Commission debates definition of 'affordable' and whether to require perpetual affordability

Commissioners spent a substantial portion of the meeting debating the affordability standard tied to the small-house PUD and whether an affordability requirement would be a barrier to projects. One commissioner noted: "Jericho and ARRADS, for whatever reason, has affordable at a 100% of the AMI," and other members contrasted that with typical 80% AMI statewide benchmarks and a 120% AMI threshold used in certain programs.

Several commissioners and working-group members argued that requiring perpetual affordability or a strict low-AM I threshold could deter small owners or mission-driven sponsors; others said the commission should seek ways to guarantee at least part of the housing stock remains affordable. Staff and the group discussed alternatives including targeting a middle-income 'missing middle' band (80–120% AMI), offering incentives (fee waivers or CHIP program support) and ensuring some perpetually affordable units where feasible. The commission requested that staff present clearer options (e.g., 80% vs. 100% vs. 120% AMI scenarios) in the redline so the public hearing can weigh trade-offs.