The URL can be used to link to this page

2019-11-14 Citizens Housing Commission PacketO� LDIVO �o Agenda Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission q. BRACKETT ROOM 121 5TH AVE N, CITY HALL - 3RD FLOOR, EDMONDS, WA 98020 NOVEMBER 14, 2019, 6:30 PM "DEVELOP DIVERSE HOUSING POLICY OPTIONS FOR (CITY) COUNCIL CONSIDERATION DESIGNED TO EXPAND THE RANGE OF HOUSING (INCLUDING RENTAL AND OWNED) AVAILABLE IN EDMONDS; OPTIONS THAT ARE IRRESPECTIVE OF AGE, GENDER, RACE, RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION, PHYSICAL DISABILITY OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION" - FROM CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 1427 1. ROLL CALL 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS 3. INTRODUCTION OF ANY HOUSING COMMISSION MEMBERS WHO HAVE NOT ATTENDED PREVIOUSLY 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS 5. COMMENTS FROM ANY HOUSING COMMISSION ALTERNATES 6. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 10, 2019 MEETING NOTES 1. 10/10/19 Meeting Notes for Approval 7. APPROVAL OF GROUND RULES 1. Approval of Ground Rules 8. DISCUSSION OF ANY BACKGROUND READING MATERIALS, INCLUDING: 1. DEMOGRAPHIC & HOUSING FACTS 2. VISION 2050 HOUSING BACKGROUND PAPER 3. EDMONDS HOUSING NEEDS STUDY 4. Discussion of Background Materials 9. PRESENTATION ON HOUSING AFFORDABILITY (ALLIANCE FOR HOUSING AFFORDABILITY) 1. Presentation on Housing Affordability 10. DRAFT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN 1. Draft Community Engagement Plan 11. MINOR PROCEDURAL ISSUES 1. Agenda Memo Minor Procedural Issues Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission Agenda November 14, 2019 Page 1 ADJOURN Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission Agenda November 14, 2019 Page 2 6.1.a EDMONDS CITIZENS HOUSING COMMISSION Meeting Notes — October 10, 2019 Brackett Room, City Hall - 3rd Floor 121 5th Ave N, Edmonds, WA 98020 6:30 PM A video recording of the meeting is available on the City website. Meeting materials can be found on the Citizen's Housinc Commission Webaaee. ATTENDANCE Commissioners • James Ogonowski, District 1 • Keith Soltner, District 2 • Weijia (Vicky) Wu, District 2 • George Keefe, District 3 • Mike McMurray, District 4 • Nichole Franko, District 4 • Greg Long, District 5 Alternates • Leif Warren, District 1* • Wendy Wyatt, District 2 • Eva -Denis Miller, District 3* • Kenneth Sund, District 4 • Tanya Kataria, District 5 • Jess Blanch, District 6 • Alena Nelson Vietmeier, District 6 • Judi Gladstone, District 7 • Will Chen, District 7 • Bob Throndsen, At -large • Rick Nishino, District 6 • Jean Salls, District 7 • Tana Axtelle, At -large *Indicates alternatives participating in the meeting on behalf of a Commissioner City Council Liaisons • Diane Buckshnis, Position #4 • Thomas-Mesaros, Position #6 Project Staff • Shane Hope, City of Edmonds • Brad Shipley, City of Edmonds • Amber Groll, City of Edmonds /_TCU!►JJ_1 • Gretchen Muller, Cascadia Consulting Group 1. ROLL CALL— Amber Groll • Commissioners who were not in attendance at the first meeting introduced themselves r Q Packet Pg. 3 6.1.a 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS —Shane Hope • One attendee provided public comment 3. INTRODUCTION OF CONSULTANTS —Gretchen Muller • Introduction of Cascadia Consulting Group consultants 4. DISCUSSION OF OPERATING PRINCIPLES —Gretchen Muller • Commission discussed draft commission ground rules o A revised draft incorporating commission feedback will be presented at the next meeting • Commission discussed draft decision -making protocols 5. REVIEW OF TOPICS AND SCHEDULE —Shane Hope • Reviewed proposed schedule for the Commission and topics for each meeting o Commissioners asked questions and discussed future meeting topics o Commissioners discussed opportunities and tools for public engagement ■ A draft community engagement plan will be shared at the next meeting for Commission review 6. FRAMEWORK FOR COMMUNITY PLANNING IN WASHINGTON — Shane Hope • Presentation on the community planning process in Washington 7. EDMONDS' HOUSING ELEMENT — Brad Shipley • Presentation on Edmonds' Housing Element o Commissioners shared initial questions and takeaways from the presentation 8. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT GOALS —Gretchen Muller • Commissioners shared their individual visions of success for the public engagement process • Commissioners shared ideas about avenues for disseminating information and opportunities for community partnerships • Feedback from these exercises will inform the draft community engagement plan 9. MEETING LOGISTICS AND GENERAL EXPECTATIONS —Shane Hope • Commissioners must complete OPMA training; it can be done online or through a special meeting for that purpose • The commission agreed to continue regular meetings in the Brackett Room moving forward. Other public events can be held in different locations around the city. 10. ADJOURN Packet Pg. 4 7.1.a „y4 Citizerss' II011sin zu„ DRAFT Ground Rules • Be patient, direct, and honest in respectful consideration of each other's views. • Take responsibility for our own issues and problems. • Be sensitive to different communication styles and needs. • Come prepared to use meeting time productively. • Be present and engaged throughout the meeting. • Provide sufficient notice if unable to make a scheduled meeting. • Strive to reach common ground. • It is okay to agree to disagree. • Allow one person to speak at a time. • Speak clearly to ensure everyone at the table can hear. • Alternates take a seat at the Commission table when they are substituting for the Commissioner of his/her zone or district. Only people seated at the table may speak during the time reserved for Commissioner discussions. Alternates will be brought at key times throughout the process as listed below. o Time near the beginning of standing meetings (before the substantive subjects get started) for each alternate to have one minute to offer any comments they want (This will not be a dialogue; just a short, simple statement by any alternates who wish). o Time during the meeting for alternates to make written comments on a card or paper during the meeting, which will be copied and shared with all Commission members after the meeting (These would also be public records). o Separate conversations and written exchanges among alternates and/or Commissioners —so long as no more than seven members (i.e., less than a quorum) are part of the conversation. (Any written exchanges are part of the public record). o Participation by alternates in any future Commission committees that work on specific issues (which may occur in 2020). • Use table tents to indicate that you have something to say. The facilitator will call on people in the order that their table tents go up. • Have fun! Edmonds Citizens' Housing Advisory Committee I DRAFT GROUND RULES AND DECISION -MAKING PROTOCOL 10-10-2019 1 1 Packet Pg. 5 7.1.a L' „y4 Citizerss' II011sin zu„ DRAFT Decision -making Protocol This planning process, by design, brings a diversity of perspectives to the table. It is therefore important the Commission identifies a clear process for how it will make decisions. The Commission should aim for consensus; however, the Commission will make decisions by simple majority. Quorums and Voting A quorum is established when more than one half of the Commissioners are present. (Note: An alternate member counts as a Commissioner when she/he is performing the Commissioner role.) A quorum must be present for voting to occur. Voting will be reserved for decisions related to recommendations. When voting occurs, the facilitator will call for the vote. Commission members will signal their vote by a simple group voice vote of "yes, "no", or "abstain" when each is asked by the facilitator, provided that on votes that appear close —or any time the facilitator or a Commissioner requests it, each Commissioner's individual vote may be taken by roll call. The facilitator or designee will record all votes. For all routine decisions such as process -related decisions and approval of meeting summaries, Commissioners will be asked to approve or disagree with a simple head nod versus a formal vote. Consensus Consensus is a group process where the input of everyone is carefully considered and an outcome is crafted that best meets the needs of the group as a whole. The root of consensus is the word consent, which means to give permission to. When members consent to a decision, they are giving permission to the group to go ahead with the decision. Ideally, consensus represents whole -hearted agreement and support by all Commission members; however, it can be achieved with less than this level of support. Some members may disagree with all or part of a decision, but based on listening to everyone else's input, might agree to let the decision go forward because it is the best decision the entire group can achieve at the current time. For purposes of this effort, consensus is defined as an outcome that all Commission members can "live with" and agree not to oppose, even if it is not their preferred choice. The Commission will consider consensus achieved if, for simple procedural issues, the facilitator or designee observes that all Commission members present nod their head for approval and none objects or, for substantive issues (such as policy recommendations), all Commissioners present choose to abstain or not vote, or they vote to approve. Although this process strives to achieve consensus as outlined above, decisions related to Commission recommendations will be achieved by simple majority as outlined below. Approval by Simple Majority Votes that do not require consensus can be approved if more than half of Commissioners present (i.e., at least 8 Commissioners) either abstain or vote yes. The facilitator or designee will record all votes and, where there are dissenting votes, will record who dissents and the reasons for the dissent or remaining concerns. Edmonds Citizens' Housing Advisory Committee I DRAFT GROUND RULES AND DECISION -MAKING PROTOCOL 10-10-2019 1 2 Packet Pg. 6 „y4 Citizerss' II011sin zu„ DRAFT Ground Rules • Be patient, direct, and honest in respectful consideration of each other's views. • Take responsibility for our own issues and problems. • Be sensitive to different communication styles and needs. • Come prepared to use meeting time productively. • Be present and engaged throughout the meeting. 0 0 • Provide sufficient notice if unable to make a scheduled meeting. o • Strive to reach common ground. • It is okay to agree to disagree. o • Allow one person to speak at a time. a • Speak clearly to ensure everyone at the table can hear. • Alternates take a seat at the Commission table when they are substituting for the Commissioner of Cn_ his/her zone or district. Only people seated at the table may speak during the time reserved for w Commissioner discussions. Alternates will be brought at key times throughout the process, including as Qi listed below: o o Time near the beginning of standing meetings (before the substantive subjects get started) for each alternate to have one minute to offer any comments they want (This will not be a dialogue; just a short, simple statement by any alternate who wishes). o Time during the meeting for alternates to make written comments on a card or paper, which will be copied and shared with all Commission members after the meeting (These would also be public records). o Separate conversations and written exchanges among alternates and/or Commissioners that are not part of a public meeting —so long as no more than seven members (i.e., less than a quorum) are part of the conversation. (Any written items (including emails and texts) are still a public record). o Participation in any future Commission committees that work on specific issues (which may occur in 2020). • Use table tents to indicate that you have something to say. The facilitator will call on people in the order that their table tents go up. • Have fun! Edmonds Citizens' Housing Advisory Committee I DRAFT GROUND RULES AND DECISION -MAKING PROTOCOL 10-10-2019 1 1 Packet Pg. 7 L' „y4 Citizerss' II011sin zu„ DRAFT Decision -making Protocol This planning process, by design, brings a diversity of perspectives to the table. It is therefore important the Commission identifies a clear process for how it will make decisions. The Commission should aim for consensus; however, the Commission will make decisions by simple majority. Quorums and Voting A quorum is established when more than one half of the Commissioners are present. (Note: An alternate member counts as a Commissioner when she/he is performing the Commissioner role.) A quorum must be present for voting to occur. Voting will be reserved for decisions related to recommendations. When voting occurs, the facilitator will call for the vote. Commission members will signal their vote by a simple a group voice vote of "yes, "no", or "abstain" when each is asked by the facilitator, provided that on votes that a appear close —or any time the facilitator or a Commissioner requests it, each Commissioner's individual vote Cn may be taken by roll call. ~ C w The facilitator or designee will record all votes. For all routine decisions such as process -related decisions and approval of meeting summaries, Commissioners will be asked to approve or disagree with a simple head nod versus a formal vote. Consensus Consensus is a group process where the input of everyone is carefully considered and an outcome is crafted that best meets the needs of the group as a whole. The root of consensus is the word consent, which means to give permission to. When members consent to a decision, they are giving permission to the group to go ahead with the decision. Ideally, consensus represents whole -hearted agreement and support by all Commission members; however, it can be achieved with less than this level of support. Some members may disagree with all or part of a decision, but based on listening to everyone else's input, might agree to let the decision go forward because it is the best decision the entire group can achieve at the current time. For purposes of this effort, consensus is defined as an outcome that all Commission members can "live with" and agree not to oppose, even if it is not their preferred choice. The Commission will consider consensus achieved if, for simple procedural issues, the facilitator or designee observes that all Commission members present nod their head for approval and none objects or, for substantive issues (such as policy recommendations), all Commissioners present choose to vote unanimously, excluding anyone who chooses to abstain or not vote. Although this process strives to achieve consensus as outlined above, decisions related to Commission recommendations will be achieved by simple majority as outlined below. Approval by Simple Majority Votes can be approved if more than half of Commissioners present either abstain or vote yes. The facilitator or designee will record all votes and, where there are dissenting votes, will record who dissents and the reasons for the dissent or remaining concerns. Edmonds Citizens' Housing Advisory Committee I DRAFT GROUND RULES AND DECISION -MAKING PROTOCOL 10-10-2019 1 2 Packet Pg. 8 I 8.4.a I Regional Demographic and Housing Characteristics Total Population Numerical Change of Population, from 2010-2019 Median Age Density (persons per acre of land area) % Owner -Occupied Single Family Housing Share Median Family Income Median Household (HH) Income % of HH with one or fewer wager earners Numerical Change of Housing Units by type, from 2010-2019 Single Family Units Multi -Family Units Mobile Home or Special Housing Units Average Household Size Population Increase per New Housing Unit Added, from 2010-2019 CITY OF CITY OF CITY OF CITY OF CITY OF MILL CITY OF SNOHOMISH KING COUNTY EDMONDS MOUNTLAKE LYNNWOOD SHORELINE CREEK MUKILTEO COUNTY 42,170 21,590 39,600 56,370 50,590 21,350 818,700 2,226,300 2,461 1,681 3,764 3,363 2,346 1,096 105,362 295,051 46.6 36.7 39.6 41.7 40.4 44.4 37.8 37.2 4,664 5,421 3,913 4,834 4,331 3,479 392 1,052 70.9% 56% 54.1% 63.2% 59.6% 68% 66.6% 57.4% 65.1% 62.1% 51.1% 70.2% 63.3% 65.7% 69.2% 58.8% $105,253 $79,634 $71,149 $93,551 $116,434 $123,214 $91,181 $105,512 $82,697 $69,727 $58,852 $76,271 $93,093 $100,650 $78,020 $83,571 44.2% 42.4% 45.6% 40.1% 39.4% 43% 41.8% 41.6% 205 173 79 172 274 146 17,593 22,052 339 369 1,325 1,170 645 4 12,518 82,783 3 -- 9 (2) (2) (1) 178 (290) 2.34 2.53 2.59 2.45 2.52 2.58 2.68 2.45 4.5 3.1 2.66 2.51 2.56 7.36 3.48 2.82 Sources: American Community Survey 5-yr Survey, 2013-2017, Office of Financial Management Packet Pg. 9 I 8.4.a I Edmonds Demographic and Housing CITY-WIDE AN\ /, p0P 46.6 . ~ 42,17o ' Fp,MI(Y �($105k)-�� \ �-i No US J�gER OF�o C0�1y2.34 m .13,173 �'_hara�taricti�c �� CENSUS TRACT 502 ZONE 1 Meadowdale, General Neighborhoods Perrinville (north) Total Population 4,162 Median Age 51.7 Median Family Income $121,554 (2017 dollars) % Owner -Occupied 93% Household (HH) Size (% of occupied housing units) 1-person HH 11.2% 2-person HH 53.2% 3-person HH 16.5% 4-or-more-person HH 19.1% Number of Bedrooms (% of occupied housing units) 1 bedroom or less 1.2% 2 or 3 bedrooms 55.5% 4 or more bedrooms 43.3% CENSUS TRACT 503 CENSUS TRACT 504.01 CENSUS TRACT 504.02 