Loading...
2021-03-10 Planning Board PacketPlanning Board Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda 121 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 www.edmondswa.gov Michelle Martin 425-771-0220 Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:00 PM Virtual Online Meeting Remote Meeting Information Join Zoom Meeting: https://zoom.us/j/98720508263?pwd=VUhBNO9OaWQvSkhJNOtTb3NhQytBQT09 Meeting ID: 9872 050 8263. Password: 155135 Call into the meeting by dialing: 253-215-8782 Land Acknowledgement for Indigenous Peoples We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. 1. Call to Order Attendee Name Present Absent Late Arrived 2. Approval of Minutes A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5366) Approval of Minutes Background/History Draft minutes are approved at each meeting. Staff Recommendation Approve February 10th draft meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS: • PB210210d (PDF) 3. Presentations & Updates A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5367) Housing Issues Background Background/History Planning Board Page 1 Printed 31512021 Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda March 10, 2021 N/A. Staff Recommendation N/A ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment 1: HART Report and 5-Year Action Plan (PDF) • Attachment 2: Regional Housing Strategy Presentation (PDF) B. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5368) Housing Commission Recommendations Background/History The Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission was formed in the summer of 2019 to recommend housing policies for the City Council's consideration. The group was comprised of 15 members and 8 alternates ---all local residents who had applied for the work. Each City Council member appointed two commissioners and one alternate. The Mayor appointed one commissioner and one alternate. The Housing Commission's mission, as stipulated in a resolution of the City Council, was to: "Develop, for (City) Council consideration, diverse housing policy options designed to expand the range of housing (including rental and owned) available in Edmonds -irrespective of age, gender, race, religious affiliation, physical disability, or sexual orientation." Staff Recommendation Consider the information at a high level and wait until later for more details and next steps. C. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5362) Updates on Various Position Recruitments Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A 4. Training Session A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5361) Training Session with the City Attorney Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A Planning Board Page 2 Printed 31512021 Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda March 10, 2021 ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment 1: OPMA Training code requirement (PDF) • Attachment 2: Mettings Attendance code requirements (PDF) 5. Discussion Session A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5369) Work Program and Extended Agenda Background/History The Planning Board discussed its work program in a joint meeting with the City Council in July, 2020. Staff Recommendation Discuss the 2021 work program. ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment 1: Joint Meeting Work Program Discussion with City Council - agenda item (PDF) • Attachment 2: Joint Meeting Work Program Discussion with City Council - meeting minutes (PDF) B. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5363) Increaing Public Engagement Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A C. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5364) Tracking & Metrics Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A 6. Planning Board Chair Comments 7. Planning Board Member Comments 8. Adjournment Planning Board Page 3 Printed 31512021 2.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 03/10/2021 Approval of Minutes Staff Lead: Rob Chave Department: Development Services Prepared By: Michelle Martin Background/History Draft minutes are approved at each meeting. Staff Recommendation Approve February 10th draft meeting minutes. Narrative February 10th draft meeting minutes attached. Attachments: PB210210d Packet Pg. 4 2.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom February 10, 2021 Chair Rosen called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES Board Member Monroe read the land acknowledgement. We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Chair Alicia Crank, Vice Chair Matthew Cheung Todd Cloutier Nathan Monroe Roger Pence (joined at 7:05 p.m.) Daniel Robles READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Z VICE CHAIR CRANK MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2021 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER MONROE SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no general audience comments. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Rosen referred the Board to the Development Services Director's Report that was provided in the packet. There were no comments or questions from the Board. Packet Pg. 5 2.A.a REVIEW OF INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE (#4210) AMENDNG EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) 17.75, ENTITLED "OUTDOOR DINING," AND A RELATED SECTION IN ECDC 17.70 Mr. Chave reviewed that the City Council adopted Ordinance 4210 on December 15, 2020, as an interim ordinance. The main affect was to change the Outdoor Dining Permit from what had been a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), which required a hearing by the Hearing Examiner and a lengthy review process, to an Administrative Approval that could be done by staff. Because Ordinance 4210 is an interim ordinance that expires after six months, the Board is being asked to review it and provide a recommendation about whether it should be adopted for a longer period of time or permanently. Chair Rosen asked Mr. Chave to articulate between the "Outdoor Dining" use that is the subject of the interim ordinance and "Streeteries." Mr. Chave explained that a variety of activities are allowed within the rights -of -way, but streeteries are a new type of use that came about during the pandemic. They are basically the temporary use of rights -of -way to help businesses survive. Because streeteries are allowed in ECDC 18 (Engineering and Public Works Standards), they are not something the Planning Board reviews or makes recommendations on. Ordinance 4210 relates to on -site outdoor dining, which typically occurs as an extension or accessory to a restaurant in an enclosed building. Sometimes it takes the form of patio dining or outdoor open decks. Board Member Robles asked if Ordinance 4210 would apply to the temporary structures (tents, etc.) that have expanded into parking spaces. Mr. Chave answered that the ordinance is not applicable to tents and other structures that are located within the rights -of -way. However, it could allow outdoor dining to be located in on -site parking areas, as long as the parking spaces are not part of a business's required parking. Chair Rosen asked how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirement could potentially be impacted by outdoor dining areas. Mr. Chave answered that the applicant would still have to comply with all of the building code requirements, > including making sure that access was ADA compliant. 0- Board Member Pence asked if there have been any applications for outdoor dining since Ordinance 4210 was passed in Q December. Mr. Chave said he believes so, but he would need to ask the Building Official for this specific information. M Board Member Monroe referred to ECDC 17.75.010(2), and asked how the 4-foot wall, hedge or fence was arrived at. He also asked how they arrived at the 50% or 30-seat limit. Mr. Chave said these requirements were part of the previous code that had been in place for many years. The substantial change was not requiring a CUP for the use. Board Member Pence observed that eliminating the CUP requirement from ECDC 17.75.020 would make ECDC 17.75.020 (Secondary Uses Requiring a Permit) functionally the same as ECDC 17.75.010 (Permitted Secondary Uses). If that is the case, then ECDC 17.75.020 could be eliminated entirely. Mr. Chave agreed it might be possible to combine the two sections. However, the language related to building and fire permits in ECDC 17.75.020 would need to be added to ECDC 17.75.010. He commented that there has been some debate and uncertainty about when and how the building and fire permits apply. Board Member Pence said he believes in having codes as neat and tidy and easy to follow as possible, and having two separate sections that are functionally indistinguishable is not good bill drafting. He suggested that the permanent ordinance combine the two sections in a way that accomplishes the intent. The remainder of the Board concurred. Mr. Chave said the intent of the ordinance is to make it clear that outdoor dining must be the secondary rather than predominant use of the property and that some buffering would be required. Chair Rosen referred to ECDC 17.75.010(A)(5), which appears to be motivated by safety. If the intent is to separate vehicles from patrons, perhaps it should be spelled out that the barrier must be suitable to protect the safety of the diner. Mr. Chave advised that a public hearing on the ordinance is tentatively scheduled for March 24'. CODE AMENDMENT TO BROADEN APPLICABILITY OF THE UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION PROCESS Mr. Clugston explained that this application is a privately -initiated Development Code amendment. As a Type V application, the Planning Board conducts a public hearing and makes a recommendation to the City Council. He explained that the Planning Board Minutes February 10, 2021 Page 2 Packet Pg. 6 Citizen Design Collaborative is proposing to add the Downtown Business (BD) zones to the areas in Edmonds where the Unit Lot Subdivision Provision is applicable. He reviewed that United Lot Subdivisions are currently only allowed in the General Commercial (CG), Multiple Residential (RM), and Westgate Mixed use (WMU) zones. He said the applicant has submitted a parallel application for design review for a 14-unit complex at the old Baskin Robbins and Curve site. The proposal is to construct residential and live/work units on the site and then apply the Unit Lot Subdivision Provision on top of the buildings once constructed. However, this isn't currently allowed because the property is located in the BC zone. Mr. Clugston said there have been a number of Unit Lot Subdivision Projects over the last several years in the RM, WMU and CG zones that have worked out very well. Staff believes the proposed amendment makes sense in those areas in the BD zone where multifamily residential is allowed on the ground floor. The amendment might also be applicable to other areas of Edmonds, and staff is suggesting the Board consider the option of making the amendment more general to cast a broader net to include all zones where ground -floor multifamily dwelling units are allowed. This would include Office Residential, Firdale Village Mixed Use and Downtown Business zones, as well as any future subarea plans that allows ground -floor residential units. Board Member Pence noted that Unit Lot Subdivisions were only written into the code in 2017. He asked why the provision was written so narrowly to apply only to a limited set of zones. Mr. Clugston said he doesn't recall exactly why. But, generally, the RM, CG and MU zones were areas where they anticipated that Unit Lot Subdivisions would occur first. Five of the six projects were in RM zones. Based on these projects' success, staff believes it makes sense to allow them in the other zones, too. Mr. Chave said, sometimes, there are unusual configurations of property, and you don't always see how a multifamily use that fits this kind of development could occur. That may be why they missed applying the use more broadly. Board Member Pence agreed that application of the provision should be broadened as recommended by staff. Chair Rosen asked the worse concern staff can imagine someone might raise at the public hearing. Mr. Clugston said he can't think of one at this point. The look of the development on the ground would not change, as Unit Lot Subdivision would > simply drops property lines on walls. It is an alternative to the condominium process, and he felt it makes sense to allow it 0- wherever ground -floor multifamily units are allowed. Q. Q Vice Chair Crank said the only concern she foresees is about the look and feel of the downtown core. She noted a recent M story that was posted on MY EDMONDS NEWS about the design of the proposed project has already caused a stir. Mr. N Clugston said the proposed amendment is a separate issue from the design. Whether or not the amendment is adopted, the o applicant could build the units as long as Design Review and Building Permit approval are obtained. The question is how m ownership will be divided up. The applicant could construct the units and then go through the condominium process, and the a City would have no say whatsoever. If the amendment is adopted, the applicant would go through a separate process (Unit Lot Subdivision). In either case, the look of the buildings would not change. He agreed that this is something that would E need to be clearly explained at the public hearing. t Board Member Cheung asked if the proposed amendment could result in parking impacts. Mr. Clugston answered no, and advised that parking would be addressed as part of the Design Review and Building Permit processes. Board Member Monroe asked for reasons why developers might want to use the Unit Lot Subdivision option as opposed to the already established provisions in the code. Mr. Clugston answered that, currently, there is no provision in the code that would allow the applicant to do a subdivision. Right now, Unit Lot Subdivisions are only allowed in RM, CG and WMU zones. The applicant is requesting an amendment to allow the use in the BD zone to specifically take advantage of the fee simple option as opposed to the condominium process or rentals. Board Member Monroe asked why Unit Lot Subdivisions are an advantage over the condominium process. Mr. Clugston said his understanding is that the condominium process is more difficult, is not a public process, and it is hard to get insurance for the units. The zero -lot -line process used in other cities is the process that a lot of developers use to create fee -simple lots. Board Member Monroe reviewed that the adoption of the proposed amendment would not change the density allowed, the look and feel of development or the parking requirements. He noted that condominiums haven't been built in Washington for a number of years because of insurance issues, and the Unit Lot Subdivision Provision would make it easier for developers. He said anticipates that the greatest concern that might be raised at the public hearing is that the amendment would densify Edmonds and particularly the downtown core. Vice Chair Crank agreed with that concern. Planning Board Minutes February 10, 2021 Page 3 Packet Pg. 7 2.A.a Board Member Pence suggested one reason developers do not like to do condominiums has to do with builder's liability. Under Washington's Condominium Law, builders have a very long period of time when they are liable for defects in the buildings, and they have been hit with some major lawsuits by homeowner associations. With Unit Lot Subdivisions, all of these issues go away. Board Member Robles noted that builder's liability lasts for eight years. In addition, there are building envelop laws associated with condominiums. You can't simply flip a building from an apartment to a condominium. You have to make sure that the building is structurally sound and that the building envelope, itself, meets a new standard. The windows have to retain certain energy requirements and other requirements would apply, as well. He voiced concern that the proposed amendment would be a quick way for developers to get around a significant amount of regulation associated with the condominium process. Board Member Cloutier observed that once a property is subdivided, each new division would have to meet all of the standards for construction. Mr. Chave said Unit Lot Subdivisions should be thought of as a different form of ownership: condominium versus subdivision. The standards and requirements would be the same for either. Chair Rosen asked if the potential concerns that the amendment would change the character or increase density could be considered fatal flaws that lead the Board to recommend denial. Mr. Clugston emphasized that the amendment would not result in changes in the character of an area or increased density. He referred to the "Purpose" section, which clearly states that "Unit Lot Subdivision does not permit uses or densities that are not otherwise allowed in the zoning district in which they are proposed. " Board Member Monroe said he appreciates that the proposed amendment would not change density. However, it should be noted that the current condominium law is holding back densification. By removing that dam, they could see a tidal wave of > redevelopment in the downtown. He said he isn't a huge fan of the proposed amendment, as it will not do anything to address housing for the "missing middle." It seems it will simply make rich people richer. He suggested it is disingenuous to a imply that the City isn't making it easier to develop this type of unit in downtown Edmonds. Q Board Member Pence agreed that the code change related to ownership options would make the construction of town homes a more attractive option for developers. However, it is important to consider that town homes are, by definition, a low to moderate density development for a downtown area. If they receive push back from the public, he doesn't believe it will be well-grounded. Vice Chair Crank asked if a Unit Lot Subdivision would include the ground floor. If so, could commercial be part of that ground -floor level? Mr. Clugston explained that the subdivision could apply to a live/work unit where the ground floor is a commercial use, with residential uses above. But primarily, the developments would be entirely residential. Board Member Pence asked if ground -floor commercial is required in the BD zone along 5' Avenue, or is it just an option the developer is choosing. Mr. Clugston answered that commercial is required on the ground floor along certain street fronts, including 5' Avenue. The applicant's solution is to develop live/work units, where there is a commercial use on the ground floor with residential above where the operator or owner of the business would live. Board Member Pence noted that some cities require the occupant of the ground -floor space to have a business license to establish the voracity of the business use so it doesn't become just another town home. He asked if the City would require a license. Mr. Clugston agreed that would be something to consider, as it makes sense to have the uses separated in some way. Board Member Monroe commented that the intent of the first -floor commercial requirement is to activate the space. Spaces that are occupied by businesses that do not invite the public in goes against the intent of the zoning. Mr. Clugston advised that any commercial use can be located on the ground floor in theory, and there is currently a broad range of businesses in the downtown area (office, service, retail, etc.). Mr. Chave added that, historically, live/work units are found back east. When the country was young, that was fairly typical. The use is not quite as common in the western United States because developers tended to build out because there was so much space. However, with the new urbanism that has occurred over the last two decades, live/work situations are becoming more common. They are seeing more demand or interest from people Planning Board Minutes February 10, 2021 Page 4 Packet Pg. 8 who want to live close to where they work. Board Member Monroe commented that if the live/work units must be owner - occupied, people would have to move if their businesses close down. Vice Chair Crank said she plans to seek feedback from a friend who owns live/work space in Seattle. His optician business is on the ground floor, and he lives above. Vice Chair Crank asked if the proposed amendment would override the ground floor commercial requirement in the BD1 zone. Mr. Clugston answered no. Chair Rosen asked if the Board would have an opportunity to weigh in on how the regulations associated with Unit Lot Subdivisions are enforced. Mr. Chave said the proposed amendment is related solely to the Unit Lot Subdivision provision, and is unrelated to the ground -floor commercial use or other zoning requirements. Board Member Cheung asked if the owner of a live/work unit could use the ground floor space for a business, but rent out the upper floor to someone else. Mr. Clugston noted that the City hasn't permitted any live/work unit development to date. The use and owner -occupancy requirement will need further thought. However, that is a separate question from the proposed amendment. Chair Rosen suggested the Board Members keep the questions raised in their minds as they become further informed at the public hearing on March 24'. In preparation for the hearing, he suggested that the Board provide feedback to staff about m whether the amendment should be geographically specific to the BD zone or opened up to a broader area. c Board Member Monroe voiced concern that the amendment might be more difficult to adopt if it is applied broadly. Mr. Clugston didn't believe that would be the case because Unit Lot Subdivisions are already allowed in many other parts of the City. The amendment would simply allow a developer to drop property lines down on a use that is already allowed in the zone. o a Q. Vice Chair Crank said she is open to consider a broader application of the amendment to other zones in the City, but she isn't Q ready to recommend its application in the BD zone at this time. Chair Rosen asked if the applicant could develop the same project under the current zoning if the amendment is denied, and Board Member Monroe answered that the project would not likely pencil out. Board Member Cloutier requested that staff provide the Board with a before and after map to illustrate the areas that would be impacted by the proposed amendment based on the two options. Chair Rosen asked if the Board could recommend denial of the amendment now. Mr. Chave answered no and explained that the Planning Board must conduct a public hearing before making a recommendation to the City Council. The Board indicated general consensus that the amendment should be presented in the broader context at the public hearing. The description for the hearing should make it clear how the amendment evolved, and that it is being sparked by a very specific request for a very specific property. BOARD MEMBER PENCE MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT MOVE TO A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE BASIS OF THE BROADER APPLICATION. BOARD MEMBER ROBLES SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPOINTMENT OF NEW STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE Chair Rosen asked about the process for appointing a new Student Representative to the Board. Mr. Chave said staff would advertise the position next week. He recalled that, in the past, the Board set up a subcommittee to interview the candidates and make a recommendation to the Board. The Board agreed to follow that process, with Board Member Robles taking the lead. Planning Board Minutes February 10, 2021 Page 5 Packet Pg. 9 2.A.a REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Rosen advised that the Board would discuss potential code amendments related to electrical vehicle charging stations on February 24'. The Planning Board Retreat will be on March loth, and the March 24' agenda will include two public hearings on potential code amendments related to Unit Lot Subdivisions and Outdoor Dining. Given the importance of the Housing Commission's work and affordable housing, in general, Board Member Pence suggested it would be helpful to invite a member if the Commission to provide an overview of the Housing Commission's report on February 241. Chair Rosen said he is also curious about their recommendations but noted that many of the items will be irrelevant to the Board's work. He suggested the Board should wait until the City Council has had an opportunity to discuss the recommendations and provide guidance. Board Member Pence said that if he was convinced the City Council would act expeditiously, he would support waiting. He said, as per the Planning Board's charter, the Board doesn't need to passively wait for the City Council and staff to throw issues at them. The Board has the ability to initiate issues that are important enough. Mr. Chave cautioned that the Housing Commission was specifically set up to advise the City Council, and the Board should be hesitant to get in the way of that process. Again, Board Member Pence commented that affordable housing is an important issue and he is nervous about the Board laying back and waiting for the City Council to take action. Chair Rosen asked the other Board Members for feedback on whether they should invite the Housing Commission to brief the Board on their work or wait until the City Council has provided further direction. Vice Chair Crank agreed that the Board should wait and not try to circumvent the City Council. Board Member Cheung agreed. Board Member Cloutier suggested that Chair Rosen meet with the City Council president to convey the Board's desire to tackle housing issues as soon as the Council provides direction. Vice Chair Crank noted that she and Chair Rosen have already reached out to the City Council President and Mayor Nelson, and the Council President has already prioritized a joint meeting between the Board and the City Council after the Housing Commission has presented its report. Board Member Monroe said he would support the Board reaching out to the Housing Commission for a briefing. Board Member Robles recalled that, when the Housing Commission was formed, the Planning Board reached out with an offer to work with them. He felt the Board should 0- continue to offer help. Q. Q Chair Rosen agreed to follow up with the City Council President, indicating the Board's interest and eagerness in helping M implement the Housing Commission's recommendations. He would also ask about the City Council's timeline and when the N Board might hear more about items that will be coming their way. o Vice Chair Crank asked when the Housing Commission would present its report to the City Council. Mr. Chave said the N a Housing Commission recently provided a brief summary of the report, and he believes the more detailed presentation will occur in March. He agreed it would be appropriate for Chair Rosen and Vice Chair Crank to speak with the Council CD President to get a feeling of where they are in the process and when the Planning Board will begin to actively work on E t implementation. � .r Q PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Rosen did not provide any additional comments. