Planning Policy Commission · Thursday, June 25, 2026 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of May 28, 2026

packet pp.3–5

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Thursday, May 28, 2026

Minutes of June 11, 2026

packet pp.7–13

Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

MINUTES PLANNING POLICY COMMISSION 6:30 p.m. – Thursday, June 11, 2026

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

Comprehensive Plan Amendment Proposal Review (D) Clarifications

45 min · Kate Kaehny, Principal Planner Emily Medina, Senior Planner · packet pp.15–62

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 2:58 Open packet at p.15 ↗

Staff report:

At the June 25 meeting, the PPC will review and provide input on proposed policy and code amendments related to Final Docket proposals #1 and #2 described below: • Comprehensive Plan Amendment #1: Add descriptions of land use designations and add information that identifies land use designations and their implementing zones, and • Comprehensive Plan Amendment #2: Clarify the names of low density and multifamily land use and zoning designations to ensure compliance with the state’s middle housing requirements.

Promoting Building Investment Code Amendments (D) Introduction to Floor Area Ratios, Inclusionary Zoning and Development Bonus Program

60 min · Christen Leeson, Planning Manager · packet pp.63–164

Topics: Land Use

▶ Watch from 5:55 Open packet at p.63 ↗

Staff report:

Meeting Purpose The purpose of the June 25 Planning Policy Commission (PPC) meeting is to review and discuss:

5. REPORTS

Council Update

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Upcoming Schedule

packet pp.165–168

Open packet at p.165 ↗

Staff report:

Planning Policy Commission 2026 Schedule (subject to change)

2683 segments .txt ↗

1:12 ↗ Arsen, we're ready.

1:23 ↗ >> All right, everybody. Thank you for

1:26 ↗ being here.

1:28 ↗ Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello.

1:31 ↗ I know. I know. So, we just got caught

1:34 ↗ off guard, but we are actually live

1:36 ↗ right now. So, welcome to this evening's

1:39 ↗ planning policy commission. I wasn't

1:42 ↗ ready for it either. Um, we're going to

1:44 ↗ call this meeting to order. It's

1:46 ↗ currently 6:31 p.m. Today's meeting is a

1:50 ↗ hybrid meeting. The planning policy

1:51 ↗ commission is in person, but staff or

1:54 ↗ members of the public may be attending

1:56 ↗ virtually or in person.

1:59 ↗ I should have attended virtually

2:02 ↗ thinking of what's going to happen in

2:03 ↗ about a half hour. Uh staff, do we have

2:05 ↗ a quorum this evening?

2:09 ↗ >> Yes, we do.

2:10 ↗ >> Excellent. Thanks, Kristen. Okay, first

2:13 ↗ item of business is to approve two sets

2:15 ↗ of minutes. And the first set of minutes

2:17 ↗ is for the May 28th meeting. Um, as you

2:21 ↗ may remember, we had some technical

2:23 ↗ difficulties. So, these meeting minutes

2:24 ↗ are coming to us almost a month later.

2:27 ↗ Uh, having reviewed them, does anyone

2:29 ↗ have any concerns,

2:32 ↗ any corrections?

2:34 ↗ Okay, seeing none, those meeting minutes

2:37 ↗ are approved. And next, we will uh look

2:40 ↗ at the June 11th meeting minutes. Same

2:42 ↗ questions, any concerns,

2:45 ↗ any corrections?

2:47 ↗ Okay, the June 11th meeting minutes are

2:49 ↗ also approved.

2:52 ↗ We're going to begin this evening with

2:53 ↗ public comment. These are general public

2:55 ↗ comments at this time for the commission

2:58 ↗ or any of the regular business items we

3:01 ↗ have on tonight's agenda. Uh, has anyone

3:04 ↗ signed up to make public comment this

3:06 ↗ evening?

3:08 ↗ >> Yes, chair. They have.

3:10 ↗ >> Okay. We're going to offer some

3:12 ↗ guidelines very quickly for our

3:14 ↗ commenters. And for all those who would

3:16 ↗ like to speak, we ask that you speak

3:17 ↗ clearly and pause frequently. Please

3:20 ↗ state your name each time before

3:22 ↗ speaking. If you're attending virtually

3:24 ↗ or by computer uh and you would like to

3:26 ↗ speak, we ask that you also mute your

3:28 ↗ microphone when not speaking. And if

3:30 ↗ you're having any technical issues,

3:32 ↗ please try joining the meeting using a

3:34 ↗ different device such as a smartphone or

3:36 ↗ tablet. You can use the call-in

3:38 ↗ information in the meeting invite to

3:40 ↗ call in. This is an important part of

3:43 ↗ the planning policy's public process. We

3:46 ↗ take them seriously are factored into

3:48 ↗ the decisions that we make. Um, again,

3:51 ↗ these comments could be general or

3:52 ↗ anything on the business agenda this

3:55 ↗ evening. We do ask that everybody limit

3:57 ↗ their comments to 5 minutes or less.

4:00 ↗ Okay, moving along. Who's our first

4:03 ↗ speaker?

4:04 ↗ >> Carl Short.

4:06 ↗ >> All right.

4:13 ↗ >> Good evening, commissioners. Nice to see

4:16 ↗ you all again. Uh my name is Carl

4:18 ↗ Sheret, senior director of development

4:19 ↗ with Avalon Bay Communities,

4:20 ↗ representing NAOPP and our coalition of

4:22 ↗ housing developers. As always, I want to

4:24 ↗ thank the commission and staff for the

4:26 ↗ work you all are doing on the promoting

4:27 ↗ building investment program. The PBI is

4:30 ↗ crucial. It is the city's opportunity to

4:32 ↗ focus on the items that move projects

4:34 ↗ closer to feasibility, to actual

4:35 ↗ groundbreaking, and ultimately to

4:37 ↗ completion, resulting in an increased

4:39 ↗ diversity of housing options for Isiqua

4:41 ↗ residents. Today, Isiqua's regulatory

4:43 ↗ framework is not producing housing at

4:45 ↗ the pace we all want. Mandatory

4:47 ↗ inclusionary housing requirements at low

4:48 ↗ AMI levels that lack meaningful

4:50 ↗ incentives have stalled development

4:52 ↗ across the city, resulting in neither

4:54 ↗ the market rate nor the affordable

4:55 ↗ housing the program originally

4:57 ↗ envisioned. That economic reality is

4:59 ↗ clearly documented in the Eco Northwest

5:01 ↗ report that the city commissioned and

5:02 ↗ that you all have in your agenda. Viewed

5:04 ↗ through the lens of prospective Isakqua

5:06 ↗ residents, the city's current

5:08 ↗ inclusionary program is asking residents

5:09 ↗ in market rate apartments to carry the

5:11 ↗ brunt of the cost of new affordable

5:13 ↗ housing, upwards of $200 a month. This

5:16 ↗ is not a viable model for a housing

5:17 ↗ abundance in an environment of scarce

5:19 ↗ capital. The conclusion is

5:21 ↗ straightforward. It's time to revisit

5:22 ↗ this program and consider recalibration

5:24 ↗ for today's market conditions. As many

5:26 ↗ of your peer municipalities are now

5:28 ↗ exploring, affordable housing

5:30 ↗ requirements coupled with multif family

5:31 ↗ tax exemptions remain one of the most

5:33 ↗ meaningful levers the city has to

5:35 ↗ reinvigorate development in Isiqua.

5:39 ↗ We would strongly encourage you to

5:40 ↗ direct staff to advance a recalibrated

5:42 ↗ MFTTE program, one that is more broadly

5:45 ↗ applicable with a 10% set aside at 80%

5:48 ↗ AMI and without permanent affordability.

5:50 ↗ That's a structure that the market can

5:52 ↗ actually support as evidenced by strong

5:53 ↗ demand for projects in the recently

5:55 ↗ reszoned and reccalibrated program in

5:57 ↗ the Wilbertton neighborhood of Bellev.

5:59 ↗ In parallel, the density bonus program

6:01 ↗ needs to be recalibrated. So, the

6:02 ↗ incentives are real. Today, for example,

6:05 ↗ bonus density largely gets consumed by

6:07 ↗ parking due to the city's high water

6:09 ↗ table. It doesn't necessarily translate

6:11 ↗ into more housing and should be thought

6:12 ↗ of less as a bonus and more as a project

6:14 ↗ requirement. We urge you to use this

6:16 ↗ moment to improve these programs. These

6:18 ↗ are wellestablished tools that can

6:19 ↗ materially increase housing production

6:21 ↗ if structured correctly. Thank you again

6:23 ↗ for your time and leadership.

6:28 ↗ >> Great. Thank you, Carl.

6:31 ↗ >> Believe we have someone else. Please go

6:33 ↗ ahead.

6:34 ↗ >> Christy Triple, sorry. Christy Triple.

6:46 ↗ Sorry, I haven't been here in a while.

6:49 ↗ Good evening, planning policy council

6:52 ↗ members. Uh, I'm Christy Triple. I'm VP

6:54 ↗ for community development with Rally

6:56 ↗ Properties here in Isiqua. Uh, Rally

6:58 ↗ Properties has been part of the

7:00 ↗ community for more than 70 years. We

7:02 ↗ have a 30-year development agreement

7:03 ↗ with the city to redevelop our Rally

7:06 ↗ Center and Hilo Crossing neighborhoods

7:08 ↗ over time. I've also had the privilege

7:10 ↗ of serving on the Isqua Chamber of

7:12 ↗ Commerce Board twice, the Transportation

7:14 ↗ Advisory Board, and the city's economic

7:16 ↗ vitality commission. So, after working

7:18 ↗ in this community for a very long time,

7:20 ↗ I've attended more public meetings than

7:22 ↗ I can count. So, um I've seen a lot as

7:27 ↗ Kristen knows as well. Um but I'm here

7:29 ↗ tonight to talk about um both agenda

7:32 ↗ items. First of all, we second Carl and

7:35 ↗ NaOop sentiments. Um, I'm here tonight

7:38 ↗ with um my peer because not only that we

7:42 ↗ have a development agreement, but it's

7:44 ↗ because we care about the broader future

7:45 ↗ of housing here in Isiqua. We want to

7:48 ↗ see housing created for people at every

7:49 ↗ stage of life. Whether they're moving

7:51 ↗ here for the first time, downsizing,

7:54 ↗ returning from college to begin their

7:56 ↗ careers, or to raise their own families.

7:59 ↗ We want to thank the city staff and the

8:01 ↗ PPC for undertaking the promoting

8:03 ↗ building investment program. This is

8:06 ↗ important work and a timely opportunity

8:08 ↗ to fine-tune Title 18. We know it was a

8:12 ↗ heavy lift, but it there's also an

8:14 ↗ opportunity to better facilitate high

8:17 ↗ quality housing. That work is critical.

8:21 ↗ We had agreed with Eco Northwest's

8:22 ↗ findings and we were disappointed that

8:25 ↗ the recommended additional analysis was

8:27 ↗ not pursued. We recognize, however, that

8:30 ↗ does take time and money. But fast

8:32 ↗ forward to today,

8:34 ↗ you have something equally valuable.

8:37 ↗ Developers and partners who are here

8:39 ↗ actively wanting to invest in Isqua and

8:42 ↗ who are willing to share firsthand

8:44 ↗ experience about what works and what

8:46 ↗ other jurisdictions are doing

8:48 ↗ successfully to encourage housing

8:50 ↗ production.

8:52 ↗ We all know that Isiqua presents unique

8:55 ↗ development challenges that no one can

8:57 ↗ control, including the high water table,

9:00 ↗ critical areas, and other site

9:02 ↗ constraints. What the city can control

9:06 ↗ are the policies and the incentives that

9:08 ↗ you're discussing tonight.

9:10 ↗ We encourage you to seize this

9:12 ↗ opportunity to strengthen the MFTTE

9:14 ↗ program inclusionary zoning and

9:16 ↗ development incentives. These are pro

9:19 ↗ proven common sense tools that can

9:22 ↗ meaningfully increase housing production

9:24 ↗ and that will help the city achieve its

9:27 ↗ housing goals. Choosing not to make such

9:30 ↗ improvements, I think unfortunately

9:32 ↗ would send a clear message to the

9:34 ↗ development community that housing

9:36 ↗ production isn't a priority. So, we do

9:39 ↗ appreciate your work. We know it's hard.

9:41 ↗ It's a heavy lift and you've already

9:43 ↗ been through a big one with Title 18.

9:45 ↗ So, we appreciate you taking a look at

9:47 ↗ that.

9:48 ↗ Um, and then one last thing, I'd like to

9:50 ↗ speak to the second agenda item, which

9:52 ↗ you'll hear further from Kristen on the

9:55 ↗ urban village purpose language language

9:58 ↗ proposed edits. Um, as a customer of the

10:02 ↗ city with the development agreement and

10:04 ↗ a partnership with the city, we are not

10:07 ↗ aligned with the proposed change of

10:09 ↗ language and we would request that it

10:11 ↗ remain the same as adopted um in the 21

10:16 ↗ 2021 comp plan and at the time we had

10:19 ↗ adopted our development agreement. And

10:21 ↗ the reason for that is simple. Each

10:24 ↗ development agreement is unique to its

10:26 ↗ own and its purpose is grounded in the

10:28 ↗ comp plan and so um it's important to

10:32 ↗ remember that they are legally binding

10:34 ↗ contracts with the city. It's great to

10:36 ↗ have an overarching description but to

10:39 ↗ get too far in the weeds with a purpose

10:41 ↗ statement I think is a little too much.

10:44 ↗ Anyways, thank you for your time.

10:46 ↗ Appreciate it and look forward to your

10:48 ↗ conversation.

10:51 ↗ >> Thank you Christie. Would anyone else

10:54 ↗ like to speak?

10:59 ↗ >> There are no more and there is no one

11:01 ↗ online as well.

11:08 ↗ >> Okay. Well, I want to thank Carl and

11:10 ↗ Christie for sharing their comments with

11:12 ↗ us. Um, that will conclude our public

11:16 ↗ comment. So, we are going to move on to

11:19 ↗ regular business. And we have two items

11:22 ↗ this evening for regular business. And

11:24 ↗ the first is a presentation from

11:26 ↗ principal planner Kate Kaney and senior

11:29 ↗ planner Emily Medina on proposed policy

11:31 ↗ and code amendments related to the

11:33 ↗ comprehensive plan amendments

11:36 ↗ one and two regarding land use

11:38 ↗ designation descriptions and changes to

11:40 ↗ the names of residential zones. Uh Kate

11:43 ↗ and Emily, when you guys are ready,

11:45 ↗ please go ahead.

11:56 ↗ One moment please.

12:00 ↗ Okay.

12:04 ↗ And can anyone see that on this? Oh,

12:08 ↗ sorry.

12:10 ↗ Great. Okay. Here is the presentation.

12:13 ↗ Um, thank you, chair. Um I am Kate Kaney

12:16 ↗ and am here with Emily Medina. I will

12:18 ↗ start the presentation and then we will

12:21 ↗ switch places. So we are back uh to talk

12:24 ↗ about proposed amendments uh for uh

12:28 ↗ these final docket items. Uh we did an

12:30 ↗ introduction session uh in May 14th I

12:34 ↗ believe and uh tonight we're back with

12:37 ↗ actual proposals that were in your

12:39 ↗ packet um policy proposals as well as uh

12:43 ↗ proposals related to the code. Uh, one

12:46 ↗ thing noted in your packet was that, you

12:48 ↗ know, both of these amendments look at

12:51 ↗ land use designations and zoning. And

12:54 ↗ so, uh, the amendments, uh, share, uh,

12:59 ↗ some of the same changes even though

13:01 ↗ they were separately proposed. So,

13:03 ↗ that's something you may have seen. So,

13:05 ↗ I'm going to go ahead and start talking

13:06 ↗ about the land use designation

13:08 ↗ descriptions, adding those back in, and

13:11 ↗ clarifying what the implementing zones

13:13 ↗ are for those uh designations. So, uh

13:18 ↗ the overall intent really was uh to

13:22 ↗ clarify what land use designations uh

13:25 ↗ really mean, what their purpose and

13:27 ↗ intent are um for the city. Uh it it's

13:31 ↗ uh helpful. developers come in, look at

13:33 ↗ the land use map and are not really

13:35 ↗ sure. Um, you can see the existing nine

13:37 ↗ designations that we have to the right

13:40 ↗ of your screen. Um, some of the

13:42 ↗ questions we would get would be about,

13:43 ↗ you know, what is retail exactly? What

13:46 ↗ is commercial allow? And so those are

13:48 ↗ some of the clarifications that we

13:49 ↗ talked to you about earlier. It's all

13:52 ↗ about making sure people understand what

13:54 ↗ these land use designations are, where

13:56 ↗ and how are we going to grow, how are we

13:58 ↗ going to implement the vision in the

13:59 ↗ comprehensive plan. So now I'm going to

14:02 ↗ go ahead and talk about some of the

14:03 ↗ proposals starting with the land use

14:05 ↗ map. Um many cities call these flumes or

14:08 ↗ future land use maps. Um we call it the

14:10 ↗ comprehensive plan land use map and it

14:12 ↗ identifies land use in the city now and

14:15 ↗ in the future. And this map is

14:17 ↗ implemented by the zoning map and the

14:20 ↗ zones. So, uh, what you see are proposed

14:24 ↗ changes to the legend on the left of

14:26 ↗ your screen. And, um, one of the, uh,

14:31 ↗ ration behind some of these changes was,

14:34 ↗ um, not only to make their the purpose

14:36 ↗ and intent of the land use designations

14:37 ↗ clear, but also to increase alignment

14:39 ↗ with the zone, the zoning co, sorry, the

14:42 ↗ land use code and the way the zones are

14:44 ↗ described. So, as you may recall, we

14:46 ↗ talked about how there are five

14:48 ↗ categories of zones, including

14:50 ↗ residential, mixed use, commercial, um,

14:54 ↗ urban village. Um, and so in some of

14:58 ↗ those cases, it was uh, uh, difficult to

15:02 ↗ see the direct alignment between some of

15:03 ↗ the zones, some of those uh, zoning

15:06 ↗ descriptions and categories. So, um, our

15:09 ↗ intent again was to clarify all of that

15:12 ↗ with these new names. Um so what are the

15:15 ↗ changes? Uh we maintain conservancy

15:17 ↗ community facilities, community

15:18 ↗ facilities privately owned. But then we

15:20 ↗ made some changes um specifically to

15:23 ↗ residential um low density residential

15:26 ↗ uh was mainly covering the single family

15:29 ↗ zones. Um we'll be talking about those

15:31 ↗ name changes again. But because of the

15:33 ↗ middle housing amendments from last

15:34 ↗ year, we wanted to make sure that um

15:37 ↗ lowdensity residential didn't just mean

15:39 ↗ single family to people. that

15:40 ↗ residential also could better

15:42 ↗ incorporate the meaning of middle

15:44 ↗ housing as well as single family uses.