CENSUS TRACT 505 CENSUS TRACT 507 ZONE 2 ZONE 3 ZONE 4 ZONE 5 ZONE 6 Seaview, Pine Ridge, Maplewood, Five Corners (south), Downtown (the "Bowl") Firdale, Westgate Perrinville (west) Five Corners (north) Highway 99 (north) 5,383 7,120 5,697 6,937 6,174 50.1 42.7 45.1 57.3 34.7 $107,125 $112,656 $113,125 $112,344 $101,928 86% 80% 78% 71% 57% 14.8% 23.3% 25.6% 44.9% 35.5% 45.6% 44% 40.9% 37.8% 34.3% 16.4% 11.9% 13.5% 10.1% 11.6% 23.2% 20.8% 20.1% 7.2% 18.6% 0% 7% 13.1% 15.5% 22.9% 56.2% 59% 58.1% 67.3% 55.2% 43.8% 34% 28.8% 17.3% 21.9% Sources: American Community Survey 5-yr Survey, 2013-2017, Office of Financial CENSUS TRACT 509 ZONE 7 Lake Ballinger, Highway 99 (south) 3,633 33.1 $78,646 46% 30.2% 35.7% 14.4% 19.7% 22.4% 66.7% 10.8% ent a Packet Pg. 10 1 8.4.b VISION 2050* Housing Background Paper June 2018 Puget Sound Regionalrt Council Packet Pg. 11 8.4.b MEMBERSHIP Counties King County Kitsap County Pierce County Snohomish County Cities and Tribes Algona Arlington Auburn Bainbridge Island Beaux Arts Village Bellevue Black Diamond Bonney Lake Bothell Bremerton Buckley Burien Clyde Hill Covington Darrington Des Moines DuPont Duvall Eatonville Edgewood Edmonds Enumclaw Eve rett Federal Way Fife Fircrest Gig Harbor Granite Falls Hunts Point Issaquah Kenmore Kent Kirkland Lake Forest Park Lake Stevens Lakewood Lynnwood Maple Valley Marysville Medina Mercer Island Mill Creek Milton Monroe Mountlake Terrace Muckleshoot Indian Tribe Mukilteo Newcastle Normandy Park North Bend Orting Pacific Port Orchard Poulsbo Puyallup Puyallup Tribe of Indians Redmond Renton Ruston Sammamish SeaTac Seattle Shoreline Skykomish Snohomish Snoqualmie Stanwood Steilacoom Sultan Sumner Tacoma The Suquamish Tribe Tukwila University Place Woodinville Woodway Yarrow Point Statutory Members Port of Bremerton Port of Everett Port of Seattle Port of Tacoma Washington State Department of Transportation Washington Transportation Commission Associate Members Alderwood Water & Wastewater District Port of Edmonds Island County Puget Sound Partnership Snoqualmie Indian Tribe Thurston Regional Planning Council Tulalip Tribes University of Washington Washington State University Transit Agencies Community Transit Everett Transit Kitsap Transit Metro (King County) Pierce Transit Sound Transit Funding for this document provided in part by member jurisdictions, grants from U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Federal Highway Administration and Washington State Department of Transportation. PSRC fully complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes and regulations in all programs and activities. For more information, or to obtain aTitle VI Complaint Form, see https://www.psrc org/title-vi or call 206-587-4819. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information: Individuals requiring reasonable accommodations may request written materials in alternate formats, sign language interpreters, physical accessibility accommodations, or other reasonable accommodations by contacting the ADA Coordinator, Thu Le, at 206-464-6175, with two weeks' advance notice. Persons who are deaf or hard of hearing may contact the ADA Coordinator, Thu Le, through TTY Relay 711. Additional copies of this document may be obtained by contacting: Puget Sound Regional Council Information Center 1011 Western Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104-1035 206-464-7532 • info@psrc.org • psrc.org Packet Pg. 12 8.4.b TABLE OF CONTENTS Tableof Contents.............................................................................................. 2 1 Introduction............................................................................................... 4 2 Background and Policy Context......................................................................... 5 2.1 Housing in the Growth Management Act (GMA)...................................................... 5 3 Housing in Countywide Planning Policies.............................................................. 5 4 Housing in Local Comprehensive Plans................................................................ 6 5 Market Trends............................................................................................. 6 5.1 Great Recession and Recovery............................................................................. 6 5.2 Median Home Price.............................................................................................. 7 5.3 Median Rent...................................................................................................... 10 5.4 Units by Type..................................................................................................... 12 5.5 Construction Trends........................................................................................... 12 5.6 Vacancy Rates................................................................................................... 17 6 Demand...................................................................................................17 6.1 Tenure............................................................................................................... 18 6.2 Income.............................................................................................................. 20 6.3 Wages............................................................................................................... 21 6.4 Household Size and Formation............................................................................ 22 6.5 Generational Needs and Preferences.................................................................. 23 6.6 Jobs -Housing Balance....................................................................................... 24 6.7 Housing and Transportation................................................................................ 25 7 Housing Affordability....................................................................................28 7.1 Subsidized Housing............................................................................................ 29 7.2 Market Rate Affordable Rental Units.................................................................... 30 7.3 Home Ownership............................................................................................... 31 7.4 Cost Burden...................................................................................................... 33 7.5 Displacement.....................................................................................................35 7.6 Homelessness................................................................................................... 38 7.7 Housing Need.................................................................................................... 38 Housing Background Paper VISION 2050e 2 Packet Pg. 13 r, 8.4.b 8 Housing in VISION 2040................................................................................40 9 Work Since 2008........................................................................................43 9.1 State................................................................................................................. 43 9.2 Regional............................................................................................................43 9.3 County/Subregional...........................................................................................45 9.4 Local.................................................................................................................46 L 10 Housing policies & Strategies..........................................................................47 r 10.1 Housing Supply.................................................................................................. 47 3 0 10.2 Incentives for Affordable Housing........................................................................ 48 a� 10.3 Funding and Financing....................................................................................... 48 m 0 10.4 Displacement and Preservation........................................................................... 49 c 0 10.5 Tenant Protections............................................................................................. 49 n 0 10.6 Assessment, Monitoring, and Reporting............................................................... 50 c 11 Considerations and Questions FOR VISION 2050 50 ^_ 12 Appendix: 52 L Q. a 12.1 Taking Stock...................................................................................................... 52 12.2 Housing Costs................................................................................................... 53 c 0 12.3 Definitions of Affordable Housing Incentives......................................................... 54 Housing Background Paper VISION 2050e 3 Packet Pg. 14 8.4.b I INTRODUCTION Between now and the year 2050, the central Puget Sound region is expected to grow by an additional 1.8 million residents and 830,000 households. A critical issue will continue to be providing adequate housing for all segments of the region's population. Meeting the housing needs of all types of households at a range of income levels is integral to creating a region that is livable for all residents, economically prosperous, and environmentally sustainable. Volatility in the housing market since VISION 2040 was adopted in 2008 underscores many of the challenges ahead. From the precipitous drop in housing prices and foreclosures of the Great Recession, to the current economic upswing and job growth that has led to historic increases in rents and home prices, the region's housing market has experienced great highs and lows that have benefited some and created and exacerbated hardship and inequalities for others. The VISION 2050 planning process is an opportunity to raise awareness of regional housing issues and to identify coordinated strategies, policies, and actions to ensure that the region's housing needs are met. As illustrated below, a multitude of demand and supply factors influence the cost and availability of housing. Some factors can be shaped by public policy, while others are largely beyond regional or local control. Figure 1: Factors Influencing Housing Costs Housing Demand • Growth in jobs/wages • Demographics, e.g., household size and type p p • Special needs populations 0 0 • Transportation access • Access to credit Housing • Second homes and real Costs estate investment Housing Supply • Land availability • Zoning ( use and density) • Market availability • Time/costs to build • Capacity of construction sector (labor, materials, capital, etc.) This paper seeks to quantify through data analysis what many residents experience on a daily basis — the housing market is becoming increasingly unaffordable. Rents and home prices are rising quickly, making it challenging to find affordable homes close to jobs. This paper also reviews current policy frameworks, recent housing initiatives, and a range of housing tools as we look to update the region's growth, economic and transportation strategy and extend the plan to the year 2050. Housing Background Paper VISION 205W 4 Packet Pg. 15 8.4.b 2 BACKGROUND AND POLICY CONTEXT 2.1 HOUSING IN THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT (GMA) The Washington Growth Management Act's (GMA) overarching planning goal for housing (Goal 4) is to "[e]ncourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types, and encourage preservation of existing housing stock."' The Act requires that countywide planning policies (CPPs) and multicounty planning policies (MPPs), which establish the policy framework for local comprehensive plans, at a minimum include "policies that consider the need for affordable housing, such as housing for all economic segments of the population and parameters for its distribution."2 Finally, the Act requires that local jurisdictions develop comprehensive plans that include "a housing element ensuring the vitality and character of established residential neighborhoods that: (a) Includes an inventory and analysis of existing and projected housing needs that identifies the number of housing units necessary to manage projected growth; (b) includes a statement of goals, policies, objectives, and mandatory provisions for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing, including single-family residences; (c) identifies sufficient land for housing, including, but not limited to, government -assisted housing, housing for low-income families, manufactured housing, multifamily housing, and group homes and foster care facilities; and (d) makes adequate provisions for existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community."3 3 HOUSING IN COUNTYWIDE PLANNING POLICIES Countywide planning efforts play an important role in addressing housing, beginning with their targeting processes for allocating residential and employment growth. Countywide planning policies (CPPs) were updated in 2012 and 2013, after the adoption of VISION 2040 and prior to the periodic update of local comprehensive plans in 2015 and 2016. Consistent with the VISION 2040, CPPs in each of the four counties set housing growth targets for cities and unincorporated areas. Countywide planning policies also include a variety of policies related to affordable housing. While none of the counties currently assign affordable housing targets to jurisdictions, the CPPs do provide guidance on assessing local needs within a context of countywide need. As amended in 2012, the King County CPPs include a countywide benchmarks for overall affordability within jurisdictions, which local governments have used to guide their local housing planning. CPPs in each of the counties also include policies that encourage local consideration of a variety of housing tools, such as mandatory inclusionary zoning and various types of housing incentives. The CPPs also generally encourage coordination around monitoring housing outcomes overtime. Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 36.70A.020 (4), Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 365-196-305 2 RCW 36.70A.210 3 RCW 36.70A.070 VISION 2050e Housing Background Paper 5 Packet Pg. 16 8.4.b 4 HOUSING IN LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE PLANS Local comprehensive plans establish the overall vision for community development, set the framework for future land use and zoning, and set local priorities for strategies and investments.4 As such, they have a direct impact on housing and housing affordability. The housing chapter of each plan is expected to address several aspects of housing and housing affordability. First, plans should promote increased housing production opportunities, including diverse types and styles for all income levels and demographic groups. The housing element should evaluate affordable housing needs, including an assessment of existing and future housing needs based on regional and local factors, including household income, demographics, special needs populations, and adequacy of existing housing stocks. Finally, local plans should address regional housing objectives in VISION 2040, including accommodating a fair share of housing diversity and affordability, jobs -housing balance, housing in centers, and flexible standards and innovative techniques. 5 MARKET TRENDS A wealth of data exists that describes aspects of a rapidly changing housing market over the past decade. What follows are highlighted statistics that relate most directly to housing demand, supply, costs, and affordability. Implications for policy and action are noted. 5.1 GREAT RECESSION AND RECOVERY Though the region boomed economically from 2005-2008, it then lost significant ground during the Great Recession. Home prices dropped to a low in 2011-12, with historic rates of home foreclosures. The region lost approximately 130,000 jobs during the recession, unemployment surged, and housing construction came close to a standstill. Figure 2 illustrates the dramatic dive in home price and climb in unemployment during the Great Recession. Figure 2: Home Price & Unemployment Rate through Recession and Recovery $450,000 $400,000 $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 � Median Home Price Unemployment Rate Source: Zillow; WA ESD ' RCW 36.70A.070 Housing Background Paper VISION 2050e 6 Packet Pg. 17 8.4.b The U.S. economic recovery began in 2010 and the central Puget Sound region has recovered better than the nation as a whole. As of 2014, the region had replaced all the jobs lost in the recession and Seattle led the nation in population growth per capita. However, this recovery has not been experienced equally throughout the region. Areas with strongerjob and income growth, such as the central Puget Sound region, have seen faster rates of recovery and a larger share of homes surpassing their 2007 peak values. Trulia data shows that approximately 80% of homes in the Seattle metro area have recovered to pre -recession prices. 