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Robles reported that he received correspondence from past Student Representative Connor Bryan, following up on his request for information about how the Board could make the Student Representative position more meaningful. Mr. Bryan provided some very good suggestions, and there may be an opportunity actually form a curriculum around the activity. With Chair Rosen's permission, he agreed to forward the comments to each of the Board members via the City's email. Board Member Pence suggested that the Board should work more closely with the student to make the experience better for him/her. Chair Rosen agreed that the Board should find ways to involve the Student Representative more. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Planning Board Minutes February 10, 2021 Page 6 Packet Pg. 10 3.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 03/10/2021 Housing Issues Background Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Rob Chave Background/History N/A. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative Housing is a key issue throughout our region. Included here for background are just two recent regional - level discussions on pertinent housing issues and approaches. Attachments: Attachment 1: HART Report and 5-Year Action Plan Attachment 2: Regional Housing Strategy Presentation Packet Pg. 11 Snohomish County, Washington d1i lot di I I Report and Five -Year Action Plan Published January 2020 tl. S44b HOUSING AFFORDABILITY REGIONAL TASKFORCE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..............................................................................................3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................6 INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................9 HART'S PROCESS..........................................................................................................11 Initial Work: Getting Grounded in the Data; Definitions and Process....................................11 Next Phase: Narrowing and Framing; Engaging Partners................................................13 Finishing up: Confirming the Action Plan items and reviewing this Report ...........................14 THECHALLENGE......................................................................................................16 Housing Affordability is Declining.................................................................................16 Low -Income Housing is Being Lost to Redevelopment and Resale.....................................19 Housing Demand Driven Primarily by Population Growth.................................................19 Housing Supply is Not Keeping Pace with Population Growth...........................................21 The "Missing Middle".................................................................................................22 Social Equity Implications..........................................................................................23 WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?............................................................................24 Local Government's Role in Addressing Housing Affordability...........................................24 Framework Goals for the Action Plan............................................................................25 PURPOSE AND EXPECTATIONS..............................................................................28 HART'S 5-YEAR HOUSING AFFORDABILITY ACTION PLAN......................................29 EarlyAction Items...................................................................................................30 Five -Year Action Items.............................................................................................33 CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................44 APPENDIX..................................................................................................................45 Appendix A: Summary of HART's Five -Year Action Plan..................................................45 AppendixB: Infographics..........................................................................................51 Appendix C: Contact Information................................................................................53 Packet Pg. 13 HART Members & Alternates Chair Dave Somers, Snohomish County Executive Co -Chair Nicola Smith, City of Lynnwood Mayor City of Arlington Barb Tolbert, Mayor Marc Hayes, Community & Economic Development Director City of Bothell Tom Agnew, Councilmember Liam Olsen, Councilmember City of Edmonds Dave Earling, Former Mayor Mike Nelson, Current Mayor Shane Hope, Development Services Director City of Everett Cassie Franklin, Mayor Nick Harper, Deputy Mayor City of Granite Falls Matt Hartman, Mayor Brent Kirk, City Manager City of Lynnwood Nicola Smith, Mayor Art Ceniza, Assistant City Administrator City of Marysville Jon Nehring, Mayor Gloria Hirashima, City Administrator City of Mill Creek Brian Holtzclaw, Mayor Pro Tern Stephanie Vignal, Councilmember City of Monroe Geoffrey Thomas, Mayor Ben Swanson, Community Development Director City of Mountlake Terrace Kyoko Matsumoto Wright, Mayor Bryan Wahl, Councilmember City of Mukilteo Jennifer Gregerson, Mayor City of Snohomish John Kartak, Mayor Steve Dana, Councilmember Snohomish County Dave Somers, Executive Nate Nehring, Councilmember Stephanie Wright, Councilmember Yorik Stevens-Wajda, Legislative Analyst Town of Darrington Dan Rankin, Mayor Town of Woodway Mike Quinn, Councilmember Brian Bogen, Councilmember Packet Pg. 14 Workgroup Participants Alliance for Housing Affordability Chris Collier City of Bothell Mike Kattermann City of Everett Allan Giffen Becky McCrary City of Lynnwood Ashley Winchell Julie Moore Cocoon House Joe Alonzo Community Services Advisory Council Jennifer Bereskin-Delia Mindy Woods Compass Health Tamera Loesch DevCo, LLC Jack Hunden Domestic Violence Services Vicci Hilty Everett Gospel Mission John Hull Everett Housing Authority Ashley Lommers-Johnson Tony Nabors Helping Humanity USA Brenda Bolanos-Ivory Homage Senior Services Steve McGraw Homes and Hope Community Land Trust c c Kim Toskey Y Housing Authority of Snohomish County U M Janinna Attick ; Kristen Cane N Duane Leonard Housing Consortium of Everett and = Snohomish County Mark Smith Housing Hope Fred Safstrom Interfaith Association Jim Dean Pioneer Human Services Joseph Nagel Realtor's Association Cami Morrill Snohomish County Council Nicole Gorle Snohomish County Executive Office Alessandra Durham* Kent Patton* Snohomish County Facilities Management Cherie Hutchins Packet Pg. 15 Workgroup Participants cont. Snohomish County Human Services Jackie Anderson' Kelsey Bang -Olsen* Mary Jane (MJ) Brell Vujovic* Tina Ilvoen Ken Katahira Nate Marti* Snohomish County Planning and Development Services Barb Mock* Snohomish County Public Works Randy Blair Brook Chesterfield Snohomish County Transportation Coalition Marianna Hanefeld U.S. Representative Rick Larsen Lindsey Webb * Convener of Workgroups Lead Staff Snohomish County Jackie Anderson Kelsey Bang -Olsen Robei Broadous Mary Jane (MJ) Brell Vujovic Alessandra Durham Tina Ilvoven Ken Katahira Nate Marti Wendy Roullier Facilitator Karen Reed Consulting, LLC Karen Reed Packet Pg. 16 The advantages of a strong economy and beautiful natural environment have long drawn new residents to our region. New residents make our communities more vibrant and create more opportunity for all. Our advantages have also resulted in challenges. After decades of population growth, the pressures on our housing market are particularly visible. The rate at which housing units are being constructed in Snohomish County is simply not keeping pace with our growth in population, and most of the housing coming online is unaffordable to those at moderate- or low -incomes. Today, a third of the households in Snohomish County are "cost burdened" —they pay more than thirty percent of their income on housing and utilities. These households exist at all income levels. A third of all Snohomish County households are low-income, which we define as households earning 60% or less of Area Median Income: housing affordable to these families will generally not be produced without some type of government intervention or subsidy. Despite this, we see examples of progress. Local nonprofit and government housing agencies are creating and preserving housing affordable to low- and moderate -income households in several communities across Snohomish County. The state legislature has granted cities and counties more tools and revenue options to respond to the need for greater housing affordability. Partners are sharing ideas and experience all across our region. As local government acquires more knowledge and tools to respond to the challenge of housing affordability, the pressure for us to do so is growing. The Snohomish County Housing Affordability Regional Taskforce (HART) was created by County Executive Dave Somers to bring together elected leaders from cities across Snohomish County and the County Council, on the belief that the housing affordability challenge before us is intensifying, and is best addressed collaboratively and proactively. Packet Pg. 17 Y HOUSING AFFORDABILITY REGIONAL TASKFORCE i)rt sets forth recommendations to our fellow city and county officials in Snohomish County il of a Five -Year Housing Affordability Action Plan (Action Plan). The Action Pla.. what we believe are the most promising steps for local governments to pursue now and ovs. .Cew years. GoO easehousffordability at all income levels Promote greater housing growth and diversity of housing types at all levels of The Action• " affordability and improve " •"EarlyAction" items jobs/housing connection which HARTor - • " will launch in 2020, • 37 other actionto support our • goals: Identify and preserve existing housing at risk of rapid rent escalation or redevelopment • •• balancing this with the need ■ for more density Goals for mAk oving HART forward together Implement outreach and education programs for use countywide and by individual jurisdictions to raise awareness of housing affordability Increase housing density on challenges and support for action transit corridors and/or in job centers, while also working Track progress and support ongoing to create additional housing regional collaborations across the entire county t Al 2020 Early Action items include: 1. Encourage cities to enter into cooperation agreements with the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) and Everett Housing Authority. 2. Implement the state sales tax shift to local governments for up to 20 years to fund low- income housing authorized by HB 1406, and adopted by Legislature in 2019. 3. Lobby for changes in state and federal law that will enable more consolidated and streamlined funding to support low-income housing. 4. Review and consider recommendations from existing toolkits to engage communities around the issue of housing affordability. 5. Foster community conversations about density. 6. Engage private sector stakeholders — large employers, others — in helping to find solutions to our housing affordability challenge. 7. Confirm and support an ongoing structure for regional collaboration around production of housing affordable across the income spectrum. 8. Track progress on the Action Plan. HART began its work in May of 2019. The effort was informed by more than forty local partners who provided us with their insights and recommendations as to the ways local government can help support housing affordability across the income spectrum. Our Action Plan is a first step. HART plans to continue this work in 2020 and we want our Action Plan to evolve over time as we learn from future experience and consider new approaches and solutions. The challenge of housing affordability is not about "other people." It is a problem facing our own families and friends; our grown children trying to make it on their own; our neighbors; people we interact with every day as we shop, pick up our kids from school, take an aging parent to the doctor, or join in community events. The good news is there is ample evidence —real examples throughout Snohomish County, the Puget Sound, and nationally —that we can maintain and evolve vibrant, welcoming, livable, safe communities at the same time as we work to meet the housing affordability needs of all our residents. Through collaboration among city and county government officials in Snohomish County, we can make progress on housing affordability. The problem is urgent and becoming more critical each year. We hope each City Council and the County Council will consider the items in our Action Plan and take steps in 2020 and each year thereafter to address this challenge and ensure a better future for our communities. c 0 m a� 0 Cn c N 0 Packet Pg. 19 The advantages of a strong economy and beautiful natural environment have long drawn new residents to our region. New residents make our communities more vibrant and create more opportunity for all. Our advantages have also resulted in challenges. After decades of population growth, the pressures on our housing market are particularly visible. We have all seen lower priced housing in our communities torn down and replaced by higher priced development. Headlines about rapidly escalating home prices are a daily feature of life here. We wonder who can afford these high- priced homes and what happened to those families that moved out. We hear from our children's teacher, our bank teller, our local firefighters about how far they drive every morning to get to their jobs because the nearest home they can afford is many miles and half a dozen cities away. Despite this, we see examples of progress. Local nonprofit and government housing agencies are creating and preserving housing affordable to low- and moderate - income households in several communities across Snohomish County. Many of our cities have implemented multi -family tax exemption programs to incentivize construction of new apartments, or have zoning in place to allow accessory dwelling units in single- � family zones. The state legislature this year enacted new funding and (W1,01— Eother options as well as mandates for local government to respond to the housing challenge. 2 Chapter 36.70A RCW. Partners are sharing ideas and experience all across our region. As local government acquires more knowledge and tools to respond to the challenge of housing affordability, the pressure for us to do so is growing. Local elected officials have long grappled with the challenges of growth. The State Growth Management Act2 (GMA), enacted in 1990, charged local government to plan for addressing a variety of quality of life issues in the face of rapid population growth including: ensuring housing is available at a full range of affordability; preserving agricultural land and rural areas; providing open space and recreation opportunities; ensuring transportation system development is coordinated —and more. 3 Perhaps one of the most challenging goals of the GMA has been ensuring housing affordability. Population growth has exacerbated demand for housing and the housing supply pipeline has simply not kept pace. Making matters more challenging, local government efforts to respond to housing affordability challenges —whether by considering approval of new multi -family zones or permitting new housing projects affordable to those with very limited incomes —are often subject to strong pushback by community members. The Snohomish County Housing Affordability Regional Taskforce (HART) was created by County Executive Dave Somers to bring together elected leaders from cities across Snohomish County and the County Council on the belief that the housing affordability challenge before us is intensifying and is best addressed collaboratively and proactively. 3 GMA's thirteen planning goals are set forth at RCW 36.70A.020. Packet Pg. 20 A lack of housing affordability impacts residents at all income levels in Snohomish County. HART seeks to alleviate this challenge for all residents. We define housing affordability in a manner commonly used both regionally and nationally. Specifically, housing is considered affordable to a household if no more than 30% of that household's income is spent on housing costs including utilities. This is a simple metric, applicable at all household income levels. A household is considered "cost -burdened" if it pays more than 30% of its income on housing and utilities. When we refer in this report to "housing affordability" we mean housing that can be rented or purchased by a household without being cost -burdened. This is a challenge for Snohomish County households across the entire income spectrum. But there are greater challenges for households at lower income levels: without direct government support or incentives, the private sector housing market is unable to deliver housing affordable to households making less than 60% or below of Area Median Income (AMI). Government incentives are needed in some markets to ensure creation of housing affordable to those making 80% or less of AMI. In this report, when we refer to "low-income housing" we are referring to housing affordable to households at 60% or less of AMI. Fully one-third of households in Snohomish County are low-income by this definition. This report sets forth recommendations to our fellow city and county officials in Snohomish County, in the form of a Five -Year Housing Affordability Action Plan (Action Plan). The Action Plan includes what we believe are the most promising steps for local government action over the next few years. The Action Plan includes eight (8) "Early Action" items, and 37 other action items to support 5 framework goals. The Action Plan is presented in the body of this report and is summarized in Appendix A. The Action Plan is the starting point for a much longer journey. It should evolve over time as we learn from our experiences and adapt to our community's needs. We are recommending annual reviews of progress and consideration of new ideas. The Action Plan is premised on the understanding that while each of our communities is unique, if we adopt a common commitment to promote housing affordability, we will collectively be better positioned to meet this challenge. We hope our Action Plan will spark increased engagement on housing affordability by every city council and the Snohomish County Council. In the following sections, this report outlines HART's process, describes the housing affordability challenge, and the role of cities and the county in responding to that challenge. Finally, our Action Plan is presented. Packet Pg. 21 HART was launched by Snohomish County Executive Dave Somers in the spring of 2019. All mayors were invited to participate, as were representatives from the County Council, and Tribal nations. Ultimately, we had active participation from 14 of 20 cities, two County Councilmembers, and the County Executive.4 Most members had a designated alternate, either another elected official or senior staff member. We elected Executive Somers and Lynnwood Mayor Nicola Smith to serve as HART's Co -Chairs. We were supported by a team of county staff and an independent facilitator. Our first meeting was on May 31, and we met eight times between May 2019 and January 2020. HART's meetings were open to the public, and all our meeting agendas, minutes, and materials are posted online at I iuus.iitPi iui i iisi IUUUI nyvvd.uuy/5422/HAR i . We provided a means for interested parties to provide written comments to HART (either at meetings or online); all comments received were shared with HART. 4 As the tribal governments did not elect to participate, our recommendations here are directed to County and city governments. HART's process has provided each of us with additional education on the subject of housing affordability. We have heard from over forty partners, reviewed dozens of local, regional and national reports, and deliberated on over a hundred concepts to promote housing affordability. Although the voting members of HART are all elected officials or their representatives, we sought to maximize input from experts on housing affordability issues and we are deeply grateful for their commitment to sharing their knowledge and advice with us. They have greatly informed our thinking. Initial Work: Getting Grounded in the Data; Definitions and Process At our first meeting on May 31, 2019, we quickly affirmed that housing affordability is an extremely important issue for nearly all our communities. We further identified three core challenges which became the foundation on which we built our work: • What policy and regulatory actions will help? • What funding options are available? • How can we be more effective at community outreach and engagement? Packet Pg. 22 We affirmed that our mission statement is not limited to consideration of low-income housing (as defined above —housing affordable to households making 60% or less of AMI), rather, we wanted to identify recommendations supporting housing affordability at all income levels, for all our residents. As set forth above, housing is considered affordable to a household if that household pays no more than 30% of their income on housing including utilities. Our first three meetings served to develop a common understanding of the housing affordability challenge in Snohomish County. We heard from many local partners including private for -profit developers, realtors, and nonprofit and governmental housing developers and operators. We asked them to share with us what they need from local government to be successful. These were informative presentations, highlighting many common themes. We also heard from local government planners about the primary activities of cities and the County in supporting housing affordability, including local accomplishments and challenges. Snohomish County staff provided HART with numerous reports on housing affordability, including taskforce reports from neighboring counties, toolkits, and reports from a variety of agencies. We adopted rules to guide our process. Each member of HART had one vote. Our goal was to reach a collaborative consensus on what to recommend to our fellow local government officials. Under our rules, recommendations included in this report had to be supported by not less than 60% of us voting, and consensus support required support of at least 75% or more of us voting on an issue. This final report required the approval of 60% of us in number. We agreed that short minority statements could be submitted by any HART members in strong opposition to any aspect of this report. Our initial meetings generated over one hundred ideas to increase housing affordability in Snohomish County. The ideas came both from local stakeholder presentations and the reports from other agencies. Concepts were sorted into three categories, matching the three core challenges first identified: • Policy and regulatory actions; • funding options; • outreach and community engagement Staff then created a "screening ballot" for us incorporating all the ideas on the table. The purpose of the ballot was to determine which ideas we collectively saw as most promising for further consideration. We reviewed the screening ballot at our third meeting and each of us independently filled it out after the meeting. We were asked to rate each concept on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being "potentially very promising, we should definitely explore further", 3 being "open to exploring/neutral"; and 1 being "extremely problematic (politically and/or operationally), not a good use of time to explore further." 