15:47 ↗ So residential was the name we settled

15:48 ↗ on. Um that residential designation is

15:53 ↗ aligned with the residential zone

15:55 ↗ category in title 18. So then the mixed

15:59 ↗ use category in title 18 was looked at

16:03 ↗ and uh we looked at the content of

16:05 ↗ zones. We looked back at the

16:07 ↗ descriptions of land use designations

16:09 ↗ from uh former comprehensive plans and

16:13 ↗ we came up with three mixeduse

16:16 ↗ categories. Mixeduse residential

16:19 ↗ primarily a residential category. Um

16:22 ↗ mixeduse medium and mixed use high.

16:24 ↗ Again to get that alignment with uh the

16:26 ↗ mixeduse zone category in title 18. Um,

16:30 ↗ urban village also is part of the the

16:33 ↗ mixeduse zone category as well as its

16:36 ↗ own thing. And then we had a category or

16:38 ↗ sorry a land use uh designation called

16:40 ↗ commercial and it's implemented by uh

16:44 ↗ intensive commercial zones. And because

16:47 ↗ it mainly allows uh light industrial and

16:50 ↗ mineral resource type uses with some

16:52 ↗ heavy commercial or intensive commercial

16:54 ↗ uses to clarify what was allowed in that

16:56 ↗ designation, we're proposing changing it

16:58 ↗ to industrial. So this is where we

17:00 ↗ landed on uh the nine land use

17:03 ↗ designations. Oh, I just also want to

17:05 ↗ mention um so not only are there

17:08 ↗ proposed changes to the legend and the

17:10 ↗ land use designation names, but also in

17:12 ↗ the map, we we haven't been able to

17:14 ↗ change the colors of the map. Uh we

17:16 ↗ don't want to do that until um you all

17:19 ↗ have uh and and council has made uh some

17:22 ↗ decisions and confirmed our direction.

17:24 ↗ But we will probably need to change some

17:26 ↗ of the colors on the map um to ensure

17:29 ↗ that we have zones in land use

17:32 ↗ designations and the color coding

17:34 ↗ correct so that everything is aligned.

17:36 ↗ So we'll come back with that. So let's

17:38 ↗ go ahead and take a look at um some of

17:41 ↗ the key amendments in the land use and

17:43 ↗ sustainability element of the

17:45 ↗ comprehensive plan. This is the table of

17:47 ↗ contents for that chapter. And as you

17:49 ↗ can see um what's noted is where changes

17:53 ↗ are proposed. So in your packet in the

17:56 ↗ existing conditions section you may have

17:57 ↗ seen some changes to the introduction to

18:00 ↗ some data and diagrams and uh there was

18:03 ↗ language there about the land use map

18:04 ↗ that was repurposed for one of the new

18:06 ↗ sections I'll talk about in a second. Um

18:09 ↗ then the main changes under goals and

18:10 ↗ policies were really in the first three

18:14 ↗ uh sections that you see growth

18:16 ↗ management and existing section. Um I

18:19 ↗ will go through that on the next slide

18:21 ↗ what the changes are are proposed for

18:23 ↗ that um that section. And then there are

18:25 ↗ two new um sections of the land use

18:28 ↗ element that are proposed to help tell

18:31 ↗ the story of growth and the purpose and

18:35 ↗ background of the land use uh

18:37 ↗ designations. And that's a new citywide

18:39 ↗ growth strategy section and a section

18:42 ↗ specifically for that uh confirms and

18:45 ↗ establishes the land use map and the

18:46 ↗ land use designations. Um so that's

18:50 ↗ really the list that I can uh share with

18:52 ↗ you of changes. So now let's go one by

18:55 ↗ one through what is proposed. And again

18:57 ↗ these are the key changes. There are

18:59 ↗ some minor changes that were in your

19:00 ↗ packet that I'm not going to go through.

19:02 ↗ So this is that growth management

19:03 ↗ section that starts off the land use um

19:08 ↗ uh chapter. And what this section does

19:11 ↗ is talk about how uh the city needs to

19:14 ↗ maintain an adequate supply of

19:16 ↗ appropriately zoned land to accommodate

19:18 ↗ the projected growth that is identified

19:22 ↗ in the King Countywide planning

19:24 ↗ policies, the CPS. So that was a process

19:27 ↗ um through the periodic update adopted

19:30 ↗ in 2024.

19:32 ↗ Um the adopted growth targets, there are

19:35 ↗ housing targets and there are job

19:37 ↗ targets. So uh what is proposed to be

19:40 ↗ added underneath the diagram is a policy

19:45 ↗ that helps explain what the diagram is.

19:48 ↗ And so what's proposed is language that

19:50 ↗ says plan to accommodate at least 35

19:52 ↗ additional housing units and 7,950

19:55 ↗ additional jobs between 2019 and 2044

19:58 ↗ the time horizon in the CPPs um as

20:01 ↗ established by uh King County. So it's

20:04 ↗ just clarification about you know this

20:07 ↗ is what the city's uh going to plan and

20:09 ↗ accommodate for over the next 20 plus

20:11 ↗ years as part of the background for so

20:14 ↗ what are what's the job of the land use

20:15 ↗ designations then you know how should we

20:17 ↗ describe them as part of that story. So

20:20 ↗ the next uh slide talks about the new

20:23 ↗ citywide growth strategy section. Um if

20:27 ↗ uh you looked at some of the other

20:28 ↗ cities and their comprehensive plans, uh

20:31 ↗ many of them have a section that just

20:33 ↗ goes right out and says this is how

20:34 ↗ we're going to grow. Um in the past you

20:37 ↗ might have a very general policy in your

20:39 ↗ comp plan and then maybe some of your

20:41 ↗ sub area plans would tell the story. Um

20:43 ↗ so uh to help clarify you know our

20:47 ↗ understanding of how you know where and

20:48 ↗ how is the city going to grow, what are

20:50 ↗ the land use designations going to help

20:52 ↗ implement? Um this new section is

20:55 ↗ proposed. So the goal is to talk about

20:57 ↗ continuing to guide new growth and

20:59 ↗ development to support thriving and

21:00 ↗ sustainable neighborhoods everywhere in

21:02 ↗ the city throughout the city. Um and

21:04 ↗ that they provide a variety of housing,

21:06 ↗ jobs, services, and amenities for local

21:08 ↗ communities. So that's sort of the high

21:09 ↗ level. So then uh like most of the

21:13 ↗ sections of the comprehensive plan there

21:15 ↗ is a

21:17 ↗ uh discussion a section and it talks

21:20 ↗ about um kind of the goal and the

21:23 ↗ policies and it provides more context.

21:26 ↗ So the context here is that you know the

21:29 ↗ city is planning to accommodate most of

21:31 ↗ the future housing and job growth within

21:33 ↗ four neighborhoods central Isiqua Isqua

21:35 ↗ Highlands Talis and Lakeside. Now, we're

21:38 ↗ trying to be as specific as possible,

21:40 ↗ but is this the whole story? Still

21:42 ↗ digging in. Still might do some word

21:44 ↗ smithing um as we're looking back at the

21:46 ↗ data. Maybe Talis doesn't belong here

21:48 ↗ because they're pretty fully developed,

21:51 ↗ right? Um so, we're just going to do a

21:52 ↗ double check on that. But again, the

21:54 ↗ idea is to tell a clear story about

21:56 ↗ where and how the city's going to grow.

21:58 ↗ Um, part of that story is that while you

22:02 ↗ know, most of the growth is going to

22:03 ↗ come into these four, three or four

22:05 ↗ neighborhoods, the majority of all new

22:07 ↗ growth is to be focused within the

22:09 ↗ central Isiqua urban core regional

22:12 ↗ growth center. We're working on that

22:13 ↗ other comprehensive plan amendment about

22:15 ↗ the RGC and this helps give policy basis

22:18 ↗ for that growth. It, you know, helps

22:20 ↗ describe the story. So, additional

22:23 ↗ growth will come in the city's other

22:25 ↗ neighborhoods, including Oldtown. Um and

22:28 ↗ the reason is it you know for vital

22:31 ↗ revitalization you know just a growth

22:33 ↗ will come everywhere it's equitable that

22:35 ↗ aligns with our other policies um but

22:37 ↗ just in line with existing land use

22:40 ↗ patterns. So that's a a summary of the

22:43 ↗ narrative in the discussion. So that is

22:45 ↗ the precursor to the proposed policies.

22:48 ↗ The first policy again to bolster that

22:50 ↗ RGC um you know Pugettown Regional

22:53 ↗ Council designated growth area. The idea

22:56 ↗ is that, you know, focus most of the

22:57 ↗ city's housing and job growth within the

22:59 ↗ designated RGC within a walkable,

23:02 ↗ equitable, transit oriented community or

23:04 ↗ set of communities.

23:09 ↗ The next policy that's proposed is talk

23:11 ↗ about well, you know, it's not just in

23:13 ↗ one place that's going to grow. allow

23:14 ↗ growth outside of that urban core

23:16 ↗ regional growth center um in mixed use

23:18 ↗ and residential centers and in the

23:21 ↗ city's other neighborhoods as

23:22 ↗ appropriate to ensure there's equitable

23:25 ↗ access to opportunity, right? Diverse

23:27 ↗ range of housing, jobs, services.

23:29 ↗ Again, word smithing to confirm that,

23:32 ↗ you know, should we have the names of

23:33 ↗ those other neighborhoods? What's the

23:34 ↗ real growth amount? That kind of thing.

23:37 ↗ So also in the new growth strategy

23:40 ↗ section these last two talking about you

23:42 ↗ know ensuring that future growth is

23:43 ↗ supported by infrastructure and services

23:45 ↗ that's key that's reiterated in other

23:47 ↗ parts of the comprehensive plan and also

23:49 ↗ recognize and plan for the uni unique

23:50 ↗ role and character of our neighborhoods

23:52 ↗ and really enhance and maximize our

23:55 ↗ existing community assets even as we

23:57 ↗ grow. So that is what is proposed in

23:59 ↗ that new citywide growth strategy

24:01 ↗ section.

24:03 ↗ All right. So now um this is where the

24:06 ↗ land use uh designations will go as well

24:10 ↗ as information about the land use map.

24:13 ↗ So the goal um that is proposed is to

24:16 ↗ achieve the city's preferred land use

24:18 ↗ pattern you know as it's illustrated

24:20 ↗ with that land within that land use map

24:23 ↗ by establishing and maintaining land use

24:25 ↗ designations and implementing zones.

24:27 ↗ This is to really you know create a new

24:29 ↗ section for where all those descriptions

24:31 ↗ can land. make it clear, you know, what

24:33 ↗ we're trying to do with it. Um, also in

24:35 ↗ land use policy AB1, we're going to work

24:38 ↗ on the the numbering. Um, you know,

24:40 ↗ we're it clearly establishes that

24:44 ↗ establish the general location and

24:45 ↗ intensity of land uses through the land

24:47 ↗ use map and where you can find the land

24:49 ↗ use map because it is in the exhibits to

24:51 ↗ this chapter. Um, another uh policy uh

24:55 ↗ define land use designations and they're

24:56 ↗ implementing zones according to this

24:59 ↗ table below. And I'm just going to let

25:02 ↗ it pop up here. Um, so the table was in

25:06 ↗ the memo and there's a lot in there.

25:08 ↗ There are a couple of errors that I'm

25:09 ↗ going to highlight as we go through and

25:11 ↗ I'm just going to um summarize what's in

25:14 ↗ them. And I want to share that many of

25:18 ↗ the land use designation descriptions

25:20 ↗ are from the 2014 comprehensive plan

25:24 ↗ which I believe was the last time the

25:26 ↗ city had these descriptions uh in a

25:29 ↗ chart with their implementing zones and

25:31 ↗ I think there was a streamlining process

25:33 ↗ where those things were removed um since

25:36 ↗ then. So 2014 um it for this con you

25:39 ↗ know description of consery purpose of

25:42 ↗ the designation is to proect uh protect

25:44 ↗ and preserve natural systems etc. What

25:47 ↗ zones are implemented by this

25:49 ↗ designation? Um community facilities and

25:52 ↗ community facilities privately owned.

25:54 ↗ these descriptions also from that 2014

25:58 ↗ comprehensive plan. Um you know

26:00 ↗ providing areas for public benefit uses

26:02 ↗ on public property um for community

26:05 ↗ facilities and then privately owned is

26:08 ↗ to show and identify land uh owned by

26:10 ↗ private entities or nonprofits dedicated

26:13 ↗ to providing civic, cultural etc

26:16 ↗ services to the public. So um again uh

26:19 ↗ descriptions that help um you know

26:22 ↗ provide context.

26:25 ↗ So next is the um was the low density

26:30 ↗ residential designation proposed to

26:32 ↗ change into residential so that I it can

26:36 ↗ not only speak to promoting single

26:38 ↗ family but also middle housing uses.

26:40 ↗ Right? And so this description, I'll

26:43 ↗ read some of it, um was partially taken

26:46 ↗ from the 2014 comp plan and also

26:49 ↗ refreshed with some of the goals that we

26:51 ↗ have today, especially uh regarding

26:53 ↗ allowing middle housing. So the purpose

26:55 ↗ of this designation is to provide a

26:57 ↗ lower density residential environment

26:59 ↗ that promotes highquality housing and a

27:01 ↗ diversity of housing types. And then it

27:02 ↗ goes into say specifically allow single

27:04 ↗ family, middle housing, etc. Um, and you

27:08 ↗ will see to the right the new uh names

27:11 ↗ for those single family zones and uh my

27:14 ↗ colleague Emily Medina will go through

27:15 ↗ that when we talk about comprehensive

27:17 ↗ plan uh amendment two after I present

27:20 ↗ this information. So, let's go ahead and

27:23 ↗ turn from the residential zone category.

27:27 ↗ Uh, sorry, residential land use

27:29 ↗ designation. Um, and that again aligns

27:32 ↗ with the residential uh zone category in

27:36 ↗ title 18. And now we're going to turn to

27:38 ↗ the mixeduse uh designation starting

27:40 ↗ with mixeduse residential and that is um

27:44 ↗ the revised version of the multif family

27:45 ↗ residential existing designation. So the

27:48 ↗ purpose of this designation is to

27:50 ↗ provide medium and highdensity multif

27:52 ↗ family neighborhoods with a variety of

27:53 ↗ urban services and commercial and other

27:56 ↗ complimentary uses. This language aligns

27:58 ↗ almost exactly with what is in title 18

28:01 ↗ in the zone descriptions for multifamily

28:04 ↗ medium multif family high. So um you

28:07 ↗ will see in the implementing zone to uh

28:10 ↗ the right of your screen that we removed

28:13 ↗ urban village multifamily from this uh

28:17 ↗ implementing zone of mult the old multif

28:19 ↗ family residential and actually I should

28:22 ↗ mention put it into the uh residential

28:26 ↗ zones because of the types of uses that

28:28 ↗ were allowed. It did not allow

28:30 ↗ commercial um or mixed use. So that's

28:33 ↗ why it landed there.

28:36 ↗ So let's go ahead and talk about

28:38 ↗ mixeduse medium.

28:40 ↗ Um so the purpose of this designation is

28:42 ↗ is to provide areas with a mix of

28:44 ↗ retail commercial office residential

28:46 ↗ at a medium to high scale and density.

