HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-08-06 Council Special PacketAgenda
Edmonds City Council
SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE
BRACKETT ROOM
121 5TH AVE N, CITY HALL - 3RD FLOOR, EDMONDS, WA 98020
AUGUST 6, 2024, 5:00 PM
Edmonds City Council Agenda
August 6, 2024
Page 1
PERSONS WISHING TO JOIN THIS MEETING VIRTUALLY IN LIEU OF IN-PERSON ATTENDANCE CAN
CLICK ON OR PASTE THE FOLLOWING ZOOM MEETING LINK INTO A WEB BROWSER USING A
COMPUTER OR SMART PHONE:
HTTPS://ZOOM.US/J/95798484261
OR JOIN BY PHONE: US: +1 253 215 8782 WEBINAR ID: 957 9848 4261
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. Comprehensive Plan Draft Housing Element (90 min)
ADJOURNMENT
City Council Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 08/6/2024
Comprehensive Plan Draft Housing Element
Staff Lead: Navyusha Pentakota
Department: Planning & Development
Preparer: Michelle Martin
Background/History
Under the Growth Management Act (GMA) in Washington State, the Housing element is a mandatory
and foundational piece of the Comprehensive Plan.
Housing availability and affordability have been significant challenges nationwide. Henceforth,
Washington state’s Growth Management Act requires that jurisdictions “plan for and accommodate”
affordable housing for all economic segments of the population. In addition, the Puget Sound Regional
Council’s (PSRC) Multi-County Planning Policies (MPPs) and the Snohomish County Countywide Planning
Policies (CPPs) also require cities to plan and accommodate diverse types of housing, addressing the
needs of various income levels.
Under GMA, the Office of Financial Management (OFM) projects population growth for Snohomish
County, which was further distributed to all cities and unincorporated urban growth areas to ensure that
the 20-year growth expectations used for GMA local plans are consistent across jurisdictions. The City of
Edmonds has a housing stock of 19,300 units per the 2020 census. According to the count’s distribution
of growth, there will be an estimated 28,073 housing units by 2044, an approximate increase of 9,000
more housing units.
Even before the growth targets were assigned, Edmonds was ahead of the state to address the existing
affordable housing concerns and formed the Citizens’ Housing Commission (CHC) in 2019, which met
monthly through December 2020. The CHC’s mission 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.”
The Final housing element will reflect CHC’s work, community conversations so far, and Planning Board
suggestions/ recommendations. The Housing Element must ensure that adequate land is designated to
meet the housing needs of the entire population and address the housing needs of moderate, low, very
low, and extremely low-income households, including emergency and permanent supportive housing to
address the needs of the most vulnerable populations.
Staff Recommendation
No recommendation is needed.
This session is an informational briefing and discussion with the City Council. Planning Board members
will also be present to provide an overview of their discussions with staff and their subcommittee
recommendations and suggestions. The revised Housing draft is attached here, addressing the Planning
Board comments.
2.1
Packet Pg. 2
Narrative
Recent 2023 legislation mandates GMA planning cities to include more "missing middle" housing types
and accessory dwelling units, highlighting the need for innovative and affordable housing solutions.
Changing housing needs and affordability have become significant concerns, not just for low-income
groups but also for working-class people in Edmonds. Edmonds must adopt new strategies to encourage
diverse housing options and ensure equitable growth, offering equal opportunities for all residents
regardless of socio-economic or cultural backgrounds. The city aims to foster a balanced, equitable, and
sustainable housing market that meets the community's varied needs and changing market trends.
Edmonds is unique in its historic character and natural beauty compared to the surrounding cities. It is
essential to appreciate its identity and incorporate new developments without losing the city's
uniqueness. New land-use designations should manage urban sprawl, protect natural resources, and
support sustainable development while increasing density through a clear land-use framework.
Nationwide demographics are changing; most households are living alone, there is a rapidly aging
population and shrinking household sizes, and there are couples with few kids or no kids. As
demographics change, housing preferences change, and there is more demand for smaller homes in
walkable neighborhoods. 50-75% of the existing housing stock is of detached SF or townhomes in the
Puget Sound region. In 2020, 49% of renters and 27% of homeowners in the US are cost-burdened. State
initiatives to encourage middle housing and accessory dwelling units might gradually result in a shift
from singly family-only zoning to allow a variety of housing types along with single-family homes that
are affordable to various income households. Future land use must support sustainable and compact
growth patterns for efficient land usage and infrastructure developments.
