a

58:04 ↗ land use perspective, there are there

58:06 ↗ are voluntary approaches and mandatory

58:09 ↗ approaches. And voluntary meaning that

58:13 ↗ the city will offer an incentive of some

58:16 ↗ sort to a developer to make some of the

58:19 ↗ units in the project affordable.

58:22 ↗ Maybe you give uh the city would give,

58:26 ↗ okay, your height limit is five stories

58:28 ↗ now, but we'll let you build six stories

58:30 ↗ or seven stories if you make 10% of the

58:33 ↗ afford units affordable at some

58:37 ↗ percentage of AMI.

58:39 ↗ That's a voluntary approach. It's up to

58:42 ↗ the developer whether to accept it or

58:43 ↗ not. The mandatory approach is to say,

58:48 ↗ you know, we're going to give you the

58:49 ↗ right to build to six or seven stories

58:52 ↗ and in exchange you will have to give us

58:56 ↗ 10% of the units at that affordability

58:58 ↗ level. So now the choice is has been

59:01 ↗ made by the city

59:04 ↗ and um this city's authorized to do that

59:08 ↗ because uh as long as the value that

59:12 ↗ you're giving uh in that up zone is

59:15 ↗ equal or greater than the value that

59:17 ↗ you're getting back in the affordable

59:19 ↗ housing. So, we're very careful when we

59:22 ↗ uh do analysis for cities to um to uh

59:28 ↗ measure what those values are and

59:30 ↗ recommend um levels of uh incentives

59:35 ↗ that and affordability so that it's not

59:39 ↗ just taking from the value of the

59:42 ↗ project, but it's actually that it's a

59:44 ↗ win-win that and the developer can gain

59:48 ↗ some value through the exchange as well

59:50 ↗ as uh ensuring that there's some

59:53 ↗ affordability from the project. Now a

59:57 ↗ multif family tax exemption program is a

1:00:00 ↗ little bit the same but instead of um

1:00:03 ↗ giving additional development capacity,

1:00:06 ↗ height, density, whatever.

1:00:10 ↗ Now the city is again through um by

1:00:13 ↗ authorized by the state is able to

1:00:16 ↗ exempt the building the residential

1:00:20 ↗ improvements value from tax exemption

1:00:23 ↗ for 8, 12 or 20 years

1:00:28 ↗ um depending on what the conditions are

1:00:32 ↗ uh affordability conditions are in

1:00:33 ↗ exchange.

1:00:35 ↗ And so um

1:00:38 ↗ um this is another way to get you know

1:00:41 ↗ this is a voluntary thing uh strictly

1:00:44 ↗ speaking but it's another way to to say

1:00:48 ↗ um we'll allow the developer to save or

1:00:53 ↗ gain so much value and we will reserve

1:00:57 ↗ or in a sense take back some of that

1:01:01 ↗ value in the form of affordable housing.

1:01:05 ↗ Uh what a couple of our cities have done

1:01:08 ↗ very uh astutely and effectively I would

1:01:12 ↗ say is to layer both the land use

1:01:14 ↗ incentives and tax exemption programs

1:01:18 ↗ and in a way that um brings

1:01:21 ↗ affordability down as low as 50% of

1:01:24 ↗ median income.

1:01:26 ↗ And um

1:01:29 ↗ and again we go through a a lot of

1:01:33 ↗ rigorous analysis to be able uh

1:01:35 ↗ recommend something based on uh that we

1:01:38 ↗ think will work.

1:01:41 ↗ Um now I'll bring Kristen back up.

1:01:46 ↗ >> Thank you, Mike. So I'm going to talk

1:01:49 ↗ about some of the different tools that

1:01:50 ↗ the city of Isiqua uses. And while I was

1:01:53 ↗ sitting over there, I realized um

1:01:55 ↗ weirdly because I'm working on two

1:01:57 ↗ things to take to council about this

1:01:59 ↗ that I didn't include one of our tools

1:02:00 ↗ in here. And it's huge. Um back in 2002,

1:02:04 ↗ we waved well 2002 initially and then

1:02:07 ↗ again in 2008 started in the villages

1:02:10 ↗ and then moved citywide. But we wave all

1:02:13 ↗ parks, fire and traffic impact fees,

1:02:17 ↗ school impact fees for all units assoc.