28:49 ↗ And that also has a note about the

28:50 ↗ cultural business district zone in

28:53 ↗ Oldtown and uh some other information.

28:57 ↗ And then on the implementing zones to

28:58 ↗ the right, you can see some yellow

29:00 ↗ highlights where there were some

29:01 ↗ inadvertent errors in your packet. So, I

29:02 ↗ just want to be clear about which zones

29:04 ↗ implement this designation. Um, UVMUR

29:09 ↗ um is actually in mixed was was uh

29:13 ↗ supposed to have moved to mixeduse high.

29:15 ↗ So, sorry about that error. And village

29:18 ↗ residential

29:19 ↗ was supposed to be in this category. Um,

29:23 ↗ and just as a double check, because I

29:25 ↗ know this is a little confusing, we

29:26 ↗ wanted to show you why the zones that

29:29 ↗ are proposed uh should be in this uh

29:31 ↗ designation um as an implementing zone.

29:35 ↗ So, you can see the heights and um

29:39 ↗ density information and whether uh staff

29:42 ↗ feels it's a good fit for mixeduse

29:44 ↗ medium. So um that would include uh

29:47 ↗ village residential um at the higher end

29:50 ↗ of mixeduse medium.

29:53 ↗ Okay, mixeduse high. So uh the purpose

29:57 ↗ of this designation is to provide that

29:59 ↗ mix of uses at higher scales and

30:01 ↗ densities to create vibrant urban

30:03 ↗ environments and it describes that the

30:06 ↗ urban core zone uh promotes the highest

30:09 ↗ scale and intensity of development in

30:10 ↗ the city. um that one of its goals is to

30:13 ↗ create, you know, pedestrian transit

30:14 ↗ oriented communities within the RGC.

30:17 ↗ Also highlighting that and helping to

30:19 ↗ bolster uh other policies on the RGC

30:22 ↗ that we have. So the zones that

30:25 ↗ implement this um designation are to the

30:28 ↗ right. Also just as a double check, it's

30:31 ↗ hard to understand, you know, what's

30:32 ↗ involved with all those zones. So we

30:33 ↗ thought this might be helpful. Um you

30:36 ↗ can see uh mixed use, mixeduse central

30:38 ↗ isqua, urban village, mixeduse

30:40 ↗ residential and the urban core zone. Um

30:44 ↗ starting with the lower lowest intensity

30:47 ↗ to the highest intensity zones. Um so

30:50 ↗ that is that double check for you.

30:54 ↗ All right. So now let's turn to the

30:56 ↗ urban village zone. So the land use

30:58 ↗ description that you see proposed here

31:00 ↗ was from the 2014 um comprehensive

31:03 ↗ plans. um intent statement for this land

31:07 ↗ use designation and you can see um the

31:09 ↗ zones are uh the urban village zones uh

31:13 ↗ indicating where the city has uh

31:15 ↗ development agreements. Um this map is

31:18 ↗ about to pop up on your screen. So you

31:21 ↗ can see to the left of the screen urban

31:24 ↗ village Rowley is in that central Isiqua

31:26 ↗ area in that brown cross-hatching.

31:29 ↗ um and Urban Village Lakeside to the

31:32 ↗ right in the uh brown and white stripes

31:35 ↗ and then just Urban Village uh in those

31:37 ↗ brown lots over there in uh in the

31:39 ↗ Highlands. So, just to locate those for

31:42 ↗ you.

31:45 ↗ So, um we got some input about um the

31:48 ↗ proposed in uh uh designation

31:51 ↗ description. Um it aligns very closely

31:54 ↗ with what is in title 18. And again,

31:56 ↗ this is from the 2014 comprehensive

31:58 ↗ plan. And you can see barely maybe under

32:01 ↗ to the right the land use designation

32:03 ↗ intent statement matched what I showed

32:06 ↗ you on that blue screen with what was

32:07 ↗ proposed. But um it was raised to our

32:10 ↗ attention that there's some really good

32:11 ↗ language and maybe even better language

32:13 ↗ on the left side of your screen under

32:16 ↗ the um land use designation uh and

32:21 ↗ districts just kind of the titles for

32:22 ↗ the designations. I'm going to go ahead

32:24 ↗ and read some of it because it's

32:26 ↗ helpful. Um it talks about the urban

32:28 ↗ village designation recognizes that ma

32:30 ↗ that master planning of larger parcels

32:32 ↗ provides the opportunity for mixeduse

32:34 ↗ development um clustering and phasing

32:37 ↗ etc. And that the designation is

32:39 ↗ implemented by the adoption of a UV

32:42 ↗ development agreement and UV zoning by

32:44 ↗ city council. Um there's some additional

32:47 ↗ information on there, but these key

32:49 ↗ words, you know, uh promoting

32:51 ↗ innovation, mixeduse zoning, and

32:54 ↗ information about the development

32:55 ↗ agreement is helpful. It was not part of

32:58 ↗ the intent statement or the description

33:00 ↗ from 2014, but we're thinking it it

33:04 ↗ should be considered perhaps as a more

33:08 ↗ viable or more accurate than what we're

33:10 ↗ we were proposing initially. Um, so want

33:14 ↗ you guys to, you know, think about it.

33:16 ↗ Um, and we'll have some discussion about

33:19 ↗ it where we can look a little bit more

33:20 ↗ in our Q&A which will happen shortly.

33:23 ↗ Just wanted to point that out.

33:26 ↗ Okay. So, coming up to the end, um, the

33:29 ↗ change to the commercial land use

33:31 ↗ designation to industrial is here with

33:33 ↗ the land use designation description

33:35 ↗ that was from the 2014 comprehensive

33:37 ↗ plan. Uh purpose of this designation is

33:39 ↗ to provide areas for intensive

33:41 ↗ commercial services, light industrial

33:43 ↗ uses, and mineral extraction and

33:45 ↗ processing. You can see to the right uh

33:47 ↗ that we're not going to change the

33:50 ↗ abbreviation for the zones, but IC turns

33:53 ↗ from indust intensive commercial to

33:55 ↗ industrial commercial and industrial

33:58 ↗ commercial central isqua um would also

34:00 ↗ be a change. The idea is to really

34:02 ↗ clarify what type of uses are allowed in

34:04 ↗ this area. So,

34:09 ↗ some considerations as you're thinking

34:11 ↗ about questions, you know, were those

34:13 ↗ proposed amendments clear? Um, are

34:15 ↗ changes or additional information

34:17 ↗ needed? You heard that we are thinking

34:19 ↗ about some lang potential language

34:21 ↗ changes? Um, I can turn back to slides

34:23 ↗ if you want to see them or if you are

34:25 ↗ just ready for the next part of the

34:26 ↗ presentation, just let me know.

34:32 ↗ >> All right. Well, thank you, Kate.

34:34 ↗ Do we have any questions? We'll start

34:36 ↗ with questions. Any questions for Kate?

34:45 ↗ >> Yeah, Commissioner Zachro.

34:47 ↗ >> Thank you. Um, well, I was listening to

34:50 ↗ the presentation. Thank you so much,

34:51 ↗ Kate. And I was also listening to the

34:53 ↗ public comments before the presentation.

34:55 ↗ And I would really, well, first I do

34:59 ↗ have question. Why do we returning from

35:01 ↗ the 20 2021st to the 2014?

35:05 ↗ So yeah, and that so there was not to my

35:09 ↗ knowledge a 2021 comprehensive plan

35:11 ↗ amendment. I I think there were some

35:13 ↗ ordinances maybe, but the language um

35:16 ↗ that um we received as part of um the

35:20 ↗ comments today are from this left left

35:24 ↗ hand section of the 2014 comprehensive

35:26 ↗ plan amendment. So I'm not sure if

35:28 ↗ additional information things happened

35:29 ↗ in 2021 but it's the same uh language

35:33 ↗ that was shared with us earlier.

35:36 ↗ >> Thank you. And then the second uh

35:38 ↗ question that I would have while I kind

35:42 ↗ of like it to me it clarifies how it's

35:44 ↗ now all of the residential zones are

35:47 ↗ marked. So that's that's clear. I do

35:50 ↗ have a question about the urban village

35:52 ↗ and uh because I had a chance to compare

35:55 ↗ the previous explanation and current

35:58 ↗ description and why do we it feels like

36:01 ↗ that was like specifically

36:03 ↗ um developers were kicked out of that.

36:06 ↗ So that development agreements that had

36:08 ↗ a real designation they kind of were

36:10 ↗ kicked out which I can understand why

36:12 ↗ the developers might be here and maybe

36:15 ↗ concerned about that. Thank you.

36:17 ↗ >> Sure. Thank you for that.

36:20 ↗ So yeah, I mean yeah. Oh well, it can be

36:23 ↗ a comment. Yes, I kind of like I don't

36:26 ↗ can I I I understand why they're

36:28 ↗ concerned and I kind of like I would

36:30 ↗ think that might be we might want to

36:32 ↗ combine and to maybe um the previous

36:36 ↗ language was clearer to me like cuz I

36:39 ↗ read both of them several times and it

36:41 ↗ was clearer to me how it was before.

36:43 ↗ >> Yeah. And it's a pretty unique

36:44 ↗ designation and when we were sent this

36:47 ↗ information it was it was helpful to see

36:49 ↗ um I dug a little bit just to see oh

36:51 ↗ where where did this come from and um

36:55 ↗ when you know I was working through this

36:56 ↗ you know the policy statement the intent

36:58 ↗ statements are the ones to the right on

36:59 ↗ your screen um here but the detailed

37:03 ↗ information about this is done through

37:05 ↗ development agreement that's helpful

37:06 ↗ definitely want to pull that in

37:08 ↗ discussion about mixed use so we want to

37:10 ↗ review this we think it it seems like

37:12 ↗ there's a lot of good information in

37:13 ↗ here um to bring forward. So um if you

37:17 ↗ all want to take a moment and share

37:20 ↗ whether you think we should use that

37:23 ↗ lefthand column information rather than

37:25 ↗ the right hand column information that

37:28 ↗ would be helpful or a com combination um

37:32 ↗ that'd be helpful for us to know or we

37:34 ↗ can bring it back the next time we come

37:36 ↗ and and give you more time to think

37:37 ↗ about it. So

37:40 ↗ >> please Commissioner Zach.

37:41 ↗ >> Thank you. They both look different from

37:43 ↗ what was kind of like provided according

37:45 ↗ to the 2021.

37:48 ↗ >> Well, so 2021 I think was um I think

37:51 ↗ maybe it was just an ordinance because I

37:53 ↗ don't believe there was a comp plan

37:54 ↗ amendment process.

37:55 ↗ >> Yeah, we we removed all land use um

37:57 ↗ designation descriptions in the 2015

37:59 ↗ version of comprehensive plan

38:01 ↗ >> because I'm not sure. We were just like

38:06 ↗ the comment that we were provided that

38:08 ↗ it has specific kind of like uh names of

38:13 ↗ designated uh developers there. So I'm

38:16 ↗ okay

38:18 ↗ >> and I think that may just be an I I can

38:20 ↗ tell you that the information that uh

38:22 ↗ was attributed to 2021 that we were

38:24 ↗ emailed earlier is exactly the same as

38:26 ↗ what you see on the left hand side of

38:27 ↗ your screen from the 2014 comprehensive

38:29 ↗ plan.

38:30 ↗ >> It's the same language. It just it's not

38:32 ↗ in the intent statement section to the

38:35 ↗ right. It was more of like a okay

38:38 ↗ >> I don't know informational but again it

38:40 ↗ seems very appropriate for the

38:42 ↗ description of what's happening today

38:44 ↗ and with the DA development agreement

38:46 ↗ information uh useful. So again if

38:50 ↗ if this kind of input you know you like

38:52 ↗ that version um you think a combination

38:55 ↗ of what's on the left hand of your

38:56 ↗ screen and the right end of the screen

38:57 ↗ is better. We're we're open to we really

39:00 ↗ want to hear, you know, what you guys

39:01 ↗ think.

39:02 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you.

39:10 ↗ >> Any comments?

39:11 ↗ >> Yeah.

39:11 ↗ >> Uh can you switch back to the map

39:13 ↗ related to this one real quick?

39:16 ↗ >> Thank you.

39:20 ↗ Um, I guess one comment I would have in

39:22 ↗ relation to the language, um, in

39:24 ↗ agreement that the I guess the 2021

39:27 ↗ ordinance language makes sense given the

39:29 ↗ development agreements. It looks like

39:31 ↗ since then though, I'm curious if the

39:33 ↗ Highlands and Talis are now no longer

39:36 ↗ urban village or are they part of a

39:39 ↗ development agreement?

39:40 ↗ >> No, that development agreements, those

39:42 ↗ two development agreements sunseted in

39:44 ↗ 2018 and then they just became part of

39:46 ↗ our regular land use code.

39:47 ↗ >> Gotcha. And that became just urban

39:49 ↗ village

39:51 ↗ >> or part. Okay.

39:52 ↗ >> No.

39:53 ↗ >> Now they're just

39:55 ↗ >> the Isqua Highlands and Talis.

39:56 ↗ >> Gotcha. So do they need to be called out

39:58 ↗ in the language as Talis and

40:02 ↗ >> they're they're they're they are

40:03 ↗ neighborhoods on our neighborhood map

40:04 ↗ now. So we have the Isqua Highlands

40:06 ↗ neighborhood and the Talis neighborhood,

40:07 ↗ but they're not urban village. They're

40:10 ↗ not zoned urban village anymore. So if

40:12 ↗ you were to go back to the language one

40:13 ↗ more time, at the very end of the lefth

40:16 ↗ hand column, it mentions Talis and Isqua

40:19 ↗ Highlands. So we could remove those, I

40:20 ↗ think, is what I'm saying. Okay.

40:22 ↗ >> Yes. Thank you. Yeah, we would

40:23 ↗ definitely bring it up to date. That's a

40:24 ↗ great point. Thank you.

40:25 ↗ >> But that being said, I understand agree

40:27 ↗ with the UV Rowley and Lakeside

40:30 ↗ >> due to the development agreements.

40:32 ↗ >> Yes. Thank you.

40:34 ↗ No,

40:34 ↗ >> thank you, Vice Chair Patterson. That

40:36 ↗ helped clear something up for me.

40:39 ↗ >> Okay. Uh any other comments?

40:44 ↗ All right. Thank you, Kate.

40:45 ↗ >> Great.

40:46 ↗ All right. So, I'm going to go ahead and

40:48 ↗ hand over the uh slides to Emily.

40:55 ↗ >> All right. Good evening, commissioners.

40:57 ↗ Emily Medina, senior planner, and I will

40:59 ↗ go over comprehensive plan amendment

41:01 ↗ number two. Um, this one, if you will

41:04 ↗ recall, is clarifying names of

41:06 ↗ residential designations and zones.

41:10 ↗ So the key goals for this amendment is

41:13 ↗ that our lowdensity residential land use

41:16 ↗ designations and what is now kn right

41:18 ↗ now known as our single family zones

41:20 ↗ need to be renamed to better represent

41:23 ↗ um their capabilities and the locations

41:25 ↗ of what kind of housing can go in these

41:27 ↗ zones which is now more than single

41:29 ↗ family housing and includes middle

41:31 ↗ housing. um as well as undertake any

41:33 ↗ additional updates as necessary to make

41:35 ↗ sure that our designations and our

41:37 ↗ zonings and internal policies and codes

41:39 ↗ are all consistent.

41:43 ↗ So looking at our title 18 broken down

41:46 ↗ into its separate parts here, the main

41:48 ↗ code amendments are going to occur in um

41:51 ↗ title four, which is our zoning section.

41:54 ↗ Um the main ones being the establishment

41:55 ↗ of zones and then the zoning

41:57 ↗ descriptions themselves. pretty much

42:00 ↗ every single other section of our code

42:02 ↗ will be touched, but it will mostly just

42:04 ↗ be the name change from single family to

42:06 ↗ residential. Whereas with the

42:08 ↗ establishment of zones and the zone

42:10 ↗ descriptions, there's going to be more

42:11 ↗ language changes to um reflect uh

42:15 ↗ consistency with the land use

42:16 ↗ designations that Kate told you about.

42:20 ↗ So, what are our new zone names,

42:23 ↗ proposed zone names? Um we are

42:27 ↗ essentially removing single family the

42:29 ↗ word single family and replacing it with

42:31 ↗ residential to try to keep us close to

42:33 ↗ what our zone names are now. Um so

42:36 ↗ conservity conservancy residential

42:39 ↗ becomes residential conservancy. Um, and

42:41 ↗ then the main ones that are changing are

42:43 ↗ single family small lot or excuse me,

42:45 ↗ single family suburban is becoming

42:47 ↗ residential large lot and then single

42:50 ↗ family duplex is becoming residential

42:52 ↗ Oldtown as that zone is only located in

42:55 ↗ Oldtown. Um, and then you'll see the

42:59 ↗ urban village just switching the order

43:01 ↗ around to maintain consistency with

43:03 ↗ residential as the first word for all of

43:04 ↗ our zones and it will be residential

43:06 ↗ urban village.