The City is committed to transparency in developing goals and policies by engaging the community at
various stages. On May 28th and 30th, citywide meetings were held, during which staff presented the
City's approach, drafted goals and policies, and gathered public feedback. The community expressed
support and constructive feedback about the City's direction. These suggestions were incorporated into
the draft goals and policies for further discussion with the Planning Board.
Staff met with the planning board thrice (June 26th, July 10th, and July 24th) to discuss the draft goals and
policies for the Land Use and Housing elements. During the meeting on July 10th, the planning board
formed two subcommittees, a Land Use subcommittee, and a Housing subcommittee, to provide
suggestions and comments on the draft goals and policies.
The subcommittees provided comments, which were included in the Planning Board agenda packet for
the meeting on July 24th. During the meeting, the Planning Board discussed the
comments/recommendations provided, shared their perspectives, highlighted areas needing more
focus, and identified opportunities to address any missing aspects. The staff has addressed and
incorporated their comments on the Housing Element into the attached draft Element.
The Land Use element revisions are still underway and they will be reviewed by Council in a separate
special Council study session on August 20th. These revised drafts are not final. Changes will be made
based on the discussion and feedback provided by the City Council during these study sessions. Final
edits and formatting will be done prior to their inclusion into the consolidated draft plan, which is
anticipated for release at the end of August/early September for public review and comment.
Attachments:
Draft Housing Goals and Policies_Revised
Planning Board comments and staff response matrix
2.1
Packet Pg. 3
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT GOALS & POLICIES (HOUSING) 1
Commented [NP1]: Why only workforce- Shall we
make it general ?
Explore funding opportunities and grants to support the
development of diverse typology of housing.
2.1.a
Packet Pg. 4
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
G
o
a
l
s
a
n
d
P
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
_
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
(
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
:
D
r
a
f
t
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
a
n
d
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT GOALS & POLICIES (HOUSING) 2
•
•
•
Commented [NP2]: I feel this should be moved to
Diversity section
Commented [NP3]: Do we need another policy here
that says “Require the construction of an equal or
greater number of housing units when the property is
redeveloped after being sold”
2.1.a
Packet Pg. 5
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
G
o
a
l
s
a
n
d
P
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
_
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
(
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
:
D
r
a
f
t
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
a
n
d
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT GOALS & POLICIES (HOUSING) 3
2.1.a
Packet Pg. 6
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
G
o
a
l
s
a
n
d
P
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
_
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
(
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
:
D
r
a
f
t
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
a
n
d
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT GOALS & POLICIES (HOUSING) 4
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Commented [SM4]: This seems like too low of bar.
Commented [SM5]: Need to review these against
Chris’s (AHA)recommendations
2.1.a
Packet Pg. 7
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
G
o
a
l
s
a
n
d
P
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
_
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
(
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
:
D
r
a
f
t
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
a
n
d
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT GOALS & POLICIES (HOUSING) 5
2.1.a
Packet Pg. 8
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
G
o
a
l
s
a
n
d
P
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
_
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
(
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
:
D
r
a
f
t
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
a
n
d
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT GOALS & POLICIES (HOUSING) 6
Commented [NP6]: Mandate or just encourage?
2.1.a
Packet Pg. 9
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
G
o
a
l
s
a
n
d
P
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
_
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
(
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
:
D
r
a
f
t
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
a
n
d
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT GOALS & POLICIES (HOUSING) 7
2.1.a
Packet Pg. 10
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
D
r
a
f
t
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
G
o
a
l
s
a
n
d
P
o
l
i
c
i
e
s
_
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
(
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
:
D
r
a
f
t
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
a
n
d
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
)
Goal/ Policy Number
(Refers to the older version
reviewed by the Planning
Board on July 24th)
Goal/ Policy Number
(Refers to the revised
version attached in the
city council session
agenda packet for Aug
06 discussion )
Planning Board comment/ suggestion Staff Notes
General Basis for goals & policies GMA Compliance
Citizens Housing Commission Suggestions
Suggestions from Equity/Climate gap analysis
Staff and consultant expertise, observations & discussions
Key Themes: Affordability, Diversity, Equity , Quality, regulatory
framework, Sustainability
General Many of the goals are focused on increasing “Affordable” housing, which we believe is
necessary; however, the housing element should provide general guidance for housing
throughout the city as well since development will occur there even if it is not the targeted
housing needed for growth management goals.