5.2 MEDIAN HOME PRICE The Seattle metro area, comprised of King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties, has led the nation in annual housing cost increases for the past five years6. From 2012 to 2017, home prices climbed 62%. From 2016 to 2017, home prices in the Seattle metro area went up 10%, a rate of over $5 every hour.' A household needs to earn $145,000 annually (equivalent to a wage of $70 per hour) to afford the median priced home in King County in 2018. While all home prices are increasing, the price gap is widening among the counties, with King County home prices close to double the cost of homes in Kitsap and Pierce counties (Figure 3) Figure 3: Median Home Value $700, 000 $600, 000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200, 000 $100, 000 2010 2011 2012 2013 King Kitsap Source: Zillow Q11 C �'Zrj E•�Zrj [.�Zrj V1 Pierce Snohomish The map in Figure 4 shows home value$ by zip code area. The highest valued homes are concentrated in the inner neighborhoods and waterfront areas of Seattle, broadly across east King s Trulia. (2018). https://www.trulia.com/bloo/trends/home-value-recovery-2017/ s Case Schiller Home Price Index (2018). Available httpshttps://us.slus.spindices.com/index-family/real-estate-corelogic-case-shiIler WCRER, 2017 8 Figure 4 shows Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI): A smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure of the median estimated home value across a given region and housing type. It is a dollar -denominated alternative to repeat -sales indices. Housing Background Paper VISION 2050C 7 Packet Pg. 18 8.4.b County, and Bainbridge Island. Areas with much lower average home values include much of Pierce County, Kitsap County, and in Snohomish County north from Everett. Figure 4: Home Value by Zip Code, 2017 ors Euerete V ry l r 1 1' r i ' c 'v seam ng o u n t y a 1 J- P e county Median Home Value (Zillow Home Value Index) = $147 000 - $250,000 $250 000 - $350,000 F—i $350,000 - $450,000 J $450.000-UMUGo L. J $600 uw - $750,000 $750,000-$1,000,000 _ $1000,000-$2,794,560 No Data Source: Zillow Housing Background Paper VISION 205W 8 Packet Pg. 19 8.4.b Housing prices also vary by housing type. Sales data for the Seattle metro area by housing type shows that, on average, townhomes and condominiums cost less than detached single-family homes, as illustrated in Figure 5. Figure 5: Median Sales Price $600,000 $550,000 $500,000 $450,000 $400,000 $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Single -Family Townhomes Condominiums Source: Redfin Condominiums and townhomes have traditionally served as entryways for first time homeowners. Figure 6 shows that while the inventory of townhomes and condominiums has grown slightly since 2010, single family homes represent the lion's share of the housing inventory. Figure 6: Homes Sold by Unit Type 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% ■ Single Family ■ Townhomes ■ Condos Source: Redfin Housing Background Paper VISION 2050e 9 Packet Pg. 20 8.4.b 5.3 MEDIAN RENT Similar to home prices, rent9 has also risen significantly since 2012. From 2012 to 2017, rents increased 57%, with a 5-6% increase in each county from 2016 to 2017. While median rents are increasing across the region, the rent gap is widening among the counties. Figure 7: Median Rent, 2010-2017 $2,600 $2,400 $2,200 $2,000 $1,800 $1,600 _tea $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 -King Kitsap Pierce Snohomish Source: Zillow Looking at average rent, the data varies but the general trend is consistent with median rent. The average rent in spring 2017 was just under $1600, as shown in Figure 8. As with median rent, there is variation based on location10, size of building, and year built. Figure 8: Average Rent of Market Rate Multifamily Rental Units, 2017 5-19 Unit 20+ Unit Units Built Bldgs Bldgs 2013-2017 All Units East King $1,447 $1,957 $2,152 $1,951 Kitsap County -- $1,336 $1,533 $1,336 Pierce County -- $1,214 $1,609 $1,214 Sea -Shore $1,497 $1,828 $2,172 $1,793 Snohomish County $1,121 $1,501 $1,816 $1,488 South King $1,111 $1,386 $1,700 $1,380 Region $1,417 $1,602 $2,073 $1,595 Source: Dupre + Scoff -- Data not available B Trends in rent can be assessed by looking at changes in median rent, the middle point in rent prices, indicating that 50% of rents are higher and lower than the median; or by the average which takes the total rent divided by the number of units. The average rent can be skewed by relatively few units with very high or low rents. This paper utilizes both metrics because different rental data sources use median and average rent. Note that the median and average rent cannot be used interchangeably. 10 Subareas in King County include Sea -Shore (Seattle, Shoreline), East King (Mercer Island, Newcastle and all cities north to county line, east of Lake Washington), and South King (Renton, Tukwila, Burien and all cities south to county line) Housing Background Paper VISION 2050L 10 Packet Pg. 21 8.4.b RENT IN CENTERS Apartment rents within Regional Growth Centers", overall, are higher than the regional average. However, there is great variability in rents among centers. Centers in Seattle, Bellevue, and Redmond, all of which have seen significant new multifamily development12, have the highest average rents, pushing above $2,000 in some locations. At the lower end are centers which contain some of the region's most affordable market rate housing, typically in older buildings. Figure 9: Average Rent in Regional Growth Centers, 2017 Difference - Average Center and Rent City Avg. Rent Total Units in Centers $1,871 17% Bothell Canyon Park $1,736 -1% Redmond-Overlake $2,220 10% Silverdale $1,565 15% Bellevue $2, 260 12% Redmond Downtown $2,078 3% Sea -South Lake Union $2,234 17% Kent $1, 627 16% Sea -Downtown $2, 261 18% Renton $1,613 4% Kirkland Totem Lake $1,712 -12% Sea -Uptown $1,834 -1% Sea -First Hill/Cap Hill $1,790 -4% Bremerton $1,484 23% Sea-Northgate $1,539 -21% Sea -University $1,677 -11% Tacoma Downtown $1,319 5% Puyallup South Hill $1,388 8% Tacoma Mall $1,268 1% Everett $1,285 -3% University Place $1,141 1% Auburn $1,423 12% Lakewood $1,046 -1% SeaTac $1,212 -11% Burien $1,058 -17% Lynnwood $1,370 -1% Puyallup Downtown $1,042 -23% Source: Dupre + Scott 11Regional Growth Centers are regionally designated places characterized by compact, pedestrian -oriented development, with a mix of uses. While relatively small geographically, centers are strategic places to receive a significant proportion of future population and employment growth. 12 PSRC Residential Permits Database, 2016 Housing Background Paper VISION 2050V" 11 Packet Pg. 22 8.4.b 5.4 UNITS BY TYPE Of the total housing units in the region (1,622,591), the majority of housing units in the region are detached single-family homes, as shown in Figure 10. Figure 10: Housing Units by Type ■ SF Detached ■ SF Attached ■ Multifamily ■ Mobile Home Source: ACS Figure 11 shows that housing type varies among the four counties. Detached single-family homes make up the largest percentage of the overall housing stock in Kitsap County (68% of all units by type). King County has the lowest overall share of single family detached among the counties at 55% and a significantly larger stock of multifamily homes. Attached single-family units, such as townhomes, row houses, and zero lot line units, comprise a very small percentage of the total housing stock and do not account for more than 5% of the housing stock in any of the four counties Figure 11: Housing Unit Type by County, 2017 King Kitsap Pierce Snohomish SF -Detached 55% 68% 65% 64% SF -Attached 4% 5% 4% 5% Multifamily 39% 18% 24% 26% Mobile Homes 2% 9% 6% 5% Source: ACS 5.5 CONSTRUCTION TRENDS Regional data echoes national trends in construction of new housing units. Housing construction slowed dramatically during the Great Recession. While there have been substantial gains in housing production since the recession, housing production has yet to make up for the recessionary production drop (Figure 12).11 13 Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. (2017). The State of the Nation's Housing 2017. Available at http:/Lv&=.'chs.harvard.edu/research/state nations_ housing. Housing Background Paper VISION 2050V" 12 Packet Pg. 23 8.4.b Figure 12: Decennial Housing Production 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2010 2010-2017 ■ King ■Kitsap ■ Pierce ■ Snohomish Source: OFM The most recent housing production data, 2010-2017, is not a ten-year period, and thus not directly comparable with past decades. However, given annual housing production in 2016-2017 was approximately 25,000 units, it is unlikely that annual housing production from 2018-2020 will fill the gap to bring decennial housing production in line with the historic trend for past decades. Availability of suitable zoned land and market forces impacting the construction industry make development of moderately priced housing difficult. Many local land use regulations favor lower density development, and the construction industry is employing about 20% fewer people than in 2007.14 Overall, annual housing production has picked up in recent years, with the bulk of new housing units being constructed in King County. Pierce County saw an uptick in housing construction in 2017, compared to Kitsap and Snohomish counties. Figure 13: Annual Housing Production 25,000 20,000 ■ ■ ■ 15,000 . 10,000 5,000 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 ■ King ■ Kitsap ■ Pierce ■ Snohomish Source: OFM 14 Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. (2017). The State of the Nation's Housing 2017. Available at http://www. chs.harvard.ed u/research/state_ nations_ housing. Housing Background Paper VISION 205C' 13 Packet Pg. 24 8.4.b Figure 14: Single -Family Housing Growth a & King County • 4 Pierce County r Source: PSRC Residential Permits database Housing Background Paper Single -Family Units 2000-2016 1-20 _21.50 _ 51-lDC - 101 -250 - 251 -600 VISION 2050C 14 Packet Pg. 25 T c 8.4.b Figure 15: Multifamily Housing Growth N ME Snohomish County AY- �i. Mr s King county 4� I• t+�< o 0 •L`l Pierce County Source: PSRC Residential Permits Database Housing Background Paper T a Multi -,Family Units 6 2000-2015 Q 1-100 101 -200 - 201 - 500 - 501 - 1.000 - 1.001 - 2,500 _ 2.500• VISION 20'Tr"' Packet Pg. 26 8.4.b Construction of multifamily units has risen substantially and now accounts for about two-thirds of all housing construction in the region, a historic break from past trends where construction was dominated by single-family units. Adding multifamily units helps to diversify the housing stock and provide more affordable options. However, while a surge in construction of apartments has helped to meet growing housing demand, as rentals, they often do not offer ownership opportunities. Figure 16: Annual Change in Housing Units in the Region 22,000 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 49 single Family 0 Multi -Family Source: PSRC Residential Permits Database Housing growth in regional growth centers accounts for a significant share of multifamily unit growth and the overall share of housing unit growth since 2011. Approximately 27% of housing units permitted in 2016 were located in Regional Growth Centers, shown in Figure 17. Figure 17: Net Housing Permits 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 �~ 0 — ev ti ev ev ti'T ti T rv'a ti ti Regional Growth Centers Region Source: PSRC Residential Permits Database Housing Background Paper VISION 2050V" 16 Packet Pg. 27 T 8.4.b 5.6 VACANCY RATES Vacancy rates are at historic lows across the region. Figure 18 shows that vacancy increased in all four counties during the Great Recession but is now lower regionally than during the last peak in 2007. Fewer vacant units, for renters and buyers, leads to increased competition for available units, driving up costs. Figure 18: Vacant Units 13 12% 11% 10% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 King Kitsap Pierce Snohomish Region Source: ACS The number of available homeownership opportunities, often measured by the inventory of residential properties for sale, is at a historic low. All counties have seen declines, with the most dramatic contraction in for -sale inventory in King County. Figure 19: For Sale Inventory 145,000 1255000 1055000 85,000 65,000 45,000 25,000 5,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 King Kitsap Pierce Snohomish Source: Zillow 6 DEMAND The central Puget Sound region has experienced sustained employment growth since emerging from the recession in 2010, with exceptionally strong job growth since 2014. This growth has contributed to a surge in the demand for housing. Housing Background Paper VISION 2050>" 17 Packet Pg. 28 T 8.4.b Figure 20: Annual Change in Jobs and Housing to0,000 s0,0o0 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 -20,000 -40,000 -60,000 -80,000 Source: OFM ■ Housing r Jobs Figure 20 shows annual change in housing and jobs over time. There is not a 1:1 relationship between jobs and needed housing units in any given year. Households often contain more than one worker, and housing response to job growth generally lags over several years, reflecting the time it takes to finance and develop housing. With these caveats in mind, the data show that while housing construction has picked up substantially since a low in 2011, the construction of new housing units is not keeping pace with job growth and is just now approaching pre -recession levels of production. Job growth, increasing incomes, and changing demographics have all contributed to changing housing demands which are reflected in data on tenure, household formation, and size. 6.1 TENURE The majority of households in the region, 60%, own their homes. However, the percentage of home owners dropped during the Great Recession and has marginally improved since. One factor driving this trend is the relatively low supply of homes for sale. However, demand factors, such as the influx of job seeking renters and Millennials waiting longer to buy homes than previous generations, are likely in play as well. Figure 21: Housing Tenure 70% 65% 60% 55% 50 % 45% 40% 35°/o 30 °/o 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Own MRent Source: ACS Housing Background Paper VISION 2050V" 18 Packet Pg. 29 T c 8.4.b There is some variation in housing tenure at the county level. The percentage of renter occupied housing has grown in all four counties, with the greatest increases in King County and Pierce County. The difference in the percentage of renter occupied housing among the counties has also grown, with a widening gap in renters in King and Pierce counties compared to Kitsap and Snohomish counties. Figure 22: Renter Occupied Housing 45% 40 % 35% 30% 25% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 King Kitsap Pierce Snohomish Source: ACS, 2018 There are greater variations in housing tenure when analyzed by the race/ethnicity of the households. The majority of Black and Hispanic households are renters, while the majority of White and Asian households are home owners, as shown in Figure 23. Figure 23: Housing Tenure by Race/Ethnicity 80% 70 % 60% 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % 10% 0% Total White Black Asian Hispanic ■ Own ■ Rent Source: ACS Housing Background Paper VISION 205CV" 19 Packet Pg. 30 T 8.4.b 6.2 INCOME Income affects a household's ability to purchase or rent a home. Like housing costs, household income varies across the region shaping local housing market conditions. Figure 24 highlights that with the last recession, median household income dipped across the region in 2010 and has climbed since 2011. The gap among median income by county has grown substantially since 2011. Figure 24: Median Household Income $90,000 $85,000 $80,000 $75,000 $70,000 $65,000 $60,000 $55,000 $50,000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 King Kitsap Pierce Snohomish Source: ACS There is a strong relationship between race/ethnicity and income. On average, White and Asian households earned over 20% more than Black and Hispanic households, as shown in Figure 25. Black households experience the largest disparity in income of the groups analyzed. Regionwide, a Black household will earn one-third less than the regional median income. Figure 25: Median Income by Race/Ethnicity $120,000 $100,000 $80,000 $60,000 $40,000 $20,000 $0 Total White Black Asian Hispanic ■ King ■ Kitsap ■ Pierce ■ Snohomish Source: ACS Housing Background Paper VISION 2050E 20 Packet Pg. 31 8.4.b 6.3 WAGES Data on wages15 highlight the interactions among affordable housing, regional economic growth, and the experience of actual workers. As summarized below and in Figure 26, sizable disparities exist in wages among industries, impacting the ability of lower paid workers to afford housing in the same market as higher paid workers. In addition, the data show sizable increases in employment in high wage sectors, creating upward pressure on prices and rents. Most recent available data on wages is for the second quarter of 2017. At that time, the average annual wage across all sectors for the region was $68,538. Breaking that down by different industry types (sectors) 16 shows that some sectors pay, on average, much higher wages than others. Since the second quarter of 2010, the average annual wage across all sectors for the region increased by $15,625 or 30%, not adjusted for inflation. Wages in King County grew at a substantially faster rate (34%) compared to the region's other counties: Kitsap (16%); Pierce (16%); and Snohomish (20%). The sectors with the fastest growing wages include: retail trade (110%) which includes online retailers, information (51 %), and other services (50%). While not shown in Figure 26, analysis of wage data by location can help to align housing supply with need. Data on wages associated with different types of jobs concentrated in different parts of the region can make clear the connection between the people who work in communities across the region and their ability to afford housing. Locational wage data can help to plan for housing within commute distance of the region's job centers that meets the affordability needs of the people who work there. PSRC will continue to explore locational wage data. 15 Data on wage and income are not directly comparable as median household income often represents the earning of more than one job. 16 Sectors determined by two -digit NAICS code. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is the standard used by Federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, and publishing statistical data related to the U.S. business economy. Housing Background Paper VISION 205CV" 21 Packet Pg. 32 8.4.b Figure 26: Annual Average Wage by Sector, 2010 and 2017 Information $147,789 Management of companies and enterprises $103,705 Professional and technical services $94,820 Finance and insurance $91,090 Manufacturing $84, 314 Wholesale trade $81,586 Retail trade $68, 695 TOTAL - ALL SECTORS $68, 538 Government $65,943 Construction $63,810 Transportation and warehousing $59,903 Real estate and rental and leasing $55,241 Health care and social assistance $53,764 Administrative and waste services $50,552 Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting $48,368 Other services, except public administration $41,612 Educational services ! $38,765 Arts, entertainment, and recreation $37,469 Accommodation and food services W $24,692 $0 $40,000 $80,000 $120,000 $160,000 ■ 2017 ■ 2010 Source: ESD 6.4 HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND FORMATION The region is projected to add 830,000 households between 2018 and 2050. Average household size is forecasted to decrease to 2.36 people by the year 2050, largely due to the aging of the Baby Boomer generation (Figure 27). Fewer persons per household means greater demand for housing. Housing Background Paper VISION 2050'" 22 Packet Pg. 33 T C 8.4.b Figure 9: Persons -per -Household (PPH) Ratio * 2.96 in 1970 ACTuAk : FORECAST 2.50in2017E 2.36 in 2050 k � k � E � C k � MM 1910 1980 2000 2010 20M 2030 2040 2050 0- ks1 Source. U.S. Cam. AmarIcan Cownumlq Su-%�4 Y V Source: U.S. Census, ACS m 4- 0 The majority of households in King and Kitsap counties are comprised of one to two people, and o close to one-third of households in King County are people living alone. Snohomish County has the y largest percentage of larger households, with nearly one -quarter that are 4+ person households w (Figure 28). o Figure 28: Household Size 4D % 35% 30% 25% 2D % 15% 10% 5% 0% 1 Person HH 2 Person HH 3 Person HH 4+ Person HH ■ King ■ Kitsap ■ Pierce ■ Snohomish Source: ACS 6.5 GENERATIONAL NEEDS AND PREFERENCES The region is becoming older and more diverse. Changing demographics affect housing demand. Seniors as a share of the region's total population are forecasted to grow from 11 % in 2010 to 18% in 2050 (Figure 29). The growing number of seniors will increase the need to improve the accessibility of the housing stock and deliver in -home supportive services. At the same time, the number of Millennial headed households is expected to triple nationally by 2035. However, the number of people forming new households for ages 18-24 and 25-34 are Housing Background Paper VISION 2050V" 23 Packet Pg. 34 8.4.b especially low in less affordable markets such as the central Puget Sound, so the region may not see an increase of this scale." Figure 29: Regional Population by Age 54% 61% age 20-64 37% 21% momill age 0-19 -. I970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Source: ACS, PSRC As the region becomes more diverse18, with more minority households and first and second - generation immigrant households, the increased diversity of Millennials and the working age cohort may create demand for multigenerational living. 6.6 JOBS -HOUSING BALANCE Jobs -housing balance is a planning concept which advocates that housing and employment be close together to reduce the length of commute travel or vehicle trips altogether. A lack of housing especially affordable housing close to job centers, will push demand for affordable homes to more distant areas, increasing commute times. A jobs -housing ratio compares the number of jobs in relation to the number of housing units in a given area. A "balance" of jobs and housing is attained where a community or market area attains roughly the regional average ratio. The regional jobs -housing ratio in 2016 was 1.31. This is roughly equivalent to the regional ratio in 2008 (1.32), which was the "high water" mark for the last economic upcycle. It's considerably higher than it was in 2010/2011 (1.20/1.21), which was the "low water" point during the Great Recession Figure 30 highlights variation in jobs -housing ratio among major subareas of the region. Sea -Shore (1.71) and East King (1.64) have the highest ratios of the six subareas, indicating they are relatively employment -rich areas. Meanwhile the ratios for Kitsap (0.96), Snohomish (1.01) and Pierce (1.02) are lower, indicating that they are relatively housing rich. South King (1.28) is roughly equivalent to the regional average. "Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. (2017). The State of the Nation's Housing 2017. Available http://www.'chs.harvard.edu/research/state_ nations_ housing. 18 People of color today comprise 35% of the region's total population, more than double the share in 1990 (15%). The region has been diversifying at a far faster pace than the nation as a whole. Housing Background Paper VISION 2050'" 24 Packet Pg. 35 8.4.b Figure 30: Subarea Jobs -Housing Ratios, 2016 Source: OFM, PSRC 6.7 HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION Since 1984, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has reported that transportation costs are the second largest expense for households after housing.19 A more complete understanding of household cost burden looks at housing and transportation costs together (H+T). A household is considered cost burdened if their combined housing and transportation costs exceed 45% of their income. Factoring in the recommended 30% of income spent on housing, the formula allows for 15% of a household's income to be spent on transportation costs. The maps in Figures 31 and 32 show estimated housing and housing plus transportation affordability for a household earning the area median income. 19 Bernstein, Scott, Carrie Makarewicz, and Kevin McCarty. (2005) Driven to Spend. Available at: http://www.busadvocates.org/articles/householdcosts/Driven to Spend_Report.pdf Housing Background Paper VISION 2050 25 Packet Pg. 36 - Lim. _1 ri f 8.4.b Figure 32: Housing and Transportation Costs as Percentage of Income ' I 46 � +J�A K ■ w r`RRfr h xlr. IWM 1 iriAl of ■ �FJlow 1 ' � I \�j .h •i'�ff NIMMW • w� L=r fi t , �7 �1�,� �� ■.•,YI I, 1��-� ,. ,._ It aSF lot �JI'� i—F .,k `fir ppj It �f Mitt IN fir Cost as % of Income m410 oil c I- -:% M yam■ IIr4 i , - ■ ��1 �.Cost-Burdened . , .G% No Data �li�■i ` ■ Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology VISION 20'4"" T C Housing Background Paper Packet Pg. 38 8.4.b For the central Puget Sound region, the typical household spends 50% of its income on transportation and housing. Housing accounts for 31 % of these expenses with the remaining 19% attributed to transportation costs.20 This far exceeds the suggested 45 percent of income criterion and demonstrates that many households in the region are cost burdened not only by housing costs, but also by transportation. Housing and transportation costs are generally lower along the 1-5 corridor, in areas well -served by transit, and in sections of south King County, Tacoma, and areas of western Pierce County. Costs are higher in east King County, Bainbridge Island, and more rural areas farther from major transportation corridors. As housing costs rise, many households are forced to move to less expensive housing that is often farther from jobs, services, and their established communities. Thus, while moving farther afield may lower housing costs, the added transportation costs (fuel, time, need for additional vehicles, etc.) may not lower costs overall. 7 HOUSING AFFORDABILITY Affordable housing21 is commonly defined as housing costs not exceeding 30% of household income. Paying more than 30% of income on housing costs reduces a household's budget available for other basic necessities. With increasing incomes and a surge in demand for housing, the region is experiencing an affordability crisis not seen since the Second World War.22 Many JA FUM Erfo-T-M]• • FFTJ middle and lower income households struggle to find u - ime worker earning r housing that fits their income in > Cashier earning $25,401 an increasingly competitive and > Home health aid earning $25,864 expensive housing market. As , affordable housing options 0 E� >Full-time worker earning $16/hr become scarce, households are > Teacher earning $37,447 Restaurant cook earning $30,281 > forced to move farther from their jobs and communities, resulting ' in increased traffic congestion, > Two full-time workers each earning $33/hr or one full-time worker earning $17/hr and fragmentation of > Accountant earning $69,940 communities. >Office clerk earning $37,566 and a security guard earning $32,427 Courtesy: Community Attributes, King County Regional Affordable Housing Task Force Source: King and Snohomish Counties, WA ESD, 2017 20 Center for Neighborhood Technology. (2017) H+TFact Shoot MPO: Puget Sound Regional Council.. Available at: (http://htaindex.cnt.orci/fact-sheets/?Iat=47.6062095&Ina=-122.3320708&focus=mpo&aid=172#fs 21 This paper refers to "affordable housing" as any housing that meet the threshold of not exceeding 30% of a household's income. Housing that is deemed affordable because of subsidies or income/rent restrictions is expressly noted. 22 City of Seattle. (2015) Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda. Available at htt�://murray.seattle.aov/wp- content/uploads/2015/07/HALA_Report _2015. pdf Housing Background Paper VISION 2050V" 28 Packet Pg. 39 8.4.b 7.1 SUBSIDIZED HOUSING Homes provided by the private market are an integral part of housing in the region. However, the private market alone cannot provide housing for all residents. Subsidized units — made possible with federal, state, and local funding and incentives that ensure long-term rent or income restrictions — provide affordable housing that the private market cannot. Rent restrictions are typically set at 30% of the household's income, meaning that, ideally, no one living in a subsidized unit is cost burdened. Subsidized units are typically targeted to meet the needs of low and very low- income households as well as who need specific services. There are subsidized units located throughout the region, with the majority concentrated in the region's five Metro cities: Seattle, Bellevue, Tacoma, Everett, and Bremerton. Figure 33: Subsidized Housing Units, 2010 • � Snohomish County i � • z • • A..- � `�, W •• • •King County • 1 • e • b Subsidized Units l� � a5 units IS � • as tss �m�s Pierce County ns-Sze un¢s Source: PSRC Regional Subsidized Housing Database Housing Background Paper VISION 205CV" 29 Packet Pg. 40 T 8.4.b As summarized in Figure 34, a recent regional inventory of subsidized units tallied nearly 110,000 across the four counties. Figure 34: Regional Subsidized Housing Inventory, 201423 Number of Projects 2,356 Total Units 109,769 Total Units Affordable to HH Earning Less than 30% AMI 29,137 Total Units Affordable to HH Earning Between 31%-51%AMI 24,H5 Total Units Affordable to HH Earning Between 51 %-80% AMI 27,062 Total Units Affordable to HH Earning Between 81 '/0-100% AMI 1,410 Total Studio and 1 Bedrooms 39,940 Total 2 Bedrooms or more 34,543 Source: PSRC Regional Subsidized Housing Database, 2014 7.2 MARKET RATE AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS Many lower cost rental units in the private market provide "naturally occurring" affordable housing These units are often older, in smaller developments, and located farther from jobs and services. For the sake of this analysis, a market rate unit that is affordable for a household earning 80% AMI or less is considered affordable24. Of the market rate multifamily rental units surveyed by Dupre + Scott Apartment Advisors in the spring of 201725, 44% of these units are affordable to households earning 80% AMI or less (Figure 35). Figure 35: Market Rate Multifamily Rental Units Surveyed by Dupre + Scott 1 ■ Units Affordable 0-80%AMI ■ Units > 80% AMI Source: Dupre + Scott zs The subsidized housing subtotals do not equal the total number of units due to missing information on unit size and affordability for some records in the database. za Affordable monthly rent for a household at 80% AMI is $1783 in King County; $1390 in Kitsap County; $1305 in Pierce County; and $1612 in Snohomish County. 25 Dupre + Scott surveys rent in occupied "market rate" apartments, not retirement, rental condos, or tax credit/subsidized properties catering to those earning 60% or less of median income. Also excluded are micro units; however, Small Efficiency Development Units (SEDUs) are included when they have a sink in both the kitchen and bathroom. Housing Background Paper VISION 2050L 30 Packet Pg. 41 8.4.b There is substantial variation in the amount of naturally occurring affordable rental units across the region, as shown in Figure 36. Most multifamily rental units in South King County (79%) are naturally occurring affordable housing. East King County has the smallest percentage of naturally occurring affordable rental units with less than 9% of market rate rental units affordable to households earning 80% AMI or less. Figure 36: Market Rate Multifamily Rental Units by County, 2017 Snohomish County Seattle -Shoreline Source: Dupre + Scott The amount of naturally occurring affordable housing can change very quickly as the lower rents are not a requirement, but rather a reflection of the market and building conditions. As properties redevelop and neighborhoods become more attractive to higher income households, naturally occurring affordable units become more expensive through rent hikes or are often replaced with higher priced rentals. 7.3 HOME OWNERSHIP Homeownership opportunities are becoming less accessible to middle and lower income households. The Washington Center for Real Estate Research maintains a Housing Affordability Index (HAI) to track, at the county -level, the affordability of the median priced detached single- family home for the typical family earning median family income (HAMFI). An index of 100 indicates Housing Background Paper VISION 2050'" 31 Packet Pg. 42 8.4.b balance between income and home prices; higher indices indicate greater affordability, and lower indices indicate less affordability. Quarterly indices indicate that affordability has been decreasing across all four counties. King County has been below the 100 threshold over the last two years, while the other three counties have remained above (Figure 37). Figure 37: Housing Affordability Index 220 200 180 160 00 140 120 100 - 80 60 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 King Kitsap — Pierce Snohomish Source: WCRER The First Time Buyer Housing Affordability Index26 shows King, Pierce and Snohomish counties substantially below the "balance" threshold, and Kitsap right at 100. The lower index numbers in Figure 38 highlight the increasing difficulty for prospective first-time buyers to own a home. Figure 38: Housing Affordability Index - First Time Buyer 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 King Kitsap Pierce Snohomish Source: WCRER 21 The first-time buyers index assumes a household earning 70% of median household income, home at 85% median price, lower down payment assumption and additional cost for mortgage insurance. Housing Background Paper VISION 2050'" 32 Packet Pg. 43 8.4.b 7.4 COST BURDEN A household is considered cost burdened if it pays more than 30% of its income on housing. This includes rent or mortgage payments, and utilities. A household is considered severely cost burdened if it pays more than 50% of its income on housing. Cost burden is a relative metric; a high -income cost burdened home owner is most likely in different financial position than a low- income cost burdened renter as lower -income individuals have less disposable income to manage changing housing costs and cover other household expenses. Across the region, about 30% of homeowners and 45% of renters are cost burdened or severely cost burdened. Generally, renters across the region experience higher levels of cost burden than home owners. Close to half of all renters in South King County and Pierce County are cost burdened (Figure 39). Figure 39: Cost Burdened Renters, 2014 Region 584,449 South King 103,145 Snohomish 90,797 0 C W Sea -Shore 169,201 ro 0 Pierce 117,080 0- 0 Kitsap 32,500 East King 71,726 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% ■ Cost Burdened ■ Severely Cost Burdened Source: CHAS Cost burden varies by the race/ethnicity of households, as highlighted in Figure 40. Overall, African American and Hispanic households are more likely to be cost burdened, regardless of housing tenure. Housing Background Paper VISION 2050V" 33 Packet Pg. 44 T c 8.4.b Figure 40: Cost Burdened Renters by Race/Ethnicity, 2014 60% 50 % 40 % 30% 20 % 10% White African Asian Hispanic All American Households ■ Cost Burdened ■ Severely Cost Burdened Source: CHAS The number of low-income cost burdened households is increasing (Figure 41). More than 100,000 low-income renters pay more than 50% of their income on housing. These households are often the most at risk to lose their housing and experience homelessness. National research shows a connection between rent increases and homelessness; a $100 increase in rent is associated with an increase in homelessness of between 6% and 32%.27 Figure 41: Low -Income Cost -burdened Renters 250,000 200,000 -� 150,000 1005000 50,000 h 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Earning 30-50% AM I Earning <= 30% AM I Cost Burdened Cost Burdened Severely Cost Burdened Severely Cost Burdened Source: US Census, PUMS 2' Housing Development Consortium. (2018). https://www.housingconsortium.org/ Housing Background Paper VISION 2050'" 34 Packet Pg. 45 T C 8.4.b 7.5 DISPLACEMENT Displacement occurs when housing or neighborhood conditions force residents to move. Displacement can be physical, when building conditions deteriorate — or economic, as costs rise. Communities of color and renter neighborhoods are at a higher risk of displacement. 