43:10 ↗ So um, summary of those keys

43:12 ↗ descriptions which I was talking about

43:14 ↗ are the ones outlined in yellow and

43:16 ↗ these are the ones that are in the

43:17 ↗ packet as well. So currently we have

43:20 ↗ three residential zones section of code.

43:24 ↗ Um, so it is like an overarching

43:26 ↗ residential zone that has then a another

43:29 ↗ section for single family and another

43:30 ↗ section for multif family. We are now

43:32 ↗ just going to have one residential zone

43:35 ↗ section um which will go over all of

43:37 ↗ those residential zones and then some of

43:39 ↗ the

43:41 ↗ zones that were in the multifamily zone

43:43 ↗ section are moving to the mixeduse zone

43:46 ↗ section. And then the mixeduse zone

43:49 ↗ section is going to be updated all the

43:51 ↗ names and such and reorganized right

43:53 ↗ now. um in our different sections, the

43:56 ↗ way that the zones are listed are not

43:58 ↗ from least to most intense. So, while

44:01 ↗ we're already in there, we are going to

44:02 ↗ reorganize the order just so that it

44:05 ↗ makes sense so that when you're

44:06 ↗ scrolling through, it's lowest to

44:08 ↗ highest intensity.

44:12 ↗ And that's it. Mine's much more simple

44:13 ↗ than Kate's. Um so, same considerations.

44:17 ↗ Are the amendments clear? Any changes or

44:19 ↗ additional information needed? or any

44:21 ↗ other questions that you all have.

44:23 ↗ >> Thank you, Emily. Um, okay, we'll start

44:26 ↗ with questions. Any questions for Emily?

44:30 ↗ Any comments for Emily? Commissioner

44:32 ↗ Dair,

44:32 ↗ >> there is a map mentioned. Can we see the

44:34 ↗ map?

44:36 ↗ >> Right. I thought there it said earlier

44:37 ↗ that there was going to be an overlay

44:39 ↗ map.

44:41 ↗ >> Nope. Oh, okay. Maybe I misread this.

44:43 ↗ >> I don't think so.

44:45 ↗ >> Okay. Sorry. Okay. See, undertake

44:48 ↗ additional. Okay, never mind.

44:57 ↗ one time you wanted a map. You don't get

44:58 ↗ a map. Um, seems pretty straightforward.

45:01 ↗ Okay. Like staff's cleaning up some

45:04 ↗ things, reorganizing some things,

45:06 ↗ obviously taking the opportunity to

45:09 ↗ make it make a lot more sense for all of

45:10 ↗ you and the developers that use

45:14 ↗ our literature. Does anyone else have

45:16 ↗ anything else they'd like to add? Rily,

45:20 ↗ >> we can go back to Kate. Sure, Emily. Did

45:23 ↗ you get what you needed?

45:24 ↗ >> Yep. Kate had the next slide anyway. So,

45:26 ↗ good segue.

45:27 ↗ >> All right. Perfect. Thank you.

45:33 ↗ >> Uh, I wanted to go back. You had

45:36 ↗ mentioned uh asking for a little bit of

45:38 ↗ feedback on including the names of some

45:41 ↗ of the neighborhoods uh on some of

45:43 ↗ those. Mhm.

45:44 ↗ >> I was thinking about it seems like the

45:46 ↗ one that's impacted the most or the most

45:48 ↗ focus would be the regional core urban

45:50 ↗ uh growth center areas. Um so I think it

45:53 ↗ makes sense to call that one out but it

45:55 ↗ seems like everything else is mostly

45:56 ↗ kind of lumped into

45:58 ↗ >> you know we'll grow as needed or as

46:00 ↗ conditioned in that area. So, I'm guess

46:03 ↗ I'm making a formal suggestion is I

46:05 ↗ think it makes sense to call out the

46:07 ↗ urban growth center or regional growth

46:09 ↗ center part, but maybe we can just say

46:11 ↗ and other neighborhoods as it was kind

46:13 ↗ of presented.

46:18 ↗ >> Can I just um thank you for that? I do

46:20 ↗ just want to mention that um you know,

46:22 ↗ I've been a newcomer to Isqua. I've

46:24 ↗ worked here since November, which is

46:25 ↗ great. But there the um some of the

46:29 ↗ background environmental analysis was

46:31 ↗ looking at um mixeduse and residential

46:34 ↗ centers and recognizing that you know

46:36 ↗ Isqua Highlands is a center. It's a it's

46:39 ↗ it's a much lower dens you know it's

46:40 ↗ it's not the high density central Isiqua

46:43 ↗ but it is a center um that functions as

46:45 ↗ you know kind of a pretty complete

46:46 ↗ neighborhood. And so that's the idea for

46:50 ↗ the growth that's coming. The zoning is

46:51 ↗ a little higher there so there is more

46:53 ↗ growth to come there. um Lakeside as a

46:55 ↗ residential center is going to be built

46:57 ↗ over the next few years. So the idea

46:59 ↗ would be to kind of reflect on that. Um

47:02 ↗ but maybe just discussing uh at a higher

47:05 ↗ level in context and making sure we have

47:07 ↗ the data to support it. Um are you

47:10 ↗ amenable to that? I mean maybe not

47:11 ↗ calling out the names but discussing

47:12 ↗ this as you know centers. Okay.

47:15 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah. I think that makes sense for

47:16 ↗ sure. Yeah.

47:17 ↗ >> As you mentioned probably some more word

47:18 ↗ smithing to be done before we get to

47:20 ↗ final. Yeah. All good in the

47:24 ↗ Okay.

47:27 ↗ >> All right.

47:27 ↗ >> Okay. Any other final comments for Kate?

47:31 ↗ >> Or Emily?

47:34 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you.

47:35 ↗ >> Well, just sorry, one real quick thing.

47:37 ↗ I just wanted to share um that this uh

47:40 ↗ uh is the first time I think we've shown

47:42 ↗ you that the public hearing is likely in

47:43 ↗ September and that there are few more uh

47:46 ↗ amendments uh proposals you haven't seen

47:48 ↗ in ter including from the parks system

47:51 ↗ plan. that one's kind of been uh sliced

47:53 ↗ down a little bit. So, just some uh

47:55 ↗ minimal updates for that as well as the

47:57 ↗ uh Isukqua climate action plan. Um also

48:00 ↗ that'll come to you soon. So, that's all

48:02 ↗ I've got. Thank you.

48:04 ↗ >> All right. Well, thank you both. Great

48:06 ↗ presentation.

48:07 ↗ Going to move on to the next item of

48:09 ↗ regular business, which is a

48:11 ↗ presentation related to the promoting

48:12 ↗ building investment code amendments from

48:15 ↗ planning manager Kristen Leon and Andrew

48:18 ↗ Bjorn from ARCH. uh AR stands for for

48:22 ↗ our listening audience or our television

48:24 ↗ audience a regional coalition of

48:25 ↗ housing. Kristen and Andrew will be

48:28 ↗ presenting an introduction to floor area

48:30 ↗ ratios. Fun stuff inclusionary zoning

48:34 ↗ and the development bonus program. So

48:37 ↗ Kristen and Andrew, please go ahead.

48:45 ↗ All right. Good evening. Yeah. So this

48:47 ↗ this is just our intro. And some of this

48:50 ↗ you've heard before, but we're going to

48:51 ↗ hear it again. Okay. All right. So, let

48:55 ↗ me get this out of the way. I apologize.

49:00 ↗ Okay. So, we're going to talk about the

49:03 ↗ goals of the amendments that we're going

49:05 ↗ to make with this. The we're going

49:07 ↗ tonight we're also going to review the

49:09 ↗ existing regulations that we have in

49:11 ↗ place. the just a quick quick overview

49:14 ↗ of the Eco Northwest report, how these

49:17 ↗ housing tools work together and then

49:19 ↗ what our next steps would be

49:25 ↗ maybe.

49:30 ↗ Come on.

49:35 ↗ There we go. You did it. Okay. So, as a

49:38 ↗ reminder, these these are actually two

49:41 ↗ of our 17 amendments that council has

49:44 ↗ asked us to do

49:46 ↗ the floor area ratio and height

49:50 ↗ consistency and then inclusionary zoning

49:52 ↗ development rate development bonus

49:53 ↗ program and uh multif family tax

49:55 ↗ exemption. And the reason that we are

49:57 ↗ doing these together now is because we

49:59 ↗ cannot ask for something from developers

50:02 ↗ i.e. inclusionary zoning unless we also

50:04 ↗ give something back to the developers.

50:06 ↗ So if we're going to do this, we need to

50:08 ↗ potentially increase our F or base

50:11 ↗ height or something like that. Leverage

50:13 ↗ to be figured out mixed with then the

50:15 ↗ inclusionary zoning, MFTTE and um

50:18 ↗ development bonus keeping in mind that

50:20 ↗ both the MFT and development bonus are

50:22 ↗ actually voluntary programs and the

50:24 ↗ inclusionary zoning is a mandatory

50:26 ↗ program. So we'll talk about that in a

50:28 ↗ minute.

50:30 ↗ So the goals for these are the the floor

50:33 ↗ area ratio. It's to align the height and

50:35 ↗ F require requirements to get additional

50:37 ↗ affordable units under the development

50:39 ↗ bonus program. And they just say the

50:42 ↗ potential action is to blend this with

50:43 ↗ MFT and inclusionary zoning to see what

50:45 ↗ we can do. And then the goal for

50:47 ↗ inclusionary zoning and the others are

50:49 ↗ to recalibrate these to help improve

50:52 ↗ development feasibility while still

50:54 ↗ getting affordable housing that we need

50:57 ↗ to meet our targets. So I I don't know

51:00 ↗ how many of you have seen this for

51:01 ↗ before. I think you have, but we have

51:03 ↗ our housing continuum and everything to

51:06 ↗ the left is something that requires more

51:08 ↗ public support. It's not something a

51:10 ↗ developer is just going to come in a

51:11 ↗ market rate developer is going to come

51:12 ↗ in and do. It requires a lot of funding

51:14 ↗ from federal, state, and lo local

51:16 ↗ governments and and um

51:20 ↗ entities such as Arch who provide that

51:22 ↗ funding. And then everything else to the

51:24 ↗ right is stuff that doesn't need as much

51:26 ↗ support. developers can generally do

51:28 ↗ this provided they have all the right

51:29 ↗ tools in place. Um and so what we are

51:32 ↗ geared toward with these is those

51:36 ↗ amendments that um will get more of

51:39 ↗ those housing developments that require

51:41 ↗ less public funding.

51:44 ↗ What is area median income AMI? So come

51:48 ↗ on Andrea

51:50 ↗ >> come on Andrea

51:52 ↗ because you guys are asked questions

51:53 ↗ that I'm not going to know the answers

51:55 ↗ to. I can do that. I ignored that.

51:58 ↗ >> Okay. Uh so hello. Uh glad to be

52:01 ↗ speaking with you today about an

52:02 ↗ interesting topic like area median

52:04 ↗ income. So when we're talking about

52:06 ↗ affordable housing, we need a benchmark

52:09 ↗ to work from. And while talking about

52:13 ↗ affordable housing may sound easy with

52:15 ↗ respect to like what is it, it can be

52:18 ↗ very hard when trying to distill that

52:20 ↗ down to dollars and cents. So, uh, with

52:24 ↗ affordable housing in the US, typically

52:26 ↗ what we do is, uh, we base this off of a

52:30 ↗ a figure, uh, area median income. And

52:33 ↗ this is also calculated as median family

52:36 ↗ income. This is a number that's drawn

52:38 ↗ from the US uh, Department of Housing

52:40 ↗ and Urban Development from information

52:43 ↗ from the American Community Survey that

52:46 ↗ um, uh, is conducted by the Census

52:48 ↗ Bureau. So what it does is that you know

52:52 ↗ over the space of five years it uh sends

52:55 ↗ out surveys to different people in the

52:57 ↗ community and asks them what their

52:58 ↗ income is and it bases the number off of

53:01 ↗ that. It's a more complicated

53:03 ↗ calculation

53:05 ↗ uh especially since uh you're basing the

53:08 ↗ number off of uh surveys that have

53:11 ↗ happened in the past not right now. uh

53:14 ↗ but it's essentially trying to get at

53:17 ↗ what is the midpoint of income. Uh if

53:20 ↗ you look at the families in Isiqua, 50%

53:24 ↗ of the families would have an income

53:25 ↗ greater than that. 50% would have uh

53:28 ↗ incomes less than that. Uh when we're

53:32 ↗ looking at this from a regional

53:33 ↗ perspective though, this is uh conducted

53:36 ↗ over the metro area. We're all part of

53:38 ↗ the same housing market. So, we want to

53:40 ↗ be considering everything together. For

53:44 ↗ Seattle, it's actually King and Snomish

53:46 ↗ counties. So, Pierce County has a

53:48 ↗ separate metric for the Tacoma area. So,

53:54 ↗ um, when we're talking about when we're

53:56 ↗ talking about the numbers themselves,

53:58 ↗ um, the area median income for King and

54:01 ↗ Snomish County, uh, for 2026 is

54:05 ↗ identified as $164,400.

54:09 ↗ Uh, but it's not simply a matter of just

54:11 ↗ saying what the number is overall. there

54:14 ↗ needs to be some adjustments on the

54:16 ↗ basis of family size and for um the

54:23 ↗ uh kind of the level of affordability

54:26 ↗ that's required. Um so

54:30 ↗ you have here a matrix on the left that

54:33 ↗ shows household income limits. This is

54:36 ↗ on the basis of people. So the fewer

54:38 ↗ people that you have um it's likely that

54:41 ↗ the fewer

54:43 ↗ uh income earners you'll have within a

54:46 ↗ household. So that's why the numbers go

54:49 ↗ down from four people to one person.

54:53 ↗ Uh the the percentages for AMI are the

54:56 ↗ typical break points that are used when

54:58 ↗ we're talking about affordability. So uh

55:02 ↗ 30% and below is extremely low income.

55:05 ↗ 50% and below between 30 and 50% is very

55:09 ↗ low income. Uh 50 and 80 is low income

55:14 ↗ and 80 and 100% is moderate income. And

55:17 ↗ you you can take a look at different

55:19 ↗ sources. There are a few few times when

55:21 ↗ you can go out and find slightly

55:23 ↗ different definitions. I've seen um you

55:26 ↗ know uh midm moderate income for example

55:29 ↗ in some communities. uh but these are

55:32 ↗ typically the definitions that we deal

55:34 ↗ with and these are also important

55:35 ↗ because the uh King County growth

55:39 ↗ targets by income uh are based on these

55:43 ↗ break points. So um

55:47 ↗ so it's important to look at it by

55:50 ↗ people but uh when we're trying to look

55:53 ↗ at the acceptable rents

55:55 ↗ uh it can get a little bit more complex.

55:58 ↗ you don't necessarily have uh property

56:01 ↗ owners that are charging rents

56:03 ↗ necessarily on the number of people that

56:05 ↗ are that are going to be staying within

56:08 ↗ those uh within those units. So the

56:11 ↗ household limits on the left are used to

56:14 ↗ calculate out the total housing expenses

56:16 ↗ that would be tied to different sizes of

56:19 ↗ units. So studios, onebedroom, two,

56:23 ↗ three. Uh the typical formula that's

56:26 ↗ used is assuming that one person will be

56:28 ↗ in a studio apartment and then you'll

56:30 ↗ have one and a half people per bedroom.

56:32 ↗ So a two-bedroom apartment would

56:35 ↗ accommodate three people which is uh

56:40 ↗ somewhat consistent. It makes certain

56:42 ↗ assumptions. Uh, you know, if you have a

56:45 ↗ uh if you have a threeperson household,

56:47 ↗ but it has a single parent and two

56:50 ↗ children, you know, it might get a

56:53 ↗ little annoying for the kids to be

56:54 ↗ sharing a bedroom, but uh we need to

56:58 ↗ have some kind of broader standard. We

57:02 ↗ understand that there are exceptions to

57:04 ↗ the rule that there are special cases

57:06 ↗ but these are kind of the the standards

57:08 ↗ that are used in the analysis that that

57:11 ↗ we typically do

57:13 ↗ and the policies that we set. So um it's

57:17 ↗ also good to provide an example of what

57:20 ↗ we mean when we're talking about these

57:22 ↗ different levels. So when you're talking

57:25 ↗ about 50% AMI, the the break point where

57:29 ↗ very low income starts, uh if someone is

57:32 ↗ living alone, um you know what what you

57:35 ↗ have here is textile knitting and

57:36 ↗ weaving. I honestly just took the the

57:40 ↗ highest in the highest income in the

57:42 ↗ category according to labor statistics

57:45 ↗ from the state of Washington. Um, but it

57:48 ↗ does give you an idea like all of these

57:51 ↗ nine occupations,

57:53 ↗ well eight technically I guess since

57:55 ↗ power plant operators are are duplicated

57:57 ↗ here. But it gives you an idea that for

58:01 ↗ example

58:02 ↗ um if you have a single parent who's a

58:06 ↗ librarian

58:07 ↗ uh and is making the median income for a

58:10 ↗ librarian in in the Seattle metro area,

58:14 ↗ they're going to be at 50% AMI. Um and

58:18 ↗ that's when we're talking about who

58:21 ↗ we're trying to accommodate with this

58:23 ↗ type of housing, that's what we're

58:25 ↗ thinking about here. It it may be like

58:29 ↗ we throw around a lot of numbers, but

58:31 ↗ these are the the people that will be

58:33 ↗ living in these spaces. So,

58:36 ↗ are there any questions about that?