No real statements about existing neighborhoods and housing making it relatable to
residents today
Adressed:
- Diverse housing needs, not just affordable housing, but different
typology of housing
- Housing for seniors and disabled
- Financial strategies
- Workforce housing
-Disparity and Displacement
-Supportive Housing
- Older housing stock maintenance
- Sustainable practices
- Builtform , character will be discussed in Community Design
Chapter
Overarching Vision Statement Change “every resident” or “current and future residents?”Edited
Draft Housing Goals & Policies
Suggested a new structure -
Housing Diversity
- People policies
- Regulatory Framework Haven't changed the formatting, but organized policies and sections
based on this suggestion.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 11
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
s
t
a
f
f
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
m
a
t
r
i
x
(
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
:
D
r
a
f
t
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
H.1 Goals H-2, H-3, and H-4 can be policies under Goal H-1.
Decided to leave the categories the same for better readability, but
modified.
H-1.2 The first bullet should be policy.
Modified to make sense It’s unclear what the second bullet under this policy intends to do what is appropriate for
this element.
Deleted The third bullet - delete it because it’s redundant
would like to see a policy to provide community education that promotes and supports
ADU and Middle Housing Development.
H 1.2 H-1.1 Should be restated to say - Housing developments within the neighborhoods centers and
hubs should promote diverse housing Edited
H-1.3 H-2.4 Use the word “Explore” instead of “consider.”Edited
H.1.4 H.1.4 Remove geographic identifiers - Remove Dayton St., Arts corridor Edited
Delete first bullet- already covered in H-1.1 Deleted
ii. Delete second bullet- not in cities purview Deleted
H- 1.5 H-1.5 iii. Policy restate to say: Explore potential of workforce housing with local businesses, developers,
and nonprofits. Delete all bullets within the policy.
Edited
H- 1.6 H-1.8 Cohousing certainly should be allowed, but how does the city do this?
If this means just addressing barriers in code that prevents this from happening that's fine, but
otherwise what does this mean to the city?
Changed to - Identify and remove existing regulatory barriers and provide
opportunities to support co-housing
H-2.2 H-2.2 Needs to say “allow” instead of “permit”Edited
H-2.3 H-2.3 Restate to say: Create zoning that allows higher density and mixed use around all transit locations
remove high capacity transit and make this around all transit locations.
Higher density around major transit stops can be different from higher density around less frequent
transit stops, and that needs to be defined in the code
Policy H-2.3Create transit-oriented housing zones which will allow higher
number of units per lot around the SWIFT BRTtransit stops in activity
centers, neighborhood centers and hubs.
General
Added a new policy
H-1.1
Edited
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 12
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
s
t
a
f
f
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
m
a
t
r
i
x
(
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
:
D
r
a
f
t
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
H.3 H-3 Delete this goal H3 and add to H-5 displacement related or H1 to encourage diverse housing types .
Multiple suggestions for a policy related to this goal-
Explore opportunity to support preservation of modest housing stock - for less than 80% AMI
or
Avoid the loss of affordable housing units by evaluating older housing stock for retention
or simply
Avoid loss of existing affordable housing
or
Explore opportunities to support existing housing stock affordable to 80% or below AMI (need to
discuss discuss workforce, specific to centers,... how it plays with 80% AMI )
The intention here is not building new without loosing existing affordable - Something that results in
net positive with the affordable housing units
Edited - Added a new goal based on the discussion during the planning
Board meeting - Ensure a net positive number of housing units per lot in
activity centers , neighborhood centers and hubs.
H-3.1 goal H-4 Delete- preserving historic buildings is not necessarily or at all modest housing stock.Changed to housing preservation program - kept this as a separate goal by
itself
Evaluate conservation vs new construction in the permitting process
noted; there are tools to evaluate and to mitigate
H 3.2 Restate to say: Explore opportunities to support preservation of older housing stock in the
community.Deleted
H 3.4 H-8.2 Move to accompany goal H-7 Moved
H-3.5 H-3.6 we need more information to comment on this policy staff thinks this is explanatory as is; intention is to retain affordability for
longer terms than existing agreements require.