10 Packet Pg. 23 Next Phase: Narrowing and Framing; Engaging Partners We reviewed the combined results of the initial screening ballot at our fourth meeting. Approximately half of the concepts reviewed (about fifty in total) received an overall average support rating of 3.5 or higher on a scale of one to five. We agreed to forward all of the highly rated ideas for further review. We also voted to add a handful of additional items that, while not highly rated in the screening exercise, were considered by a majority of us to be important to continue to explore. We agreed to create three stakeholder workgroups—one around each of the three core challenge areas. The workgroups were asked to provide us additional information on each of the highly rated concepts using a common briefing template. Our staff team reached out to a wide array of agencies and partners and asked for volunteers to serve on these stakeholder groups. We were gratified by the response: over forty individuals agreed to participate in the workgroups. HART also invited each workgroup to submit additional templates for ideas that they felt were important for us to consider but did not receive a high rating from HART members. The briefing template used by the workgroups sought the following information for each concept in three pages or less: • Potential impact on housing affordability challenge (high/medium/low) • Ease of implementation (easy/moderate/difficult) • Is the idea targeted to increase housing demand or supply? What income level(s) are assisted? • Does the concept promote housing preservation or construction? • Is it about advocacy or community engagement? • Where, geographically, would the idea be most effectively applied? Countywide? Specific locations? • Implementation steps, supporting tactics and strategies • Community engagement considerations • Suggested lead agency and key partners The workgroups deliberated over the last half of the summer, from late July through early September. They combined similar ideas into single templates and incorporated a handful of new ideas into their work that we had not forwarded. They delivered 46 templates to us, over 150 pages in total. Many of the templates addressed multiple related concepts. Each template is available online at www.snohomishcountVwa.gov/5425 in the documents presented at meeting number five. We highly commend the workgroups for the information they provided us and we encourage all our peers to review these briefings. 6 Our fifth meeting was dedicated to hearing from the workgroups. The presentations focused on thematic priorities and were extremely helpful in shaping our thinking about the Action Plan. At this same meeting, we discussed and identified five proposed framework goals to shape the Action Plan. We were very fortunate to have the opportunity to then share our initial findings and these proposed framework goals with other local elected officials at the Snohomish County 6 Most, but not all of the ideas briefed in the templates are included in the Action Plan. Packet Pg. 24 Tomorrow (SCT) Annual Assembly on September 25th which was dedicated to the subject of housing affordability. Finishing up: Confirming the Action Plan items and reviewing this Report Our sixth meeting focused on reviewing the input from SCT attendees. Comments received confirmed general support for our framework goals and offered many ideas for how to pursue these goals, several of which are included in our Action Plan. We then discussed in more detail the structure for the Action Plan and previewed a second screening ballot, which sought our recommendations as to: • What concepts should remain in the 5-Year Action Plan and which should be removed? • Are there "Early Action" items we should pursue in 2020? • Are there proposals to call out for "Joint Action" pursuing either as a single, unified strategy, or in alignment through individual jurisdiction action? • How strongly do we support each item? We completed the second screening exercise independently. When we reconvened for the seventh meeting on November 7, 2019, we reviewed the combined results and, through an extended discussion and series of votes, made several adjustments to the list of items to be included in the Action Plan. We found that we shared overwhelming support to retain nearly all the concepts under discussion in the Action Plan and agreed to consolidate closely related items where appropriate. We also identified a set of eight "Early Action" items we agreed should be launched in 2020. There were three exceptions to this strong support, items on which we were divided: (1) supporting mandatory inclusionary zoning activity; (2) moving the urban growth boundary; and (3) exploring a regional housing levy. There were strong advocates on both sides of these three issues, particularly the last two. We want to describe briefly below the core points made in multiple HART meetings regarding moving the urban growth boundary and proposing a regional housing levy. First, with respect to moving the urban growth boundary, several HART members believed that this would be an important step for housing affordability by making more land available for housing. On the other side, several members felt that such newly available land would likely be in areas at the outer edges of the urban area, would be converted to high end single-family homes, and would exacerbate the congestion on our roads as those homeowners would be likely to commute to far -away job centers. The question of a regional housing levy also had strong support and opposition. There were members who observed that an additional property tax levy would add additional cost burden to all households and were not inclined to support exploring this type of tax measure. Others noted that they believed a levy was the biggest step the county residents could take to inject significant new funds into the construction of low-income housing, that levy proceeds could be highly leveraged by other dollars, and that we had identified relatively few funding measures in c 0 as m a� Cn 2 c N 0 Packet Pg. 25 the Action Plan. HART agrees that new funding is needed in order to be able to significantly expand the supply of low-income housing. The Action Plan includes recommendations to explore additional funding sources for low- income housing and to jointly advocate in support of additional funding from the state and federal government. About a month before our eighth and final meeting, we were each sent a draft version of this report and the Action Plan for review and comment. Our last meeting confirmed direction to finalize this report and the Action Plan. Packet Pg. 26 Conditions Impacting Housing Affordability in Snohomish County Before presenting the Action Plan, it is important to outline the housing affordability challenge we face. This challenge is most simply explained through the basics of demand and supply and how the mismatch between them impacts housing affordability. Housing Affordability is Declining What we have been experiencing for several years is the inability of the housing market to create housing units either in number or at a price that are affordable to most of the households in Snohomish County. As noted in the introduction to this report, we define housing affordability based on the percentage of income a household pays for housing costs including utilities. Housing is considered "affordable" if the household living in (or seeking to rent/buy) a home is paying no more than 30% of their income on housing costs including utilities. Those paying more than this 30% are "cost -burdened." Households at all income levels may be cost -burdened, but for those with less income the trade-offs between paying for housing and other essentials —food, medicine, transportation —become more dire. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that in 2018, some 98,999 households in Snohomish County — thirty three percent (33%) of all households — were paying 30% or more of their income on housing costs. 7 Households at lower income levels are much more likely to be "cost -burdened." Despite considerable attention being drawn to housing issues, affordability has significantly worsened in recent years. Growth in income has greatly lagged the growth in housing costs. Data for Snohomish County from 2010 and 2017 illustrates this, as shown in the table below: Snohomish County, WA 2010 2017 % Increase 2-bedroom apartment rent $ 901 $ 1,347 49.5% Average single-family home price $400,000 $544,449 36% Median household income $ 66,300 $ 78,020 Rent Reasonableness Survey, Dupree and Scott; U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 2013-2017 17.7% U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Table S2503, 2018 1-Year Estimate Packet Pg. 27 Renters are particularly impacted by the housing affordability challenge. Renters in our county tend to be of lower income than homeowners: 48.2% of renters (versus 29.5% of homeowners) made less than $75,000 in household income in the last year.$ As a result, renters on average experience a higher incidence of being cost -burdened than home -owners. An estimated 95,045 Snohomish County households are renters —a third of all households in the County.9 In 2019, fair market rent for a two - bedroom apartment averaged $1,899 per month in Snohomish County. To afford that and pay no more than 30% of their income on housing and utilities, a household would need to make $36.52 an hour, or $75,960 a year. This means that nearly half (48.2%) of all households in Snohomish County cannot afford an average two -bedroom apartment offered at fair market rent. Those making minimum wage ($12/hr.) would need to work three full-time jobs to afford an average two -bedroom apartment in Snohomish County. The challenge goes beyond our neighbors making minimum wage. Residents in most types of occupations struggle with housing costs in Snohomish County. Bank tellers, retail clerks, firefighters or police officers, construction workers, community and social service workers, to name a few, typically cannot afford a two -bedroom apartment in Snohomish County without spending more than 30% of their income towards housing. In fact, out of the total 25 occupation categories reviewed by the U.S. Census Bureau, only five (5) of them had median annual earnings high enough to afford a 2-bedroom apartment in Snohomish County: • architecture and engineering; • computer and mathematical jobs; • health diagnosing and treating practitioners; • management occupations; • life, physical and social science occupations.10 We know that the cost of single-family homes varies significantly across the County: • Mukilteo, Edmonds, and Mill Creek consistently had the highest single-family home sale prices in the County over the last 20 years, in 2019 ranging from $791,250 in Mukilteo to $653,677 in Mill Creek. At the other end of the spectrum, Granite Falls, Arlington, Stanwood, and Marysville have had the least expensive housing in recent years of all cities in the County. In Granite Falls, single-family home sale price averaged $308,663 in 2019.11 While there may be greater affordability in some areas, there are typically longer commutes attendant with those more affordable homes. In addition, as noted above, few households can afford the average price of a single-family home today in Snohomish County. $ U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey, Table S2506, 2013-2017 5-Year Estimates. s November 2019 data. https://reports.nlihc.org/oor/washington 10 U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey, Table S2412, 2013-2017 5-Year Estimates 11 Snohomish County Assessor's Office. 17 Packet Pg. 28 What we are consistently seeing is that the private housing market does not create housing units affordable to those making less than 60% of AMI without direct government support, and that government incentives are needed in our housing market at higher income levels, up to 80% of AMI. The costs of construction materials, labor, land acquisition, and permitting are simply too high to pencil out at lower per unit prices that will be affordable to these households. As noted above, households at 60% of AMI or below comprise one third of all households in the County. While we are concerned about ensuring housing is affordable to all residents, those at the lower income levels are particularly dependent on local, state, and federal government action to directly fund or otherwise provide incentives in support of private developers and nonprofit housing agencies. The chart shown in Figure 1 below displays current data on housing demand by level of income. In addition to showing the dramatically greater need for housing at lower price points, this chart tells us that for no household to spend more than 30% of their income towards housing, Snohomish County would need 127,215 additional housing units by 2040—more than 6,300 new units each year. In comparison, in the last three years, 7,938 housing units have come online in Snohomish County, at a rate of about 2,650 per year. Housing would need to be built at slightly more than double the current rate to meet the projected housing affordability needs. These new housing units also need to be affordable to households across the income spectrum. The vast majority of cost -burdened households today have incomes of 80% of AMI and below. We note that the projected need of 127,215 additional housing units is based on a rough straight-line calculation on current conditions, and we hope that with additional effort both our data inputs, and the results, can improve. 0-30% AMI 31-50% AMI 51-80% AMI 81-100% AMI 100% AMI Rental: Rental: Rental: Rental or Home and above Ownership: Government Government Government Market Rent & support needed support needed incentives needed Permissive zoning Home in all markets in many markets in some markets or zoning flexibility Ownership needed in some Home Ownership: markets Subsidy or Incentives needed in many markets Total Current Need 29,425 23,955 17,955 9,465 10,285 91,085 Growth to 2040 11.672 9.502 7.122 3.754 4.080 36.130 Subtotal 41,097 33,457 25,077 13,219 14,365 127,215 Figure 1: Snohomish County Cost -burdened Household Projections* Packet Pg. 29 Low -Income Housing is Being Lost to Redevelopment and Resale Another important part of the housing supply challenge is the significant, ongoing loss of existing low- income housing due to redevelopment or resale, typically of multi -family complexes. With housing demand as strong as it is, multi -family housing owners find it profitable to sell to investors, who logically look to maximize their profit by increasing rents or tearing down existing housing and rebuilding. The Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University published a national study looking at a variety o of housing trends. It found that there has been a 50-67% decline in low rent housing in Snohomish Y County between 2011 and 2017. Community partners presented several troubling examples of these m situations in Snohomish County to HART. a� Maintaining existing housing is significantly cheaper than building new housing. In terms of least cost T options to promote housing affordability, preservation of low-income housing should be a major focus for action. 0 x Housing Demand Driven Primarily by Population Growth There are several factors impacting housing demand, including population growth, household size, incomes, credit, transportation access, and populations with special needs.12 The most significant of these factors is population growth. Snohomish County has seen a dramatic increase in population in recent years and this promises to accelerate over the next twenty years. In addition to new residents moving here from outside Washington, we are seeing population growth from those pushed out of King County and elsewhere in Puget Sound looking for housing that is more affordable. Between 2010 and 2019, the County experienced a 14.77% increase in population.13 Between 2020 and 2040, the population is expected to grow an additional 26%, from an estimated 818,700 in 2019 to a forecast population of 1,058,113 in 2040.14 N 818,700 0 0 1,058,113 N A 26% growth *Figure 1: Snohomish County Cost -burdened Household Projections. U.S. Housing and Urban Development Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy Data, 2012-2016 estimates; OFM Growth Management Act population projections for counties, medium series. Image from Freepik. 12 Housing Background Paper, p. 4, Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), June 2018. This background paper provides considerable detail on the components of housing demand and supply in the Puget Sound region. 13 Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM). 2019 Population Trends. Retrieved from https://www.ofm.wa.gov/sites/default/files/public/dataresearch/pop/aprill/ofm april1 poptrends.pdf 14 Ibid. 10 Packet Pg. 30 3.A.a Population Growth in Snohomish County 1,200,000 1,058,113 1,000,000 955,910 841,998 800,000 713,335 6 600,000 606,024 465,652 400,000 337,720 265,236 200,000 172,199 59,209 67 690 78 86 88,754111,580 23.950 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 —Population Estimates Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) Household size also impacts the number of housing units needed to serve the population. Nearly a quarter of the County population currently lives alone, slightly less than the national or statewide average.15 1 in 4 15 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Table S1101, 2013-2017 5-Year Estimates. Packet Pg. 31 Of course, not all households have the same purchasing power when it comes to housing or other needs. Household Area Median Income (AMI) in Snohomish County in 2017 was $78,020.11 Nearly 20% of Snohomish County households made less than $35,000 a year. In all, about a third of all households are at 60% of AMI or below. About the same number — 36% — have incomes in excess of $100,000 a year. 2017 Household Income Snohomish County, WA Household Income % of Households at this income level Less than $10,000 4.30% $10,000 to $14,999 2.70% $15,000 to $24,999 6.20% $25,000 to $34,999 6.50% $35,000 to $49,999 10.60% $50,000 to $74,999 17.90% $75,000 to $99,999 15.60% $100,000 to $149,999 20.10% $150,000 to $199,999 9.00% $200,000 or more 7.30% Census Bureau Table S1901, 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates To meet our goal of ensuring housing affordability for all residents we need to promote housing construction at all price points. But as noted, the private housing market, is simply not able without interventions from government or other actors, to produce units affordable to those at 60% of AMI or below. This means that about one-third of Snohomish County households are in need of housing that will not be produced without governmental or nonprofit interventions of some sort. Housing Supply is Not Keeping Pace with Population Growth Factors impacting the number of housing units coming on or offline each year include the availability of land, zoning, the cost of construction, and capacity of the housing construction sector.17 The rate at which housing units are being constructed in Snohomish County is not keeping pace with our growth in population. In the last two years (2016-2018), the number of units added was 61 % less than the growth of households in Snohomish County.18 The supply gap looks less extreme over the longer term, but still is significant: in the 2010-2018 period overall, the number of housing units added was 7% less than the number of added households. During the prior decade, between 2001 and 2009, 4% fewer housing units were added as compared to the growth in the number of households.19 16 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Table S1901, 2013-2017 5-Year Estimates. 17 Puget Sound Regional Council. (June 2018). Vision 2050. Retrieved from httns://www.r)src.ora/sites/defaulVfiles/vision 2050 housina backaround oar)er.odf 18 Office of Financial Management 19 Ibid. 01 Packet Pg. 32 Statewide, housing construction began to decline precipitously at the onset of the recession in 2007 and did not pick up again until 2013.20 We have still not built our way out of that shortfall, which has contributed to the number of cost -burdened households.21 We have experienced a shortage of housing for sale for nearly a decade in Snohomish County. A representative from the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish County (MBAKS) met with us, and shared that MBAKS considers a healthy real estate market —in terms of balancing supply and c demand— to have about four to six months of inventory for sale at any point in time. Multiple Listing Y Service (MLS) data for Snohomish County from 2012-2017 indicates a steady downward trend here: there was slightly less than four months availability in 2012 and 0.6 months availability in 2017. This number has improved somewhat since 2017—in September 2019, MLS reported 1.72 months of ; inventory in Snohomish County22 —but still falls short of the MBA's definition of "healthy." Some real N estate professionals fear that this chronic shortage of housing may be our "new normal." 23 0 The "Missing Middle" Our existing housing supply is skewed toward single-family homes which are affordable to fewer households than other types of housing. The 2017 U.S. census reported Snohomish County's inventory of housing that year was composed of 65% single-family detached homes, 30% multi -family, 5% manufactured homes. We do not have countywide statistics to tell us the types of new housing being built across all jurisdictions combined (or the price point of that housing), but in unincorporated Snohomish County in 2017, 70.5% of all housing permits issued were for single-family homes.24 We are not seeing sufficient growth of "missing middle" housing. "Middle" housing includes housing of various types other than single-family homes: duplexes, townhomes, and smaller scale multifamily. With appropriate zoning in place, and in some cases additional incentives, the private sector housing market will produce this type of housing. This housing tends to be more affordable than single-family homes. 20 OFM; Puget Sound Regional Council. (June 2018). Vision 2050: Housing Background Paper. Retrieved from https://www.psrc.org/sites/default/files/vision 2050 housing background paper.pdf 21 Cost -burdened households are those that spend 30% or more of their income on housing (including utilities). There are cost - burdened households at all income levels. 22 Northwest Multiple Listing Service. (2019). Snohomish County. Retrieved from https://www.nwmis.com/I ibrary/CorporateContent/statistics/SCBreakouts.pdf 21 Seattle Post Intelligencer. Zosha Millman. (November 2019). Northwest Real Estate Experts: Inventory Shortages the 'New Normal.' Retrieved from https://www.seattlepi.com/realestate/article/Northwest-real-estate-Inventory-Seattle-home-price-14829873.php 24Washington State Employment Security Department. (May 2019). Snohomish County Profile. Retrieved from https://esd.wa.gov/labormarketinfo/county-profiles/snohomish Packet Pg. 33 D�ESHED SINGLE-FAMILY ; UPLEx FOURPLEX APARTMENT l0p� SfN — M1S51NCa M avric03 As noted by the Puget Sound Regional Council: "Middle" housing can help promote housing diversity, give people greater housing choices, and produce urban densities that support walkable communities, local retail and commercial services, and efficient public transit. Yet availability of these housing options is often few and far in between in many communities, hence the term "missing middle" housing. I The average single-family home price in Snohomish County in 2019 was $544,559. The Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) estimates that the 2017 area median income in Snohomish County was $81,779, somewhat higher than the U.S. Census Bureau estimate of $78,020.25 Applying either data point, the vast majority of households in Snohomish County cannot afford a single-family home with an average price of $544,559. Assuming a 3.64% interest rate for a 30-year fixed loan and a 10 percent down payment, the monthly mortgage payment would be approximately $3,129—amounting to 46-48 percent of the household median income in Snohomish County, which is well above the cost -burdened threshold. A household would need to earn at least $125,160 annually to afford this payment housing. 