58:39 ↗ Throw a lot at you. I could throw a lot

58:40 ↗ more formulas at you if you really want.

58:43 ↗ I'm assuming not, but

58:44 ↗ >> No, appreciate it. Andrew, uh,

58:46 ↗ Commissioner Matthews,

58:47 ↗ >> I just had, sorry, I just had one

58:49 ↗ question. is 30% 31% to pay for housing

58:53 ↗ say if you have a four person family or

58:55 ↗ four bedrooms whatever it was is that a

58:58 ↗ typical countrywide what the expectation

59:02 ↗ is that you'd be able to afford if you

59:04 ↗ were at 100% AMI like 31% is that

59:08 ↗ typical for everybody

59:10 ↗ >> um

59:10 ↗ >> or that's what you're trying to target

59:12 ↗ >> well the sorry I'm bit you might need to

59:16 ↗ repeat the question do you mean like

59:18 ↗ >> back in the slide before it basically if

59:21 ↗ you look at the 100% AMI with four

59:24 ↗ people and three bedrooms that's 31% of

59:27 ↗ their income is going to housing. Is

59:29 ↗ that typical of what we're trying to

59:31 ↗ reach?

59:32 ↗ >> Oh yes. So um the two uh the two levels

59:37 ↗ that we look at here are when your

59:40 ↗ housing costs are at 30% of your income.

59:42 ↗ And again, some of these numbers are

59:44 ↗ somewhat arbitrary often just because

59:46 ↗ they're they're rules of thumb. You can

59:49 ↗ get more precise with certain things,

59:51 ↗ but typically the limit that we look at

59:52 ↗ is 30% of income as being the 30% of

59:57 ↗ income or below as being the desirable

59:59 ↗ amount that people should be paying on

1:00:01 ↗ housing costs overall. So that includes

1:00:04 ↗ rent or mortgages and then utilities

1:00:09 ↗ excluding um oh man I always forget

1:00:12 ↗ excluding telephone I think and then but

1:00:16 ↗ including things like heat and water

1:00:18 ↗ sewer gas etc. Um when you get above 30%

1:00:22 ↗ then households are considered to be

1:00:25 ↗ cost burdened. So, they're devoting more

1:00:28 ↗ of their income towards uh housing costs

1:00:31 ↗ than they should. And that that eats

1:00:33 ↗ into a lot of the income that they would

1:00:34 ↗ be spending on other things. Uh when it

1:00:37 ↗ gets to be 50%, then they're assuming

1:00:40 ↗ then then the term that we use is

1:00:42 ↗ severely costburdened and that's when

1:00:45 ↗ it's a significant expense. It's cutting

1:00:47 ↗ into income for a lot of other things.

1:00:50 ↗ And uh that is uh also typically the

1:00:54 ↗ level at which um uh like market rate uh

1:01:00 ↗ renters like market rate um uh property

1:01:03 ↗ owners are not going to be renting to

1:01:05 ↗ someone who uh makes less than twice of

1:01:09 ↗ what um uh you would twice of rent.

1:01:15 ↗ So

1:01:16 ↗ >> thank you very much.

1:01:17 ↗ >> Yeah. Thanks.

1:01:20 ↗ turn it back over to you.

1:01:23 ↗ >> So, I'd like to u make two notes. One is

1:01:25 ↗ that there's a reminder that in at the

1:01:28 ↗ in our comprehensive plan toward the end

1:01:30 ↗ as one of the appendices, we have our

1:01:31 ↗ housing analysis which has all of this

1:01:34 ↗ information about Isiqua and cost how

1:01:36 ↗ many or how many households are cost

1:01:37 ↗ burdened or severely costburden and it

1:01:39 ↗ has all great information in there. The

1:01:41 ↗ other one is that you all may recall

1:01:43 ↗ Mike Stanganger. he had the audacity to

1:01:46 ↗ retire. Um, but we are lucky and

1:01:49 ↗ grateful that Andrew has joined the team

1:01:52 ↗ for us. All right. Well, for Arch, but

1:01:54 ↗ us too.

1:01:56 ↗ All right. So, moving on. We're going to

1:01:58 ↗ talk I'm not going to go over that

1:01:59 ↗ slide. All right. So, starting with

1:02:00 ↗ floor area ratio.

1:02:03 ↗ Um, I just want to explain it a little

1:02:06 ↗ bit. Um, we have in our and I only

1:02:08 ↗ picked out the three zones here to use

1:02:10 ↗ where we have the most development

1:02:12 ↗ potential. So mixeduse residential,

1:02:15 ↗ mixed use central isqua and urban core.

1:02:17 ↗ And in each one of these zones, you have

1:02:20 ↗ a base floor area ratio F and a max F.

1:02:25 ↗ And we also have a base height and a

1:02:27 ↗ maximum height.

1:02:31 ↗ So if

1:02:33 ↗ moving toward that, we have our

1:02:35 ↗ development bonus program. If you choose

1:02:38 ↗ to go above, say the base height is 60.

1:02:42 ↗ If you choose to go above that base

1:02:45 ↗ height, not all the way to the max, but

1:02:47 ↗ anywhere above 3 feet to 25 ft, whatever

1:02:50 ↗ it may be, then you are required. So

1:02:53 ↗ it's it's opt it's voluntary because you

1:02:55 ↗ don't have to go above the base. But if

1:02:57 ↗ you choose to go above the base, you

1:02:58 ↗ must participate in the development

1:03:00 ↗ bonus program. So, it's in central

1:03:03 ↗ Isiqua only and there are two parts to

1:03:06 ↗ it and I'm not going to get it into the

1:03:08 ↗ numbers, but essentially a third of this

1:03:11 ↗ a third of this requirement requires

1:03:13 ↗ that you have if you're a residential

1:03:16 ↗ property on-site affordable housing.

1:03:21 ↗ The second part of it, the other

1:03:23 ↗ twothirds of it, you have the option of

1:03:26 ↗ on-site affordable housing fee inl or an

1:03:29 ↗ open space option. You get to pick which

1:03:32 ↗ one you want to do. Um, and off-site

1:03:36 ↗ compliance is op is a possibility. We

1:03:39 ↗ are doing that currently with the market

1:03:41 ↗ rate development at next to next to

1:03:44 ↗ trail head. We are doing alternative

1:03:46 ↗ compliance on that site right now. So,

1:03:48 ↗ all of those affordable units are going

1:03:50 ↗ into trail head.

1:03:56 ↗ Okay, moving. Do you have any questions

1:03:57 ↗ about that one before I move on?

1:04:01 ↗ So,

1:04:04 ↗ okay. So if I understand it correctly,

1:04:07 ↗ you're saying that if they go above 60

1:04:09 ↗ ft, then one/3 can go into affordable

1:04:14 ↗ housing on site and one/3 can kind of do

1:04:17 ↗ a fee for loo program. 2/3 23 can be fee

1:04:20 ↗ for

1:04:20 ↗ >> you get really into it. So really it's

1:04:22 ↗ the square footage. It's not just the

1:04:23 ↗ height.

1:04:24 ↗ >> So say that that

1:04:26 ↗ >> uh 20 ft or 15 feet, whatever this is,

1:04:29 ↗ results in Oh man, I'm going to have to

1:04:31 ↗ do math. um 30,000 ft² of additional

1:04:34 ↗ developable space that you're adding on

1:04:36 ↗ to it. 10,000 20% of 10,000 square ft

1:04:41 ↗ has to be on-site affordable housing.

1:04:44 ↗ Okay? And then 20% of the other 2/3 can

1:04:49 ↗ either be

1:04:51 ↗ um on-site affordable fianl or open

1:04:53 ↗ space.

1:04:57 ↗ >> Commissioner Grass.

1:04:58 ↗ >> Hello. So, um, we may not have a big

1:05:01 ↗ enough base, but if you look more

1:05:03 ↗ regionally, this essentially just

1:05:05 ↗ incents people to build at 60 ft and

1:05:07 ↗ don't even think about going an inch

1:05:08 ↗ higher. So, I'm curious

1:05:12 ↗ of the data that exists across all the

1:05:14 ↗ jurisdictions,

1:05:16 ↗ what percent of the developments are

1:05:18 ↗ actually just keeping it at the base

1:05:20 ↗ versus wanting to go higher and doing

1:05:22 ↗ these programs? meaning is the incentive

1:05:25 ↗ just to like are we just wasting time by

1:05:27 ↗ having all these complicated things

1:05:28 ↗ because they're just going to build a 60

1:05:30 ↗ or am I wrong and a good portion of the

1:05:33 ↗ developers want to go higher and they

1:05:35 ↗ will do these programs. So I'm curious

1:05:36 ↗ what's actually being built across the

1:05:37 ↗ region.

1:05:38 ↗ >> So

1:05:40 ↗ most cities in the I'm going to I know

1:05:42 ↗ mostly about the arch jurisdiction

1:05:44 ↗ cities which of which there are 15. Most

1:05:47 ↗ of the arts jurisdiction cities do have

1:05:49 ↗ a program like this. Ours is a little

1:05:52 ↗ bit more complicated. What you're asking

1:05:54 ↗ is part of the discussion that we're

1:05:55 ↗ going to have with this is do we need

1:05:58 ↗ it? Is it really an incentive? But of

1:05:59 ↗ our we have had four developments take

1:06:02 ↗ advantage of it. As a result, we've

1:06:04 ↗ gotten about 14 new affordable units. 11

1:06:07 ↗ of those at 50% AMI and about $2.1

1:06:12 ↗ million of fee and loo.

1:06:14 ↗ >> Okay.

1:06:15 ↗ >> So, people have taken advantage of it.

1:06:17 ↗ But that is part of our discussion about

1:06:19 ↗ is it once all this analysis is done do

1:06:22 ↗ we do we want that in place.

1:06:24 ↗ >> So I'm just looking at more that's why I

1:06:25 ↗ say we have a very small base

1:06:27 ↗ >> and 14 units sounds like nothing

1:06:30 ↗ >> very small. Um that's why I say if you

1:06:32 ↗ look at more regionally is this is this

1:06:35 ↗ just

1:06:38 ↗ pushing the incentive just to do the do

1:06:40 ↗ the the base and I'm just so the

1:06:43 ↗ question is more like there's data out

1:06:45 ↗ there of what's what's been done. And so

1:06:47 ↗ I think hopefully that'll be part of the

1:06:48 ↗ discussion, not just what we think will

1:06:50 ↗ happen, what's actually happening.

1:06:51 ↗ >> See, Andrew is going to get into that in

1:06:52 ↗ about 12 slides. And he's and that but

1:06:56 ↗ that's the whole purpose of this is to

1:06:57 ↗ do the analysis and and say how do how

1:07:00 ↗ does this affect it? How does it affect

1:07:01 ↗ it in the region? How will this affect

1:07:02 ↗ us with different scenarios?

1:07:05 ↗ That's that's the whole purpose of this.

1:07:07 ↗ >> I'm all I'm saying is have we already

1:07:09 ↗ looked back and have the data to see

1:07:11 ↗ what's actually happened? Assume these

1:07:12 ↗ are not new programs. These have been

1:07:14 ↗ around for a while or is this a new mood

1:07:15 ↗ looking?

1:07:16 ↗ >> It was uh development bonus was adopted

1:07:18 ↗ in 2014.

1:07:21 ↗ So, but you know things have changed.

1:07:23 ↗ Construction costs have changed. Land

1:07:25 ↗ costs have changed.

1:07:28 ↗ So, we don't know. The most recent one

1:07:30 ↗ that was used was in a project that was

1:07:33 ↗ just permitted this year.

1:07:37 ↗ So, you're right. We're gonna look at

1:07:40 ↗ it. Yeah. Okay.

1:07:43 ↗ So, I'm going to move on to what in our

1:07:45 ↗ code is called required affordable

1:07:47 ↗ housing, but what most jurisdictions

1:07:49 ↗ will call inclusionary zoning. If you go

1:07:52 ↗ in Google inclusionary zoning, that's

1:07:54 ↗ this is what you'll find.

1:07:56 ↗ This was adopted in 2017. It was part of

1:08:00 ↗ the city council when one of our

1:08:01 ↗ developments went up and there were 350

1:08:04 ↗ units there and none of them were

1:08:05 ↗ affordable. There was a moratorum and

1:08:07 ↗ they said one of the things we want is

1:08:08 ↗ more affordable housing. So we developed

1:08:10 ↗ our affordable housing program or our

1:08:13 ↗ inclusionary zoning program and it's

1:08:15 ↗ it's broken up into three different

1:08:16 ↗ parts and we have a lighting scale. So

1:08:19 ↗ if you build and this is mandatory. So

1:08:22 ↗ if you build anything with a resident a

1:08:25 ↗ development with residential component

1:08:26 ↗ in our mixeduse centralqua zone you have

1:08:28 ↗ an option. You can either build include

1:08:31 ↗ five of those unit 5% of your units at

1:08:35 ↗ 60% area median income if it's rental

1:08:38 ↗ 70% if it's sale or ownership or you can

1:08:42 ↗ do 7 and a half% of your units at 70%

1:08:46 ↗ AMI for rental and 80% AMI for

1:08:49 ↗ ownership.

1:08:51 ↗ moving up into higher densities.

1:08:54 ↗ If you get in to the urban core,

1:08:58 ↗ um you have again two options. 10% of

1:09:01 ↗ your units have to be affordable at 50%

1:09:04 ↗ AMI for rental, 60% AMI for ownership

1:09:07 ↗ units. And then if you your other option

1:09:10 ↗ is to do a combination. So you have 10%

1:09:12 ↗ of your units are available at 70% and

1:09:15 ↗ 80% and an additional 5%

1:09:19 ↗ lower at 50% and 60% AMI.

1:09:24 ↗ Lastly, our most dense area which is our

1:09:28 ↗ vert vertical mixed use zone. And it's

1:09:30 ↗ denser because they actually can go all

1:09:33 ↗ the way up to 125 feet, but an eight

1:09:36 ↗ floor floor area ratio of 8.0 in this in

1:09:41 ↗ this little area. And in this case,

1:09:43 ↗ because you're could potentially get

1:09:45 ↗ more density. Option two is 10% of your

1:09:48 ↗ units at 50% AMI or 60% um ownership or

1:09:53 ↗ 12% of your units at 60% rental with 70%

1:09:56 ↗ ownership.

1:09:58 ↗ Any questions about that one?

1:10:03 ↗ Okay.

1:10:06 ↗ Now, lastly, our central Isiqua Pioneer

1:10:09 ↗ program. This one was adopted about

1:10:10 ↗ three years ago, intended to

1:10:14 ↗ um incentivize development in central

1:10:16 ↗ Isiqua only actually in the urban core,

1:10:19 ↗ which includes the uh vertical mixeduse

1:10:21 ↗ zone and the central Isqua or the

1:10:22 ↗ mixeduse centraliz.

1:10:24 ↗ And with this, you can go up, you can

1:10:26 ↗ pass the base, you can exceed the base

1:10:28 ↗ and go up to the maximum height, the

1:10:29 ↗ maximum F without employing the

1:10:32 ↗ development bonus program. You can just

1:10:34 ↗ go up there and then you do still have

1:10:37 ↗ to do inclusionary zoning, but you have

1:10:38 ↗ an option at either 8% of your units at

1:10:41 ↗ 60% or 10% of your units at 80%.

1:10:46 ↗ Um, and then it's and like I said, it's

1:10:48 ↗ intended to get it's you can um two de

1:10:51 ↗ two developers or two developments can

1:10:53 ↗ can use this and they can range anywhere

1:10:55 ↗ from 200 units each to 400 units each is

1:10:58 ↗ what the limit is.

1:11:02 ↗ >> Mr. Grass,

1:11:04 ↗ >> she's looking at me. Um, so I I remember

1:11:08 ↗ this is when I first came on board. So,

1:11:10 ↗ do we have of the two because I think we

1:11:13 ↗ limited it to two as a test. Is there

1:11:16 ↗ anybody in the pipeline?

1:11:18 ↗ >> Not yet.

1:11:19 ↗ >> And do we have do we have a good

1:11:22 ↗ understanding of why in three years no

1:11:24 ↗ one wants to do this? Is it is it the

1:11:26 ↗ right formula is really the question or

1:11:28 ↗ is it something different?

1:11:30 ↗ >> Um, again something to be discussed but

1:11:32 ↗ I I don't have the answer to why.

1:11:34 ↗ >> Okay.

1:11:36 ↗ >> One question too also Kristen. Um, as

1:11:38 ↗ far as the two, those are the only two

1:11:41 ↗ and then the program expires for the

1:11:43 ↗ Pioneer program. Correct. Okay. So, it's

1:11:44 ↗ not like two every few years. Now, this

1:11:47 ↗ is two and then it's it's over. Correct.