1:02:20 ↗ We wave all plan review fees, building

1:02:23 ↗ review fees, some connection fees that

1:02:26 ↗ we can wave everything. So, it saves

1:02:29 ↗ depending on your project, it can save

1:02:31 ↗ up to millions of dollars on that

1:02:33 ↗ project. So, that's a huge incentive

1:02:34 ↗ that the city provides. Um, we are

1:02:36 ↗ actually going to take this to the

1:02:38 ↗ planning, development, and envir

1:02:40 ↗ environment committee uh to maybe

1:02:42 ↗ potentially make some changes to this on

1:02:44 ↗ February 3 if you're interested in

1:02:46 ↗ tuning in for that.

1:02:49 ↗ Development development agreements thus

1:02:51 ↗ far are one of the biggest tools that we

1:02:54 ↗ have used to get affordable housing. Out

1:02:56 ↗ of development agreements, we've gotten

1:02:58 ↗ 277 units at or below 80% of the AMI 650

1:03:04 ↗ units. all of those located in Isiqua

1:03:06 ↗ Highlands that are uh between 80% and

1:03:09 ↗ 120%. In the pipeline, we currently have

1:03:12 ↗ development agreements that will allow

1:03:15 ↗ or require 350 plus units at or below

1:03:18 ↗ 80% area median income.

1:03:21 ↗ Um we also this does not include under

1:03:25 ↗ the developed it does not include the

1:03:27 ↗ transit oriented development trail head

1:03:29 ↗ that's coming in which will have

1:03:35 ↗ 159 affordable units

1:03:37 ↗ that are there some because of

1:03:39 ↗ inclusionary some because of another

1:03:40 ↗ program I'll talk about but those will

1:03:43 ↗ those are not included in this right

1:03:44 ↗ here.

1:03:47 ↗ Mike also mentioned briefly our density

1:03:49 ↗ bonus program and this is a voluntary

1:03:51 ↗ program

1:03:53 ↗ and the development agreement is also

1:03:55 ↗ sort of voluntary. You can do a

1:03:56 ↗ development development agreement but

1:03:59 ↗ nine and a half times out of 10 we are

1:04:00 ↗ going to require affordable housing in

1:04:02 ↗ that development agreement

1:04:04 ↗ develop uh density bonus which is

1:04:06 ↗ actually now development bonus program

1:04:08 ↗ was adopted in 2013 as part of the

1:04:10 ↗ central isqua plan. It is voluntary and

1:04:14 ↗ we have a base height. Let me say you

1:04:16 ↗ can build up to 50 feet and nothing

1:04:19 ↗ there has to be affordable. But if you

1:04:21 ↗ want to build up above 50 feet and go to

1:04:23 ↗ 85 feet, then a certain percentage 20%

1:04:28 ↗ of that overage has to be affordable.

1:04:31 ↗ And then another

1:04:34 ↗ so one-third of that has to be 20% of

1:04:36 ↗ one third has to be affordable and then

1:04:37 ↗ there's another portion it's very

1:04:39 ↗ complicated um that can either be

1:04:41 ↗ affordable or a fee in L or open space.

1:04:44 ↗ No one's chosen that option yet, but

1:04:45 ↗ either affordable or fe. So, since we

1:04:48 ↗ adopted this, and it's only in Central

1:04:50 ↗ Isqua, and since we adopted this, we've

1:04:54 ↗ yielded 14 units, but we've yielded

1:04:57 ↗ about

1:05:00 ↗ a little over $2 million in fee and Lou

1:05:02 ↗ that are now in our IHIP fund that was

1:05:04 ↗ mentioned earlier.

1:05:08 ↗ Inclusionary zoning is something else

1:05:10 ↗ that Mike mentioned. This was adopted in

1:05:12 ↗ 2017. And it was as a result of the m

1:05:14 ↗ mor moratorum that was done uh started

1:05:17 ↗ in 2016.

1:05:19 ↗ There were six items associated with the

1:05:21 ↗ moratorum and one of them was that we

1:05:22 ↗ had just had a 350 unit development go

1:05:25 ↗ up and not one of those units was

1:05:26 ↗ affordable and city council said nope we

1:05:28 ↗ want affordable. So now if you are going

1:05:31 ↗ to build in central Isiqua in the zones

1:05:33 ↗ that are shown here. So the urban core

1:05:36 ↗ urban core vertical mixed use or the

1:05:38 ↗ mixed use and it's you just look at the

1:05:40 ↗ colors up there and you can tell which

1:05:42 ↗ it doesn't matter which is which. Then

1:05:44 ↗ you are required no matter how high you

1:05:46 ↗ build no matter what you put in there if

1:05:48 ↗ there is residential you are required to

1:05:49 ↗ put in affordable housing. And it's a

1:05:51 ↗ sliding scale. So it'll go anywhere from

1:05:54 ↗ 7 and a half of your units say at 50%

1:05:57 ↗ area median income up to 15% of your

1:06:01 ↗ units at 80% area median income. It and

1:06:05 ↗ when you when you develop you get to

1:06:07 ↗ choose those options but essentially the

1:06:09 ↗ lower the AMI the fewer units. The

1:06:12 ↗ higher the AMI the more units that you

1:06:14 ↗ have to put in.