23 Gentrification is the influx of capital and higher -income, more highly -educated residents into lower income neighborhoods. Gentrification may not precede displacement although it is often assumed to be a precursor. Depending on the local and regional context, displacement may precede gentrification or the two may occur simultaneously.29 Several key factors drive gentrification and displacement: proximity to rail stations, jobs centers, historic housing stock, and location in a strong real estate market. Gentrification and displacement are regional issues as they are inherently linked to shifts in the regional housing and job market.30 Changes in neighborhood characteristics can help to identify areas where displacement may be occurring. Figures 42 and 43 show two such factors: the change in percentage of white non - Hispanic residents and the change in median household income at the Census Tract level31. Tracts that became more White and saw an increase in household income may be experiencing displacement as lower -income residents of color are forced to move as local market conditions change. Areas with documented displacement, including the Central District in Seattle, and the Hilltop neighborhood in Tacoma both saw an increase in White residents and higher median household income, indicating a change in the demographics of the residents who can afford to live in these neighborhoods. This early work paints only a partial picture and does not represent the spectrum of experiences of lower -income communities of color and how they are affected by growth and growing gaps in wealth in the region. 28 University of California Berkeley. (2015). Urban Displacement Project. Available at htta://www.urbandisplacement.org/sites/default/files/images/urban displacement _project_ -_ executive _summary_pdf 29 Ibid. 30 Ibid. 31 The neighborhood change maps use 5-year estimates from the American Community Survey (ACS) mapped at the census tract level. The two periods used to evaluate changes are 2006-2010 and 2012-2016. These multi -year estimates do not represent what was going on in any particular year in the period. Rather, they are average values over the full time period. As such, the 2006-2010 5-year estimates are averages over a period that includes both pre- and post -recession years. Similarly, the 2012-2016 estimates are averages that span the beginning of the economic recovery as well as the current boom. Housing Background Paper VISION 205CV" 35 Packet Pg. 46 8.4.b Figure 42: Percent Change in White, Non -Hispanic Residents } OL 5 Source: ACS Housing Background Paper % Change in White Non -Hispanic Residents ^r-40.47% --10.26% 10.25% - -5.99% -5.98% - -3.09% -3.08% - 0% 0.01 % - 3.31 % - 3.32% - 19.19% VISION 2050V" 36 Packet Pg. 47 T 8.4.b Figure 43: Percent Change in Median Household Income i Source: ACS Housing Background Paper a Change in Median Household Income -39.96% --12.03% -12.02% - -5,53% -5.52% - 0% 0.01 % - 6.54% - 6.55%- 14.74% - 14.75% - 223,14% VISION 2050V" 37 Packet Pg. 48 T 8.4.b 7.6 HOMELESSNESS Once thought of as an inner-city issue, homelessness is a concern for every central Puget Sound community, small and large, urban and suburban. While housing costs are one of myriad reasons people experience homelessness, there is a close correlation between the growing number of people experiencing homelessness with rising housing Costs.32 The annual Point -in -Time Count is a blitz count of sheltered and unsheltered people experiencing homelessness on one night33. Since 2008, the number of people without shelter increased 18%, driven by the number of unsheltered people nearly doubling in Pierce and King counties. Figure 44: People Experiencing Homelessness 15,000 13,000 11,000 9,000 7,000 5,000 3,000 1,000 Pisioi [rili1111111111P.Z811tr--ZrjK111111111WEWZ8111.1111111111W[:WIZ1j14 ■ Unsheltered ■ Sheltered Source: Point in Time Count: King County, Kitsap County, Pierce County, Snohomish County 7.7 HOUSING NEED PSRC's recent draft forecast anticipates the region will add about 1.8 million more people by 2050. That growth will result in about 830,000 new households. While most current residents have been able to rent or purchase a home, many are living in homes that are beyond their financial means or do not meet needs, such as those that are too small for their family size or lack accommodation for aging residents. A significant challenge facing the region is to produce enough new housing units as the population grows, and to provide more affordable housing that matches the needs of current residents. Future household incomes cannot be accurately predicted but are likely to be similar to those today. Today, 31 % of the region's households pay at least 30% of their income towards housing, and 60% of these cost -burdened households are moderate to low-income. In the future, demand by lower income households is anticipated to be similar to today, with 27% of households very low income and 45% low income.34 32 Glynn, Chris, and Emily B. Fox. (2017). Dynamics ofhomeiessness in urban America. Available https:://arxiv.org/abs/1707.09380. as Blitz count data is somewhat volatile as the geography and ability to county people changes from year to year. Additionally, the collection methodology has changed since 2008 14 2016 ACS 1-YEAR PUMS. Housing Background Paper VISION 205C>" 38 Packet Pg. 49 8.4.b Applying these shares to the future needs of 830,000 additional households in the region means that the region needs to house more than 370,000 households at 80% or less of area median income by 2050 (Figure 45). Figure 45: Anticipated Households Growth by Income Group Above 125%AMI 280,500 0°/0 10 °/0 20 9/0 30 0/0 40 9/0 50°/a 60 % 70 °/0 80 °/0 90 0/0 10 00% Source: ACS, PUMS Assuming a constant rate of growth of 1.22%, housing these new residents would require the region to produce about 20,500 housing units in 2018 and growing to 30,300 units per year in 2050. In 2017, approximately 23,300 housing units were produced, exceeding the annual production need. However, this current increase in production follows a long, slow economic recovery when housing production did not keep up with demand. To serve different household incomes, the region should be producing about 9,225 a year that are accessible to those earning 80% of the area median income or less. Of that amount, more than 5,500 new housing units are needed each year for very low-income households earning less than 50% of the area median income. Figure 46: Housing Production vs. Average Annual Production 30,000 Annual HU Production 25,000 20,000 15,000 Averaged Annual Production 10,000 5,000 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Source: OFM Housing Background Paper VISION 2050 39 Packet Pg. 50 8.4.b While the current production rate is higher than the average annual need, the market has yet to make up for the slow growth in years directly following the recession. Those years resulted in the market producing about 26,000 units fewer than average over the period from 2009-2014, as highlighted in Figure 46. Increased production in recent years made up about 5,000 units of that gap period, but current production levels will require as many as seven more years to make up for the impact of the recession. Meanwhile, strong employment growth has resulted in household growth that has accelerated more quickly than housing unit production, causing shrinking vacancies, quicker sales, and a tighter housing market (Figure 47). These factors lead to pressure on housing prices and rents. While the current annual housing production rate, if maintained, is expected to eventually catch up, it is currently not producing housing as fast as new employees are being hired. Figure 47: Housing Production + Household Growth 2007-2017 35,000 30,000 25,000 HU Growth 20,000 HH Growth 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 �°ti��o13 �Qti Source: OFM Over the long term, providing a variety of housing options affordable to a range of incomes has the potential to alleviate cost burden, specifically for low-income households, and provide greater opportunities for households to live in homes that meet their needs, now and in the future. 8 HOUSING IN VISION 2040 Inclusion of a separate chapter on housing was an important change in VISION 2040. Previously, VISION 2020 had included a few housing -related policies within the broader context of land use and growth patterns, but did not comprehensively address housing issues in a regional context. VISION 2040 encourages housing production that meets existing and future needs. It places a major emphasis on the location of housing and promotes fair and equal access to housing. VISION 2040 calls for preserving and expanding housing affordability, incorporating quality and Housing Background Paper VISION 2050U 40 Packet Pg. 51 8.4.b environmentally friendly design in homebuilding, and offering healthy and safe home choices for all the region's residents. The multicounty planning policies (MPPs) address housing diversity and affordability, jobs -housing balance, and best practices for residential development. VISION 2040 encourages the construction, preservation, and ownership of a variety of homes — including for special needs and middle- to low-income households. The regional plan recognizes the importance of having employment, services, and transportation options close to home. Increasing housing choices and opportunities in regional growth centers and employment centers aims to improve efficiency and mobility and strengthen the region's economy. VISION 2040 includes two actions to support housing goals and policies: developing a regional housing strategy, including a regional needs assessment, and establishing a regional housing program to support that strategy. Taken together, these actions were envisioned as core elements of a coordinated regional approach to housing with PSRC complementing and adding value to local housing efforts. As described below, significant progress has been made since 2008 on various elements of the work associated with the economic development work plan, tools for equitable transit -oriented development, and technical assistance for local GMA plan updates. However, during the recession and early years of recovery, housing affordability became a lower priority for regional action. The VISION 2050 update is an opportunity, particularly in the housing actions, to renew efforts to bring existing and new work together around a sustained regional strategy for housing and housing affordability. Regional Housing Strategy: H-Action-1 The Puget Sound Regional Council, together with its member jurisdictions, housing interest groups, and housing professionals, will develop a comprehensive regional housing strategy. The housing strategy will provide the framework for a regional housing program (see H-Action-2, below) and shall include the following components: 1. A regional housing needs assessment 2. Strategies to promote and/or address: housing diversity, housing affordability, special needs housing, centers and workforce housing, innovative techniques, and best local housing planning practices 3. Coordination with other regional and local housing efforts • Short-term / H-1 through 9 • Results and Products: regional housing strategy Soon after the adoption of VISION 2040, PSRC engaged regional partners in housing strategy work spearheaded bythe Prosperity Partnership. In 2008, the Regional Housing Strategy Working Group of the Prosperity Partnership proposed a work plan for a Housing Education and Technical Assistance Program (HETAP), funded by a $86,000 federal grant to support local governments in their efforts to enact regulations and incentives promoting the production and preservation of affordable housing choices nearjob centers for workers at all wage levels. PSRC's Growth Management Policy Board adopted the HETAP work in 2008. Central to the HETAP work program was the development of an online comprehensive housing toolkit of housing best practices and affordable housing tools, later titled the Housing Innovations Program (HIP). PSRC contracted with a consultant from 2009-11 to research effective affordable housing tools and resources, develop the online toolkit, conduct a survey of local governments' use VISION 205CV" Housing Background Paper 41 Packet Pg. 52 8.4.b of housing tools, and develop a model housing element for comprehensive plans, as components of the HIP toolkit. PSRC staff worked in tandem with the consultant to develop the website content, and the website was launched in in 2010. The next major body of work on housing occurred as part of the Growing Transit Communities (GTC) initiative, a three-year project (2011-2014) supported by a $5 million grant from HUD and other federal agencies. The Growing Transit Communities Strategy, which is a foundational document informing the VISION 2050 process, promotes equitable transit communities as a focal point for growth in the region that includes ample and affordable housing choices near transit. GTC included a study of existing housing conditions and needs in Sound Transit light rail corridors, engagement with a broad range of housing stakeholders, and development of innovative housing tools. More information on this work is described in the next section of this paper. The Regional Transit -Oriented Development Advisory Committee continues to provide guidance and connect regional partners toward ongoing implementation of the GTC Strategy. In 2015, PSRC co -hosted a forum on the interrelationship between housing and education with the Housing Development Consortium of Seattle and King County and the Puget Sound Educational Service District. Regional Housing Program: H-Action-2 The Puget Sound Regional Council will develop and implement a program to encourage best housing practices and stimulate local housing production, including affordable housing. The program will make planning for housing more transparent and shall include the following components: 1. Guidance for developing local housing targets (including affordable housing targets), model housing elements, and best housing practices 2. Regional guidelines for and the review of local housing elements, that call for documentation of strategies and implementation plans for meeting housing targets and goals, i.e., a "show your housing work" provision 3. Technical assistance to support local jurisdictions in developing effective housing strategies and programs 4. Collection and analysis of regional housing data as part of the region's monitoring program, including types and uses of housing • Short- to mid-term / H-1 through 9 • Results and Products: (1) guidance and best practices, (2) regional review of local housing elements, (3) technical assistance for local governments, (4) monitoring of regional housing data and trends PSRC produced a guidance paper on establishing housing targets for regional growth centers. While PSRC staff actively participated in development of growth targets in each of the counties, the regional council did not develop guidance on establishing housing targets more generally. During the 2015/16 local comprehensive plan updates, PSRC had a housing planner on staff focused on review and comment of housing elements in comprehensive plans. PSRC staff also developed the Housing Element Guide, which provides data and policy resources to assess local housing needs and identify strategies to address needs. Staff provided technical assistance to local governments with questions on housing planning. PSRC has not had a housing planner on staff since 2015 to provide specialized technical assistance or coordinate regional housing efforts. As part of the Growing Transit Communities Partnership, PSRC developed the Subsidized Housing Database, which identifies affordable housing units made possible with federal, state, and local funding sources, incentives, and subsidies. PSRC continues to collect residential building permit Housing Background Paper VISION 205CV" 42 Packet Pg. 53 8.4.b records authorizing the construction, demolition, and any other gain or loss in housing units that occurs in a given year. 9 WORK SINCE 2008 Since VISION 2040 was adopted in 2008, housing planning and implementation has advanced through the ongoing work of state, regional, and local agencies and organizations. These efforts have yielded new tools and resources, promoted best practices, established community -based housing strategies, and coordinated efforts across multiple jurisdictions. Examples of significant housing initiatives, resources, reports, and policy changes are described below. 