1:11:49 ↗ Pioneer program is an ad hoc thing that

1:11:51 ↗ just happens once.

1:11:52 ↗ >> Correct.

1:11:55 ↗ >> Okay.

1:11:59 ↗ And I'm I'm going to Well, not yet. Um

1:12:02 ↗ we also have we do have we don't have a

1:12:06 ↗ multif family tax exemption program but

1:12:08 ↗ we have sites where it can be used. We

1:12:10 ↗ have three different sites. So one is

1:12:13 ↗ the it's the Tibet site which is the

1:12:15 ↗ trail head project where it's not being

1:12:18 ↗ used because it is a nonprofit developer

1:12:20 ↗ who is doing the trail head project and

1:12:22 ↗ they don't need it. They get tax

1:12:23 ↗ credits. Um the second one is the high

1:12:27 ↗ street or shelter projects which is the

1:12:29 ↗ backwards J which is the J at the

1:12:31 ↗ bottom. Some people call it a backwards

1:12:32 ↗ L, but it's a J. Um, they get to do it's

1:12:36 ↗ a 12-year program. 20% of their units

1:12:39 ↗ are going to be affordable at 80% AMI,

1:12:40 ↗ and then I believe the affordability

1:12:42 ↗ ends at the end of that 12-year program.

1:12:45 ↗ And lastly is the Central Pioneer

1:12:46 ↗ program, uh, Central Esqua Pioneer

1:12:48 ↗ program, which which we just talked

1:12:49 ↗ about. Um, and it's either eight units

1:12:51 ↗ at 60%,

1:12:53 ↗ 10 units at 80% and but I believe that

1:12:56 ↗ those are for the life of the project.

1:12:58 ↗ The affordability is for the life of the

1:12:59 ↗ project.

1:13:03 ↗ Okay. And nope, this is the last thing.

1:13:04 ↗ I was kidding. Um, we also wave school

1:13:08 ↗ traffic, fire, and park impact fees. We

1:13:11 ↗ wave 100% of these for every project

1:13:13 ↗ that comes through for the affordable

1:13:15 ↗ units.

1:13:16 ↗ We require we wave 100%, but the state

1:13:19 ↗ really only says you can wave 80%. So

1:13:23 ↗ that other 20%, the city has to repay

1:13:26 ↗ right now. We have to pay ourselves that

1:13:27 ↗ 20%.

1:13:29 ↗ We also wave all building and plan

1:13:31 ↗ review and permit review fees,

1:13:33 ↗ mitigation fees, and utility connection

1:13:35 ↗ fees. That's a lot that we wave. Um, you

1:13:40 ↗ can do these exemptions for units that

1:13:42 ↗ are 80% and below the area median

1:13:44 ↗ income. And the affordability

1:13:47 ↗ affordability requirements for every all

1:13:49 ↗ of these units is placed on the title

1:13:51 ↗ through a covenant.

1:13:55 ↗ And that's all I have for the for our um

1:13:58 ↗ Oh, wait. I'm kidding. Um, any questions

1:13:59 ↗ about that?

1:14:02 ↗ >> Questions, Commissioner Dare?

1:14:05 ↗ >> So, for the fee waving, that would be on

1:14:09 ↗ the specific unit. So, the percentage of

1:14:11 ↗ the specific unit. So, if you had like a

1:14:13 ↗ 10-unit building and two of them were

1:14:16 ↗ affordable under 80%, we would wave the

1:14:18 ↗ fees just for those two units, not the

1:14:20 ↗ whole building. Correct.

1:14:21 ↗ >> Correct. And I didn't mention this

1:14:24 ↗ before, but when you do the multif

1:14:26 ↗ family tax exemption, those fee waiverss

1:14:28 ↗ are for

1:14:31 ↗ all the residential units there. Whether

1:14:33 ↗ they if it's a mixeduse property is for

1:14:35 ↗ all the units there. It does not include

1:14:37 ↗ commercial, it does not include the

1:14:38 ↗ land, but it does include um all of the

1:14:41 ↗ units. So market rate and affordable.

1:14:45 ↗ Yes. Okay.

1:14:47 ↗ Last thing, the Eco Northwest report.

1:14:49 ↗ This is it's a little dated now. It was

1:14:51 ↗ done in 2023 based on 2022 data. But

1:14:54 ↗ essentially what they said, we asked

1:14:56 ↗ them, I've told you this before, to

1:14:57 ↗ assess three things. One is more diverse

1:14:59 ↗ housing,

1:15:01 ↗ uh removing uh

1:15:04 ↗ what do you call it? Barriers to

1:15:06 ↗ condominium development, and then

1:15:08 ↗ expanding our inclusionary zoning

1:15:10 ↗ program.

1:15:13 ↗ Essentially, they said, "Yep, nope. Your

1:15:15 ↗ inclusionary zoning doesn't program

1:15:17 ↗ doesn't work as it is now. It needs to

1:15:19 ↗ be fixed." Um it reducing requirements

1:15:22 ↗ helps like parking and stuff like that,

1:15:24 ↗ but it does not make projects feasible.

1:15:27 ↗ Condo barriers are really at the state

1:15:29 ↗ level and city action won't affect

1:15:31 ↗ anything and other types of change that

1:15:33 ↗ we're going to be talking about will or

1:15:35 ↗ at least we hope so.

1:15:38 ↗ and they said to rightsize the current

1:15:40 ↗ the programs to expand our multif family

1:15:43 ↗ tax exemption and actually make it a

1:15:44 ↗ program um rather than sight specific

1:15:47 ↗ and to provide regulations for unit lot

1:15:49 ↗ subdivisions which we do parking which

1:15:51 ↗ has been handled by commerce because

1:15:53 ↗ we're no longer allowed to require

1:15:54 ↗ structured parking for residential and a

1:15:57 ↗ few other things that have been handled.

1:16:00 ↗ So now I'm going to hand it over to um

1:16:03 ↗ you know what I'm gonna hand it over to

1:16:05 ↗ Andrew now.

1:16:09 ↗ Um so building on the Eco Northwest

1:16:11 ↗ report there are um some things that

1:16:14 ↗ we're looking at supporting like uh uh

1:16:18 ↗ the Isiqua team on uh one of them is

1:16:21 ↗ looking at meeting housing goals. So uh

1:16:24 ↗ under changes to the growth management

1:16:27 ↗ act that were put in uh uh before the

1:16:30 ↗ update cycle for the comp plans uh there

1:16:34 ↗ are now requirements in place to look at

1:16:36 ↗ accommodating uh housing at different

1:16:39 ↗ income levels. So I was talking about

1:16:41 ↗ this before when defining uh AMI

1:16:45 ↗ but uh this is not necessarily that the

1:16:48 ↗ city itself needs to produce these

1:16:50 ↗ units. The city is not a developer, but

1:16:52 ↗ there does need to be a demonstrated uh

1:16:56 ↗ capacity to accommodate

1:16:58 ↗ um units in these income brackets. And

1:17:02 ↗ typically um uh the Department of

1:17:05 ↗ Commerce puts out guidance about uh what

1:17:09 ↗ specific housing types can be

1:17:11 ↗ accommodated. So looking at uh multif

1:17:13 ↗ family apartments versus uh town homes

1:17:17 ↗ versus kind of more uh duplexes and

1:17:21 ↗ single detached homes. But um what we're

1:17:26 ↗ looking at doing here is to uh support

1:17:30 ↗ the efforts of the city to try to

1:17:32 ↗ accommodate all of these uh all of these

1:17:35 ↗ types to be in compliance.

1:17:40 ↗ Uh but with that, one of the other

1:17:42 ↗ things, and this does come up in the uh

1:17:45 ↗ Echo Northwest report, uh what we're

1:17:48 ↗ finding is that in some neighborhoods

1:17:52 ↗ that can accommodate higher density that

1:17:54 ↗ that duplexes, for example, and town

1:17:57 ↗ homes are becoming more uh more of a

1:18:00 ↗ desired uh development type. And, you

1:18:03 ↗ know, we want to make sure that the free

1:18:05 ↗ market is providing housing. I mean

1:18:07 ↗ we're not again cities are not

1:18:10 ↗ developers per se but um what we do want

1:18:13 ↗ to ensure is that we're providing the

1:18:15 ↗ incentives for a much broader range of

1:18:18 ↗ housing types to be accommodated in the

1:18:20 ↗ city. One other point too is that uh a

1:18:23 ↗ recent uh bill in the legislature now

1:18:27 ↗ requires that uh uh that there is an

1:18:31 ↗ MFTTE

1:18:33 ↗ program and inclusionary zoning close to

1:18:36 ↗ transit stations. So this is going to be

1:18:38 ↗ applicable for Isiqua and it is going to

1:18:40 ↗ be applicable like even though uh uh

1:18:43 ↗ even though transit around that transit

1:18:46 ↗ station is not going to be immediate,

1:18:49 ↗ it's it's something that needs to be

1:18:51 ↗ planned for and the program needs to be

1:18:53 ↗ in place for that.

1:18:55 ↗ So

1:18:57 ↗ um so

1:19:00 ↗ one of the things that we're looking to

1:19:01 ↗ do in in tandem with uh uh with the

1:19:05 ↗ planners with the city is to provide

1:19:08 ↗ some recommendations for accommodating

1:19:11 ↗ the incentives that can both support

1:19:15 ↗ different types of diverse housing but

1:19:17 ↗ can also

1:19:19 ↗ uh uh provide the affordable housing

1:19:22 ↗ that the city needs. And again, this is

1:19:25 ↗ something where um the Echo Northwest

1:19:29 ↗ report gets at some of these points, but

1:19:31 ↗ we're looking at expanding out that

1:19:33 ↗ work. So, um one thing to be upfront

1:19:38 ↗ about is that cities don't have a lot of

1:19:40 ↗ tools in the toolbox to incentivize

1:19:44 ↗ affordable housing. There are certainly

1:19:46 ↗ direct funding opportunities both you

1:19:48 ↗ know just with the city devoting

1:19:50 ↗ dedicated funding or general fund uh

1:19:53 ↗ money or you know funding coming from

1:19:55 ↗ the outside like from ARCH or uh state

1:19:58 ↗ funding sources. There are indirect

1:20:01 ↗ funding opportunities like the tax

1:20:03 ↗ exemption um or fee waivers or even even

1:20:07 ↗ kind of fasttracking permits which can

1:20:09 ↗ actually reduce some of the carrying

1:20:11 ↗ costs associated with development.

1:20:14 ↗ There are other supports like you know

1:20:16 ↗ leveraging surplus lands which isn't

1:20:19 ↗ completely an option in ISO there are

1:20:21 ↗ some opportunities but um but

1:20:25 ↗ one point that we want to include is

1:20:29 ↗ that a lot of these tools operating

1:20:31 ↗ individually are not going to be able to

1:20:34 ↗ get that deeper level of affordability

1:20:36 ↗ to meet some of these targets that you

1:20:38 ↗ need to be working with them together

1:20:41 ↗ and in cooperation.

1:20:43 ↗ So,

1:20:45 ↗ what

1:20:46 ↗ uh before I get into a bunch of charts

1:20:49 ↗ here um

1:20:51 ↗ one of the things that we recommend is

1:20:54 ↗ that if you're looking at MFTTE, for

1:20:56 ↗ example, or you're looking at

1:20:57 ↗ inclusionary zoning that you consider

1:20:59 ↗ them together. And part of the reason is

1:21:02 ↗ that a an 8 or 12 or 20-year tax

1:21:06 ↗ exemption is one of the larger

1:21:08 ↗ incentives that the city can provide.

1:21:11 ↗ But when you're looking at a longer term

1:21:13 ↗ exemption, uh some of the requirements

1:21:15 ↗ that the state has can be a little

1:21:17 ↗ unwieldy. So, um for the 12-year MFTTE,

1:21:23 ↗ uh the state require it's a little

1:21:26 ↗ complicated, but essentially the state

1:21:28 ↗ uh the the typical U maximum that cities

1:21:32 ↗ use is 80% of AMI um for 20% of the

1:21:37 ↗ units. And that has two problems to it.

1:21:41 ↗ one is that um the 20% set aside is very

1:21:44 ↗ large. So if you're looking at deeper

1:21:47 ↗ levels of affordability

1:21:49 ↗ um that tax exemption can only go too

1:21:52 ↗ can only go so far. The other problem

1:21:55 ↗ and and this is coming up as a as an

1:21:57 ↗ issue. Um

1:22:00 ↗ 80% of AMI in a lot of surrounding

1:22:03 ↗ communities outside of like the core of

1:22:05 ↗ Seattle

1:22:07 ↗ um are getting close to market rate and

1:22:10 ↗ that becomes a problem because there's

1:22:12 ↗ administrative overhead that's

1:22:15 ↗ associated with um ensuring that people

1:22:18 ↗ of those incomes are in those units. Um,

1:22:21 ↗ if you're uh in an MFT unit, typically

1:22:25 ↗ you need to provide evidence that your

1:22:27 ↗ that your income is at 80% AMI or below.

1:22:30 ↗ It's uh you know tax returns, pay stubs,

1:22:34 ↗ etc. Um, that's a little that's a little

1:22:37 ↗ difficult for the resident, that's

1:22:39 ↗ difficult for the property owners, and

1:22:42 ↗ that's difficult for the jurisdictions

1:22:44 ↗ that need to audit that information. So,

1:22:47 ↗ um, as we're seeing more and more of

1:22:49 ↗ these units come on the line, one of the

1:22:52 ↗ things that we're trying to encourage is

1:22:53 ↗ that we're looking at, uh, a smaller

1:22:56 ↗ number of units and deeper levels of

1:22:59 ↗ affordability in certain ways. Uh,

1:23:03 ↗ so that's where the layering can come

1:23:06 ↗ into place. Uh the other the other issue

1:23:08 ↗ with MFTTE is that unless you're looking

1:23:11 ↗ at certain specific kinds um 20-year uh

1:23:17 ↗ certain kind of 20-year exemptions uh

1:23:20 ↗ that are in the statute. Uh the eight

1:23:23 ↗ and the 12 year are limited to

1:23:27 ↗ uh 12 years of like the 12-year is

1:23:30 ↗ limited to 12 years of affordability

1:23:32 ↗ under the under the base statute

1:23:34 ↗ for inclusionary zoning. It's a little

1:23:36 ↗ bit different. Uh inclusionary zoning uh

1:23:40 ↗ has a requirement that you provide a

1:23:42 ↗ bonus. Uh it can be MF but typically

1:23:45 ↗ it's what you see in the bonusing

1:23:48 ↗ program here an increase in height

1:23:51 ↗ allowable F used to be that you could

1:23:54 ↗ allow for changes in parking

1:23:55 ↗ requirements etc. But that bonusing can

1:23:59 ↗ be uh a limited incentive. Um it's

1:24:03 ↗ upfront. it's something that uh

1:24:07 ↗ that uh is more permanent affordability.

1:24:10 ↗ But if we're talking about some of the

1:24:14 ↗ uh some of the situations, as I think

1:24:17 ↗ one of the commissioners stated, where

1:24:19 ↗ that additional floor of height uh may

1:24:22 ↗ have limited returns above what you

1:24:24 ↗ would get from just developing a smaller

1:24:27 ↗ development on the site, that extra

1:24:29 ↗ bonus may not be worth as much. So when

1:24:32 ↗ we're combining these together, we're

1:24:34 ↗ looking at addressing some of the

1:24:36 ↗ weaknesses with each while we're

1:24:39 ↗ providing a public benefit that um that

1:24:43 ↗ can both provide some incentive for

1:24:46 ↗ development, but also can provide a like

1:24:49 ↗ a public benefit and largely through

1:24:52 ↗ affordable housing.

1:24:54 ↗ So please do not look at the numbers

1:24:56 ↗ here. This is an example that I was

1:24:58 ↗ pulling from something else, but um this

1:25:01 ↗ I'll walk you through from left to right

1:25:04 ↗ here. So, if we're looking at just base

1:25:06 ↗ conditions for a project,

1:25:09 ↗ 3.8%, 8%. I know that the real estate

1:25:11 ↗ folks in the room will blanch a little

1:25:13 ↗ bit at that number,

1:25:15 ↗ but just looking at that, ignoring the

1:25:18 ↗ numbers for now, but just looking at the

1:25:19 ↗ bars, if we're looking at um providing

1:25:24 ↗ uh going from like the base density that

1:25:26 ↗ you can have in an area and providing

1:25:28 ↗ some bonus, there can be kind of a small

1:25:32 ↗ increase in what you can uh what you can

1:25:35 ↗ get from a density bonus,

1:25:38 ↗ but There are a number of options that

1:25:40 ↗ we have in looking at providing for uh

1:25:43 ↗ additional

1:25:45 ↗ uh

1:25:47 ↗ sorry let me let me take a step back. So

1:25:48 ↗ if you're just providing the density as

1:25:51 ↗ of right if you're just saying to

1:25:53 ↗ somebody you can build higher build more

1:25:55 ↗ units uh then that bar is going to go up

1:26:00 ↗ um that's going to be additional profit

1:26:02 ↗ for a developer. They're just going to

1:26:04 ↗ be able to build more on the site.