1:06:17 ↗ And our first two projects that are

1:06:18 ↗ doing it came in last year. So, we have

1:06:21 ↗ Trail Head is one of those. Trail Head,

1:06:23 ↗ if you aren't familiar with it, is going

1:06:25 ↗ next to our transit station, and it's

1:06:26 ↗ going to have the 159 units that I

1:06:29 ↗ mentioned along with about 200 units of

1:06:31 ↗ market rate next to that. So, it's

1:06:33 ↗ between Maple and Newport and next to

1:06:35 ↗ the transit center. And the other one is

1:06:36 ↗ called Parkplace. It's over off of 221st

1:06:39 ↗ and 51st Street where the old Microsoft

1:06:42 ↗ offices used to be. They're building 74

1:06:44 ↗ units and a percentage of those is going

1:06:46 ↗ to be affordable at 80%. Another one

1:06:50 ↗ that hasn't come up was the pioneer

1:06:52 ↗ program which we adopted 2024.

1:06:55 ↗ This allows for two projects in the same

1:06:59 ↗ zones as the inclusionary zoning mixed

1:07:02 ↗ mixed use central isqua and urban core

1:07:06 ↗ with 100 to 400 units each. They can be

1:07:10 ↗ rent or ownership does not matter. The

1:07:12 ↗ developer can choose the scale again

1:07:14 ↗ very much like the sliding scale. They

1:07:16 ↗ can do 8% of all of their units at 60%

1:07:19 ↗ or 10% of their units at 80%. And this

1:07:22 ↗ program is not intended for affordable

1:07:24 ↗ housing. This is simply to get more

1:07:26 ↗ housing in this area where we want our

1:07:28 ↗ growth to occur. So part of this is that

1:07:32 ↗ they are not required to do the de

1:07:34 ↗ development bonus program. They can

1:07:35 ↗ build up to the maximum height without

1:07:37 ↗ having to do that, but they still have

1:07:38 ↗ to include the affordable units. There

1:07:41 ↗ will be lifetime covenants associated

1:07:42 ↗ with these and they are also elig

1:07:44 ↗ eligible for the um multif family tax

1:07:47 ↗ exemption MFTTE.

1:07:50 ↗ Haven't had any biters yet. We almost

1:07:52 ↗ did but hanging on there. Uh so that was

1:07:56 ↗ my very short piece of this. So that was

1:07:58 ↗ very long. So yes, I see questions

1:08:00 ↗ already but um I'm we're open.

1:08:02 ↗ >> Commissioner Dair.

1:08:07 ↗ >> Hi. Hi. So the lifetime covenants on the

1:08:11 ↗ arch properties they extend even. So if

1:08:14 ↗ I were to buy an arch property when I

1:08:17 ↗ sell it I have to sell it to another

1:08:19 ↗ person who qualifies quickly.

1:08:21 ↗ >> Yes. When it is being sold the the owner

1:08:23 ↗ has to notify Arch. Arch then will help

1:08:26 ↗ to advertise that property but they also

1:08:28 ↗ set the price. They say it cannot be

1:08:30 ↗ sold above this.

1:08:32 ↗ >> Yes.

1:08:32 ↗ >> And then followup question. So does

1:08:35 ↗ somebody have to apply to Arch directly?

1:08:38 ↗ and then prove that they qualify or how

1:08:41 ↗ would that work with a buyer?

1:08:42 ↗ >> You don't apply to ARCH, but for sales

1:08:44 ↗ they do have a list of it's not an

1:08:46 ↗ application process, but they do have a

1:08:48 ↗ list of I believe owners and rentals,

1:08:50 ↗ but they have to you have to prove to

1:08:52 ↗ ARCH that you qualify and there's a lot

1:08:54 ↗ of paperwork that's required.