9.1 STATE Housing Affordability Response Team Report (2017) The Washington State Department of Commerce and the state Affordable Housing Advisory Board initiated a broad review of issues related to housing and housing affordability in the state with the formation of a Housing Affordability Response Team (HART) in 2017. As documented in a final report, the HART, an interdisciplinary team of housing development, construction, financing and planning experts, identified major challenges and potential solutions to increase the supply of affordable units, especially suitable for low- and moderate -income households. The group explored multiple factors affecting housing supply and cost, such as land use planning, regulations, and funding and financing. Recommendations included providing funds for local housing planning and analysis, community outreach and education, revising to development -related statutes and regulations to facilitate housing development, state and local funding for affordable housing, using surplus public lands for affordable housing, and ongoing collaboration. Housing Guidebook In addition to coordinating the HART effort, the Washington State Department of Commerce completed an updated guidebook on housing planning in 2014 to support periodic comprehensive plan updates. Buildable Lands Statute Amendments (SB 5254) In 2017, the Washington State Legislature passed SB 5254, amending the Buildable Lands requirements of the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.215). SB 5254 adds new types of data and factors that counties and cities must address through a periodic evaluation to ensure sufficient capacity to accommodate housing demand. The statute also set in motion a process to update Buildable Lands Program guidelines to address the new requirements along with additional considerations that include evaluating how local zoning and land use regulations promote or hinder housing affordability and supply. This work is ongoing, with final agency guidance anticipated in 2019, ahead of the next round of local Buildable Lands reports due starting in 2021. 9.2 REGIONAL Growing Transit Communities (2011- 2014) In 2011, PSRC led a coalition of regional partners in securing a $5 million federal Sustainable Communities Planning grant promoting thriving and equitable transit communities throughout the Housing Background Paper VISION 205CV" 43 Packet Pg. 54 8.4.b region. The three-year work plan culminated in the adoption of the Growing Transit Communities Strateg in 2013 and the subsequent endorsement by over 40 local governments, public agencies, and private and non-profit organizations of a Growing Transit Communities Compact. The compact sets as a goal to "provide housing choices affordable to a full range of incomes near high -capacity transit," specifically to: • "Use a full range of housing preservation tools to maintain the existing level of affordable housing within each transit community, and • Use a full range of housing production tools and incentives to provide sufficient affordable housing choices for all economic and demographic groups within transit corridors, including new housing in the region's transit communities collectively that is proportional to region -wide need or greater to serve transit -dependent households." To advance this goal, the Strategy recommends several regional and local tools and approaches that include: • Assess current and future housing needs in transit communities • Minimize displacement through preservation and replacement • Direct housing resources to locations served by high quality transit • Expand options for using value capture financing • Make surplus public lands available for affordable housing • Provide regulatory incentives for affordable housing Another tool, establishing a property acquisition fund, was implemented as part of Growing Transit Communities. With seed funding from King County, A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH), City of Seattle, and the State of Washington, the Regional Equitable Development Initiative (REDI) fund blends public, foundation, and private capital to enable providers of affordable housing to secure increasingly costly development sites within key transit corridors. Finally, the GTC grant also supported work by PSRC to produce a Fair Housing Equity Assessment F( HEA). The FHEA provides information and analysis on conditions within the region that have resulted in racial and income segregation and addresses potential policy, regulatory, and fair housing infrastructure approaches to improve fair housing conditions overtime. Sound Transit and Equitable Transit -Oriented Development In 2015 the state Legislature adopted legislation directing Sound Transit to advance equitable transit oriented development (TOD) goals through system planning, surplus land disposition, and financial contributions to support affordable housing in transit station areas. Those statute changes were reflected in the Sound Transit 3 ballot measure and took effect with the measure's November 2016 passage. More recently, the agency updated its TOD policies to support implementation of these requirements. In accordance with the new law and subject to certain exemptions, Sound Transit will offer a minimum of 80 percent of its surplus property that is suitable for development as housing for either transfer at no cost, sale, or long-term lease first to qualified entities that agree to develop affordable housing on the property, consistent with local land use and zoning laws. At least 80 percent of the VISION 205C>" Housing Background Paper 44 Packet Pg. 55 8.4.b housing units constructed under this provision must be affordable to those earning 80 percent of area median income (AMI). Work is already underway toward developing more than 600 affordable units on surplus agency properties in Seattle's First Hill, Capitol Hill and Roosevelt neighborhoods. In addition to surplus property disposition, the legislature also directed Sound Transit to "contribute at least four million dollars each year for five consecutive years beginning within three years of voter approval of the system plan to a revolving loan fund to support the development of affordable housing opportunities related to equitable transit -oriented development." The agency will address specific implementation of this requirement, which could include adding public capital to the REDI Fund or a similar financing tool, as it carries out its equitable TOD policies over the next couple of years. 9.3 COUNTY/SUBREGIONAL King CountyAffordable Housing Task Force (2017 - 2018) In 2017, King County convened a Regional Affordable Housing Task Force charged with making recommendations on strategies and actions toward meeting the need for affordable housing across King County. The task force is made up of county and city elected officials, supported by an advisory panel of housing and community development experts. For the past year, the task force has focused its work on education, research, and data analysis, in preparation for developing recommendations for consideration by the county council at the end of 2018. The task force is focusing its work on identifying "actionable, sustainable, and regional" strategies to meet the needs of households, especially those earning less than 80% of AMI. Other primary objectives include promoting affordability in proximity to jobs, transit, and services, addressing inequitable access to housing based on race or income, and meeting the needs of a variety of household types, such as larger households, older residents, and people with disabilities. Finally, the task force seeks to identify and promote strategies that are regional and benefit from interjurisdictional coordination. Local Governments Working Together In 2013, Snohomish County, 13 of its cities, and the Housing Authority of Snohomish County joined together to establish the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA) as a forum for understanding housing challenges in the county and to address those challenges through shared resources and collaboration. AHA has provided staffing and technical assistance to member jurisdictions, including individualized housing profiles, guidance for updating comprehensive plan housing elements, and dashboards to monitor trends. The South King Housing and Homelessness Partnership (SKHHP) was established in 2015 as a collaboration among stakeholders in South King County on issues related to affordable housing and homelessness. Among its membership is King County, the Renton and King County housing authorities, and six cities. The SKHHP provides support for actions related to the SKC Response to Homelessness through coordination and technical support. These organizations are in addition to A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH), which is a long- standing collaborative effort among Eastside cities to preserve and increase the supply of housing Housing Background Paper VISION 205CV" 45 Packet Pg. 56 8.4.b for low -and moderate -income households. Among other efforts, ARCH completed housing needs analyses for Eastside cities to support their comprehensive plan updates. County Housing Consortia Coordination around affordable housing is further supported by the work of consortia —whose membership includes housing providers, lenders, advocacy organizations, and public agencies — that are active in various counties. These groups generally provide data and technical assistance, education on best practices, and legislative advocacy. They include the Housing Development Consortium (King County), the Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County, and the Tacoma/Pierce County Affordable Housing Consortium. Recent notable achievements include development by the Snohomish consortium of an updated database comprising an inventory of income -restricted homes countywide and the Housing Snohomish County Project Report with recommendations in the areas of policy and funding. 9.4 LOCAL Comprehensive Plan Updates and Housing Strategies Jurisdictions across the four -county region recently completed state -required major updates to their comprehensive plans, including updates to the land use plan that accommodates future housing development to meet growth needs and updates to the housing element with policies that promote housing that is affordable to the full range of income levels. PSRC commented on the housing related provisions in draft plans and identified recommended future work through its review and certification process. Many of the local plan updates included improvements to the data, policies, and implementation actions on housing. With guidance from PSRC and other organizations, housing needs analyses used new data and more comprehensive approaches to identifying current and future demand and affordability gaps. Amended policies supported the use of new and expanded tools, such as regulatory incentives, Multifamily Tax Exemption, and zoning for affordable types of housing. Following on the comprehensive plan updates, some jurisdictions have moved quickly to developing action strategies for housing. City of Seattle: HALA and MHA In 2014, the City of Seattle convened a group of housing experts, for -profit and non-profit developers, and resident renters and homeowners to develop a broad agenda for increasing the supply of affordable housing in the city. The Housing Affordability and Livability Agenda (HALA) Report (2015) contains 65 recommendations with a goal of creating 50,000 units of housing- 20,000 units of affordable housing and 30,000 new units of market rate housing —in the next 10 years. Action areas include providing more resources from an array of sources for affordable housing, increasing the supply and diversity of market rate housing throughout the city, providing support for communities, including vulnerable renters and marginalized communities, and innovative approaches to cutting the cost of housing development and increasing access to housing options. Since 2015, the city has begun to implement key HALA recommendations, including an increased housing levy (see below) and heightened protections for vulnerable tenants. The city is also in the Housing Background Paper VISION 205CV" 46 Packet Pg. 57 8.4.b process of implementing Mandatory Housing Affordability (MHA), wherein upzones paired with inclusionary requirements will require developers of new market rate commercial and residential projects to include affordable units or contribute to a fund to build those units off -site. To date, MHA has been implemented in six neighborhoods, and citywide MHA legislation is currently under review by the city council. Funding Jurisdictions can develop a local housing fund to provide a dedicated source of funding for affordable housing projects. In 2016, City of Seattle voters approved a renewal of the city's Housing Levy for $290 million, doubling the previous levy amount. Over a period of 7 years, the levy is expected to result in 2,150 new or preserved units affordable to low-income households. The levy also funds significant maintenance needs for 350 existing subsidized units. The levy provides funding for operations in existing buildings, helping to provide housing opportunities for households with the greatest needs, including the homeless. Levy loans will support acquisition and rehabilitation to preserve existing affordable units. The levy also includes support for homeownership and resources to assist homeless individuals and families. 10 HOUSING POLICIES & STRATEGIES VISION 2040 includes actions for PSRC and goals and policies for planning at the regional and local level. The updated plan can identify key projects for PSRC, opportunities for regional collaboration, and guidance or requirements for local plans. VISION 2040 already includes several multicounty planning policies aimed at providing housing choices for all incomes. Data in the first section of this paper demonstrates the challenge of meeting this goal and the problem of providing affordable housing has become worse since 2008. What should the region do to address this challenge? What is already addressed through regional and local plans? What strategies and opportunities should VISION 2050 pursue? This section provides an overview of the types of policies and strategies available to provide a variety of housing choices at all levels of affordability. 