1:26:07 ↗ When we're talking about though how to

1:26:10 ↗ how to I don't want to say claw that

1:26:12 ↗ value back but ensure that that value is

1:26:16 ↗ being shared with the community.

1:26:20 ↗ Uh what we're talking about is you know

1:26:23 ↗ what what's in here is one of two

1:26:25 ↗ things. either you're providing a

1:26:27 ↗ 12-year MFTTE at 20% with 12 years of

1:26:31 ↗ affordability or you're providing kind

1:26:34 ↗ of uh like the density

1:26:37 ↗ uh and an impact fee waiver in exchange

1:26:40 ↗ for 10 like 10% of units that are

1:26:43 ↗ permanently affordable.

1:26:45 ↗ So these are two different scenarios

1:26:46 ↗ where we're looking at two different

1:26:47 ↗ instruments, the MFTTE and then just the

1:26:50 ↗ density bonus. And what you notice is

1:26:53 ↗ that alone if you're moving from 80%

1:26:56 ↗ which is the darkest bars in red and

1:27:00 ↗ green on the on the left over to the

1:27:03 ↗ highest levels of affordability at 50%

1:27:07 ↗ AMI on the right. you know, as you get

1:27:10 ↗ more and more affordable, um the uh you

1:27:14 ↗ know, eventually it gets to the point at

1:27:17 ↗ 70 like past 70% where it's just not

1:27:21 ↗ worth it for a developer to participate

1:27:23 ↗ even if they get that density bonus uh

1:27:26 ↗ and an MFTTE

1:27:28 ↗ that you know the affordable units will

1:27:31 ↗ reduce the income that they're

1:27:32 ↗ receiving.

1:27:34 ↗ So what this means and what you can see

1:27:36 ↗ is that and and this is just an example.

1:27:39 ↗ These numbers can be different for

1:27:40 ↗ different uh types of construction. But

1:27:44 ↗ um when you have a large set aside of

1:27:47 ↗ 20% of units or if you have permanent

1:27:50 ↗ affordability and nothing else to offset

1:27:53 ↗ it other than that density,

1:27:55 ↗ um the ability to get deeper levels of

1:27:58 ↗ affordability can drop off pretty fast.

1:28:01 ↗ So what we often want to take a look at

1:28:04 ↗ is like an alternate set of scenarios

1:28:06 ↗ here. This is a lot of bars. Um it's a

1:28:10 ↗ lot of numbers that are here. But I

1:28:13 ↗ think that the important thing is to

1:28:15 ↗ take a look at kind of what the behavior

1:28:18 ↗ looks like in different ways. If we're

1:28:20 ↗ if we're providing an 8-year tax

1:28:23 ↗ exemption and providing much smaller set

1:28:25 ↗ aside of affordable units, you're able

1:28:28 ↗ to get to deeper levels of affordability

1:28:30 ↗ and developers are able to retain more

1:28:33 ↗ of that benefit. Um there's a trade-off

1:28:36 ↗ between

1:28:38 ↗ uh you know providing more of an

1:28:40 ↗ incentive for development versus

1:28:42 ↗ providing more affordable units. But

1:28:44 ↗ that's an important discussion to have

1:28:46 ↗ like what is the priority that the city

1:28:48 ↗ would have providing more units ensuring

1:28:51 ↗ that there are more affordable units

1:28:53 ↗ that are preserved but this is something

1:28:56 ↗ that you have more leeway to do if

1:28:59 ↗ you're coordinating MFTTE and

1:29:02 ↗ inclusionary zoning together. So there

1:29:05 ↗ are certainly ways of doing this so that

1:29:07 ↗ you're not completely ensuring that

1:29:09 ↗ nothing will get developed versus

1:29:12 ↗ everything will be market rate or at 80%

1:29:15 ↗ where for a large swath of people it's

1:29:18 ↗ not really going to make that much of a

1:29:20 ↗ difference in rent.

1:29:23 ↗ So did you want to take this one or

1:29:26 ↗ should I Oh great. So um so what we're

1:29:30 ↗ looking to do in in coordination with uh

1:29:33 ↗ with uh uh the planners with the city

1:29:36 ↗ the planning staff with the city is to

1:29:39 ↗ adjust and rightsize

1:29:41 ↗ uh the inclusionary zoning and the

1:29:43 ↗ development bonus program to ensure that

1:29:46 ↗ there's feasibility for new development

1:29:48 ↗ and movement towards the affordable

1:29:49 ↗ housing goals that I was talking about

1:29:51 ↗ before but also that we're evaluating

1:29:54 ↗ different MFT programs at the same time.

1:29:57 ↗ That was not something that was

1:29:58 ↗ extensively discussed in the um in the

1:30:02 ↗ Echo Northwest report and that's

1:30:05 ↗ something that a lot of developers are

1:30:06 ↗ looking at now as a as a clear incentive

1:30:10 ↗ uh to provide for more development.

1:30:13 ↗ We also want to take a look at other

1:30:15 ↗ policy actions. Um, parking for example

1:30:18 ↗ is something that it it's it's hard now

1:30:20 ↗ because uh the state has put in certain

1:30:24 ↗ um uh like there there's less leeway to

1:30:29 ↗ provide parking incentives because uh a

1:30:32 ↗ lot of uh allowable parking restrictions

1:30:36 ↗ have been removed by the state. So

1:30:38 ↗ there's less leeway on that. But if

1:30:40 ↗ we're looking at other types of

1:30:42 ↗ incentives um that could potentially

1:30:44 ↗ move the needle a bit, we want to make

1:30:46 ↗ sure that we're providing with with a

1:30:48 ↗ full suite of options. So, uh it's

1:30:51 ↗ taking the results that you have here

1:30:54 ↗ and expanding them. I think that I think

1:30:56 ↗ that one thing that we want to recognize

1:30:58 ↗ is that it may not necessarily be

1:30:59 ↗ towards incentivizing micro units or

1:31:02 ↗ looking at cottage units per se. I think

1:31:06 ↗ that there are um I think that one of

1:31:10 ↗ the focuses that we would have is

1:31:11 ↗ looking at the types of units that would

1:31:14 ↗ fulfill some of the income requability

1:31:18 ↗ requirements that are in the comp plan

1:31:21 ↗ and required by King County, but that

1:31:25 ↗ Oh, yeah. Um but that uh you know, we

1:31:30 ↗ want to be focused on that. We want to

1:31:32 ↗ make sure that you're fulfilling the the

1:31:34 ↗ requirements that are set out in the

1:31:35 ↗ comp plan. Uh we also want to make sure

1:31:37 ↗ that we're providing for the technical

1:31:39 ↗ support. You know, we want to make sure

1:31:41 ↗ that there is a a solid u financial

1:31:44 ↗ analysis that's in place, that there is

1:31:47 ↗ some engagement that takes place to

1:31:49 ↗ ensure that, you know, I'm I'm more than

1:31:52 ↗ certain that there are a diversity of

1:31:55 ↗ opinions in the development community to

1:31:57 ↗ any proposal that would be put forward.

1:31:59 ↗ We want to make sure that that's clear.

1:32:01 ↗ Um, but there also does need to be at

1:32:04 ↗ the end of the day uh clear changes to

1:32:07 ↗ the municipal code and the land use code

1:32:08 ↗ language to support these programs. So

1:32:11 ↗ that's that's kind of where we're going

1:32:13 ↗ with this. Um, we're coordinating with a

1:32:16 ↗ an economics firm to be our backs stop

1:32:19 ↗ with a lot of the uh proforma analysis

1:32:23 ↗ and financial analysis that would be

1:32:24 ↗ supporting this and we're yeah we're

1:32:27 ↗ looking forward to uh moving forward.

1:32:30 ↗ So, I think that that's it.

1:32:34 ↗ >> So,

1:32:35 ↗ >> note um I did not put a a calendar on

1:32:39 ↗ here, but I believe the next time we

1:32:40 ↗ come back is at the end of August. And

1:32:43 ↗ we have provided ARCH with several

1:32:47 ↗ different scenarios to look at using

1:32:50 ↗ those different lever levers and

1:32:51 ↗ adjusting them and they will work with

1:32:53 ↗ the consultant and we'll come back and

1:32:55 ↗ show you the results of those levers.

1:32:56 ↗ Then we will also go to council planning

1:32:58 ↗ development environment committee and

1:32:59 ↗ talk about it with them. Once we sort of

1:33:02 ↗ come up with the direction that we want

1:33:03 ↗ to go, then we'll start looking at our

1:33:05 ↗ code amendments. But we want to we want

1:33:06 ↗ to get a good direction based on the

1:33:08 ↗ based on data first and see where we go.

1:33:13 ↗ >> Any questions?

1:33:13 ↗ >> Yeah. Well, thank you um Andrew. Thank

1:33:16 ↗ you Kristen. I don't think necessarily

1:33:17 ↗ we're talking about policy discussion.

1:33:20 ↗ We're just basically asking questions,

1:33:22 ↗ clarifying questions this evening. I

1:33:23 ↗ mean, I think we all kind of have our

1:33:25 ↗ general idea of where this is going just

1:33:27 ↗ based on the Echo Northwest, but again,

1:33:29 ↗ as Kristen mentioned, this is a dated

1:33:32 ↗ document, so we do want new data. But

1:33:35 ↗ yeah, really, we're not here to talk

1:33:36 ↗ about uh polyp sleep prescriptions this

1:33:38 ↗ evening. It's more or less just asking

1:33:40 ↗ questions. And it looks like John has a

1:33:42 ↗ question.

1:33:42 ↗ >> I always have a question. This is so I

1:33:44 ↗ have a theoretical question, but there's

1:33:46 ↗ some data that will help inform. So when

1:33:50 ↗ you think about

1:33:52 ↗ broader, we need to have places for

1:33:54 ↗ people to live that don't make as much

1:33:57 ↗ money. So let's call it affordable

1:33:59 ↗ housing just as you've been doing it.

1:34:01 ↗ And most likely those are going to be

1:34:02 ↗ rental units. Let's be realistic. If

1:34:04 ↗ you're not making a lot of money in this

1:34:06 ↗ area, buying anything is so let's just

1:34:08 ↗ say they're mostly going to be rentals.

1:34:10 ↗ Is there an analysis if you look at

1:34:12 ↗ because you have existing stock of of

1:34:15 ↗ rental units right now in Isiqua and

1:34:18 ↗ then there's new stock that will be

1:34:20 ↗ built and if you look at what already

1:34:22 ↗ exists

1:34:23 ↗ is there a scenario where I'm going to

1:34:27 ↗ say a couple bold things and Kristen's

1:34:29 ↗ going to like roll her eyes.

1:34:32 ↗ We get out of the incentive business on

1:34:34 ↗ stuff for new stock. We could say we

1:34:37 ↗ have a strategy that if we allow a lot

1:34:40 ↗ more new stock for certain size units

1:34:44 ↗ without restrictions, we let them build

1:34:46 ↗ higher. We're not giving all this money

1:34:48 ↗ back. All these things, we let market

1:34:50 ↗ take be market rate units. We look at

1:34:53 ↗ the existing stock, maybe the lower

1:34:54 ↗ grade units. Once again, I don't know

1:34:56 ↗ how many there are in this area, if this

1:34:57 ↗ math even works. Those will become lower

1:35:01 ↗ priced units compared to the new stuff

1:35:03 ↗ being built because building a new

1:35:05 ↗ building with costs to build something.

1:35:08 ↗ You're fighting the headwinds get higher

1:35:11 ↗ and and windier every time you even

1:35:13 ↗ think about this. So is there a way to

1:35:15 ↗ look at the existing old stock of units

1:35:17 ↗ in the area to be able to become your

1:35:21 ↗ strategy for affordable housing even

1:35:23 ↗ more so even if you have to give some

1:35:25 ↗ type of incentives whether it's from the

1:35:27 ↗ state or the city to some of the

1:35:29 ↗ landlords to to cover some of those

1:35:31 ↗ things. I was just curious if that's

1:35:33 ↗ even you're looking at a broader picture

1:35:34 ↗ not just the new things that are being

1:35:36 ↗ built but the whole installed base of

1:35:38 ↗ units that we already have. That's the

1:35:40 ↗ broader. So, I'm going to jump in and

1:35:42 ↗ then Andrew may have more, but we did

1:35:45 ↗ back in 2021 an inventory of all of our

1:35:49 ↗ apartment units in the city and looked

1:35:52 ↗ at the size of the units, how much each

1:35:55 ↗ unit cost, when it was built, that sort

1:35:57 ↗ of thing. So, we have a list of all

1:35:59 ↗ those market rate units that are not

1:36:01 ↗ covered under co or all of those more

1:36:03 ↗ affordable units that are not covered

1:36:05 ↗ under covenants right now. And our plan

1:36:07 ↗ was to go out and talk to different

1:36:09 ↗ agencies and see if they would be

1:36:11 ↗ willing to purchase some of these to

1:36:14 ↗ help preserve the existing market

1:36:16 ↗ affordable housing units. So market rate

1:36:19 ↗ affordable housing units. The problem is

1:36:21 ↗ that we've had

1:36:24 ↗ is one funding. you know, it's it's hard

1:36:26 ↗ to get all that funding in place, but is

1:36:28 ↗ two, you've got to find a property owner

1:36:30 ↗ who's willing to not sell their property

1:36:32 ↗ to a developer who can come and tear it

1:36:33 ↗ down and make a lot more money and you

1:36:35 ↗ get money off of it. Um, or that just

1:36:39 ↗ wants to keep it affordable.

1:36:40 ↗ >> My question is actually even more broad

1:36:41 ↗ is like do market forces, if you have a

1:36:43 ↗ lot more new nice ones, the existing old

1:36:46 ↗ ones are going to they're going to have

1:36:47 ↗ to if they want to rent them out, it's

1:36:48 ↗ going to they're going to have to be

1:36:49 ↗ cheaper and those become your affordable

1:36:51 ↗ play. I'm not sure if the math works

1:36:53 ↗ there because otherwise we're we're

1:36:55 ↗ doing all this work to get 14 units

1:36:57 ↗ built and it's like okay that seems like

1:36:59 ↗ a lot of work to not have something that

1:37:01 ↗ meets a bigger goal. I'm just curious if

1:37:03 ↗ there's other ways to look at the bigger

1:37:05 ↗ picture to get the ex get the result

1:37:08 ↗ that we want or is this just an

1:37:10 ↗ impossible task to do that?

1:37:12 ↗ >> Well, I I could say one unpopular thing

1:37:15 ↗ and say that uh the targets can feel

1:37:19 ↗ like an impossible task. Uh the if you

1:37:22 ↗ look at the county as a whole uh there

1:37:26 ↗ needs to be a lot of affordable units

1:37:27 ↗ created across the county, not just in

1:37:30 ↗ Isiqua, but everywhere. Uh what you were

1:37:33 ↗ talking about before with filtering.

1:37:34 ↗ Yeah, it's it's something that is uh a

1:37:37 ↗ clear trend in urban housing economics.

1:37:39 ↗ It's it's something that does occur

1:37:41 ↗ where, you know, people that move into

1:37:44 ↗ new housing free up housing for other

1:37:46 ↗ people. um you know that uh that housing

1:37:51 ↗ because folks that move in may have uh

1:37:54 ↗ you know less income to spend that rent

1:37:57 ↗ can go down. Um so that's fair. Uh but I

1:38:00 ↗ think that what we need to one of the

1:38:03 ↗ things to focus on here is that we need

1:38:06 ↗ to do a lot and it's not just with with

1:38:10 ↗ market rate housing. We do need to

1:38:12 ↗ promote that and I think that it is fair

1:38:14 ↗ to say that um cities across Washington

1:38:18 ↗ state really and North America I don't

1:38:22 ↗ want to leave anybody out here but need

1:38:24 ↗ to do more in promoting the conditions

1:38:27 ↗ that are necessary necessary for

1:38:29 ↗ development to occur. Um, one of the

1:38:33 ↗ some reasons to include this uh beyond

1:38:36 ↗ just trying to get affordable units are

1:38:39 ↗ to try to get affordable units in a way

1:38:42 ↗ that is integrated in with the rest of

1:38:45 ↗ the community. So one of the one of the

1:38:47 ↗ issues that we often face is that if you

1:38:49 ↗ are creating a 100% affordable project

1:38:53 ↗ in one location or another um that can

1:38:56 ↗ be dictated by the availability of land

1:38:58 ↗ it may not necessarily be in as ideal of

1:39:00 ↗ a location and it's concentrated. If

1:39:03 ↗ we're providing for a more distributed

1:39:06 ↗ model where you can encourage more more

1:39:08 ↗ affordable units to be spread out, then

1:39:11 ↗ that means that you're getting people

1:39:12 ↗ that um may not necessarily be making as

1:39:15 ↗ much money but still have access to a

1:39:17 ↗ lot of the same amenities and resources.