26 Facilitating construction of middle and home ownership in Snohomish County. Social Equity Implications without spending more than 30% of their income on housing is a key way we can advance both affordability Rapidly rising housing costs result in displacement of households with lower incomes to areas farther from job centers which are typically less well served by services and transportation systems. As a result of both historic and current practices, communities of color and historically underserved communities are disproportionately impacted by these trends. While we are seeking to improve affordability for all residents, it is important to be mindful of this aspect of our housing affordability challenge. Image Source: Opticos Design, Inc. 26 OFM. (2019). Median Household Income Estimated by County. Retrieved from https://www.ofm.wa.gov/sites/default/files/public/dataresearch/economy/median household income estimates.pdf; U.S. Census Bureau Table S1901, 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates. 26 Zillow Mortgage Calculator. Retrieved from https://www.ziIlow.com/mortgage-calculator/ and https://www.zillow.com/mortgage- rates/wa/#/location. Mortgage estimate includes principal, interest, taxes, and insurance. Packet Pg. 34 Local Government's Role on Addressing Housing Affordability Where do we, as local government officials, best direct our energies in response to the housing affordability challenge? Cities and counties can establish plans, programs, goals and funding sources to support housing affordability, but have often relied on partners in the private, nonprofit, and public sectors to create new housing and to operate housing for households with very low- 0 incomes and/or those with special needs, to meet these publicly established priorities. That said, Y local government is a critical part of the housing affordability equation. Cities and counties have broad authority to implement an array of actions that can positively or negatively impact housing affordability. Our capabilities track directly to the three core challenges we have identified, and around which HART has focused its work: N c 0 Policy and Regulatory Actions = Cities and the county can promote the creation of more housing units through regulatory policy, primarily changes in zoning. We can adjust regulatory policy and rules to reduce the cost of new housing construction by revising permit requirements and fees. We can take steps in support of preservation of existing low-income housing by identifying housing at risk of redevelopment and working with public or nonprofit partners to purchase the housing and thereby decouple it from market pressures. • Funding We can provide direct funding support to nonprofit housing providers, for capital or operating costs. We can advocate for more support for these providers from the federal and state government. • Community Outreach and Engagement We can engage with residents and community members around the options for how growth is accommodated in our communities. We can also seek to engage more private sector partners in this housing challenge. Importantly under state law, local government can deploy a broader array of strategies in support of the low-income housing, both in terms of providing direct funding and targeted policy/regulatory actions, than it can for market rate housing. Packet Pg. 35 Framework Goals for the Action Plan What we choose to do in support of housing affordability should be based on the goals we are trying to achieve and an understanding of the housing market. As noted, our mission is to identify actions that can help us accelerate our ability to meet the housing affordability needs of all county residents and set a foundation for continued success through 2050. Building from the three core challenges, HART has identified five framework goals in support of this mission. Our first three framework goals are goals to increase housing affordability at all income levels: Because of our broader authority to intervene in housing affordable to households with lower incomes, we divide this goal into two sub -goals: Packet Pg. 36 HOUSING AFFORDABILITY , REGIONAL TASKFORCE GOAL 2 Identify and preserve existing low-income housing at risk of rapid rent escalation or redevelopment, balancing this with the need for more density There has been a dramatic loss of the most affordable units of housing in Snohomish County in recent years. Preserving remaining housing affordable to households with lower incomes is much less expensive than building new housing. That said, we are mindful that creating large numbers of new housing units will require redevelopment and infill. These competing demands must be balanced. GOAL 3 Increase housing density along transit corridors and/or in job centers, while also working to create additional housing across the entire county There are dual benefits from locating housing near transit and job centers in that we both house people and reduce the strain on our congested roads. We realize as well that the need is such that more housing must be built across the county. Y HOUSING AFFORDABILITY , REGIONAL TASKFORCE GOAL 4 Develop and implement outreach and education programs for use countywide and by individual cities to raise awareness of housing affordability challenges and support for action There is no substitute or shortcut for effective public engagement around difficult issues. There are toolkits that provide samples of best practices in engagement on housing issues that we can each utilize and refine. We believe that effective engagement of residents and partners is necessary to help find the best path ahead for each city and community around the issue of housing affordability. GOAL 5 Track our progress and support ongoing regional collaborations Improving housing affordability is an evolving challenge that will continue for the foreseeable future. The more we can engage on this challenge together, learn from each other, partner together, and leverage our successes, the easier will be our journey. We need to track what we are doing and what effect it is having. Are we making progress or losing ground? Existing data sets can be improved. For example, we currently have no easy way to track differing rents by each city. We should take the opportunity to learn from each other and build from MiL A& A& that knowledge to be more successful. We strongly encourage cities and the County to consider implementing the strategies in the Action Plan presented below. The strategies are not the only ideas that could be pursued, but after much deliberation, these are the strategies we collectively now endorse. The majority of these strategies are policy and regulatory actions that cities and the County could implement which would reduce the cost of housing construction. Some strategies involve changes to zoning codes that can increase the number of units that can be produced. Other strategies would reduce the tax or fee burden on construction, primarily for low-income housing. A handful of strategies identify new local funds that could be applied to support low-income housing construction and operation. We acknowledge that the lack of funding supports for low-income housing remains a substantial barrier to progress on our mission and we have not been able to reach consensus on specific funding tools adequate to this task. We are recommending continued effort here through two strategies: the first calls for identifying and promoting additional sources of funding generally; the second involves advocacy for additional funding from the state and federal governments. How much housing will our Action Plan create? Frankly, we do not know. We are dependent on housing partners —public, nonprofit, and private —to actually build housing. We have not gone through a detailed exercise to estimate the number of housing units that may be created if all our recommendations are adopted by all jurisdictions. We know we are unlikely to see the progress we would like in the area of low-income housing without significant additional funding being identified. That said, we believe the strategies identified in the Action Plan, if broadly implemented, can facilitate creation of significant additional housing affordable to households across the income spectrum. Publication of the Action Plan is a first step and much work remains ahead of us. HART will continue work on framework Goals 4 and 5 in 2020 through several Early Action items. We expect that because of that work, we will identify additional strategies in support of those two goals. We want to check -in periodically to see what is being accomplished by cities and the County, and consider adjustments to the Action Plan. We will continue to seek input from partners as to what is most effective, and to learn as we go. We hope the Five -Year Action Plan will be a living document that will evolve over time based on our collective experience. OR Packet Pg. 39 HART'S FIVE-YEAR HOUSING AFFORDABILITY ACTION PLAN ' Goals to increase q housing affordability at all income levels Promote greater housing growth and diversity of housing types at all levels of affordability and improve jobs/housing connection Identify and preserve existing housing at risk of rapid rent escalation or redevelopment balancing this with the need for more density Increase housing density on transit corridors and/or in job centers, while also working to create additional housing across the entire county HOUSING AFFORDABILITY , REGIONAL TASKFORCE Goals for moving HART forward together Implement outreach and education programs for use countywide and by individual jurisdictions to raise awareness of housing affordability challenges and support for action Track progress and support ongoing regional collaborations "Early Action" items that HART members will begin working on in early 2020 are presented first. These are followed by the Framework Goals with supporting strategies for each framework goal. The strategies are divided into two types: policy and regulatory strategies and funding strategies. The Action Plan also identifies several "Joint Action" items, which are items we recommend be pursued either through a single countywide unified strategy/action, or by alignment of actions across individual jurisdictions. "Joint Action" items are indicated as follows: o L 0) Y 0 �� m indicates actions that we recommend be pursued in a unified, countywide approach. indicates actions we see as best pursued by individual jurisdictions but with alignment N in our approach. 0 x Early Action Items 1. Encourage cities to enter into cooperation agreements with the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) and Everett Housing Authority (EHA). • Only two cities currently have such agreements: Lynnwood and Snohomish. Snohomish County government and Everett also have equivalent terms in place. Cooperation agreements simply authorize a Housing Authority to operate within a jurisdiction. The agreements require no financial commitments by a city and do not impact local zoning authority. These agreements can facilitate quicker action to preserve affordable multifamily developments put up for sale, or to acquire real property suitable for low- income housing. • 2020 Leadership: Mountlake Terrace Mayor Kyoko Matsumoto Wright, Snohomish Mayor John Kartak, HASCO and EHA, and support from Lynnwood Mayor Nicola Smith 2. Implement the state sales tax shift to local governments for up to 20 years to fund low- income housing as authorized by HB 1406, as adopted by Legislature in 2019. • Nearly all cities as well as the County have taken initial steps to secure the state sales tax monies moving forward into 2020 and beyond. The goal in 2020 is to share information on how jurisdictions plan to apply these funds. • 2020 Leadership: Snohomish County Human Services Department. qn Packet Pg. 41 3. Lobby for changes in state and federal law that will enable more consolidated and streamlined funding to support low-income housing. • The magnitude of our low-income housing needs will require additional funding from state and federal government. Working together, we can more effectively advocate for these funds. • 2020 Leadership: Snohomish County Cities (SCC), Arlington Mayor Barb Tolbert and Snohomish County Executive's Office Chief of Staff Lacey Harper. 4. Review and consider recommendations from existing toolkits to engage communities around the issue of housing affordability. • Effective education and outreach is critical to build understanding and support for the strategies we identify in this plan to increase housing affordability. Toolkits for this purpose from the Association of Washington Cities and the British Columbia Housing Authority have been shared with us. We are asking that these toolkits be reviewed and discussed by all cities and the County. We hope these toolkits can be adapted for local and regional use and provide guidance on constructive community engagement around our housing affordability challenges. • 2020 Leadership: City of Lynnwood Public Affairs Officer Julie Moore, Snohomish County Executive's Office Communications Director Kent Patton and Housing Hope's Chief Executive Officer Fred Safstrom. 5. Foster community conversations about density. • We encourage all cities and the County to initiate discussions with residents about the housing affordability challenge. Increasing density is a foundational tool to increase housing affordability, and community engagement around options here is an essential starting point. • 2020 Leadership: Snohomish County Planning and Development Services Director Barb Mock, City of Everett's Planning Director Allan Giffen, City of Bothell Community Development Director Mike Kattermann and City of Edmonds Development Services Director Shane Hope. Packet Pg. 42 6. Engage private sector partners — large employers, others — in helping to find solutions to our housing affordability challenge. • Employers have a stake in housing affordability. We believe the private sector can be important partners in efforts to improve housing affordability. We plan to reach out to large employers in the County in 2020 to see how they may be willing to work with us to address this challenge. • 2020 Leadership: SCC Leadership, Arlington Mayor Barb Tolbert, Everett Mayor Cassie Franklin and County Executive Dave Somers. 7. Confirm and support an ongoing structure for regional collaboration around production of housing affordable across the income spectrum. • While HART is committed to meeting in 2020 in furtherance of our Five -Year Action Plan, it may be that another group is best positioned to support this work in the future. We will make a recommendation on this in 2020. • 2020 Leadership: *Subcommittee to be formed to develop proposal for consideration by HART in April. The proposed subcommittee leads are Arlington Mayor Barb Tolbert, City of Everett Deputy Mayor Nick Harper and Snohomish County Executive's Office Chief of Staff Lacey Harper. 8. Track progress on the Plan. • We want to share information about what cities and the County are doing in furtherance of the Action Plan and improve our data collection to measure ourprogress. We anticipate creation of an inter jurisdictional staff workgroup to propose targeted and improved means of data collection. • 2020 Leadership: *Subcommittee to be formed to report back to HART in April. The subcommittee will be convened by Snohomish County Human Services Research Manager Nate Marti. Packet Pg. 43 Five -Year Action Items Beyond the eight Early Action Items, HART has identified 37 strategies (two appear twice, in support of different goals). Strategies are not presented in prioritized order. HART's Supplemental Report, Parts 1-3, are posted at https://www.snohomishcountywa.gov/5560/ and include the briefing templates prepared by work group volunteers. These templates provide additional information regarding the recommended strategies. Policy and Regulatory Strategies: 1.A.1 Establish specific housing affordability goals in city and county comprehensive plans and provide more accurate information into the development of those plans. tOThe County and cities will be working on updates to existing comprehensive plans to be j) completed by 2023, as required by state law. We hope the work of HART will inform those updates. 1.A.2 Ensure adequate Buildable Land Supply for housing. 1If t • The state Growth Management Act requires the County and cities periodically assess the I�irr adequacy of buildable land supply based on population and zoning. Our work confirms the importance of this effort. 1.A.3 Increase SEPA33 categorical exemption thresholds for housing developments This action item can reduce the process time and cost for housing developers. Many protections offered through SEPA processes are assured through other existing regulations, and the vast majority of SEPA reviews are findings of non -significance. The SEPA process can add months of time and risk to housing development projects. Some types of exemptions may require additional state legislation, but cities and counties are encouraged to review what can be accomplished within existing laws and move together in alignment here for maximum impact. 33 State Environmental Policy Act CH. 43.21 C RCW. qq Packet Pg. 44 1.A.4 Facilitate more efficient deal assembly and development timelines / promote cost- effectiveness through consolidation, coordination, and simplification. N A wide array of tactics could be deployed to make the permitting process quicker and easier for housing developers. The more these processes and requirements are in alignment across jurisdictional boundaries, the easier it is for developers to work in -a- multiple jurisdictions. Local governments are encouraged to look for these opportunities o within their existing land use and permitting codes, and work in alignment with one Y another on these types of code changes. m 1.A.5 Remove barriers by reducing construction costs and delays and expedite the permit Cn process. N c • As the local land -use authority, cities and the County have considerable control over 02 development permitting processes. Delays in permit processes cost developers money. x° We see opportunities here for alignment across jurisdictional boundaries. r_ 1.A.6 Increase housing variety allowed at a range of affordability levels in single-family zones, in areas with connections to jobs, and along transit corridors, including consideration of zoning for duplex, triplex, 4-plex, courtyard apartments, etc. • When local zoning allows a greater variety of housing types, it makes it possible to create more units per acre — facilitating increased supply of housing — as well as reduce per unit costs. Particular importance should be given to increasing zoned residential capacity near jobs and/or transit corridors to reduce pressure on the transportation system as our population grows. Funding Strategiez.. 1.A.7 Apply for state planning grants to develop housing elements of local comprehensive plans in connection with increasing density as authorized by H131923 and adopted by the State Legislature in 2019. Apply alone or with other cities. • The State Legislature in 2019 authorized new funds for planning grants which may be very helpful as jurisdictions look to update local plans in response to housing affordability challenges. qJ Packet Pg. 45 1.A.8 Implement Multi -Family Property Tax Exemption programs at local and county level.sa • The Multi -Family Property Tax Exemption (MFTE) program has been in place in Washington for decades and is available to all cities. Most cities in the County have implemented an MFTE program of some sort. Generally, MFTE provides a time -limited exemption from local property tax for developers as an incentive to build multi -family housing; depending on the time period involved, the deferral can be targeted to housing affordable to lower income multi -family housing, or to all multi -family housing. Jurisdictions are encouraged to review their programs to see if they can be revised or expanded to strengthen the incentives for multi -family housing development. 1.A.9 Encourage banking and insurance industry support for condominium projects as homeownership solution. • Multi -family home ownership is generally less expensive than single-family home ownership. With recent changes in state law, condominium construction becomes less problematic, assuming financing can be secured: knowing there is public support for this type of development may make financing support more likely. Local zoning to allow condominium developments is also needed. Policy and Regulatory Strategies: 1.13.1 Prioritize affordability and accessibility within a half mile walkshed of existing and planned frequent transit service, with particular priority near high -capacity transit stations. Require some amount of low-income housing in development near transit hubs. • Low-income housing must be paired with affordable, accessible, safe, and equitable transportation. Households with lower incomes may not have ready access to private transportation, so housing that is walkable to transit options or within the ADA three- quarter mile boundary is particularly important. Cities on transit corridors could increase impact by working together on these ideas; however, every city and the County can consider ways to implement this strategy. Transit agencies are key partners. 34 This strategy can be targeted to support housing at all income levels, or just lower income housing; see funding strategy 1.13.9. Packet Pg. 46 1.13.2 Revise local zoning to encourage Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU). • ADUs are a low-cost housing option, wherein an additional housing unit is built on an existing single-family lot, for example, over a free-standing garage, or in a separate structure behind the existing home. Many cities currently allow ADUs. They are most viable in urban areas with sewer systems in place. This strategy involves revising zoning to allow one or two ADUs on single-family lots. Reducing requirements associated with residency, lot size, parking, setbacks and architectural requirements may significantly increase the likelihood of ADUs being built. 1.13.3 Encourage cities and the County to proactively develop programs for facilitating the granting of density bonuses for development on church -owned properties (implementing HB 1377, as authorized by Legislature in 2019). • State legislation passed in 2019 requires cities to offer density bonuses to churches and other religious organizations seeking to develop their property for low-income housing. This strategy proposes cities facilitate these types of projects by being prepared in advance, so that projects may move ahead more quickly. 1.13.4 Reduce short plat threshold for low-income housing projects. • This can have a high impact on facilitating development of low-income housing by reducing land costs. The typical rule allowing short plats for up to 4 lots can be changed through a local administrative process to allow short plats for up to 9 lots. An even broader approach would be to change the threshold for all housing projects, not just low-income housing. 1.13.5 Implement inclusionary zoning incentives to encourage developers to produce low- income housing. • Zoning incentives for low-income housing can take a number of forms, all essentially intended to reduce the cost of construction by allowing more housing units on a parcel of land than would otherwise be permitted. Allowing greater building heights, smaller setbacks, greater floor area ratio, or less open space or parking (see below) in exchange for including low-income housing units in a multi -family development are all potential components of this strategy. Packet Pg. 47 1.13.6 Reduce parking requirements for low-income housing developments. • The cost of building structured parking or reserving a substantial portion of a project site for parking can significantly increase the per -unit cost and/or reduce the number of units that can be built. Recent state legislation (E2SHB 1923) requires a reduction of parking requirements for projects serving households at 50% or less of Area Median Income within 0.25 miles of frequent transit service. Cities and the County are encouraged to 0 consider broader reductions of parking requirements in connection with low-income housing developments. m a� Cn Funding Strategies: 0 1.13.7 Study funding mechanisms and pursue joint advocacy efforts. _ Creation of housing affordable to those at or below 60% of Area Median Income will typically not be provided without governmental intervention and/or subsidy of some type. These projects often involve securing and leveraging multiple funding sources; even a small amount of funding from a local jurisdiction can be leveraged to secure other resources. Without significant new federal, state, regional, and/or local funding contributions, we can expect limited progress in building more low-income housing. HART recognizes that we must continue to consider ways in which we can inject additional funds into the construction and operation of low-income housing. 