H-4 H-5 revised to say: Foster access to quality housing for low income, disabled and senior residents. Or it
could be deleted since it falls under Goal H-1.Edited
H-4.1 H-5.1 Delete. Outside of city’s purview and if there is an opportunity, it would be done under policy H-4.2 Staff decision - not to delete, as there are numerous resources offered by
the state that city can make use of
H-4.2 H-5.2 can encompass H-4.3 and the other actions identified under it.Edited
H-4.3 H-5.3 Recommend deleting.Modified to make more sense as it talks about Housing Action Plan
H-7 Goals 5,8 Delete Goal H-7. Policies under this goal should go under goal H-4 Modified both goals 4,7
H-7.1.H-8.1 We do not have sufficient knowledge to comment on this policy.Noted; additional MFTE changes are still being explored.
H-7.2 H-7.4 Didn't agree 'in lieu' unless there is policy around how those funds get used.
In Seattle, ended up affordable housing in some neighborhoods as the dev choose not to put them
in same neighborhoods.
Somehow that needs to be clarified- That can be a separate policy Added a new policy -7.4
H-7.3 Should be included except for reference to H-5.2 deleted 5.2
H-8 H-9.1 revise to say: Support county and nonprofit efforts to provide stable housing to individuals
experiencing housing insecurity or at risk of becoming unhoused.Added this as a new policy under goal 9
H-8.2 and H-8.3 H-9.3
There is a tendency that supportive housing is big with lots of people.Encourage smaller group
homes with supportive services .
Small revision made to note small scale housing type
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 13
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
s
t
a
f
f
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
m
a
t
r
i
x
(
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
:
D
r
a
f
t
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
H 8.3 H-9.5, H-9.6 Confirm if we allign with the state mandate or if we exceed - the one that says need to allow where
hotels are allowed.
STEP Model Ordinance says
Cities shall not prohibit transitional housing or permanent supportive
housing in any zones that allow residential dwelling units or hotels. -
Addedas a new policy H-9.5
Cities shall not prohibit indoor emergency shelters and indoor emergency
housing in any zones that allow for hotels,except in cities that have
adopted an ordinance authorizing indoor emergency shelters and indoor
emergency housing in a majority of zones within a one-mile proximity to
transit.
RCW 35A.21.430 RCW 35.21.683
https://deptofcommerce.app.box.com/s/x0n07x12w81poe60nit683kjyz4v9
H-5 H-6 Avoid actions that result in displacement of existing residents, particularly low-income and
marginalized communities.Edited
H-5.1.H-6.2 Revise to say: Explore policies and programs to help support renters at risk of displacement and
connect them with resources/financing to purchase the homes they live in, such as mobile home
communities, condo conversions of apartments, conversions to co-ops,Added a new policy
H-5.2.Don’t these protections already exist? Aren’t they directed by state, county or federal laws?deleted; policies 5.1, 5.4 and 7.1 are relevant to actions we can take at the
local level
HJ-5.3 H-6.3 This seems out of the city’s purview Revised
H-6 H-7 Revise to say: Work towards eliminating racial inequity in housing distribution. edited
H-6.1 H-7.1 don’t understand how this policy works to eliminate racial inequity in housing distribution.helps in understannding the pattern and gaps
H-6.2 Delete, this is covered in other policies.Deleted
H-9.1 H-10.1 Unclear if this is implementing the law or goes beyond that.Discuss - made it specific to Middle Housing
H 9.2 H 10.2 We don’t know enough about this policy to comment revised: Expand Planned Residential Development provisions in mixed-use
zones to achieve site specific flexibility.
H 9.3 combined with H-10.1 Need to include something specific what Middle housing says in this context.
Any mention of this should be in the context of “consider” instead od 'Adjust'modified - specific to Middle housing code
H-9.4 H-10.4 Restate as: Reduce off-street parking requirements that impact housing affordability. The first
bullet under this policy seems unnecessary
Is this due to the new RCW guiding duplex and ADU housing. Or, it could be revised to apply to all
housing types. We don’t have enough information to comment on the second bullet.
Edited
Model ordinances and the bills already state the requirements
H-9.5 H-10.5 There is a lot of change inherent in this policy. Recommend revising as: Assess development
regulations and consider revising potentially restrictive requirements such as:…Edited
H-9.7 H-10.7 Revise to say: Review permit, impact, and utility connection fees to identify modifications needed
to reduce or avoid impediment to meeting housing target.Revised existing and added this as new policy
H-12 H-13 Revise goal to say: Develop Green Building Incentives Program. All of the listed policies are action
steps, not policies.Revised
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 14
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
B
o
a
r
d
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
s
t
a
f
f
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
m
a
t
r
i
x
(
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
:
D
r
a
f
t
L
a
n
d
U
s
e