1:08:56 ↗ The the way it worked practically is

1:08:58 ↗ that uh if it's a resale u then

1:09:03 ↗ uh the seller can use a broker uh a real

1:09:06 ↗ estate agent and so can the buyer and

1:09:09 ↗ they work out um the the agreement to

1:09:13 ↗ sell it. But once a a buyer has been

1:09:15 ↗ chosen then they'll be referred to us

1:09:18 ↗ for the income verification.

1:09:22 ↗ >> Commissioner D. Commission Moru

1:09:26 ↗ >> um in initially when you started

1:09:28 ↗ speaking you said there's all these to

1:09:30 ↗ to get lowincome housing we've waved all

1:09:34 ↗ of these fees and some of the fees that

1:09:37 ↗ you mentioned I thought um

1:09:41 ↗ required staff labor.

1:09:44 ↗ So if you're and and you went through

1:09:47 ↗ the list very quickly, so I'm I could be

1:09:50 ↗ mistaken, but it seemed to me that there

1:09:52 ↗ were certain things that required staff

1:09:55 ↗ labor. Where do you shift? How do you

1:09:58 ↗ shift the burden of that expense? Where

1:10:02 ↗ is that put?

1:10:04 ↗ >> We don't um

1:10:06 ↗ >> you do it for nothing.

1:10:07 ↗ >> We do it for nothing. H

1:10:08 ↗ >> how But you're you're hired for a

1:10:10 ↗ certain amount. Mhm.

1:10:12 ↗ >> I mean, you don't work overtime in order

1:10:14 ↗ to provide that service. You have You

1:10:17 ↗ can only be so productive.

1:10:20 ↗ Does do other PE do other

1:10:24 ↗ is it sort of

1:10:26 ↗ uh wishy? In other words, it's not

1:10:29 ↗ specified from anywhere. It's because

1:10:31 ↗ you can't do it for nothing.

1:10:34 ↗ We we are just we get our salaries and

1:10:38 ↗ when these things come in we review them

1:10:40 ↗ just like we review any other projects.

1:10:41 ↗ Now if it goes out to a consultant then

1:10:43 ↗ sometimes yes we have to repay the

1:10:45 ↗ consultant. We do not repay ourselves

1:10:46 ↗ though. So if but let me clarify too

1:10:49 ↗ though if so the traffic impact fees and

1:10:52 ↗ the park impact fees if we wave as we do

1:10:55 ↗ 100% of those fees 20% of those fees we

1:11:00 ↗ have to find a way to repay 20% of those

1:11:02 ↗ fees

1:11:04 ↗ that go toward parks and traffic and so

1:11:07 ↗ forth but they don't go toward staff.

1:11:10 ↗ >> Okay. But and maybe I'm not making

1:11:12 ↗ myself clear, but I'm I guess what I'm

1:11:14 ↗ saying is you have to you have to spend

1:11:18 ↗ your time. Your time has value.

1:11:22 ↗ >> The city is paying you, but somewhere

1:11:26 ↗ the city needs to receive that income so

1:11:29 ↗ that it can pay you. Where does that

1:11:31 ↗ income come from?

1:11:34 ↗ >> I am not in the finance department. I

1:11:36 ↗ come in and I I you I really I don't

1:11:39 ↗ know the answer to that question.

1:11:40 ↗ >> Your salary

1:11:41 ↗ >> I mean we're we're salary. Yeah. Our our

1:11:43 ↗ salaries come from the general fund and

1:11:45 ↗ we make what we make

1:11:48 ↗ >> no matter what the project is. So are

1:11:50 ↗ you thinking that we

1:11:52 ↗ >> I'm saying that the city has a budget.

1:11:54 ↗ It has income and it has expenses.

1:11:55 ↗ >> Right.

1:11:56 ↗ >> Your the amount of work that your your

1:11:58 ↗ your

1:12:00 ↗ labor is an expense.

1:12:02 ↗ If you're not charging the If you are

1:12:05 ↗ not charging these developers

1:12:07 ↗ and you still have the expense, the

1:12:09 ↗ income's got to come from somewhere.

1:12:13 ↗ >> Where's it coming from?

1:12:15 ↗ >> We get we get we get a two week, you

1:12:17 ↗ know, we get paid every two weeks for no

1:12:19 ↗ matter what the workload is.

1:12:21 ↗ >> So, you know, if I need that's

1:12:25 ↗ >> Yeah, it is. It's that's our

1:12:27 ↗ contribution to the city or to the to

1:12:29 ↗ the developer.

1:12:32 ↗ I guess I'm not making this clear.