1.13.8 Provide surplus and under-utilized publicly owned property for low-income housing. • Finding and purchasing land is a major challenge in the construction of all housing. It is typically 10 to 20 percent of the cost of a project. Donating real property, or offering discounted long term leases for developers of low-income housing, can be a particularly effective way to make such projects viable. Jurisdictions are encouraged to survey their existing real estate holdings and determine if any properties may be declared surplus and made available for low-income housing development. Packet Pg. 48 1.13.9 Implement Multi -Family Property Tax Exemption (MFTE) programs at local and county level. • This strategy, first discussed above at Strategy 1.A.8, can be applied to any multi -family housing development (up to 8 year exemptions), but under state law longer term exemptions (12 years) can be provided for low-income housing developments. This can be a particularly effective way of reducing costs of construction and operation of such housing. Jurisdictions are encouraged to examine their existing MFTE programs to increase the incentives provided for construction of low-income housing and extend the term of years for which such housing is required to remain affordable. 1.13.10Waive or reduce fees and charges for low-income housing projects. • Local impact fees and charges can add thousands of dollars per unit cost of construction. Waiving or reducing city- or County -imposed fees does reduce local revenue, but can be a significant support in financing more units of low-income housing. Fees to be considered here include any locally -imposed impact fees, mitigation fees, or utility connection charges. 1.13.11 Establish a county growth fund for low-income housing by setting aside a portion of new construction property taxes. AO This is one of the few "new money" proposals in our Action Plan. The impact would be much greater if all jurisdictions supported a single fund, rather than implement the concept city -by -city. The basic idea is for each jurisdiction to agree to set aside an agreed upon portion of new construction property tax receipts. In 2016, new construction property tax receipts totaled $15 million in Snohomish County, a 10% set aside would have created $1.5 million in funding for low-income housing. An agreed upon process would need to be developed for how such funds were both committed and then allocated. 1.13.12Expand supports for low-income renters and people with disabilities; fund operating costs for housing service providers. • All operators of low-income and special needs housing who spoke to HART identified the need for ongoing operating funds for these projects as a major challenge. Simply being able to construct a project or buy an existing property for low-income or special needs housing is only the first step: supports must be in place to provide ongoing supportive services to residents to ensure long-term stability. A variety of funding sources have been suggested to HART for these purposes, including new state or federal funds, expansion of low-income housing tax credits, or other direct public funding. Packet Pg. 49 1.13.13Support creation of Community Land Trusts (CLT). • CLTs are a means to ensure permanent affordability remains in place on investments in housing included in these trusts. CLTs are typically formed as nonprofit corporations who own land and lease homesites; the homes are more affordable because land purchase is not involved. In exchange, the rate of return that the homeowner can receive on resale is capped to ensure the property remains affordable under successive owners. There is a start-up CLT in Snohomish County and CLTs operate in nearby counties. CLTs can be implemented at a city -by -city level or more broadly, but larger scale efforts will be more sustainable. The key government action is to require permanent affordability in connection with a donation or investment. 1.13.14implement policy/zoning changes to increase Snohomish County/city projects' competitiveness for state and federal funding. • State and federal grant programs are the major sources of funding for low-income housing It is important that we be as competitive as possible for these dollars. A number of helpful zoning changes have been identified by partners as actions local government can take and/or specify in applications, including: ensuring that multi -family (MF) zoning is allowed in a jurisdiction, particularly near transit; designating community revitalization areas; allowing early learning facilities in MF zones; and allowing modular housing. 1.13.15Target federal CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) and HOME (HOME Investment Partnerships Program) funds for low-income housing creation and rental assistance. These federal funds are jointly administered for all cities and the County except Marysville and Everett which have their own funding and policy processes. The allocation of these funds is largely directed by federal formulas. HOME funds are critical to construction of low-income housing units. Generally, new housing construction is not eligible for CDBG funding, with some exceptions. Because allocation formulas are set by federal law, this item is anticipated to have low additional impact. 1.13.16Advocate for expansion of funding of the state public works trust fund. Rot The state public works trust fund is a revolving loan fund for cities, counties, and special purpose districts. Loans from these funds could be critical in enabling construction of new housing in some of Snohomish County's smaller cities that have sewer and water system moratoriums. Packet Pg. 50 Policy and Regulatory Strategies: O 2.1 Protect communities of color, historically underserved communities, and low-income Y communities from displacement by gentrification. m • As a result of location or real estate market trends, we often see existing housing for N underserved communities being prime for redevelopment. Anti -displacement strategies, Cn and increasing household choice for these residents are important strategies. At its core, anti -displacement strategies involve purchasing housing and decoupling it from market o pressures. Other funding supports, discussed below at Strategy 2.4 are also important. _ Funding Strategies: 2.2 Establish short term acquisition revolving loan fund to enable rapid response to preserve low-income housing developments when they are put on the market. • Both public and private donations could be used to establish such a fund, which could have a high impact in preserving low-income housing at risk of conversion, particularly if potential government or nonprofit owners are unable to fully secure purchase funds quickly. This type of tool could be used to preserve housing affordable at lower income levels, whether multi -family or mobile home developments. 2.3 Increase investments in communities of color, historically underserved communities, and low-income communities by developing programs and policies that serve individuals and families at risk of displacement. • This is a companion to Strategy 2.1. To the extent these communities live on lower cost property, they are often at higher risk of redevelopment — and loss of both their community and their affordable homes. There are a number of related strategies here including community land trusts, cooperation agreements with the Housing Authority of Snohomish County, and other funding mechanisms to facilitate purchase of low-income housing at risk of redevelopment. An Packet Pg. 51 2.4 Provide low-income homeowners with low-interest/deferred payment to repair homes and/or fund home repair programs for households with lower incomes. • HART members find this strategy conceptually promising, but we understand that it can be very difficult to implement such programs; the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) recently terminated their home repair loan program due to the administrative challenges and costs as compared to other types of assistance. Due to administrative effort required, this may be better suited to larger scale efforts. Policy and Regulatory Strategies: 3.1 Prioritize affordability and accessibility within half a mile walkshed of existing and planned frequent transit service, placing particular priority on high -capacity transit stations. Require some amount of low-income housing in development near transit hubs. • This item is also presented above as Strategy 1.B.1—promoting construction of housing affordable to households at or below 60 % of Area Median Income. 3.2 Increase variety of housing types allowed at a range of affordability along transit corridors through increasing zone density and providing incentives to include low- income units. • This strategy is similar to Strategies 1.B.1 and 3.1 —but with the focus on all income levels. The more housing we can develop near major transit access, the more potential relief we provide to our transportation system. Perhaps one positive aspect of being one of the last areas to see the light rail investment from Sound Transit is that we can act now to acquire property along these future corridors before it hits peak pricing. We have time to coordinate across jurisdictions and thoughtfully ensure more zoned capacity is available where it will be most helpful. 3.3 Reduce parking requirements for multi -family projects located near transit. • As noted above, reducing parking requirements can significantly reduce the cost per unit of housing. There is particular logic for considering this change in zoning where residents are more able to use mass transit to meet their needs. Packet Pg. 52 3.4 Increase Snohomish County/City projects' competitiveness for state and federal funding by ensuring multi -family zoning near transit. • This strategy is related to Strategy 1.B.14 above. Jurisdictions which have multi -family zoning near transit will be more competitive for federal and state low-income housing funding support. 0 L M Y Funding Strategies: m 3.5 Maximize resources available for Transit Oriented Development (TOD) in the near term. N 0) • "Resources" in this context can mean staffing, legislation, policy, or funding. Aligning all N types of resources to promote development around transit can reduce the need for single 0 occupancy vehicles. Coordinating locally with Sound Transit and housing developers on = this strategy is key to facilitate construction of affordable TOD. cu Policy and Regulatory Strategies: 4.1 Engage communities of color, historically underserved communities, and low-income communities in affordable housing development and policy decision. • These communities are often most in need of low-income housing and most vulnerable to having their existing housing redeveloped or subject to significant rent increases. Cities and housing agencies should use a race and social equity lens and/or racial equity toolkit when making policy decisions regarding low-income housing. Community -based policy development is consistent with the overall philosophy that as elected officials we are here to understand and promote the needs of our residents. Packet Pg. 53 4.2 Expand engagement of non -governmental partners to support efforts to build and site more affordable housing. • While local government can do a lot to address our housing affordability challenges, we cannot resolve the housing challenge alone. To accomplish our goals here we must both continue and expand our engagement with partners. For example, we have seen large employers in other counties and other states become major funding partners with local government agencies on the issue of affordable housing. Can we do something similar in Snohomish County? This strategy calls for exploring the possibilities. • Two of our eight "Early Action" items are built around this goal. HART plans to spend time in 2020 to identify the key data we want to track and to create multi jurisdictional workgroups to pursue and refine that data. We also plan to identify an ongoing "home" for this Action Plan, as it evolves over time and we continue to track our progress. Packet Pg. 54 In recent years, we have seen a significant decrease of housing affordability in Snohomish County. Housing production is not keeping pace with the needs of our growing population —either in terms of housing units created or the cost of those units. Fully one-third-33%—of Snohomish County households are "cost -burdened," spending more than 30% of their income on housing costs including utilities. These households are at all income levels. But the challenge is greater when we look at the needs of our low-income neighbors. Without funding supports from government or nonprofit organizations, or other governmental incentives, the private housing market is generally unable to produce units affordable to those households with incomes of 60% of Area Median Income or below. Currently, approximately one-third of Snohomish County households are in need of housing that cannot be produced without governmental or nonprofit interventions. As members of HART, we are committed to ensuring progress in improving housing affordability in Snohomish County. Local government is a necessary partner for making significant progress on housing affordability. Because cities and counties are not authorized by law to either own or operate housing, we need to work in partnership with housing developers (both for -profit and nonprofit); local housing authorities; state and federal funders; housing advocates; local special needs and low-income housing operators; and other community advocates to accomplish our housing affordability goals. In addition, we believe we can benefit from bringing new partners to this cause from the private sector. Over the course of this effort, we heard from many partners in the housing industry. They helped us to understand and prioritize among the many actions we can take to support this work. Some of these requests are relatively simple to address; others are very difficult. Our Five -Year Housing Affordability Action Plan identifies 5 framework goals, 8 Early Action items that are to be pursued this year, and 37 supporting strategies to be completed in future years. We acknowledge that the Action Plan is simply the first step. Much work lies ahead, and we want our Action Plan to evolve over time as we learn from future experience and consider new approaches and solutions. The challenge of housing affordability is not about "other people." It is a problem facing our own families and friends; our grown children trying to make it on their own; our neighbors; people we interact with every day as we shop, pick up our kids from school, take an aging parent to the doctor, or join in community events. The good news is there is ample evidence —real examples throughout Snohomish County, the Puget Sound, and nationally —that we can maintain and evolve vibrant, welcoming, livable, safe communities at the same time as we work to meet the housing affordability needs of all our residents. With the support of our fellow city and county government officials in Snohomish County, we can make progress on housing affordability. The problem is urgent, and becoming more critical each year. We hope each City Council and the County Council will consider the items in our Action Plan and take steps in 2020 and each year thereafter to address this challenge and ensure a better future for our communities. JA Packet Pg. 55 Appendix A: Summary of the Snohomish County Housing Affordability Taskforce (HART) Five -Year Housing Affordability Action Plan HART's recommendations to all Snohomish County cities and Snohomish County government for responding to our housing affordability challenges are presented below. The Action Plan is based on five framework goals; three that focus on increasing housing affordability, and two goals that focus on how we propose to work together. Packet Pg. 56 "Early Action" — Items that HART and its members will begin working on in early 2020 are presented first, followed by the Framework Goals with supporting strategies for each Goal. The strategies are divided into two types: policy and regulatory strategies and funding strategies. "Joint Action" — Items we recommend involve a countywide unified strategy/action, or alignment of individual jurisdiction action —are indicated as follows: 0 L 0) Y V indicates actions that we recommend be pursued in a unified, countywide approach. m a� ml�3* indicates actions we see as best pursued by individual jurisdictions but with N alignment in our approach. c Early Action Items =° Early Action Items are strategies that HART and its members will begin working on in early 2020. 1. Encourage cities to enter into cooperation agreements with the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) and Everett Housing Authority. 2. Implement the state sales tax shift to local governments for up to 20 years to fund low- income housing authorized by HB 1406, as adopted by Legislature in 2019. 3. Lobby for changes in state and federal law that will enable more consolidated and streamlined funding to support low-income housing. 4. Review and consider recommendations from existing toolkits to engage communities around the issue of housing affordability. 5. Foster community conversations about density. 6. Engage private sector stakeholders — large employers, others — in helping to find solutions to our housing affordability challenge. 7. Confirm and support an ongoing structure for regional collaboration around production of housing affordable across the income spectrum. 8. Track progress on the Action Plan. Packet Pg. 57 Five -Year Action Items NOTE: Strategies are not presented in prioritized order. Please see Supplemental Report https://www.snohomishcountywa.gov/5560/ for additional information regarding each strategy. Policy and Regulatory Strategies: 1.A.1 ��� Establish specific housing affordability goals in city and county comprehensive plans and of provide more accurate information into the development of those plans. 1.A.2 * � Ensure adequate Buildable Land Supply for housing. 1.A.3 Increase SEPA31 categorical exemption thresholds for housing developments. 1.A.4 Facilitate more efficient deal assembly and development timelines / promote cost-effectiveness through consolidation, coordination, and simplification. 1.A.5 0*3* Remove barriers by reducing construction costs and delays and expedite the permit process. 1.A.6 Increase housing variety allowed at a range of affordability levels in single-family zones, in areas with connections to lobs, and along transit corridors, including consideration of zoning for duplex, triplex, 4-plex, courtyard apartments, etc. Funding Strategies: 1.A.7 Apply for state planning grants to develop housing elements of local comprehensive plans in connection with increasing density as authorized by HB1923 and adopted by Legislature in 2019. Apply alone or with other cities. 1.A.8 Implement Multi -Family Property Tax Exemption (MFTE) programs at local and county level.36 1.A.9 Encourage banking and insurance industry support for condominium projects as homeownership solution. 36 State Environmental Policy Act CH. 43.21 C RCW. 36 This strategy can be targeted to support housing at all income levels, or just lower income housing; see funding strategy 1.13.9. Packet Pg. 58 Policy and Regulatory Strategies: 1.13.1 Prioritize affordability and accessibility within a half mile walkshed of existing and planned o frequent transit service, with particular priority near high -capacity transit stations. Require Y some amount of low-income housing in development near transit hubs. cu 1.13.2 Revise local zoning to encourage Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU). 1.6.3 Encourage cities and the County to proactively develop programs for facilitating the granting 2 of density bonuses for development on church -owned properties (implementing HB 1377, as authorized by Legislature in 2019). Cn 0 1.13.4 Reduce short plat threshold for low-income housing projects. _ c 1.13.5 Implement inclusionary zoning incentives to encourage developers to produce low-income a - housing. E 1.13.6 Reduce parking requirements for low-income housing developments. Funding Strategies: 01 1.B.7 14, J Study funding mechanisms and pursue joint advocacy efforts. 1.13.8 Provide surplus and under-utilized publicly owned property for low-income housing 1.13.9 Implement Multi -Family Property Tax Exemption (MFTE) programs at local and county level. 1.13.10 Waive or reduce fees and charges for low-income housing projects. 1.13.11 ��� Establish a county growth fund for low-income housing by setting aside a portion of new 4J construction property taxes. 1.13.12 Expand supports for low-income renters and people with disabilities; fund operating costs for housing service providers. 1.13.13 Support creation of Community Land Trusts (CLT). 1.13.14 Implement policy/zoning changes to increase Snohomish County/city projects' competitiveness for state and federal funding. 1.B.15 Target federal CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) and HOME (HOME Investment Partnerships Program) funds for low-income housing creation and rental assistance. 1.13.16 �� Advocate for expansion of funding of the state public works trust fund. 4 ) Packet Pg. 59 Policy and Regulatory Strategies: 2.1 Protect communities of color, historically underserved communities, and low-income communities from displacement by gentrification. Funding Strategies: 2.2 Establish short term acquisition revolving loan fund to enable rapid response to preserve low- income housing developments when they are put on the market. 2.3 Increase investments in communities of color, historically underserved communities, and low- income communities by developing programs and policies that serve individuals and families at risk of displacement. 2.4 Provide low-income homeowners with low-interest/deferred payment to repair homes and/or fund home repair programs for households with lower incomes. Policy and Regulatory Strategies: 3.1 Prioritize affordability and accessibility within half a mile walkshed of existing and planned frequent transit service, placing particular priority on high -capacity transit stations. Require some amount of low-income housing in development near transit hubs. 3.2 Increase variety of housing types allowed at a range of affordability along transit corridors through increasing zone density and providing incentives to include low-income units. 3.3 Reduce parking requirements for multi -family projects located near transit. 3.4 Increase Snohomish County/city projects' competitiveness for state and federal funding by ensuring multi -family zoning near transit. Funding Strategies: 3.5 Maximize resources available for Transit Oriented Development (TOD) in the near term. Packet Pg. 60 Policy and Regulatory Strategies: 4.1 4.2 Engage communities of color, historically underserved communities, and low- income communities in affordable housing development and policy decision. Expand engagement of non -governmental partners to support efforts to build and site more affordable housing. Two of our eight "Early Action" items are built around this goal. HART plans to spend time in 2020 to identify the key data we want to track and to create multi -jurisdictional workgroups to pursue and refine that data. We also plan to identify an ongoing "home" for this Action Plan, as it evolves over time and we continue to track our progress. Packet Pg. 61 Appendix B: Many Types of Households Struggle with Housing Costs Farr Market Rent for a two -bedrooms apartment in Snohor4sh County was $1, 699 during 2019 Aug. Social Full-TirneMinimum Security Income Wage WOFLEF $18,0H Affordable Monthly Housing Casts 50 - $830 :Stable housing tieamno and irtrprovea gaaWof kfe across the board -Daniell% CC. - I'm Reoegtionist Auto Mechanic 835,969 152,240 0 Affordable Monthly Housing Costs U31-$1,384 Post -Secondary Nurse Teacher Practitioner $90,575 $115,492 Affordable Monthly Housing Costs $2,207 - $3,394 Two Full -Time Minimuna Firefighter Wage WOFkers $86,22a $50 Affordable Monthly Housing Casts 1,385 - 52,206 Lawyer dentist $150.244 $171.339 'For rrre,- it was that � stahttity of a home that Affordable Monthly Housing Eosks � started ever}�'rrng.' R -Sham$. HSCO Q too& Packet Pg. 62 .HOUSING AFFORDABILITY REGIONAL TASKFORCE Snohomish ounty's Housing Affordability Regional Task Force's Mission: Collaboratively develop a five-year action plan that identifies priorities for county and city governments to accelerate collective ability to meet the housing affordability needs of all Snohomish County residents and set a foundation for contin ued success through 2050_ 10,k4�& A&MAI, 9 - it OEF 6snohomish County Cast -Burdened Household Projections 0-30% 31-50% 51-80% 81-100% 100% Total AMI AMI ANTI AMI Aflll'I Current qF Need 291425 2,955 17,955 9,465 10,285 91,085 Growthto 11.672 9.502 7,122 3,754 4,08 36,130 2040 Subtotal 41,097 33,457 25,077 13,219 14,365 127,215 Housing Authority of Snohomish County. 