1:39:20 ↗ So, it it's I I think I think my main

1:39:24 ↗ answer is you're right, but we need to

1:39:27 ↗ try to do everything to try to put this

1:39:29 ↗ in place. Um there are certainly

1:39:31 ↗ arguments about focusing on uh other

1:39:34 ↗ ends of the spectrum that we were

1:39:37 ↗ showing you before looking at severe

1:39:39 ↗ need but it's we we really need to be

1:39:42 ↗ focusing on a lot of things and it's

1:39:44 ↗ it's a big task. So

1:39:48 ↗ >> my understanding, Andrew, was that Arch

1:39:50 ↗ and Kristen, forgive me if you're wrong,

1:39:52 ↗ but didn't Arch do that in the past,

1:39:54 ↗ bought property in as a cloth and

1:39:56 ↗ actually the entire unit was turned into

1:39:59 ↗ >> I want to say that was like three or

1:40:01 ↗ four years ago, right?

1:40:02 ↗ >> We did it. It was over on Clark Street,

1:40:04 ↗ right?

1:40:04 ↗ >> 245 Clark. It was several years ago.

1:40:06 ↗ Good memory. Um, but it was it was

1:40:08 ↗ funded in part by Arch,

1:40:11 ↗ >> right?

1:40:11 ↗ >> It was part of the general fund.

1:40:13 ↗ Correct. And then the city helped kick

1:40:15 ↗ in.

1:40:16 ↗ >> Right.

1:40:16 ↗ >> Right. Okay. I just want to, like I

1:40:18 ↗ said, I just want to go back in the time

1:40:19 ↗ machine because I I thought that is

1:40:21 ↗ something Arch did.

1:40:23 ↗ >> Oh, and it's it's what I was saying was

1:40:25 ↗ not to advocate against it. No, because

1:40:28 ↗ I mean

1:40:28 ↗ >> Well, I think I mean to your point, I

1:40:29 ↗ mean, the distribution model is a lot

1:40:31 ↗ better when it's it is everybody's

1:40:32 ↗ equitable. They have different I mean,

1:40:34 ↗ that's a lot better than having

1:40:35 ↗ tenementss in New York City. So, I get

1:40:37 ↗ that part.

1:40:38 ↗ >> Um,

1:40:39 ↗ >> yeah. I just like I said, I just wanted

1:40:40 ↗ to go back in a little history lesson. I

1:40:42 ↗ see you. I see you.

1:40:43 ↗ >> Uh but yeah, I just wanted to go back

1:40:45 ↗ and because I thought for sure that is

1:40:47 ↗ something that we've done in the past

1:40:48 ↗ that was pretty successful.

1:40:50 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:40:51 ↗ >> Okay. So that's not taken off the board

1:40:53 ↗ or anything.

1:40:53 ↗ >> No. Again, I mean we need to be focusing

1:40:57 ↗ on a housing policy that's a stool with

1:40:59 ↗ many legs.

1:41:00 ↗ >> Sure. Sure. Yeah. Okay. Commissioner D.

1:41:04 ↗ >> Yeah. And just to um add to that and to

1:41:07 ↗ John's point, uh one thing we need to

1:41:09 ↗ keep in mind when we're looking at

1:41:10 ↗ economic levers is that we're not

1:41:12 ↗ actually existing in a frictionless

1:41:14 ↗ economic economy, right? So, for

1:41:18 ↗ example, when my husband and I were

1:41:20 ↗ house hunting and looking for rentals,

1:41:22 ↗ what we encountered when we first moved

1:41:24 ↗ up to Washington is that there would be

1:41:26 ↗ one company that owned every building

1:41:29 ↗ within a certain region and they

1:41:31 ↗ effectively have a monopoly, right, on

1:41:33 ↗ prices. So, they could, if you have

1:41:37 ↗ something like a Black Rockck, etc.,

1:41:38 ↗ they can theoretically hold on to enough

1:41:41 ↗ empty units to then force the supply

1:41:44 ↗ down and the price up. So we I think

1:41:47 ↗ just looking at all the levers is a

1:41:49 ↗ great idea and just something to keep in

1:41:50 ↗ mind.

1:41:52 ↗ >> Yeah. No, that's a good point. I mean I

1:41:54 ↗ I think that's what that's countrywide.

1:41:56 ↗ I know of that in other countries

1:41:57 ↗ actually where you have conglomerates

1:41:59 ↗ that are buying units.

1:42:01 ↗ >> Yeah. I I will add just one small thing

1:42:04 ↗ with that and you know talking about

1:42:07 ↗ moving into the region uh and trying to

1:42:09 ↗ find housing super important.

1:42:12 ↗ This is not just a housing strategy.

1:42:14 ↗ This is an economic development strategy

1:42:16 ↗ because a lot of people who would be

1:42:19 ↗ accommodating

1:42:20 ↗ 50% 60% AMI units are the folks that are

1:42:25 ↗ doing retail work in the community that

1:42:28 ↗ are doing kind of um home health care.

1:42:31 ↗ And if we're talking about kind of

1:42:33 ↗ accommodating them here as opposed to

1:42:35 ↗ having them drive 45 minutes an hour to

1:42:38 ↗ get into the community uh from

1:42:40 ↗ affordable housing, that's that's

1:42:42 ↗ important.

1:42:43 ↗ >> Absolutely. Commissioner Matthews.

1:42:46 ↗ >> Hi. I just had a question about the Eco

1:42:49 ↗ Echo Northwest report about condo

1:42:51 ↗ development.

1:42:52 ↗ >> Um, there was it basically stated that

1:42:55 ↗ there's a bunch of state laws that went

1:42:57 ↗ in place that prohibit people from

1:42:59 ↗ wanting to develop them. So, why are

1:43:01 ↗ town houses going up? Aren't they under

1:43:03 ↗ the same structure, an HOA structure

1:43:05 ↗ like a condo is? I guess I I'm a little

1:43:08 ↗ confused about why

1:43:09 ↗ >> that condo bad.

1:43:11 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah.

1:43:13 ↗ right there. Simplified.

1:43:16 ↗ >> I can I can talk to it a bit. I my uh

1:43:20 ↗ it's been a long-standing problem and

1:43:22 ↗ it's one that it doesn't seem like it's

1:43:24 ↗ being solved anytime soon. It primarily

1:43:26 ↗ has to do with liability from the '9s

1:43:30 ↗ associated with leaking condos, I

1:43:33 ↗ believe. But that's carried over into

1:43:35 ↗ kind of this concern about long-ter

1:43:38 ↗ concern about liability to builders.

1:43:42 ↗ Um and

1:43:45 ↗ wi when you're talking about town homes,

1:43:47 ↗ I mean, one of the other things that's

1:43:49 ↗ not included in the and I I switch

1:43:52 ↗ between eco and echo. I sorry about

1:43:54 ↗ that. But um one of the things in the

1:43:57 ↗ report that isn't acknowledged is that

1:43:59 ↗ there have been more recent changes

1:44:03 ↗ um that have allowed for unit lot

1:44:06 ↗ subdivisions to uh you know essentially

1:44:10 ↗ replace some of that condo style um

1:44:14 ↗ ownership models. Kind of essentially

1:44:17 ↗ condos except replacing a condo

1:44:19 ↗ association with an HOA. Um, but it it's

1:44:23 ↗ it's typically more because they're

1:44:26 ↗ profitable to build and the types of uh

1:44:31 ↗ liability from what I understand are not

1:44:33 ↗ as severe when you're talking about town

1:44:35 ↗ homes.

1:44:36 ↗ So,

1:44:42 ↗ >> yeah, the whole the whole report's

1:44:43 ↗ pretty fascinating. I mean, obviously

1:44:45 ↗ everybody read it, but it's there's a

1:44:47 ↗ lot in there. Um

1:44:50 ↗ well maybe part of it too is be beyond

1:44:52 ↗ the develop I mean one of the things the

1:44:54 ↗ developers said was that they would

1:44:55 ↗ prefer to rent those type of

1:44:56 ↗ multifamilies versus sell them outright

1:45:00 ↗ whereas the town homes they can do the

1:45:01 ↗ fee simple sell them not be responsible

1:45:04 ↗ for them they share one wall instead of

1:45:05 ↗ multiple walls and floors

1:45:08 ↗ >> we'll see if condos come back but what

1:45:10 ↗ was interesting too is I mean just how

1:45:11 ↗ well is a pretty diverse housing stock

1:45:16 ↗ >> so I think we kind of all know just from

1:45:18 ↗ what the report is and again it's

1:45:19 ↗ outdated we kind of know the levers the

1:45:22 ↗ levers that we have to work with

1:45:26 ↗ at least I feel like

1:45:29 ↗ um okay any other questions for Kristen

1:45:31 ↗ or Andrew Vice Patterson

1:45:33 ↗ >> I think this will be a quick one um I

1:45:34 ↗ keep trying to correlate the AMI to

1:45:37 ↗ market rate housing does it make sense

1:45:39 ↗ that 100% AMI would be considered market

1:45:42 ↗ rate housing or is that not quite apples

1:45:44 ↗ to apples

1:45:45 ↗ >> um it it's not apples to apples for two

1:45:47 ↗ reasons

1:45:48 ↗ Well, it I could talk to you for an hour

1:45:51 ↗ about this.

1:45:51 ↗ >> Yeah. Right. The simplified version.

1:45:53 ↗ >> Um a few points. One is that um it's

1:45:57 ↗ based on median family income. So that

1:45:59 ↗ is something that excludes certain types

1:46:01 ↗ of households that aren't families. So

1:46:04 ↗ individuals or roommates, etc. So it's

1:46:07 ↗ it's a little bit different um than all

1:46:10 ↗ of the households that are around. um as

1:46:13 ↗ well. Uh you would typically be seeing

1:46:18 ↗ uh homeowners at higher AMIs and renters

1:46:21 ↗ at lower AMIs, which is why when I was

1:46:23 ↗ talking before about 80% being pretty

1:46:25 ↗ close to what you can see for a lot of

1:46:27 ↗ market rate rents that are in the market

1:46:30 ↗ right now. Um that that's why it's that

1:46:33 ↗ that that's why that kind of occurs. Um

1:46:37 ↗ but it's it again it it's an arbitrary

1:46:40 ↗ number. It's kind of where you plant the

1:46:42 ↗ flag when you're conducting

1:46:45 ↗ um affordability studies, when you're

1:46:47 ↗ trying to come up with rent limits,

1:46:49 ↗ things like that. So, it's yeah, it it's

1:46:51 ↗ it's hard because it's really not a real

1:46:54 ↗ number. Um it's it's technically not

1:46:58 ↗ even actual median income in the

1:47:00 ↗ community. It's projected out from

1:47:02 ↗ previous years data. So,

1:47:07 ↗ >> just when you thought you got a grasp on

1:47:08 ↗ it, right? Of course.

1:47:11 ↗ Okay. Uh, any other questions for

1:47:14 ↗ Kristen or Andrew?

1:47:18 ↗ All right. Would Kristen or Andrew like

1:47:20 ↗ to add anything?

1:47:22 ↗ Okay. Well, thank you both for the

1:47:24 ↗ presentation.

1:47:26 ↗ Okay. That's going to do it for our

1:47:28 ↗ regular business this evening. We

1:47:29 ↗ appreciate everybody sticking around for

1:47:32 ↗ the presentations, the conversation.

1:47:34 ↗ Again, we'll get deeper into the weeds

1:47:36 ↗ uh in the coming weeks and months.

1:47:39 ↗ So, the next item we have is now

1:47:43 ↗ reports.

1:47:45 ↗ We'll begin with city council updates.

1:47:48 ↗ >> I don't have any council updates.

1:47:51 ↗ >> Aren't they on break? No, August.

1:47:52 ↗ >> August.

1:47:53 ↗ >> Okay. Um, how about any other updates?

1:47:56 ↗ Anything going on in the city? We got

1:47:58 ↗ some Fourth of July party coming up.

1:48:01 ↗ >> Um, Trail Head is about to break ground,

1:48:04 ↗ which is very exciting. It's what,

1:48:08 ↗ nine, 10, nine years in the process.

1:48:10 ↗ Yeah. So, we're very excited about that.

1:48:12 ↗ Um,

1:48:14 ↗ otherwise,

1:48:16 ↗ no, I don't think so. No.

1:48:18 ↗ >> Are you guys doing any type of ceremony

1:48:19 ↗ for it?

1:48:20 ↗ >> Yes, they're doing a ceremony on July

1:48:23 ↗ 30th.

1:48:24 ↗ >> Cool.

1:48:24 ↗ >> All right.

1:48:25 ↗ >> Well, I see Minnie coming up to the

1:48:27 ↗ podium.

1:48:27 ↗ >> Sure. Um, just a quick update on the

1:48:29 ↗ council uh that you were asking. So

1:48:31 ↗ Monday night we take forward your

1:48:33 ↗ recommendations to council on stepbacks

1:48:36 ↗ and amendies spaces uh and all the other

1:48:39 ↗ housekeeping sort of uh clarifying

1:48:42 ↗ amendments that you had that's on

1:48:43 ↗ consent agenda uh as well as our permit

1:48:46 ↗ process improvement um metrics that

1:48:49 ↗ we're measuring. So that's in that

1:48:51 ↗ agenda. Um one of the work plan items

1:48:54 ↗ was um detached accessory dwelling

1:48:57 ↗ units. So we got feedback from planning,

1:49:00 ↗ development and environment committee

1:49:02 ↗ whether to pursue the pre uh approval

1:49:06 ↗ process. So the city has some

1:49:08 ↗ pre-approved plans that someone can use

1:49:11 ↗ versus the state law was changed to say

1:49:13 ↗ if they're self-certified, the city is

1:49:16 ↗ not going to do a building plan review.

1:49:18 ↗ So the committee said, you know, the

1:49:21 ↗ cities that have done pre-approved

1:49:22 ↗ plans, they haven't been really used by

1:49:24 ↗ folks. So pursue the selfcertification

1:49:28 ↗ process. So we because it's amendments

1:49:31 ↗ to title 16. So there's really not a

1:49:34 ↗ planning and policy commission uh

1:49:36 ↗ discussion on that. So that'll go

1:49:38 ↗ directly to uh planning development and

1:49:40 ↗ environment committee. And if they

1:49:41 ↗ approve it, it'll just get be a simple

1:49:43 ↗ code amendment in uh title 16, which is

1:49:46 ↗ a building code. So just so in case

1:49:48 ↗ you're wondering what happened to the

1:49:50 ↗ detached edu process. So it's just

1:49:53 ↗ moving forward on a quicker faster path

1:49:58 ↗ and you like um you know a lot of

1:50:00 ↗ exciting development break uh

1:50:02 ↗ groundbreaking events. So springs

1:50:05 ↗ assisted living facility uh

1:50:07 ↗ groundbreaking happened in the

1:50:08 ↗ highlands. So that's about 200 units. Uh

1:50:11 ↗ and then trail head uh to happening end

1:50:14 ↗ of July. Um and high school is under

1:50:17 ↗ construction. So a lot we're busy with a

1:50:19 ↗ lot of construction and town homes.

1:50:20 ↗ Yeah.

1:50:21 ↗ >> Um, yeah.

1:50:23 ↗ >> Yeah. No, I see I see quite a few uh

1:50:25 ↗ heavy machinery around town.

1:50:27 ↗ >> So, that's great. Excellent.

1:50:30 ↗ >> I I have one little side note that

1:50:32 ↗ doesn't have anything to do with

1:50:33 ↗ council, but I I mentioned the uh

1:50:36 ↗ excused absences.

1:50:37 ↗ >> And you'll notice on the calendar that

1:50:39 ↗ you get in your packets every week, I've

1:50:41 ↗ been putting those on there, the excused

1:50:43 ↗ absences. So, if you don't see your name

1:50:44 ↗ on there and whoops, when we gone, just

1:50:46 ↗ let me know and I'll put it on there.

1:50:47 ↗ That way, we know too when it shows it

1:50:49 ↗ when it comes up. Thanks.

1:50:50 ↗ >> Yes, we want to give uh staff at least 5

1:50:52 ↗ days notice. Again, it's a lot of work

1:50:55 ↗ as all of us know by reading through

1:50:57 ↗ these packets. So again, if for some

1:50:59 ↗ reason we don't have a quorum,

1:51:01 ↗ especially in the summer or especially

1:51:02 ↗ on a night like tonight,

1:51:05 ↗ uh oh,

1:51:08 ↗ spoiler alert, man.

1:51:13 ↗ >> I made it the whole evening.

1:51:19 ↗ Okay.

1:51:20 ↗ Ouch.

1:51:23 ↗ Yes.

1:51:25 ↗ >> That's okay. I will survive.

1:51:28 ↗ >> Okay. Well, on that note, I hope

1:51:30 ↗ everybody has a good evening and we will

1:51:32 ↗ adjourn this meeting of the Planning

1:51:34 ↗ Policy Commission at 8:21 p.m. Thank

1:51:37 ↗ 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

Staff (1)

Andrew Bjorn, Senior Planner, A Regional Coalition of Housing (ARCH) Minnie Dahliwal, CP&D Director Kate Kaehny, Principal Planner Christen Leeson, Planning Manager Emily Medina, Senior Planner 2. Approval of Minutes

Recommendations & actions (1)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

With no comments or corrections, the Minutes from June 11, 2026 were approved.