1:12:35 ↗ >> Commissioner Grass,

1:12:37 ↗ >> I have a very different question. Um, if

1:12:40 ↗ uh from the chart that you showed at the

1:12:42 ↗ beginning showed the biggest gaps over

1:12:45 ↗ the next 20 years or so are going to be

1:12:47 ↗ at the under 50

1:12:50 ↗ um percent um median income. So, we we

1:12:55 ↗ always talk about like rental and also

1:12:58 ↗ ownership. I assume those are all rental

1:13:00 ↗ and because people under those are not

1:13:02 ↗ buying or qualifying for if you're if

1:13:05 ↗ you're barely making it, you can't buy.

1:13:07 ↗ So I assume those are

1:13:09 ↗ higher all percent going to be rental

1:13:11 ↗ type units. Are you finding

1:13:14 ↗ that the um

1:13:19 ↗ the ability to build those the the

1:13:23 ↗ developers want to build those and all

1:13:25 ↗ the codes across this is more broad than

1:13:27 ↗ just are set up to be able to achieve

1:13:30 ↗ those because those the biggest if you

1:13:32 ↗ look at those little hashmark graphs

1:13:34 ↗ they're all at the lower end and those

1:13:36 ↗ are going to be rentals. Let's be

1:13:38 ↗ realistic about that. are all the pieces

1:13:40 ↗ in place to be able to get that both

1:13:41 ↗ from the supply and demand the dem the

1:13:45 ↗ supply of the cities having the ability

1:13:47 ↗ to have the right rules in place not

1:13:49 ↗ just as but broadly and then the um on

1:13:53 ↗ the other side the builders have

1:13:55 ↗ interest in actually building those more

1:13:57 ↗ of a broader question

1:14:00 ↗ yeah uh

1:14:02 ↗ a lot of

1:14:04 ↗ uh possible ways to to answer it I think

1:14:09 ↗ the

1:14:11 ↗ the

1:14:12 ↗ general the approach to

1:14:15 ↗ solving that to creating those units in

1:14:18 ↗ my mind has got to be a combination

1:14:21 ↗ of the things you mentioned the uh the

1:14:26 ↗ subsidies the uh regulations that make

1:14:30 ↗ it possible for a developer to only get

1:14:35 ↗ you know

1:14:37 ↗ to to sell or rent some homes homes for

1:14:39 ↗ below market rent and make up for it by

1:14:43 ↗ the bonuses or the tax savings that they

1:14:46 ↗ get on the other end. That's what pays

1:14:48 ↗ for for those from on the market rate

1:14:51 ↗ side. But

1:14:53 ↗ >> so um if I I guess it's maybe more a

1:14:57 ↗ question for Kristen, the the things

1:14:59 ↗ that are being built at least what we

1:15:01 ↗ see in ESCO right now are more sold

1:15:05 ↗ units, not rental units. I see lots of

1:15:07 ↗ town houses all over million million

1:15:09 ↗ five and all that. Um that could just be

1:15:11 ↗ a snapshot in time. Um the the bigger

1:15:14 ↗ apartment I mean are

1:15:16 ↗ are the developers wanting to build

1:15:18 ↗ apartments or are they wanting to build

1:15:20 ↗ condos? And is there a place of how this

1:15:24 ↗ could all work where a new development

1:15:26 ↗ can be a mixture where the developer

1:15:28 ↗ sells market rate condos but they hold

1:15:32 ↗ back that percentage and they continue

1:15:35 ↗ to own those as rental apartments. So

1:15:38 ↗ you have a mixed type because otherwise

1:15:41 ↗ if a developer is in the condo business

1:15:44 ↗ they're they're just not going to play

1:15:46 ↗ um for these under 50 the 50% and below.