2019 Policy Priorities. Retrieved from htti)s://hasco.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2019-one-pager FINAL.pdf National Low Income Housing Coalition. Out of Reach 2019. Retrieved from https://reports.nlihc.org/sites/default/files/oor/files/reports/stateMA.Pdf Social Security Administration (2020). Retrieved from https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/colafacts202O.pdf Washington State Employment Security Department. 2019 Occupational Employment Statistics. Retrieved from https://esd.wa.gov/labormarketinfo/occupations Washington State Department of Labor and Industries. 2020 Minimum Wage. Retrieved from https://Ini.wa.gov/workers-rights/wages/minimum-wage/ Packet Pg. 63 s r ,HOUSING AFFORDABILITY REGIONAL TASKFORCE Appendix C: Contact Information Art Ceniza HART ACeniza(a)-lynnwoodwa.gov Members Jon Nehring jnehring(a-)marysvillewa.gov Barb Tolbert btolbert(@arlingtonwa.gov Kyoko Matsumoto Wright KMatsumotoWright(a)-ci.mlt.wa.us Ben Swanson bswanson(a-monroewa.gov Liam Olsen Liam. Olsen(a-bothellwa.gov Brent Kirk Brent. Kirk(a)ci.gran ite-falls.wa.us Marc Hayes mhayes(a)arlingtonwa.gov Brian Bogen bbogeng ownofwoodway.com Matt Hartman Matt. Hartman(a)ci.gran ite-falls.wa.us Brian Holtzclaw bholtzclaw(a)-cityofmillcreek.com Mike Quinn mguinn townofwoodway.com Bryan Wahl bwahl ci.mlt.wa.us Nate Nehring nate.nehring(a)co.snohomish.wa.us Cassie Franklin cfranklin(a)-everettwa.gov Nick Harper NHarper(a)everettwa.gov Dan Rankin dan.rankin(a-)_darringtonwa.us Nicola Smith nsmith(D_lynnwoodwa.gov Dave Earling Dave. Earl ing(a)edmondswa.gov Shane Hope Shane. Hope(a)edmondswa.gov Dave Somers Dave. Somers(a-)_co.snohomish.wa.us Stephanie Vignal svignal(a_cityofmiIIcreek. corn Geoffrey Thomas gthomas(aD_monroewa.gov Stephanie Wright Stephan ie.Wright(a)-co.snohomish.wa.us Gloria Hirashima ghirashima(a-marysvillewa.gov Steve Dana DanaC@snohomishwa.gov Jennifer Gregerson jregerson mukilteowa.gov Tom Agnew tom.agnew bothellwa.gov John Kartak kartak(c-snohomishwa.gov Yorik Stevens-Wajda Yorik.Stevens-Wajda(aD-co.snohomish.wa.us 0 L M lid Mto W 0 x c a c U0 a L M c �a 0 a as a x a� U r r a c a� E r a Packet Pg. 64 HOUSING AFFORDABILITY REGIONAL TASKFORCE I 1 9 Alessandra Durham Alessandra.Durham(a.co.snohomish.wa.us John Hull Jhull@egmission.org Allan Giffen AGiffen(D-everettwa.gov Ken Katahira Kenneth. Katahira(a-)-co.snohomish.wa.us Ashley Lommers-Johnson Ashleyfloc@-eyha.org Kim Toskey Kim.ToskeyC comcast.net Ashley Winchell awinchell(c-lynnwoodwa.gov Kristen Cane kcane(a)hasco.org Barb Mock Barbara. Mock(a)-co.snohomish.wa.us Marianna Hanefeld Mhanefeld(o)gosnotrag.org Becky McCrary ram ccrary(aj)-everettwa.gov Mark Smith Mark(@housingsnohomish.org Brook Chesterfield Brook. Chesterfield (a)-co.snohom ish.wa.us Mike Kattermann michael.kattermann(a)-bothellwa.gov Cami Morrill Cami(a-)-sccar.org Mindy Woods Melindawoods19(a)hotmail.com Chris Collier ccollier hasco.org Randy Blair Randy. Blair co.snohomish.wa.us Jack Hunden Jack. Hunden(o-)devcowa.com Tony Nabors Tonvn@evha.org Chris Collier ccollier(c_hasco.org Mark Smith Mark(@-housingsnohomish.orq Duane Leonard Dleonard(a)hasco.org Mindy Woods Melindawoods19(a)-hotmail.com Joseph Nagel Joe.Nagel(a-)_p-h-s.com Nate Marti Nathan. Marti(a)-co.snohomish.wa.us Julie Moore jmoore lynnwoodwa.gov Steve McGraw smcgraw homage.org Kelsey Bang -Olsen Kelsey.Bang-Olsen(a-)_co.snohomish.wa.us Tamera Loesch Tamera.Loesch(a-compassh.org Kent Patton Kent.Patton(@-co.snohomish.wa.us Vicci Hilty ycci _dvs-snoco.org Marianna Hanefeld Mhanefeld(aD-gosnotrac.org c 0 L M lid MM W a� c 0 x c 0 a c 0 U a L M a� LO c 0 0 a N H a x c a� E U 0 r a c a� E U r a Packet Pg. 65 ns HOUSING AFFORDABILITY REGIONAL TASKFORCE I 1 91 Name Bill Rumpf Funding • • Email brumpf mercyhousing.org • •Members Name Email Ken Katahira Kenneth. Katahira(a-co.snohomish.wa.us Brenda Bolanos-Ivory bolanosivory(cDgmail.com Kim Toskey kim.toskeyCo)comcast: net Brook Chesterfield Brook. Chesterfield (a)-co.snohom ish.wa.us Lindsey Webb Lindsey.Webb mail.house.gov Cherie Hutchins cherie.hutch ins(a-)-co.snohomish.wa.us Mark Smith Mark(a)housingsnohomish.org Chris Collier ccollier(c-)-hasco.org Mary Jane Brell-Vujovic Mary.Vulovic(aDco.snohomish.wa.us Fred Safstrom Fred safstrom(a)housing hope. org Mindy Woods Melindawoods19(cDhotmail.com Jackie Anderson JackieM.Anderson(aD-SnoCo.org Nicole Gorle Nicole.Gorle(aD-co.snohomish.wa.us Janinna Attick 0 attickCcDhaqgg.org Randy Blair Randy. Blair(cDco.snohomish.wa.us Jennifer Bereskin-Delia j.delia1362(a)-edmail.edcc.edu Tamera Loesch Tame ra.LoeschCa)-compass h.org Jim Dean Jdean interfaithwa.org Tina Ilvonen Tina. Ilvonen(a)co.snohomish.wa.us Joe Alonzo 0oseph.alonzo(a-cocoonhouse.org Packet Pg. 66 3.A.b REGIONAL HOUSING STRATEGY Regional Staff Committee • February 18, 2021 Packet Pg. 67 Overview of Today's Discussion wow-A Project Overview Regional Housing Needs Assessment Key Findings Housing Efforts Currently Underway Potential Focus Areas for the Regional Housing Strategy Questions + Next Steps + Ile, r�4 • LrAiig • �I ■ � * hPIL . 4J., • r '� S � - L_ ' Jk� i ..� vim:-■ : �`r' M, MMMMM', A! 3.A.b Components of the Strategy Packet Pg. 69 a 3.A.b RHNA Key Findings • The region needs approximately800,000 new housing units to ' accommodate the region's population growth by the year 2050. • The region has underproduced housing over the past decade. There is now a backlog of approximately 45,000 - 50,000 housing units due to population growth outpacing the production of housing in the last decade. Given the annual average housing production rate over the past decade, this amounts to a backlog of about two years of production. • Over 30% of new housing needs to be affordable to households earning 80%Area Median Income (AMI) or below. This means a large share of new housing will require some level of public incentive -ranging from more flexible zoning standards to direct subsidy - to ensure new units are affordable to households earning less than the median income. Packet Pg. 70 Between 2020 and 2050 the region needs 810,000 additional units to accommodate future growth Wit 17 FIM-1 FIM-1 FIM-1 rIMSYMI TIMI F111: King County - 418,000 units Kitsap County - 43,000 units Pierce County - 161,000 units hous Snohomish County - 187,000 Units Packet Pg. 71 jitterant annroaChF 0-30% 30-50% AMI AMI Rental: Rental: public support needed in all markets public support needed in most markets 50-80% AMI Rental: incentives needed in many markets Home Ownership: subsidy or incentives needed in many markets I I E I 80-125% AMI Rental or Home Ownership: incentives or zoning flexibility needed in some markets UN Above 125% AMI Market Rent and Home Ownership 3.A.b Close to 1 in 2 new housing units will require some level of incentive or subsidy to meet affordability needs m Total Housing Units Needed by Income Segment, 2017-2050 O 112,000 477,000 95,000 114,000 ■ 0-30%AMI ■ 31-50%AMI 51-80%AMI 81-100%AMI ■ Above 100%AMI Source: CHAS I Packet Pg. 73 3.A.b RHNA Key Findings, Continued • There are substantial disparities between white and person of color households, underscoring the ongoing effects of systemic racism in ° housing. People of color, on average, have lower incomes, are more likely to rent, and are more likely to be cost burdened than white households. ' L n • Stable housing is critical to quality of life. Afocus group of residents living in subsidized housing stated that they now spend less time worrying about how to pay the rent, which means more time for family, schoolwork, looking for better paying jobs, and community connections. Packet Pg. 74 3.A.b White households are more likely to own a home than Black households, regardless of income 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Source: CHAS Home Ownership By Race and Income <30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI 80-100% AMI >100% AMI ■ White Black . a Packet Pg. 75 3.A.b RHNA Key Findings, Continued • Housing prices have risen at an unprecedented rate over the past decade and have out -stepped increases in income, making rent and ° homeownership increasing unaffordable for a growing number of ° households. ' L • The region's current housing stock provides limited middle density ownership options that are often more affordable than detached single- family homes, and provides limited options for renters, particularly larger families. A more diverse housing stock is needed to provide accessible and affordable housing for residents in all phases of life. Packet Pg. 76 3.A.b Middle density home ownership opportunities are very limited Owner Occupied Housing by Units in Structure N 0 100 "io 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Source: ACS King County Kitsap County Pierce County Snohomish County Region ■ Single Family © Moderate Density (2-19 units) ■ High Density (20+ units) ■ Mobile home; other 1190a. a Packet Pg. 77 3.A.b RHNA Key Findings, Continued • The makeup of the region's households and housing needs is changing. While about 2/3 of households are made up of related people, only 1 /3 of household have children and just over 1 /3 of households include seniors. • There is an imbalance of jobs and housing in the region. One in three residents lives and works in different counties, meaning many residents commute long distances to get to work. • One in three households with less than $50,000 in income is severely cost burdened, spending the majority of their income on housing costs and leaving little income to cover other basic needs such as food and medical costs. Packet Pg. 78 3.A.b More than 1/3 of moderate -income households spend the majority of their income on housing <$20K w $20-35K E 0 c $35-50K 0 s $50-75K a� N 0 = $75-100K $100K Cost Burdened Households 0% 20% 40% ■ Cost Burdened ■ Severely Cost Burdened 60% 80% 100% Less than 30% Income C] Source: ACS I Packet Pg. 79 3.A.b Housing Efforts Current Underway State • Funding mechanisms - HB 1406, HB 15900 • HB 1923 Affordable Housing Grants0 • Guidance and resources N L Region • VISION 2050 • Housing Innovations Program • Housing Incentives and Tools Survey County/Subregion • King County Affordable Housing Committee, Regional Homelessness Authority • Snohomish County Housing Affordability Regional Taskforce • Kitsap Affordable Housing Taskforce • Subregional groups -ARCH, SKHHP, AHA, SHAAP Packet Pg. 80 3.A.b Housing Efforts Current Underway Local • Housing Action Plans0 • Code updates • More equitable engagement N L n Housing Incentives and Tools Survey • Over two-thirds of local jurisdictions (50) have at least one incentive in place • Most jurisdictions with no incentives are small cities with no high -capacity transit • Nearly all jurisdictions surveyed (93%) have zoning that allows housing types other than detached single-family Packet Pg. 81 3.A.b Top Housing Types Surveyed Ranking of Housing Types Surveyed, 2019 Responses • 62 Housing1 Attached Accessory Dwelling Unit 60 Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit 57 Mixed -Use 56 Duplexes/Triplexes 56 Low -Rise Multifamily (1-3 stories) 55 Zero Lot Line Townhome 42 Mid -Rise Multifamily 4-6 stories) 41 Mobile Horne Parrs 38 Cluster Development 36 Cottage Housing 31 Planned Unit Development 4 High -Rise Multifamily (7+ stories) 17 Micro Units a Packet Pg. 82 3.A.b Top Housing Incentives Surveyed Ranking of Housing Incentives Surveyed, 2019 Responses n=73 Incentive 30 Density Bonus 9 Parking Requirement Reduction 6 Multifa rn i ly Tay€ Exemption (M FTE) D Planned Action E15 17 Incentive Zon i ng 15 Public Land for Affordable H ousinjg 15 Transfer of Development R Shts (TDB) 14 Inclusionary Zoning 13 Permitting Priority a Packet Pg. 83 3.A.b Focus Areas for Actions and Tools 0 44�04011 �//1 • Housing Production • Affordable Housing • Funding • Zoning • Tenant Protections • Incentives Packet Pg. 84 3.A.b Typology O • A typology of different types of places to better identify meaningful O strategies and what types of tools and actions have the potential for the greatest impact in different types of places. L a • PSRC is currently developing a draft typology based on Displacement Risk Mapping, Opportunity Mapping, and the Regional Growth Strategy Packet Pg. 85 3.A.b Questions for the Committee , ,.4"�'jp rj', 0 What findings in the Needs Assessment could most benefit from regional action? - L a a There have been many efforts to address housing affordability in the region. How can the Regional Housing Strategy be most impactful and achieve �' .N meaningful results? What are pitfalls that should be avoided? 0 0 • Is a neighborhood or jurisdiction -scale typology the right approach for identify E appropriate tools and actions to support housing access and affordability? _ cd i Ar Packet Pg. 86 �. Next Steps W ti s�W-MMM! Wiff .y 7 o Regional Housing Needs Assessment report out later this month o PSRC boards and committees will continue to discuss and refine potential strategies to address the gaps identified in the RHNA through the spring Laura Benjamin, AICP FAA Lbeniamin@psrc.org • 206-464-7134� rz 1 @p g. ,�n� � A 1 � I 11 Packet Pg. 88 3.6 Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 03/10/2021 Housing Commission Recommendations Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Rob Chave Background/History The Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission was formed in the summer of 2019 to recommend housing policies for the City Council's consideration. The group was comprised of 15 members and 8 alternates -- -all local residents who had applied for the work. Each City Council member appointed two commissioners and one alternate. The Mayor appointed one commissioner and one alternate. The Housing Commission's mission, as stipulated in a resolution of the City Council, was to: "Develop, for (City) Council consideration, diverse housing policy options designed to expand the range of housing (including rental and owned) available in Edmonds -irrespective of age, gender, race, religious affiliation, physical disability, or sexual orientation." Staff Recommendation Consider the information at a high level and wait until later for more details and next steps. Narrative An extensive outreach effort was a key part of the Housing Commission's work. This included numerous public meetings, a special city website, flyers, surveys, open houses, news articles, and more. The Housing Commission completed its policy recommendations by its assigned deadline of January 31, 2021. (The deadline had been extended by one month from the original.) On March 16, the City Council will have its first overview of the Housing Commission's recommendations. The overview is not expected to be at a detail level or to include any final actions. Rather, the Council will get a broad flavor of the Commission's process and recommendations. We expect that subsequent meetings would be scheduled for a more detailed review —with probably only one or a small grouping of policies for review at any one time. In addition, at least some of the policy ideas would be sent to the Planning Board for more consideration and a recommendation before the Council goes further in its decision -making process. This would be a public process and could easily take a year or more to complete. At the Planning Board's retreat, a "preview" of the Housing recommendations will be provided. However, details and next steps will be held until after the City Council has had a chance to consider its next steps regarding the recommended policies. Packet Pg. 89 3.B For more information about the Housing Commission and its work, see the website: http://www.edmondswa.gov/housing-commission.htmI Packet Pg. 90 3.0 Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 03/10/2021 Updates on Various Position Recruitments Staff Lead: Shane Hope / Rob Chave Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Rob Chave Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative This will be an update on the following: Status of Board Member recruitment. Status of Student Rep recruitment. Status of communication/outreach staff member. Packet Pg. 91 4.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 03/10/2021 Training Session with the City Attorney Staff Lead: City Attorney Jeff Taraday Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Rob Chave Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative This is an opportunity for training with the City Attorney, which usually happens during the retreat each year. In addition to any relevant public meetings topics Mr. Taraday will address any questions from Board members. Chair Rosen also wants to specifically review and discuss attendance requirements for Planning Board meetings. The relevant section of code is attached for reference. Attachments: Attachment 1: OPMA Training code requirement Attachment 2: Mettings Attendance code requirements Packet Pg. 92 4.A.a Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code Page 1/1 10.02.010 Open Public Meetings Act training. A. Every member of an Edmonds board or commission must complete training on the Open Public Meetings Act, Chapter 42.30 RCW, no later than 90 days after the date the member either: 1. Takes the oath of office, if the member is required to take an oath of office to assume his or her duties as a public official; or 2. Otherwise assumes his or her duties as a public official. B. In addition to the training required under subsection (A) of this section, every member of an Edmonds board or commission must complete training at intervals of no more than four years as long as the individual is a member of an Edmonds board or commission. C. Training may be completed remotely with technology including but not limited to internet-based training. D. Within seven days of completing Open Public Meetings Act training, the Edmonds board or commission member shall provide a certificate of completion to the city clerk. [Ord. 4172 § 1, 2019]. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4211, passed December 15, 2020. Packet Pg. 93 4.A.b Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code Page 1/2 Chapter 1.05 PUBLIC MEETINGS ATTENDANCE Chapter 1.05 PUBLIC MEETINGS ATTENDANCE Sections: 1.05.010 Attendance required — Remote participation. 1.05.020 Attendance records. 1.05.030 New nominees appointment/ confirmations. 1.05.040 Exemptions. 1.05.050 Quorum requirements. 1.05.010 Attendance required — Remote participation. A. In addition to being subject to removal for other particularized grounds as set forth in applicable provisions of the Edmonds City Code, members of all city boards, commissions and committees (hereinafter "members"), except as set forth herein, shall be removed from office, and the position deemed vacant as set forth in ECC 1.05.020(C) if such member attends less than 70 percent of the regular meetings in any one calendar year, and/or is not in attendance at three or more consecutive regular meetings. Members may participate in board and commission meetings remotely (by telephone, video conference, etc.) up to two times per calendar year, and such participation shall be considered attendance for the purposes of this subsection; provided, that any such participation must allow for all other members of the board or commission and any public in attendance to hear the member on the remote device; and provided further, that any member participating remotely must commence participation at the beginning of the meeting and must declare an intention to participate until the end of the meeting. After resuming a remote connection after any technical disruption of said connection, the chair shall determine whether a member may participate in any action on a matter that may have been discussed during the disconnection, based on the duration of the disconnection, nature of the discussion, etc. B. The chairperson of the particular board, commission or committee may excuse any member from attendance at any particular meeting or meetings for reasons that are (1) work related, (2) due to illness or death in the family, or (3) extended vacations in excess of two weeks in length; provided, however, each such excused absence shall be so noted by the chairperson at the meeting from which the member is being excused and such fact shall be recorded in the minutes along with the reason given for the excused absence by the member. Excused absences shall not be counted for purposes of removal from office, but only if so noted in the minutes as set forth herein. In the absence of the chairperson, the member acting in the chairperson's behalf, such as vice -chairperson or pro tem, shall make the determination of whether the absence is excused, and announce the same for recording in the minutes of the meeting from which the member is excused. [Ord. 4098 § 1, 2018; Ord. 2556, 1986; Ord. 2033 § 2, 1978; Ord. 2156 § 1, 1980]. 1.05.020 Attendance records. A. The city clerk shall keep a record of attendance of all board, commission and committee meetings. Upon any member failing to attend three or more consecutive regular meetings without the chairperson's excuse being noted in the minutes, the city clerk shall certify said member's name in writing to the mayor and shall notify in writing the members, the chairperson, and the appropriate city department head. B. On or before January 15th of each calendar year, commencing in 1980, the city clerk shall compile a list of members, if any, who have attended less than 70 percent of the regular meetings in the past calendar year without the chairperson's excuses being noted in the minutes, and shall certify this list to the mayor. The city clerk shall also notify in writing the members, the applicable chairperson and the appropriate city department head. C. The member shall be automatically removed from office and the position deemed vacant as of the date of the city clerk's written notification as set forth in subsections (A) and (B) of this section. [Ord. 2033 § 3, 1978; Ord. 2156 § 2, 1980]. 1.05.030 New nominees appointment/ confirmations. Upon receipt from the city clerk of the names of members failing to maintain attendance as provided herein, the mayor shall, within 90 days thereof, submit new nominations to the city council for confirmation. The city council The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4211, passed December 15, 2020. Packet Pg. 94 Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code Chapter 1.05 PUBLIC MEETINGS ATTENDANCE Page 2/2 shall confirm or reject the nominations within 30 days after the mayor submits the nominations to the council for consideration. A member removed for failing to maintain attendance as provided by this chapter may not be renominated or reappointed to a position on that or other city of Edmonds' board, committee or commission for at least one year after removal. [Ord. 2033 § 4, 1978]. 1.05.040 Exemptions. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to members of the following boards, commissions and committees: A. Edmonds city council; and B. Edmonds civil service commission. [Ord. 2033 § 5, 1978]. 1.05.050 Quorum requirements. A. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Edmonds City Code, if the number of members of any city board, commission or committee having seven positions and subject to this chapter should be reduced to six or less for any reason, including a member's removal for failure to maintain attendance, three members shall constitute a quorum. B. Members participating in a board or commission meeting remotely, as provided for in ECC 1.05.010, shall be counted towards the number of members required to constitute a quorum by the regulations pertaining to each board or commission, provided in ECC Title 10. [Ord. 4098 § 2, 2018; Ord. 2033 § 6, 1978]. The Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4211, passed December 15, 2020. Packet Pg. 95 5.