1:15:50 ↗ But is there are you seeing any mixed

1:15:52 ↗ type of developments that have both

1:15:55 ↗ owned and rental in the same thing? And

1:15:57 ↗ you're you're shaking your head. I

1:15:58 ↗ assume that's

1:15:58 ↗ >> No, no, we're not. And you know,

1:16:00 ↗ traditional stack condominiums, we're

1:16:02 ↗ not seeing those at all in Isiqua. And

1:16:04 ↗ part of that is because of some

1:16:06 ↗ regulations that were set by the state

1:16:07 ↗ that provide that um result in liability

1:16:12 ↗ issues for condominium developers. So

1:16:15 ↗ the condo type development we are seeing

1:16:16 ↗ is town homes and those are all sold and

1:16:20 ↗ there are some rental a while ago it was

1:16:23 ↗ all rentals coming in. It was all

1:16:24 ↗ apartments that were coming in and then

1:16:26 ↗ over the last three years or so it's

1:16:28 ↗ been town home after town home after

1:16:29 ↗ town home. We just talked to somebody

1:16:31 ↗ the other day who wants to do apartments

1:16:33 ↗ and some of that's coming back. But to

1:16:35 ↗ your other point earlier, I think yes,

1:16:37 ↗ you know, the lower the lower the income

1:16:39 ↗ level, it's going to be mostly rental

1:16:42 ↗ and ownership probably doesn't start

1:16:43 ↗ till closer to 70% or above.

1:16:46 ↗ >> I think that's even optimistic in this

1:16:48 ↗ area. I mean,

1:16:50 ↗ >> you think that's I'm pardon me.

1:16:51 ↗ >> I think it's you're to qualify for to

1:16:54 ↗ buy something, you have to be much

1:16:55 ↗ higher than that, I would assume. Just

1:16:56 ↗ pure math. We do have uh some um units

1:17:00 ↗ in our programs from and they mostly

1:17:03 ↗ come out of Redmond but um at 50% of

1:17:07 ↗ median and we do we are able to find

1:17:10 ↗ buyers

1:17:11 ↗ uh who qualify. So some of it is

1:17:13 ↗ supported by down payment assistance

1:17:15 ↗ programs but um at 80% of median uh it's

1:17:20 ↗ it's not that difficult at all.

1:17:26 ↗ All right. Uh, Commissioner Oler, I see

1:17:29 ↗ a hand.

1:17:29 ↗ >> Just a question. Uh, can you make that

1:17:32 ↗ slide deck available to the

1:17:34 ↗ commissioners?

1:17:35 ↗ >> Absolutely. Yes, that'd be great.

1:17:36 ↗ >> We've had a request recently to try and

1:17:38 ↗ get these out earlier, but we have a lot

1:17:40 ↗ of meetings, so we'll we're going to try

1:17:42 ↗ and get these out a little earlier, but

1:17:43 ↗ hasn't worked so far.

1:17:44 ↗ >> It's great. Thank you.

1:17:48 ↗ >> Follow-up question. When somebody in the

1:17:51 ↗ ARCH program buys a condo or townhouse,

1:17:54 ↗ a lot of times there are HOAs and the

1:17:56 ↗ HOAs have monthly fees. Are those

1:17:59 ↗ regulated at all or are they considered

1:18:01 ↗ is part of the covenant that they have

1:18:03 ↗ to be lower?

1:18:05 ↗ Um,

1:18:07 ↗ when we initially price the home, uh, we

1:18:11 ↗ build in what the actual HOA fees are,

1:18:15 ↗ including the, um, the if there's an

1:18:19 ↗ upfront contribution to the HOA.

1:18:22 ↗ Um, over time, of course, HOAs tend to

1:18:26 ↗ raise their fees in order to support

1:18:30 ↗ capital improvements and maintenance and

1:18:31 ↗ so forth. that's become a problem

1:18:35 ↗ because the often the fees will go up

1:18:37 ↗ faster than the um than the prices

1:18:41 ↗ themselves. Um so we don't have a great

1:18:46 ↗ solution to that yet. Um but it's it's

1:18:51 ↗ something that we're trying to deal

1:18:53 ↗ with.

1:18:55 ↗ >> Great job, Commissioner D. I think we

1:18:57 ↗ stumped them. Uh, Commissioner Matthews,

1:19:01 ↗ >> I had a question about the urban core,

1:19:05 ↗ sorry, the urban village f versus the

1:19:07 ↗ mixed juice because I know that

1:19:09 ↗ centraliz where you want the most

1:19:11 ↗ growth. So if say QFC they decide, oh,

1:19:17 ↗ we're going to sell this, you know,

1:19:18 ↗ Kroger, and somebody wants to redevelop

1:19:20 ↗ it as apartments, is there a requirement

1:19:23 ↗ because it's not mixed juice, it's urban

1:19:25 ↗ village. Do they have to bring in

1:19:27 ↗ another retail or I mean, I'm trying to

1:19:30 ↗ figure out what the difference is

1:19:32 ↗ between mixed use. Urban village doesn't

1:19:34 ↗ seem like you need to do that. Is that

1:19:36 ↗ right?

1:19:36 ↗ >> So,

1:19:38 ↗ excuse me. The urban villages are Isiqua

1:19:41 ↗ Highlands and Talis and Lakeside and

1:19:44 ↗ where we require the housing is urban

1:19:46 ↗ core which is the red up here and then

1:19:49 ↗ the purple striped which is the mixeduse

1:19:51 ↗ central Isiqua. So if someone was to

1:19:53 ↗ come in and tear down the Safeway or the

1:19:55 ↗ Town and Country and want to put in

1:19:57 ↗ residential there and the that's uh yes

1:20:00 ↗ that's urban core. Yes, they would be

1:20:02 ↗ required to put in affordable housing.

1:20:05 ↗ But if they're up in Isqua Highlands now

1:20:08 ↗ or Talis, no, they have met their

1:20:10 ↗ obligations for affordable housing.

1:20:14 ↗ >> So, follow-up question. Sorry about

1:20:16 ↗ that. Um, can I do they have to provide

1:20:19 ↗ the retail again? Because it's looking

1:20:22 ↗ like we're looking at a food desert

1:20:24 ↗ coming our way if we start redeveloping

1:20:26 ↗ the core and not have the retail

1:20:28 ↗ available.

1:20:30 ↗ So, I'm just kind of seeing into the

1:20:32 ↗ future.

1:20:32 ↗ >> Yes. So we actually we have a developer

1:20:34 ↗ obligation in our central Isiqua plan

1:20:37 ↗ that says you need to replace if you

1:20:39 ↗ come in and you take a business out.

1:20:41 ↗ >> You need to replace find a way to

1:20:43 ↗ replace those employees or give them

1:20:45 ↗ opportunities for employment one for one

1:20:47 ↗ or you know whatever we this transit

1:20:51 ↗ engineer transportation engineering

1:20:52 ↗ manual says we have not found a legal

1:20:56 ↗ way to codify that yet. So that is

1:20:58 ↗ actually something that we are working

1:20:59 ↗ on right now and we actually came across

1:21:01 ↗ something the other day. So we'll we'll

1:21:03 ↗ see how that pans out.

1:21:04 ↗ >> Yeah,

1:21:07 ↗ >> great questions everyone. Uh

1:21:08 ↗ Commissioner Miller Irwin.

1:21:10 ↗ >> Thank you Chair Boyce. I have a question

1:21:13 ↗ about uh the arch model with respect to

1:21:16 ↗ um um office building conversions. Um if

1:21:21 ↗ um converting those to um uh different

1:21:24 ↗ types of either affordable housing um a

1:21:27 ↗ small A uh of big A, would that work

1:21:31 ↗ with your um ARCH model?

1:21:35 ↗ Well, we would defer to whatever the

1:21:37 ↗ city's uh regulations are on that, but

1:21:40 ↗ we

1:21:41 ↗ >> Yeah, we could make we could administer

1:21:43 ↗ it.

1:21:44 ↗ >> Yeah, we we have two potential projects

1:21:47 ↗ coming in that would be commercial or

1:21:50 ↗ office conversions to multif family

1:21:52 ↗ residential and yes, they would be

1:21:53 ↗ required to comply with the arch

1:21:55 ↗ covenants.

1:21:56 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:21:57 ↗ >> Interesting. Thank you.

1:22:02 ↗ >> Great discussion everyone. Uh,

1:22:04 ↗ Commissioner Mulberu, do you have a

1:22:06 ↗ question?

1:22:07 ↗ >> I was just praising her for a really

1:22:09 ↗ interesting question. Sorry.

1:22:11 ↗ >> Yes. Welld deserving. Um, go ahead and

1:22:13 ↗ turn off your microphone, otherwise

1:22:15 ↗ you're going to give me

1:22:18 ↗ So, I think we move on. All right.

1:22:37 ↗ So, sorry. Yes, that was it.

1:22:39 ↗ >> I'm sorry.

1:22:40 ↗ >> That was

1:22:43 ↗ exactly right. Okay. Uh I didn't realize

1:22:46 ↗ that was the end of the presentation.

1:22:47 ↗ Well, good way to end and such

1:22:50 ↗ thoughtful questions from the

1:22:51 ↗ commissioners. Great discussion. want to

1:22:54 ↗ thank um senior planner Mike Stanger and

1:22:58 ↗ obviously planning manager Kristen Leon

1:23:00 ↗ and also uh senior planner Kate Kaney

1:23:04 ↗ for the great presentations this

1:23:06 ↗ evening. We're going to move along

1:23:08 ↗ because that concludes our regular

1:23:10 ↗ business and we're looking for reports

1:23:13 ↗ and our first report is city council

1:23:16 ↗ updates.