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 03/10/2021 Work Program and Extended Agenda Staff Lead: Rob Chave Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Rob Chave Background/History The Planning Board discussed its work program in a joint meeting with the City Council in July, 2020. Staff Recommendation Discuss the 2021 work program. Narrative Staff is working on a draft outline of upcoming issues and timing, following up on recent City Council actions. The extended agenda outline will be presented and discussed during this agenda item. Attachments: Attachment 1: Joint Meeting Work Program Discussion with City Council - agenda item Attachment 2: Joint Meeting Work Program Discussion with City Council - meeting minutes Packet Pg. 96 5.A.a City Council Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/28/2020 Joint Meeting with the Planning Board Staff Lead: Shane Hope / Daniel Robles (PB Chair) Department: Planning Division Preparer: Rob Chave Background/History This is a periodic joint meeting with members of the Planning Board. Staff Recommendation Discuss matters of mutual interest with the Council to provide feedback and direction. Part of the focus should be on the Planning Board's work program for the following year. Narrative The following comprises the Planning Board's current 2020-2021 work program. This can form the basis for the discussion with the City Council to enable the Council to give specific feedback on its priorities to guide the Board's work during the next year. Please refer to the Planning Board's minutes from July 81n and February 26t" for further detail and discussion. The Planning Board approved the following on February 26th, 2020: A. PLANNING BOARD WORK PRIORITIES Development Code Updates 1 Code updates implementing the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP), including updates to tree regulations** 2 Code updates reflecting Climate Code Goals, including electric vehicle charging infrastructure** 3 Low -impact subdivision code updates** 4 Code updates related to sidewalks requirements for new development ** 5. Architectural Design Board (ADB) design review process 6 Neighborhood Center Plans and Implementation 7 Buildable Lands 8 Housing policies and implementation 9 Further Highway 99 Subarea Plan Implementation 10 Other periodic updates on planning activities ** Denotes highest priority items. B. UPDATES TO THE PLANNING BOARD 1 Parks and Recreation (quarterly) Packet Pg. 97 5.A.a 2 Housing Commission activities 3 Low-impact/stormwater review and updates 4 Puget Sound Regional Council's Vision 2050 Process 5 Capital Projects 6 Comprehensive Plan C. JOINT MEETINGS 1 City Council - High priority 2 Economic Development Commission - High priority 3 Architectural Design Board - As applicable 4 Tree Board - As applicable D. LIAISONS WITH OTHER CITIZEN BOARDS 1 Economic Development Commission - Board Member Pence 2 City Council meetings, 3-minute updates 3 Architectural Design Board - Chair Robles 4 Housing Commission - Board Member Pence 5 Planning Board Community Outreach Coordinator - Board Member Crank E. INCREASE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IN PLANNING BOARD TOPICS 1 Goal is to have three citizens attend/step to the lectern each meeting 2 Add agenda item to identify and contact audiences who would have an interest in NEXT meeting agenda items - City outreach content 3 Coordinate with new City staff person for Planning Board outreach 4 Encourage student member to actively encourage youth participation 5 Reach out to the Youth Commission 6 Inform 'the public of topics of interest. The Board's work program has been disrupted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the Board remains committed to doing as much as possible in the months ahead. Attachments: Exhibit 1: Planning Board minutes 7-8-2020 Exhibit 1: Planning Board minutes 2-26-2020 Packet Pg. 98 5.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom July 8, 2020 Chair Robles called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Daniel Robles, Chair Mike Rosen, Vice Chair Todd Cloutier Alicia Crank Nathan Monroe Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig Roger Pence BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Matthew Cheung (excused) Conner Bryan, Student Representative READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Shane Hope, Development Services Director Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager BOARD MEMBER CRANK MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JUNE 24, 2020 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER RUBENKONIG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, WITH CHAIR ROBLES ABSTAINING. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no audience comments. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Robles referred the Board to the Development Services Director's Report that was provided in the packet. Board Member Pence noted that the report shows that the City's current population is 42,470, an increase of 300 residents. He asked how many new dwelling units were added during that same period of time. Mr. Chave agreed to contact the City Packet Pg. 99 5.A.a Clerk's Office for more information. Board Member Pence requested information about the Snohomish County Tomorrow Steering Committee's methodology for the Buildable Lands Report. Mr. Chave agreed to provide a link to the information on the Snohomish County Tomorrow website. I� 1I:�\�1�►[!i_�� � '71 II►�Il�i�L�7 :7 :� � :Z�Z!'J 7��� Mr. Chave reviewed that the Board last discussed this subject on February 26r''. This discussion is an opportunity for the Board to review its 2020 Work Program one more time in preparation for a joint meeting with the City Council on July 28r''. The Board's approved work program would be submitted as part of the meeting materials for the joint meeting. Chair Robles commented that the 2020 Work Program the Board approved in February will need to be adjusted given the time remaining in the year. He suggested they review the list of work items again, identifying those that should move forward in 2020 and those that would be carried over into 2021. Mr. Chave said another option would be identify what they hope to work on over the next year (not calendar year), and then highlight the priority items. Board Member Rubenkonig said she would like to keep the work program intact for now. As they approach the end of the year, the items they didn't get to in 2020 could be moved to the 2021 Work Program. Chair Robles agreed that the current 2020 Work Program would work well as a baseline. He commented that nothing about 2020 has been normal, and he doesn't expect the future to be any more or less normal. This makes it difficult to prioritize. Given the staffs limitations, the Board's agenda will need to operate opportunistically. While she doesn't disagree with Board Member Rubenkonig's recommendation, Board Member Crank felt it would behoove the Board to revisit the list again, identifying at least a few projects that could feasibly be accomplished in 2020. Vice Chair Rosen agreed. He recalled that one reason the Board created the 2020 Work Program was to present it to the City Council for input and direction. He observed that both Director Hope and Mr. Chave are in good positions to understand the City's priorities, and he would like to hear from them about what they believe the priorities should be. Board Member Cloutier said it is important for the Board to review the 2020 Work Program in light of the current pandemic to identify what the Board can do to help. For example, he asked if there is anything the Board could do related to City regulations and accommodations to appropriately aid homeless individuals. Also, is there anything the Board should be considering related to the hospital district? Mr. Chave agreed this is a good subject to bring up when meeting with the City Council. They've been discussing a variety of issues and may have a few ideas they want the Planning Board to investigate. Board Member Pence pointed out that City boards and commissions are still operating under the constraints imposed by the Governor that only essential and routine matters can be considered as they meet in virtual mode. They should keep this in mind as they prioritize their agenda and set aside those items that do not fit into that category until the governor changes the rules. Director Hope reviewed that the Governor placed certain restrictions on the Open Public Meetings Act in the early stages of the pandemic. The rule stipulated that government bodies could only meet to discuss issues that were necessary and routine or Covid-19 related. That rule has expired, and the City's council, boards and commissions can now discuss other issues. However, there are still restrictions that prevent regular public meetings, and the Board will need to keep these restrictions in mind as they review their work program. In addition to the restrictions on boards and commissions, staff is having to deal with additional work related to the pandemic. Also, the department was unable to move forward with hiring an additional staff person to work on planning issues. The Board reviewed the 2020 Work Plan as follows: • Planning Board Priorities Director Hope said that, in her discussions with City Council Members, a few things have been identified as particularly important: updating the tree regulations and implementing the Urban Forest Management Plan, updating the subdivision code, and updating the code to be more environmentally friendly and reduce the carbon footprint For example, adding requirements for electric vehicle charging stations and bicycle storage would make it easier for people to use alternative Planning Board Minutes July 8, 2020 Page 2 Packet Pg. 100 5.A.a means of transportation. These requirements will be especially important as new development occurs. She said staff would like to focus on these priorities. Director Hope said new projects related to the pandemic and homelessness could come up, but she isn't aware of any at this time. She agreed with Mr. Chave that the Board should discuss this issue with the City Council. She said staff would also like to move forward as quickly as possible to implement the recommendations that come from the Housing Commission's work. It is likely that these recommendations will include amendments to the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) regulations. In addition, the Board will need to work on the 2020 Comprehensive Plan amendments. Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that, when the Board last discussed its 2020 Work Program, the thought was that implementing the Urban Forest Management Plan went hand -in -hand with updating the tree regulations. Director Hope said one of the recommendations in the Urban Forest Management Plan is to update the tree regulations. Board Member Rubenkonig noted that this item is already listed as the top priority. She asked if staff wants to keep that item as a top priority and further call out the tree regulations as a specific part of that discussion. Director Hope agreed that would be appropriate. Board Member Rubenkonig noted that low -impact subdivision code updates were also identified as a top priority in the 2020 Work Program. She asked if that is still staff s intent, or if the subdivision code update would be broader. Director Hope responded that the intent is to update the subdivision code to incorporate low -impact development provisions. Director Hope said sidewalk requirements for new development have been on the staffs list for a long time. The issue has come up due to concerns that some development has occurred recently without any sidewalks. This is a priority of at least some City Council Members, and it would be an appropriate topic to add to the Board's 2020 Work Program. Board Member Pence asked when Director Hope intends to hire the new planner. Director Hope said she doesn't have a timeline, and she is currently waiting for Mayor Nelson's approval. Because of the pandemic, new hiring has been put on hold for the time being. She is hoping to get clearance to hire by fall. Chair Robles summarized that it appears the Board's top priorities line up with the priorities expressed by the City Council: code updates to implement the Urban Forest Management Plan (including updates to the tree regulations), code updates reflecting climate code goals (electric vehicle charging infrastructures), and low -impact subdivision code updates. The Board agreed to add an additional item as a priority: code updates related to sidewalks requirements for new development. He suggested that the remaining items on the Board's list of priorities would likely roll into 2021. Mr. Chave suggested they put an asterisk by the top priority items with a note below indicating that they are the Board's highest priorities, and other items may have to wait until next year. • Updates to the Planning Board Board Member Rubenkonig said she doesn't want to eliminate any of the updates. Board Member Pence observed that some of the updates to the Planning Board tend to be more in-depth and ramble on longer than necessary. He suggested that the updates should be presented to the Board in a more compact form. For example, the agenda for the July 22nd meeting includes only an update from the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department. He felt the update could be shortened and doesn't need to consume the entire meeting. • Joint Meetings Board Member Rubenkonig suggested the Board reconsider and prioritize the Board's meetings with other boards and commissions in 2020. Board Member Crank said it is important to keep in mind that not all boards and commissions are meeting at this time. Director Hope said that, as of this month, there are still a few groups that haven't met since the pandemic started. The Economic Development Commission met for the first time in June, but the Architectural Design Board has not met. Board Member Crank cautioned that the Board should be mindful that other groups might still be trying to catch up after Planning Board Minutes July 8, 2020 Page 3 Packet Pg. 101 5.A.a not meeting for a while. She said she would prioritize a joint meeting with the Economic Development Commission given the economic impacts associated with the pandemic. There has been a lot of discussion in the community about streets in the downtown being shut down on weekends to support local businesses and allow them to remain viable and somewhat profitable during the pandemic. She imagines that these conversations will continue, and some requests may require zoning changes and expediency will be important. Board Member Rubenkonig recommended the Board discuss this with the City Council, suggesting that the Board could meet jointly with the Economic Development Commission to consider potential zoning changes. Board Member Crank agreed that would be appropriate. Board Member Rubenkonig said she would also like to meet jointly with the Tree Board, as the Board prepares to consider potential updates to the tree regulations. Chair Robles summarized that the Board would like to prioritize their joint meetings as follows: City Council, Economic Development Commission, Tree Board, and Architectural Design Board. • Liaison's with Other Citizen Boards and Increasing Public Engagement in Planning Board Topics Board Member Rubenkonig commented that having representatives keep apprised of what is happening with other citizen boards and commissions would have no impact on the Board's ability to complete its priority projects. She felt these assignments should continue. She also felt that the Board's ideas for increasing public engagement in Planning Board topics should continue as outlined in the 2020 Work Program. • Summary Chair Robles summarized that, as discussed, the Board's top priorities are as follows: code updates to implement the Urban Forest Management Plan (including updates to the tree regulations), code updates reflecting climate code goals (electric vehicle charging infrastructures), low -impact subdivision code updates, code updates related to sidewalk requirements for new development, and review and provide recommendations on requests related to economic development during the pandemic. In addition to this work, the Board's agenda for the remainder of the year could include a few updates as needed or appropriate. The remaining items on the work program would most likely be postponed until 2021. Board Member Crank cautioned that the City Council will most likely have some opposing viewpoints on what the Board's priorities should be. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that putting in place temporary situations that the City Council might be comfortable with in accommodating businesses during the pandemic isn't going to be a permanent development code update. Therefore, it shouldn't be included on the Board's list of priorities. Instead, she felt it would be more appropriate for the Board to request an opportunity to meet jointly with the Economic Development Commission to discuss these matters and provide input to the City Council. Chair Robles cautioned that the work program should be simple, recognizing that the Board's activities will depend on the work of the Planning Department staff. Mr. Chave said the simplest approach would be to use the same list, adding an asterisk to indicate the highest priority items under "Development Code Updates" as discussed by the Board. The rest of the list could remain intact. Vice Chair Robles reminded the Board of Director Hope's comments, indicating what appears to be most important to the City Council. In addition, the Board should recognize that it is the City Council's prerogative to adjust the agenda as it sees fit. The Board agreed to utilize Mr. Chave's approach and present the document to the City Council with one additional priority (sidewalks requirements for new development) and asterisks to indicate the Board's top priorities. At the joint meeting with the City Council, Vice Chair Rosen suggested that the Board present the 2020 Work Program as quickly and simply as possible. This will give each City Council Member an opportunity to weigh in and for the Board Members to respond. Mr. Chave agreed that is good advice. He suggested the Board provide an introduction to the City Council, hitting on the highest priorities and letting the rest of it speak for itself. Planning Board Minutes July 8, 2020 Page 4 Packet Pg. 102 5.A.a Chair Robles as if there is a work statement for each of the items on the priority list. Without this information, he voiced concern that the Board Members may not be able to respond articulately to questions from City Council Members. Mr. Chave said staff would be present at the joint meeting to provide added explanations. Board Member Rubenkonig added that the February 26t' meeting minutes provide a good introduction for each of the items on the priority list. Chair Robles encouraged the Board Members to review the information prior to the joint meeting. Mr. Chave said the minutes would also be included in the City Council's packet for the joint meeting. Chair Robles agreed to reach out to the City Council President to discuss the format for the joint meeting. Director Hope advised that the joint meeting is scheduled for July 28d' at 7:00 p.m., and it will be a virtual meeting via Zoom. At this time, she doesn't know what the order of the agenda will be. She said she would send each of the Board Members a link to the Zoom meeting. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Robles announced that the July 22nd meeting agenda will include an update from the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department. A joint meeting with the City Council is scheduled for July 28r''. The August 12' meeting agenda will include a discussion on development code work (electric vehicle charging infrastructure, tree regulations, etc.) It will also include an update on the permanent Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. Two public hearings are scheduled for August 26r' on proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps. One would change the designation of 21 properties from Single Family Resource to Single Family Urban 1. The other would change the designation for 1.04 acres from Neighborhood Commercial to Multifamily Medium Density. Lastly, Chair Robles said the September 91 agenda will include a public hearing on the permanent Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance and discussions on potential code changes (tree regulations and electric vehicle charging infrastructure). The remaining extended agenda will be formulated based on the results of the joint meeting with the City Council. Board Member Pence asked if the Board would receive briefings prior to the two public hearings on August 26t1i. Mr. Chave responded that the Board can't have separate briefings because everything has to be part of the public record for the hearings. While there are some legislative aspects, the two applications are primarily quasi-judicial in nature and appearance of fairness is very important. The Board can't have a separate discussion without the applicants being part of the it. Typically, the entire process takes place in one public hearing: staff introduction/briefing, applicant presentation, public comments, Board deliberation, and Board recommendation. The Board Members will receive information prior to the meeting to help them study and develop questions, but they can't have a separate briefing on the issues. Mr. Chave advised that staff will present a development activity report to the City Council at the end of July, and Director Hope will make a similar presentation to the Planning Board, as well. Board Member Rubenkonig referred to Board Member Pence's earlier comments related to the August 28' meeting agenda and reminded the Board that the burden is on the applicants to show that their proposed changes meet the criteria outlined in the Development Code and Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave advised that the staff report will review each of the criteria. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Robles thanked Vice Chair Rosen for leading the last two meetings. He did a great job. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Vice Chair Rosen announced that $100,000 stands between the City retaining or losing its Chamber of Commerce by the end of the year. Without the Chamber, there would be no 4t1i of July parade or fireworks, no Halloween event, no car show, no Taste of Edmonds, and a variety of other activities. A fundraising campaign is currently in progress to raise the money by the end of the year to help preserve these events. Board Member Crank announced that the Economic Alliance of Snohomish County and the Everett Herald will present the Emerging Heroes Awards at a virtual event on July 9t''. She will be the keynote speaker at the event, and it is important to Planning Board Minutes July 8, 2020 Page 5 Packet Pg. 103 5.A.a note that 2 of the 12 honorees are from Edmonds. One of the honorees is Courtney Whooten, who is well known as a community organizer. One of her most recent projects was the very successful Black History Month event that was held at the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Another honoree is Craig Olsen, who is the Vice President of Sales and part owner of Washington Energy Services. She encouraged the Board Members to read about the honorees in the Everett Business Journal. Board Member Crank recalled a discussion the Board had in 2019 regarding the use of social media. She commented that the City has recently stepped up its social media game and now has a pretty active Facebook page, as well as a Twitter account. It is good to see the City communicating events and other information, especially around the pandemic. She reported that a culturally -insensitive post was made today on Facebook but has since been deleted. Her hope is that the person running the City's social media sites will get some sensitivity training. She cautioned all Board Members to be careful of how they communicate on social media. Board Member Crank pointed out that the Governor has mandated that everyone wear masks in situations where social distancing is not possible. She has subtly reached out to the City staff and leadership, asking them to consider having a diversity of masks. The ones she has been advocating for are called the smile masks, which are the clear mouth kind. There are members of the community who are deaf or hard of hearing, and this is something her work place has been pushing as they work with people with disabilities. She shared an example of the type of mask she is advocating for and agreed to share information with the Board Members and staff about where to purchase them. She encouraged the City to provide similar masks to staff members who interact with the community. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:14 p.m. Planning Board Minutes July 8, 2020 Page 6 Packet Pg. 104 5.A.a Vice Chair Rosen shared an example of a system he has seen used for water conservation which could apply. The objective was how to keep water -usage levels the same for a very large metropolitan area despite 10 years of growth. The best and cheapest approach was to reduce consumption by educating the public, offering rebates and encouraging people to modify their behavior. For example, a toilet has a dollar value based on the average number of times it is flushed and the amount of water that is used for each flush, and the same would be true for a frontload washing machine. Another approach was to encourage people to change their shower heads and take shorter showers. They were able to identify a formula that made it very easy to prioritize and throw dollars at because they could calculate a return on investment. Because a dollar value was identified, people were able to receive rebates when switching to more energy efficient alternatives. Within one year, the public responded so well that the program was discontinued because there wasn't enough money coming in to populate the utility. The system worked well to both visualize and track. It seems the City has been struggling with a way to calculate and track the benefits associated with each of the strategies. Chair Robles added that the City's program is also missing incentives that entice people to change behaviors. Board Member Rubenkonig said it seems odd that the City doesn't have more quantifiable ways to measure success. Vice Chair Rosen commented that the science already exists for any of the strategies and metrics in the plan that are aimed at reducing GHG. Mr. Lien advised that the Board would be kept in the loop as the Climate Action Plan is updated. PLANNING BOARD 2020 WORK PROGRAM Chair Robles reviewed that the Board has had discussions over the past few months regarding their goals and priorities for 2020. The discussion has included what the Board wants to get done this year and what the staff can support. He and Vice Chair Rosen also met with Mayor Nelson and received feedback on his priorities. The goal is to deliver the list of priorities to the City Council for feedback at a joint meeting on March 24". He referred to the draft 2020 Planning Board Work Program and briefly summarized the Board's previous discussions as follows: • Development Code Updates: The Development Code amendments will require a lot of work on behalf of staff. The list of code updates includes Urban Forest Management Plan implementation, multifamily design standards, tree regulations, climate goal implementation, subdivision code updates, further Highway 99 implementation, and buildable lands process. • Neighborhood Center Plans and Implementation. The Board is interested in pursuing the development and implementation of neighborhood plans, such as the Five Corners Subarea Plan. They discussed the design review process with a preferred role for the Architectural Design Board. The Board would also like to pursue housing policies and implementation, as directed by the Housing Commission, and electrical vehicle infrastructure and bicycle storage requirements. • Updates to the Planning Board. The Board will receive periodic updates from the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Manager and Housing Commission. Staff will also provide progress reports on the Puget Sound Regional Council's Vision 2050 process, the Stormwater Manual update, capital projects, and Comprehensive Plan amendments. • Outreach. The Board discussed the need to improve public outreach, which can be a topic of discussion at the joint meeting with the City Council on March 24th • Joint Meetings. The Board will meet jointly with the City Council on March 24'. The Board also expressed a desire to meet jointly with the Architectural Design Board during the 2°d quarter of 2020. In addition, the Board may meet jointly with the Tree Board and Economic Development Commission, as applicable. • Other Citizen Boards (Liaison). The Board indicated a desire for better communication with other City boards and commissions, and possibly assigning Planning Board representatives to attend their meetings and report back on applicable items. As discussed at the last meeting, the representatives would not be formal liaison assignments. Board Member Pence agreed to represent the Board with the Economic Development Commission and Housing Planning Board Minutes February 26, 2020 Page 7 Packet Pg. 105 5.A.a Commission, and Chair Robles the Architectural Design Board. They also discussed that Board Member Crank could serve as the Planning Board's Community Outreach Liaison. In addition, the Chair and/or Vice Chair will present brief updates to the City Council. Increase public engagement in Planning Board Topics. The goal is to have at least three citizens attend and comment at each meeting. The Board expressed a desire to use social media to inform the public about upcoming Planning Board topics. The City Attorney indicated this would be fine, as long as none of the Board Members share comments that give the impression they are speaking on behalf of the Board. Mayor Nelson agreed it was a good idea, and the City is hiring a part-time Public Information Officer/Communications Strategist. Chair Robles suggested that Board Member Crank work directly with this new employee on Planning Board community outreach. The Board also discussed how to increase public engagement in Planning Board topics, and one specific idea was to add an agenda item to identify and contact audiences who could have interest in the next meeting agenda. Denise Miller, Edmonds, said she represents the Edmonds Neighborhood Action Coalition and the Sierra Club, and she attends most City meetings. She is part of the Housing Commission, as well as the Mayor's Conservation Advisory Board. She attends meetings of the Tree Board and the Edmonds Port Commission. She commented that some boards and commissions form citizen subcommittees to review and provide feedback on a particular issue. This results in more buy -in and a group that can tell you what you are doing right and wrong. Transparency is one of the biggest complaints she hears, and usually it is because the information is hard to find. The City is working to improve its website, which should help. She suggested that the Board reach out to some of the community activists to hear thoughts on what the Board could do to encourage public engagement at their meetings. • Planning Board General Expectations. The Board agreed that each agenda should generally consume 90 minutes, but meetings could run longer as needed. The first half of the meeting would include public comments and presentations from the various boards and commissions, and the second half would be dedicated to deep -diving into code review, updates and revisions. The Chair and Vice Chair would support a brisk and productive pace. There is a concern about potential staff shortages. Staff s ability to support a denser Planning Board schedule might require the Board to cancel a few meetings so staff can catch up and prepare Staff Reports. Chair Robles summarized that the Board has met with staff and discussed the proposed work plan at their retreat. The Chair and Vice Chair have validated the ideas with Mayor Nelson, and they are working with staff to populate the Planning Board's calendar. They are scheduled to meet with Mayor Nelson quarterly, and a joint meeting with the City Council is scheduled for March 241. VICE CHAIR ROSEN MOVED THAT THE BOARD ACCEPT THE PROPOSED 2020 WORK PROGRAM, AS FOLLOWS: A. PLANNING BOARD PRIORITIES Development Code Updates • Code updates implementing the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) • Code updates reflecting Climate Code Goals • Low -impact subdivision code updates • Further Highway 99 Subarea Plan Implementation • Buildable Lands • Neighborhood Center Plans and Implementation • Architectural Design Board (ADB) design review process • Housing policies and implementation • Electric vehicle charging infrastructure and bicycle storage requirements B. UPDATES TO THE PLANNING BOARD • Parks and Recreation (quarterly) • Housing Commission activities Planning Board Minutes February 26, 2020 Page 8 Packet Pg. 106 5.A.a • Low-impact/stormwater review and updates • Puget Sound Regional Council's Vision 2050 Process • Capital Projects • Comprehensive Plan C. JOINT MEETINGS • City Council — let Quarter (Tentative March 24t'') • Architectural Design Board — 2°a Quarter • Economic Development Commission — As applicable • Tree Board — As applicable D. OTHER CITIZEN BOARDS • Economic Development Commission — Board Member Pence • City Council meetings, 3-minute updates • Architectural Design Board — Chair Robles • Housing Commission — Board Member Pence • Planning Board Community Outreach Coordinator — Board Member Crank E. INCREASE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IN PLANNING BOARD TOPICS • Goal is to have three citizens attend/step to the lectern each meeting • Add agenda item to identify and contact audiences who would have an interest in NEXT meeting agenda items — City outreach content • Coordinate with new City staff person for Planning Board outreach • Encourage student member to actively encourage youth participation • Reach out to the Youth Commission • Inform the public of topics of interest. HE FURTHER MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED 2020 WORK PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL IN ADVANCE OF THE JOINT MEETING. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. NEW BUSINESS REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Robles suggested there are three potential opportunities to cancel Planning Board meetings. The Board is scheduled to meet jointly with the City Council on March 24t' and they could cancel their March 25t' meeting. The Board's April 8" meeting falls during the Easter/Passover week, and that might be a good meeting to cancel. The May 27" meeting follows Memorial Day and could also be cancelled. He agreed to discuss these dates with staff, so the Board can make a decision at their next meeting. The Board will also review the draft 2020 Work Plan one more time before meeting jointly with the City Council. Chair Robles referred to the agenda for the March 11' meeting and asked the Board for feedback on who the target audience might be. The March 1 I' agenda will include updates on the Housing Commission's Work, the Building Lands process, and the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Vision 2050 Process. He suggested that perhaps members of the Architectural Design Board (ADB) could be invited to attend. Mr. Chave suggested the Board wait to invite the ADB to attend until after the joint meeting and the Board has received feedback from the City Council. He advised that Ms. Hope would present the Housing Commission update, and Mr. Lien would present the Buildable Lands update. Mr. Chave explained that the Buildable Lands Analysis is a work program that is centered on Snohomish County working with the various cities. It is required by state law and feeds into local jurisdictions as they look at their capacity to handle growth. It is primarily a technical exercise that provides input into local jurisdiction's Comprehensive Plan processes. No Planning Board Minutes February 26, 2020 Page 9 Packet Pg. 107 5.A.b Council President Fraley-Monillas accepted that as a friendly amendment to the motion and the seconder agreed. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. JOINT MEETING JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING BOARD Development Services Director Shane Hope explained the joint meeting with Council is an opportunity for the Planning Board to share their ideas and thoughts and to get Council thoughts and perspective. Chair Daniel Robles reviewed: Planning Board Members o Todd Cloutier January 2010 o Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig March 2014 o Dan Robles (Chair) May 2014 o Matt Cheung October 2014 o Nathan Monroe June 2015 o Alicia Crank February 2016 o Mike Rosen (Vice Chair) June 2017 o Roger Pence (Alternate) July 2019 o Conner Bryan (Student Rep) April 2019 Map of Members' residences in City COVID-19 changes everything o Focus on physical spaces o Flexibility and resourcefulness o Social consensus o Shift in resource allocations Knowledge Endowment o Civil Engineer o Software Designer and Program Manager o Engineer/Business Owner o Planner/Business Owner o Construction manager o Corporate relations officer o Lawyer o Marketing executive o Transportation industry o High school student Top Work Priorities 1. Code updates implementing the to tree regulations Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) including updates 2. Code updates reflecting Climate Change goals, including electric vehicle charging infrastructure 3. Low -impact subdivision code updates 4. Code updates related to sidewalks requirements for new development Ancillary Activities (provide necessary support to the primary activities of an organization instruction or industry) o Updates: Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 28, 2020 Q Page 9 Packet Pg. 108 5.A.b ■ Parks and recreation, housing commission, low-impact/stormwater review and updates, PSRC Vision 2050, capital projects, comprehensive pan o Joint meetings/liaison ■ City Council, EDC, Architectural Design Board, Housing Commission, Tree Board o Increase public engagement with Planning Board ■ Outreach, targeted announcements — social media, online attendance Conclusion o Planning Board is available to serve a wide range of city needs Board Member Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig said the 2020 work program was a response to the planning department's direction and board members' concerns. The goal of the joint meeting is an affirmation of the work program and/or adjustment by the City Council. Councilmember K. Johnson, a former member of Planning Board and a planner, said she was always very interested in these joint meetings. She relayed her understanding that the Planning Board planned to review the floodplain regulations in six months. She suggested looking at the model floodplain ordinance and not just do the minimum allowed but considering whether it is a good idea to allow for development or redevelopment in the floodplain. Generally, if that is allowed, it can cost cities millions of dollars to provide the kind of hardening, levies and pumps to get water out of areas where development has occurred. She liked that there were only four priorities for this year and said the tree code is one of the most important. She was interested in addressing not only public lands but also private lands, pointing out the cutting of trees on private land for development. She recalled there had been a lot of discussion over the past eight years about subdivision and PRD regulations, however, those are not on the list other than low impact development. Another thing that is not on the list is the 5 Corners land use update. Chair Robles said other items on the list include Highway 99 Subarea Plan Implementation, Buildable Lands, Neighborhood Center Plans and Implementation, and Architectural Design Board review process and policies. The four that were identified were the top priorities. Councilmember K. Johnson noted the Work Plan in the packet included ten Planning Board priorities plus six updates, joint meetings, liaisons with other citizen boards and public engagement. The topics she suggested, other than the tree code update, were not on the work program. Councilmember Buckshnis said she thoroughly enjoys reading the Planning Board's minutes and the work they are doing, noting each board member has their own personality. The members are very dedicated and their backgrounds are evident in their questions and comments. She recalled Chair Robles saying the Planning Board looked at the bike lane code, pointing out they did not review the Sound Transit bike lane project that was addressed during audience comments. Chair Robles said five years ago the Planning Board considered north -south routes and getting people off the thoroughfares in Westgate and north to 5 Corners. That was before e-bikes although they cautioned that e-bikes were coming. Councilmember Buckshnis relayed her respect for Ms. Hope who has been leading the charge, noting she also enjoyed her department summaries. She recalled last year the Mayor's Climate Protection Committee had a company put together a greenhouse gas modeling tool that would be used to reduce greenhouse gas. She asked if the Planning Board would be part of vetting that model. Chair Robles said the Planning Board would like to see that as climate goals will influence code revisions. Councilmember Buckshnis said it was being vetted through the Mayor's Climate Protection Committee and the Tree Board and wondered when that would be presented to the Planning Board. Ms. Hope said the Planning Board will be involved in climate change goals and the climate action plan; staff will be making a presentation to the City Council about the project in the next week or two. More work will need to be done in the next few months by the Climate Protection Committee, Tree Board, Planning Board and others. Councilmember Buckshnis commented it was a very exciting model and she looked forward to the presentation. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 28, 2020 Q Page 10 Packet Pg. 109 5.A.b Councilmember L. Johnson said she watched the meeting online and appreciated the comments about simplifying and prioritizing the most pressing and feasible topics particularly during COVID. She was on board with the list of four items, noting they all have an environmental aspect. With regard to increased public engagement, she appreciated the point about the student representative actively encouraging youth participation and reaching out to the Youth Commission. As the Council liaison to the Youth Commission and the mother of three teens, the Planning Board will be impressed, possibly even blown away, by the perspective and contribution that youth can bring. She was encouraged that they were recognized as a valued resource in the community. Councilmember Paine agreed with the top four priorities and suggested including the Architectural Design Board (ADB) design review process if possible this year. Chair Robles said getting the ADB involved at the beginning could make a great deal of difference. Councilmember Paine was glad to see that was on the Planning Board's list of priorities, although item 5, as that process needs attention. She recognized the work the Planning Board does for the City and for the talents they bring to the table. Councilmember Distelhorst voiced support for #2, Code updates reflecting Climate Change goals, as that is very important work as well as addressing affordable housing in the City, although he recognized that may have to wait for the Housing Commission's recommendations. He relayed two of his external appointments are Snohomish County Tomorrow and the Alliance for Housing Affordability so he was interested in the Planning Board's work to promote more affordable housing in Edmonds. Chair Robles said the Planning Board was at the epicenter of the housing issue meltdown that led to the creation of the Housing Commission. The Planning Board was glad the Housing Commission was formed to spearhead ideas and provide feedback. Councilmember Olson agreed with the top four priorities and was happy to see that the tree code was at the top of the list, noting a lot of people have been waiting for that. She highlighted the code rewrite related to sidewalks, commenting it becomes an equity issue where some homeowners are required to go to great lengths and expense to include a sidewalk in their development or remodel and due to loopholes or the way the code is written, it does not apply to other development. Councilmember Olson said in looking at how big the City's budget has gotten over a 10-20 year period, she wondered whether any consideration was given to utilization of City buildings and the possibility for savings. For example, privatizing and preserving the historic elements of the Edmonds Museum. She has attended meetings about developing a presence in other areas of the City where there is not as much representation. If it were privatized, some of the things in the museum could be displayed elsewhere such as a welcome station or a koban (Japan's take on a police station that is more friendly, where people can get directions, etc.). That would avoid the City spending money on elevator updates, etc. Another example is City Hall where there are empty office spaces that could be used to generate revenue. She asked whether that was anything the Planning Board would delve into. Chair Robles said that was a new ideas; baby steps needed to be taken as people get scared by new things. He noted in Japan, they will build a building over a building they want to preserve. Ideas could include community workspaces, intentional living, or repurposing larger spaces such as the auditorium in Frances Anderson Center as a classroom where people could be spaced apart. He summarized everything is up to reinterpretation due to COVID. The Planning Board could introduce ideas and then allow others to hash out what is practical. Board Member Crank said she liked the idea but from a procedural standpoint anything with a fiscal impact should come from Council and trickle down to the Planning Board. It likely would not go over well for the Planning Board to make that type of recommendation to Council and create community conflict. While she did not necessarily disagree, it was something for the Council to discuss and make a Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 28, 2020 Q Page 11 Packet Pg. 110 5.A.b decision and refer it to appropriate groups. Chair Robles agreed it was up to the City Council to see the Planning Board as a resource. Councilmember Olson clarified she was not saying she would ever want to do that without having a full conversation with the public. It was just a thought that could possibly be pursued but not before asking the public how they felt about it. Council President Fraley-Monillas said beyond asking the public, it takes a majority of the City Council before moving forward with ideas. There have been issues in the past few years with the Planning Board moving forward without a majority of City Council making a decision. It is important for citizens to understand that the Planning Board does not proceed based on one, two or even three Councilmembers' opinion, it must be a majority of the Council that makes that decision. The priority is code updates. She expressed appreciation for everything the Planning Board does and for having a student representing the perspective of the younger population. Ms. Hope relayed her understanding that the Council in general was comfortable with the priorities the Planning Board has identified, knowing that other things will come up including Climate Action and other topics like the floodplain update. She asked for confirmation that the Council was satisfied with the priorities. Councilmember K. Johnson asked about the timeline for floodplain update, whether it would be six months from the date the temporary was approved. Ms. Hope advised staff is working on it and it will come back to the Council this year. Councilmember K. Johnson suggested that be on the list of priorities. Ms. Hope agreed there were the four priorities mentioned in the presentation plus the floodplain update and the Climate Action Plan. The Council was agreeable with the work program. Mayor Nelson declared a brief recess. 9. ACTION ITEMS 1. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ECC 2.10.010 FOR COUNCIL REVIEW OF APPOINTIVE POSITIONS HR Director Jessica Neill Hoyson said this is continued discussion of a proposed code amendment to ECC 2.10 Duties and confirmation of appointed officers. Last week the Council discussed adding a provision to the code that would allow the Mayor to request a waiver of the three interview requirement for a person who has been in an acting capacity as a director for a certain period of time and move forward with confirmation of a single appointment. Subsequent to last week's meeting, she and Mr. Taraday developed two potential code amendments: the first one was the same as was presented last week with the proposed change to 2.10.010 which added language that allows the exemption for the one applicant to move forward plus new language regarding if the person had been in an acting capacity for three months, the Mayor could request the three candidate rule for interviews be waived. Ms. Neill Hoyson explained after further discussion, there were other amendments to the code that staff recommends Council consider for consistency. If the Council chooses to amend 2.10.010, they may also want to consider the additional amendments in the alternate code amendment. The language in the code section is very clear about the timing to begin recruiting for a director position and when it can be delayed such as reorganization, salary and compensation review, etc. The amendment clarifies that recruiting did not need to begin while someone was in the acting capacity and the Mayor would either begin recruiting after four months or request the variance. With regard to the Mayor reappointing should the first Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes July 28, 2020 Q Page 12 Packet Pg. 111 5.B Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 03/10/2021 Increaing Public Engagement Staff Lead: Chair Mike Rosen Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Rob Chave Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative Chair Mike Rosen will lead the discussion. Packet Pg. 112 5.0 Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 03/10/2021 Tracking & Metrics Staff Lead: Chair Mike Rosen Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Rob Chave Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative Chair Mike Rosen will lead the discussion. Packet Pg. 113