1:23:17 ↗ I mentioned one that we're going to be

1:23:20 ↗ talking about impact fees at the

1:23:22 ↗ February 3rd

1:23:25 ↗ um planning development and environment

1:23:28 ↗ committee

1:23:29 ↗ and you all might want to tune in to

1:23:31 ↗ that one just to see how that goes. We

1:23:34 ↗ will also be taking to that meeting,

1:23:37 ↗ sorry, we'll also be taking to that

1:23:39 ↗ meeting the docket that you all made the

1:23:42 ↗ recommendation on tonight. And just in

1:23:45 ↗ case you're interested, there will also

1:23:46 ↗ be an Isiqua climate action plan update

1:23:50 ↗ uh given to the committee at that time

1:23:52 ↗ as well. And then I mentioned this last

1:23:54 ↗ week I believe, but on March 9th,

1:23:56 ↗ potentially March 2nd, but right now

1:23:57 ↗ it's scheduled for March 9th, we will be

1:23:59 ↗ taking a topic called barriers, removing

1:24:03 ↗ barriers to development to the city

1:24:05 ↗ council to have them help us

1:24:09 ↗ identify. Um, we're going to talk about

1:24:11 ↗ different ways that we think that can be

1:24:12 ↗ done. And from that will come amendments

1:24:15 ↗ that we'll be bringing to you next year.

1:24:17 ↗ So, you might want to tune in to that

1:24:18 ↗ one as well. Is that something that's

1:24:21 ↗ worked out through the city and just

1:24:22 ↗ developers over time?

1:24:24 ↗ >> Uh it's we are talking devel to

1:24:27 ↗ developers right now. There's a meeting

1:24:29 ↗ coming up in February between staff and

1:24:31 ↗ developers and that's why we're going in

1:24:33 ↗ March so that we can have that meeting

1:24:35 ↗ first but we're also working it out

1:24:36 ↗ internally just things that we've heard

1:24:38 ↗ things that we've seen that how the way

1:24:40 ↗ things function inside as well as what

1:24:43 ↗ we've seen comments that we've received

1:24:45 ↗ from outside.

1:24:46 ↗ >> Okay, great.

1:24:48 ↗ Stay tuned.

1:24:50 ↗ >> All right. Any other updates?

1:24:54 ↗ >> No, I think that's it. Uh, for those of

1:24:56 ↗ you, there are three of you whose term

1:24:58 ↗ limits are up this year and the

1:25:00 ↗ applications are out if you are

1:25:02 ↗ interested in applying again.

1:25:05 ↗ >> And it also, sorry, just a note to all

1:25:08 ↗ of you out there and all of you, there

1:25:10 ↗ are not just positions open here, but

1:25:12 ↗ there are positions open all over the

1:25:13 ↗ city and all different boards and

1:25:14 ↗ commissions. So, if you know anyone that

1:25:16 ↗ might be interested, let them know.

1:25:21 ↗ >> All right. Uh, basically our our final

1:25:25 ↗ business on the agenda is just any other

1:25:28 ↗ business or announcements.

1:25:30 ↗ >> None.

1:25:31 ↗ >> Okay. And senior planner Kaney, I got

1:25:34 ↗ that right. I looked at my notes after

1:25:36 ↗ everything. I don't think I mentioned

1:25:37 ↗ how many people said no because there

1:25:39 ↗ was no no, but we want to make it

1:25:41 ↗ official. It was official, right?

1:25:43 ↗ >> Okay, perfect.

1:25:45 ↗ always scares me when it comes to the

1:25:47 ↗ formalities up here sometimes. All

1:25:50 ↗ right. Well, thank you everybody for

1:25:51 ↗ being with us this evening. Uh that does

1:25:54 ↗ it for us. We're going to conclude this

1:25:57 ↗ meeting of the Planning Policy

1:25:59 ↗ Commission tonight at 7:56 p.m. Thank

1:26:02 ↗ you.

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (7)

Voiss

Commissioners Adair

Krass

Matthews

Millender-Irwin

Mohl-Barouh

Oliner

Staff (1)

Amanda Jackson, Meeting Assistant Kate Kaehny, Principal Planner Christen Leeson, Planning Manager 2. Approval of Minutes a) Minutes of January 8, 2026 With no changes or comments, the Minutes were approved. 3