10.1 HOUSING SUPPLY Increasing the supply of housing of all types can help to relieve market pressures and accommodate growth for years to come. Tools and strategies to increase the overall housing supply include: plans and regulations that allow and encourage sufficient housing supply, especially by increasing residential capacity near transit and jobs; plans and zoning that accommodate multiple housing types to diversity the housing stock, provide more affordable options, and meet the needs of various household types; and provisions to make housing easier and faster to build. Housing Background Paper VISION 205CV" 47 Packet Pg. 58 8.4.b Potential Housing Supply Tools Rezone to increase allowed housing densities Expand housing diversity — cottage housing, ADUs, multigenerational, etc. Subarea/TOD planning that increases housing supply with access to employment Encourage job growth near areas of housing supply Technical support for local planning & housing initiatives Reduce development restrictions / streamline regulations Standardize regulations and processes across jurisdictions to make permitting more predictable Align countywide housing targets to be consistent with housing needs 10.2 INCENTIVES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING Incentives support affordable housing by leveraging market activity and by reducing the cost of developing affordable units for housing developers. Incentives fall into three broad categories: incentives for market rate developers to build affordable units; incentives that reduce the costs for developers of affordable units; and incentives and other supports for local government housing efforts, such as technical support. Potential Incentives for Affordable Housing Multifamily Tax Exemption Use of publicly owned land Density bonuses Waive or reduce permit fees Waive or reduce sewer connection charges Align incentives with income levels and need Reduced parking requirements Mandatory inclusionary zoning Development agreements Technical support for local housing initiatives Link regional funding to local plans for affordable housing 10.3 FUNDING AND FINANCING Funding affordable housing is complicated. To increase the overall funding available, existing funding sources can be increased and expanded, new funding sources can be created, and stakeholders can help to better link private and public funding sources. VISION Housing Background Paper Packet Pg. 59 8.4.b Potential Funding & Financing Tools Federal low-income housing tax credit Capital leveraging to allow non -profits to move faster Local or countywide housing levy New revenue source, such as document recording fee increase, housing demo fee, or condo conversion fee Sales tax waiver on new affordable housing In lieu fees from incentive/inclusionary programs Philanthropy Voluntary employers fund Coordinate new funding options at state level or across multiple jurisdictions Revolving loan fund for property acquisition 10.4 DISPLACEMENT AND PRESERVATION There are policies that can help extend the life of subsidized housing and tools to keep "naturally occurring" affordable housing in the private market from becoming more expensive. These include financial incentives, often in the form of tax credits and fee waivers, for maintaining affordable rental prices. Special funds can also be made available to rehabilitate a property in exchange for maintaining affordability. Preservation also encompasses efforts to maintain the safety and soundness of affordable homes. Local governments can help ensure that homes comply with local codes and property owners bring them up to standard as necessary. Potential Displacement & Preservation Tools Permit fee waiver for rehabilitation of affordable housing Sales tax waiver for rehabilitation of affordable housing Low -interest loans/revolving loan fund for preservation Preservation tax credit Code enforcement to maintain housing quality Code enforcement to maintain affordability restrictions Comprehensive tenant protections Range of rent regulations / eviction protections 10.5 TENANT PROTECTIONS Many residents experience inequities in access to safe housing that meets their needs. Without the enforcement of proper protections, many tenants living on low incomes experience discrimination, poor housing conditions, and unhealthy housing. Most tools relating to tenant protections focus on enforcement of local codes and other regulations when tenants are in a home. Additional strategies focus on equal access to homes and address the application process. Incentives can promote the construction and retrofitting of units to be accessible for people with special needs and different abilities. Housing Background Paper VISION 205CV" 49 Packet Pg. 60 8.4.b Potential Tenant Protection Tools Provide multi -jurisdiction support for local enforcement of codes & affordability Support local implementation and enforcement to prevent source of income discrimination Legal defense fund for local jurisdictions Housing opportunities for people with criminal backgrounds Require or create incentives for more housing that meets ADA/universal design for people with special needs and different abilities 10.6 ASSESSMENT, MONITORING, AND REPORTING Assessment, monitoring, and reporting on data and trends overtime can help with the success of housing plans and programs. This can include assessments of housing needs, monitoring implementation and outcomes, and reporting to elected officials and the public. Ongoing reporting can be technically challenging and resource intensive. Coordinated reporting efforts, sharing of resources, and technical support can help to create long-term and consistent analysis to fully understand the opportunities and gaps in local and regional markets and to better align policies and regulations with desired outcomes. Potential Assessment, Monitoring & Reporting Tools Housing needs assessment Assess zoning for alignment with demographic needs, family size, incomes, etc. Identify housing needs related to jobs growth Monitor local housing outcomes and assess effectiveness of local policies, regs, and programs Buildable lands updates, including potential impacts on affordability Develop data dashboard for housing Share housing needs and development information among cities and counties Evaluate demographic changes and identify need for change in strategies Identify partnership opportunities Provide regional clearing house for housing plans, strategies, data Displacement risk analysis 11 CONSIDERATIONS AND QUESTIONS FOR VISION 2050 There are a variety of questions for PSRC boards to consider in updating VISION. What are the most pressing regional housing needs? What are the most effective tools for addressing those needs? What gaps are there currently in our collective housing efforts? What is the role for coordinated regional planning and action around housing? VISION 2050 offers opportunities to address housing and housing affordability through both policies and actions. Housing Background Paper VISION 2050L 50 Packet Pg. 61 8.4.b Multicounty Planning Policies. The multicounty planning policies (MPPs) in VISION 2040 address common objectives and priorities for housing in the region, best practices, and areas for coordination. • How well do the current MPPs address the breadth of housing challenges facing the region? Are there substantive gaps? • Could the policies be improved through revised or additional policy language? • Are there ways in which the MPPs could provide more specific guidance for local plans? • Are there ways in which the MPPS could provide more guidance for countywide planning policies to address county and local affordable housing needs? Implementation Actions. VISION 2040 includes two actions, both regional in scale, including a Regional Housing Strategy and a Regional Housing Program. While progress has been made in both areas, the VISION 2050 process is an opportunity to advance these and other areas for coordinated action on housing. • Are there aspects of the current VISION 2040 housing actions that should be retained as priorities for PSRC or other agencies going forward? • What additional actions at the regional, countywide, or local levels could be added to VISION 2050? • Are there areas where additional data, research and analysis would have value? • What areas of coordinated action may be effective in addressing housing affordability? Discussion of these questions will be critical for understanding and setting regional and local goals for housing in the short-term and through the year 2050. Housing Background Paper VISION 205CV" 51 Packet Pg. 62 8.4.b 12 APPENDIX: 12.1 TAKING STOCK Taking Stock 2016 is an assessment of the collective efforts of the region's counties and cities to implement VISION 2040, as viewed immediately following the 2015-2016 cycle of local comprehensive plan updates and looking ahead of the next update of VISION 2040. The full report is available online. The figure below outlines comments received on housing and the housing element of the comprehensive plan. Figure 48: Overview of Feedback on Housing Element Successes Housing prioritized as critical issue. Communities expressed a higher level of interest in housing and housing affordability issues. Robust housing analysis. Most plans included data -rich housi ng needs assessments that helped to inform policies and strategies. The use of common data and definitions, accompanied in some cases by staff support from subregional coalitions and other agencies (e.g., A Regional Coalition for Housing, Affordable Housing Alliance, health agencies, advocacy organizations) fostered greater coordination among jurisdictions. Housing capacity met growth needs. Local plans provided sufficient capacity for overall targeted housing units needed over the 20- year planning period. Planning far more diverse h ous ing ty pes. Many plans increased support for a greater diversity of housing types, including small -lot single-family, townhomes, senior housing, multifamily housing types, and innovative infill like accessory dwelling units and cottage housing. Use of more affordable housing tools. Many ju risdictions have adopted new policies supporting new tools to encourage housing affordabi Iity, e.g., Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE), incentive and i ncl usio n ary zon i ng, streamlined regulations, surplus public lands. Housing Background Paper • Local housing is impacted by larger forces. Housing is shaped by factors that are beyond local control, e.g., employment growth, wages, construction costs, financing, and funding from federal, state, and other programs for affordable housing. • Community opposition to affordable housing. Some residents continue to see density and subsidized housing as negatives fortheir communities. * Completeness of needs assessments. Future housing needs+;# units, types, affordability levels), including the local share of countywide affordable housing needs, were not always clearly specified in the updated housing elements. • Plans may not match housing demand. Participants expressed varying perspectives on how well planned housing types met demand, with some focusing on limited supply to meet demand for single-family housing, some focusing on lack of housing diversity, especially alternatives to SF detached. • one size does not fit all. Guidance on affordable housing strategies and tools is seen by some as not differentiating among cities of different sizes and market conditions. Limited funding for affordable housing. Available housing subsidies fall far short of the need. Local efforts to create housing are piecemeal; there is a need for more leveraged multijurisdictionaI efforts to finance affordable housing. Displacement is a rising concern with few effective tools. Local governments have limited tools to preserve existing affordable housing that may be lost either to redevelopment or rising rents. VISION 2050V" 52 Packet Pg. 63 8.4.b 12.2 HOUSING COSTS Figure 49: Housing Cost and Affordability Indicators 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Median Home Price (all homes) King $340,100 $317,000 $309,600 $344,100 $378,500 $416,400 $475,000 $548,700 $648,000 Kitsap $249,000 $239,800 $236,100 $231,600 $247,000 $253,500 $282,100 $314,300 $348,200 Pierce $224,600 $209,700 $194,000 $201,200 $220,600 $234,700 $258,400 $288,900 $329,200 Snohomish $273,100 $239,600 $232,200 $256,700 $288,400 $313,000 $353,100 $399,900 $460,300 Housing Affordability Index (all buyers) King 110.5 124.0 131.9 121.9 105.9 103.0 92.3 79.4 Kitsap 146.2 153.7 170.7 176.9 165.4 163.0 151.1 133.7 Pierce 150.6 175.9 201.0 187.3 165.7 158.8 148.8 130.5 Snohomish 137.5 165.6 173.3 158.9 134.6 129.8 124.6 108.9 Housing Affordability Index (first time buyers) King 61.1 66.4 72.7 66.9 59.2 58.5 53.2 46.5 Kitsap 88.4 90.0 96.4 103.5 102.9 107.2 104.6 97.1 Pierce 86.2 98.4 117.9 100.9 86.9 80.8 73.5 62.6 Snohomish 78.2 92.2 98.6 86.8 73.7 71.1 68.4 59.8 Median Rent (multifamily 5+ units) King n/a $1,380 $1,390 $1,470 $1,610 $1,730 $1,870 $1,960 $2,020 Kitsap n/a $920 $1,020 $950 $1,030 $1,120 $1,190 $1,280 $1,350 Pierce n/a $1,160 $1,120 $1,120 $1,200 $1,220 $1,260 $1,360 $1,440 Snohomish n/a $1,260 $1,240 $1,290 $1,350 $1,440 $1,530 $1,640 $1,710 Source: WCRER/UW Runstad Center, Zillow Figure 50: Cost Burdened Home Owners Region South King Snohomish Sea -Shore Pierce Kitsap East King 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% ■ Cost Burdened ■ Severely Cost Burdened Source: CHAS Housing Background Paper VISION 205W 53 Packet Pg. 64 T 8.4.b Figure 51: Cost Burdened Home Owners 45% 40 % 35% 30% 25% 20% in R 15% m r 10% White African Asian Hispanic All American Households 0 L ■ Cost Burdened ■ Severely Cost Burdened Y Source: CHAS m 4- 0 The McKinney Vento Act35 requires school districts to track the number of homeless students every o school year. The number of homeless students in the region increased by 57% from 2011 to 2016. y Many of the students captured in the McKinney Vento numbers are the unseen homeless, students 2 living in motels, couch surfing, and living in cars and RVs. p Figure 52: Homeless Students 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Source: OSPI 12.3 DEFINITIONS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES There are a variety of tools that can be enacted by local governments to encourage housing through regulatory tools and administrative actions. • Multi -family tax exemption. Jurisdictions can incentivize affordable home construction through the implementation of a multi -family tax exemption (MFTE). Cities can grant a 35 The McKinney-Vento Act defines homeless children as "individuals who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence." Examples of this include students living in motels and couch surfing. Housing Background Paper VISION 205P ' 54 Packet Pg. 65 8.4.b property tax exemption for 12 years in exchange for a developer building affordable housing (RCW 84.14.020). The statute requires that at least 20 percent of the units constructed meet affordability requirements if developers take advantage of the 12-year MFTE. • Use of publicly owned land. Affordable housing may be developed on excess public land owned by cities, transit agencies, or other municipal districts. If publicly owned land no longer serves a purpose for a municipal organization, it can be re -developed for an important community purpose. • Waive or reduce permit fees. Cities can incentivize affordable housing development by lowering the cost of development. Waiving or exempting developers from things like permit fees and sewer connection charges can further incentivize affordable housing production and lessen financial burdens on nonprofit developers. • Technical assistance. Some agencies are available to provide technical assistance for local governments to help align incentives with income levels and need. These include housing organizations, such as ARCH in King County and AHA in Snohomish County, and the Washington State Department of Commerce. Housing advocacy organizations may also be able to provide technical support for local housing initiatives or levies. There are a variety of regulatory tools and incentives for local governments to consider. • Mandatory inclusionary zoning. Mandatory inclusionary zoning requires or incentivizes new developments over a certain size to allot a portion or number of units as affordable housing Developers can sometimes opt out of building the units themselves by paying a fee in lieu. • Reduced parking requirements. Many municipalities require multi -family developers to provide a certain number of off-street parking stalls for each residential unit constructed. Reducing mandatory parking requirements increases for -profit developers' incentive to build and lowers construction costs for non-profit housing developers. • Density bonuses. Density bonuses are a zoning tool that permits developers to build more housing units, taller buildings, or more floor space than normally allowed, in exchange for provision of a defined public benefit, such as a specified number or percentage of affordable units included in the development. An affordable housing density bonus program can be designed to allow developers to contribute to a housing fund in lieu of building the affordable units. • Development agreements. Development agreements are contracts negotiated between a developer and a local jurisdiction to specify the terms by which a proposed project moves forward. They can also be used to formalize an arrangement in which the developer provides certain public benefits (e.g., affordable housing) in exchange for certain concessions by the jurisdiction (e.g., regulatory flexibility, density bonuses). Housing Background Paper VISION 205CV" 55 Packet Pg. 66 9.1.a BHA UPDATE Chris Collier Program Manager 10/23/ 19 w a Packet Pg. 67 9.1.a AHA & Presentation Summary • Formed in 2013 following SCT study in 2008/09 • Data, Technical Expertise, Education, Financial Support • Presentation: - Data behind the stories of struggling households - No new solutions today: • Bring the cost of a unit (to own or rent) down • Supercharge transit to make living further away viable • Redistribute jobs & job centers (CIC) • Catch income back up to cost • Solutions studied by PSRC, AHA, HART, County, Non -Profits, Newspapers, University of Washington, State Legislature and more a Packet Pg. 68 Households & Housing (Demand) 2000-2019 Snohomish County Housing Units 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 ■ , -2000 Cumulative Surplus 2005 Surplus Housing 2000-2005 1,724 Units -4000 5,385 Units -6000 -8000 SGIIfIIIII O ci N M V lD O r 00 O O cI N M lD (D O O O O O O O O O O -1 -1 -4 -1 -1 -1 -4 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N � Cumulative Surplus/Deficit Yearly Surplus/Deficit -Estimated New Households -Net New Housing Units Source: WA Office of Financial Management N 3 O 2 C O C O C ' N O O M N O H U r c d E t O O w N N Q Packet Pg. 69 How Many Homes Sold (Supply) 20000 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 All -County Home Sale Count 2005 18,211 :j�� 2000 2003 2006 2009 2018 11,602 2019 " 9,036 2012 2015 2018 Source: Snohomish County Assessor, All Property Sales Property Types: 1 11,112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145 a Packet Pg. 70 Changing Prices: Condo, Townhome, Single Family Home Median Home Sale Price, 2000-10/2019 $700,000 $650,000 $600,000 $550,000 $500,000 $450,000 $400,000 $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 — 2000 —Arlington —Lynnwood —Snohomish 2003 —Edmonds —Marysville —Stanwood 2006 2009 —Everett —Mill Creek —Snohomish County 2012 2015 2018 —Granite Falls —Lake Stevens —Mountlake Terrace —Mukilteo —Unincorporated County Source: Snohomish County Assessor, All Property Sales Propertytypes: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145 a Packet Pg. 71 9.1.a Price Change In Numbers MI • M ��• • ', •- Arlington $284,000 $370,750 $86,750 Marysville $296,225 $375,000 $78,775 Edmonds $435,270 $595,000 $159,730 Mill Creek $447,361 $629,000 $181,630 Everett $295,832 $380,000 $84,168 Mountlake $332,498 $457,000 $124,502 Granite Falls $268,416 $347,500 $79,084 Mukilteo $531,936 $640,000 $108,064 Lake Stevens $314,362 $405,000 $90,638 Snohomish $326,452 $409,500 $83,048 Lynnwood $349,516 $480,750 $131,234 Stanwood $297,401 $405,000 $107,599 Source: Snohomish County Assessor, All Property Sales Propertytypes: 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145 1 a Packet Pg. 72 Qualifying for a Home Loan If you know the sale price of the home... And you provide loan parameters... Then you can find the required income for the loan under these conditions Interest Rate # of Payments (1/month) Annual Property Tax Amount Annual Insurance Amount Down Payment % (of sale price) Non -Housing Monthly Debt Amount Maximum Debt to Income Ratio (DTI) ^A Assumptions 4.25% 360 $5,700 $900 10% $900 30% L 0 Q N 0 0 C 0 r C 0 L a N 0 0 Cl) N 0 F_ U C 0 E r w a Packet Pg. 73 9.1.a YOU nnusT BE THIS t:2iP TALL TO RIDE! To Qualify For A Loan Income Req. for i Arlington $117,600 Marysville $118,400 Edmonds $157,300 Mill Creek $163,395 Everett $119,300 Mountlake Terrace $133,000 Granite Falls $113,500 Mukilteo $165,300 Lake Stevens $123,700 Snohomish $124,500 Lynnwood $137,100 Stanwood $123,700 Snohomish County $134,400 w a Packet Pg. 74 9.1.a Single -Income Households PW Income Req. City for Loa -- _- --- - - - ranite Falls $113,500$+65,988 - Ln inood,stcl I I Mood, Snohomish County $134,400 Nurse Anesthetist: $184,500/year Nurse Practitioner: $119,200/year G Marketing Manager: $152,500/year Post -Secondary Health Specialty Teacher: $144,500/year Computer Programmer: $136,500/year Lawyer: $128,300/year Computer Network Architect: $127,300/year Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, OES Occupation Profiles Electrical Engineer: $117,800/year Administrative Law Judge: $110,200/year Packet Pg. 75 9.1.a But What About... Dual -Income Households - Rate of marriage declining, down 40% since 1968 - Roommates or other cohabitation an option. Until... Children: Not popular with roommates They are expensive! 40.3 14.8 Seattle In -Center cost of childcare .- 1968 to 201018. $12, 624/year (Source: Care.com via Census, BLS, NAEYC, NAFCC, provider survey) Make some schedules impossible - police, fire, medical, retail for example Dual -income households are not a universal solution L 0 a .N 0 0 r_ 0 0 0 L Q. N O 9- Cl) N O F_ U c d w a Packet Pg. 76 9.1.a Dual -Income Household Income Req. City Income Req. for Loa for Loan ME .. -- 0 A a, .. i . . , Snohomish County $134,400 Electrical Engineer/Financial Clerk: $174,100/year Machinist/Pre-K Special Ed: $120,300/year Registered Nurse/Healthcare Social Worker: $156,100/year Maintenance Worker/Admin Asst.: $113,200/year Firefighter/Middle School Teacher: $153,000 Author/Social Services Manager: $132,000/year Law Clerk/Surgical Technologist: $126,000/year Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics Nursing Assistant/Radiology Tech: $108,300/year Surveyor/Postal Mail Carrier: $105,000/year Physical Therapist Asst./Barista: $89,200/year w a Packet Pg. 77 9.1.a What About Renting? Major Job Category Protective Service Education, Training & Library Office & Administrative Support Healthcare Support According to Zillow, in 2019 • 3B: $2,119 +$375/mo • 213: $1,650 +$267/mo • 113: $1,384 +$180/mo • Studio: $1,265 +$261/mo 0 Q a� .N 0 x 0 0 r r C a N O O_ M N O H U C 0 E r a Packet Pg. 78 9.1.a Recap: y L • These numbers are broadly illustrative, not specific examples - All these numbers included condos and townhomes N 0 • They validate experiences of real people 0 C 0 - A growing number of which cannot own and rent out of necessity y r 0 - Therefore, rents rise in response to market forces (scarce supply, rising demand) N O O • Dual income households an option, but not a solution N 0 • Reminder: This isn't only working -age households - Seniors on fixed incomes are a huge part of this situation E w a Packet Pg. 79 9.1.a Why Isn't There More Action? a L 0 • Loan Payment on Median Home in 2000: $1,301 .N • Loan Payment on Median Home in 2019: $2,074 = 0 - That's a 59% increase in monthly mortgage payments in 19 years o • Current homeowners are not affected by this, beyond property taxes L - Locked in their "rent" 20, 30 years ago N 0 0 • Never hear about this issue except for the news N 0 U r c • Figuring how to deliver this message to otherwise unaffected homeowners is the challenge w a Packet Pg. 80 9.1.a While We Wait For Action To Happen... a Packet Pg. 81 9.1.a Thank You! Chris Collier AHA Program Manager ccollier@hasco.or 425.293.0601 Take one for the road Qc��MT�v' w a Packet Pg. 82 10.1.a RESOLUTION NO. 1427 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING THE CITIZENS' HOUSING COMMISSION WHEREAS, in 2017 the City of Edmonds began the process of developing a Housing Strategy to fulfill an objective of the Housing Element of the city's Comprehensive Plan at P. 96, which states: "Implementation Action: Develop a strategy by 2019 for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs;" and WHEREAS, the Council has heard numerous comments and concerns from our constituents that the process for establishing policies around an expanded range of housing options should be revised to include greater public input and balanced representation; and WHEREAS, three primary themes have emerged from input the Council has received from its constituents; and WHEREAS, first, rather than an Administration -appointed task force working toward housing policy recommendations, members of the public have expressed a strong preference for a process which establishes a Housing Commission via applications from interested citizens; and WHEREAS, second, a strong preference has been expressed for sufficient time to be provided for all housing -related issues to be thoroughly vetted to enable policy recommendations to be brought forward that are in Edmonds' long term best interests; and WHEREAS, finally, the public has made clear it expects members of the Housing Commission should represent all areas of Edmonds and the Edmonds Bowl should not be over- represented; and WHEREAS, on December 11, 2018, the Council passed Resolution 1420 to docket a Comprehensive Plan amendment that is expected to result in the removal of the 2019 timeline for establishment of an Edmonds Affordable Housing strategy as called for in the current Comprehensive Plan and to provide additional time for development of an appropriate array of diverse housing options for Edmonds; and WHEREAS, the Council also agrees that the process for citizen involvement should be retooled to encourage volunteer participation from across Edmonds; and WHEREAS, the expanded timeline for development of diverse housing policy options provides the opportunity to establish a Citizens' Housing Commission to enable direct citizen involvement in this important process; and Packet Pg. 83 10.1.a WHEREAS, on February 19, 2019, the Council discussed next steps toward achieving this objective; and WHEREAS, a significant initial step will be to establish a Citizens' Housing Commission to assess all factors that must be considered in driving toward housing policies that expand the supply of diverse housing options while maintaining Edmonds' character and quality of life; and WHEREAS, on February 19, 2019, the Council also provided direction that such a Commission should be formed; and WHEREAS, on March 19, 2019, the Council provided more specific direction as to the contents of a resolution that would create the Citizens' Housing Commission; now therefore, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Citizens' Housing Commission Created. The Citizens' Housing Commission is hereby created and shall be subject to the following provisions: A. Mission. The mission of the new Citizens' Housing Commission shall be as follows: Develop diverse housing policy options for Council consideration designed to expand the range of housing (including rental and owned) available in Edmonds; options that are irrespective of age, gender, race, religious affiliation, physical disability or sexual orientation. B. Appointment Process. The Commission shall consist of fifteen voting members: each Councilmember will select two appointees and one alternate; and the mayor will select one appointee and one alternate. The mayor's selection will be from the remaining pool of applicants after Councilmembers have made their selections. C. Appointment by Zone. Each of the seven Councilmembers shall be assigned a particular zone at the Council President's direction and will be responsible for assessing applications from that zone (see map attached as Exhibit A describing the seven geographic zones of Edmonds which will be attached to the Commission application form). Each Councilmember will select two appointees and one alternate from his/her assigned zone. In the event that there are insufficient applicants to fill the positions for a particular zone, the Councilmember assigned to that zone may select from the remaining applicants residing in any other zone, but only after the other Councilmembers have made their selections. D. Meetings. The Commission will meet at least once per month on a day and time to be determined by the Commission, and may meet more frequently at the Commission's discretion. The time and place of the first meeting of the Commission shall be established by the Council President. 2 Packet Pg. 84 10.1.a E. Voting. Alternates should attend meetings to remain current on the Commission's progress but shall not be voting members unless they are participating in lieu of an absent Commissioner from their assigned zone. F. Liaisons. Two Councilmembers shall be assigned to the Commission as Council Liaisons in an advisory (non -voting) role. G. Public Outreach. The Commission shall host public outreach sessions (open houses, town halls, etc.) once per quarter at varying public locations within Edmonds to provide updates on its progress in developing housing option policy recommendations. H. Website Updates. The status of the Commission's work on the development of expanded housing options shall be updated regularly on the city's Housing website. I. Reporting to the Council. The Commission shall report progress to the Council at least once per quarter, beginning in the 3rd quarter of 2019. J. Sunset Date. The Commission will complete its work by December 31, 2020 and have a sunset date of January 1, 2021. Section 2. Recruiting. A post card will be sent to each Edmonds household announcing the application process and deadlines. This mailing will be in addition to the process normally used to publicize Commission application availability (e.g., City website announcements, articles in local media, etc.). Section 3. Application Process. Applicants for appointment to the Commission shall be subject to the following: A. Qualifications. Commission applicants must be current residents of Edmonds. B. Zones. Each applicant must identify which of the seven "zones" he/she lives within (see map attached as Exhibit A describing the seven geographic zones of Edmonds which will be attached to the Commission application form). C. Application Contents. The following information will be requested on the application form: a. Occupational status and background. b. Organizational affiliation. c. Why are you seeking this appointment? d. What skills and knowledge do you have to meet the selection criteria? e. List any other Board, Commission, Committee or official position you currently hold with the City of Edmonds. f. How long have you lived in Edmonds? g. Do you rent or own your home? h. Are you currently a landlord of property located in Edmonds? Note: items a-e above are standard questions of applicants for any Edmonds Board or Commission. Items f-h above are specific to the Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission. 3 Packet Pg. 85 10.1.a RESOLVED this 161h day of April, 2019. CITY OF EDMONDS M'AYOR,'DAVE EARLING ATTEST: CLERK, SC ASSEY FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. April 12, 2019 April 16, 2019 1427 4 Packet Pg. 86 OF ED4�� City of Edmonds Census -based Area Map Igo. lggo 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet Sooth-Coo Park QC N O\y�,pCC�Ce�N W E S BeaNew Pak Hutt ve�k fia 0�? � see�lew '�,� Ekmentay Blerre PeM SoM1utM1 ' rls Park PeeeM1 Main St. Trek v .......... ,......................................... 196th St. SW M klePlewootl lull K� e eel 651 220th St. SW 212th St. SW v t 01 Z Pe* Mettmee KA SCM1ooI U Wootlway Elementay leke Bellinger Perk Eamo�w: Community College CP Eleme MO,l Place 'Etlle S-1 City of Edmonds 121 5th Ave N o Edmonds, WA 98202 h 1 inch = 2,000 feet February 201 Edmonds Housing Strateg Packet Pg. 87 10.1.b MASO Citizens' Housing C o m m i s s i o n Last Updated: November 10, 201 DRAFT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN Edmonds Citizen's Housing Commission BACKGROUND Appendix A: Proiect Area Map & Locations Appendix B: Context & Proiect History Commission The Citizens' Housing Commission's (Commission) mission is to, "develop, for City Council consideration, diverse housing .-. policy options designed to expand the range of housing (including rental and owned) available in Edmonds — c�a irrespective of age, gender, race, religious affiliation, physical disability, or sexual orientation." a c m The Commission is made up of 15 commissioners and 8 alternates. In order to ensure that membership would come from across the City, an open application process was offered for residents to apply for positions in the zone or "district" in M which they lived. The process designated seven such districts to cover the city. The districts are based on U.S. Census w areas and have roughly equal populations. A map of them can be found in Appendix A. Each City Council person appointed two members and one alternate from an assigned district. The Mayor appointed one member and one alternate at -large. E E The Commission commenced in September 2019 and will meet monthly through December 2020. The process includes a 0 v series of meetings for members to orient themselves to housing -related issues and policies, then select and prioritize policy subjects, create draft policy recommendations, and make final policy recommendations. The Commission's recommendations are to be completed by the end of 2020 for City Council consideration. > I Community Engagement (L The Edmonds community has expressed a strong desire for active and transparent public participation in the L development of housing -related policies. The City will engage members of the public at key project milestones to learn of about their priorities and preferences, gather their input on draft Commission recommendations, and to share v x information about the project as it evolves. This will be done using a series of outreach tools, including but not limited to: ) online surveys, in -person events, and direct outreach to key stakeholder groups. 0 E The Community Engagement Plan is a living document intended to guide the project team through the engagement -0 process. It includes key messages and outreach objectives, a list of stakeholders and community groups, demographic data, major project milestones, and planned outreach activities. The Community Engagement Plan provides an overview of the community engagement process but does not demonstrate the full extent of each engagement activity. ca a KEY MESSAGES Citizens' Housing Commission • The Commission is made up entirely of Edmonds residents from across the city, reflecting different backgrounds and perspectives. • The Commission meets monthly. Meetings are open to the public, livestreamed, and provide for public comment. • The Commission will discuss and make recommendations on housing policy, not on specific housing -related projects. • The Commission will consider a wide set of housing policy options to expand the range of housing available in Edmonds, consistent with Resolution 1427 adopted by the City Council. • The Commission will develop a set of policy recommendations for City Council consideration. EDMONDS CITIZENS' HOUSING COMMISSION: COMMUNITY ENG Packet Pg. 88 10.1.b Community Engagement • The City will be transparent about the Commission's process, key decision points, and opportunities for public engagement. • Public participation is an important and valued part of the process. • The City will engage community members at key project milestones to understand their priorities and preferences and to seek public input on draft Commission recommendations PROJECT TEAM Project Manager: City Staff: Outreach Support: Shane Hope - Director of Development Services, City of Edmonds Brad Shipley, City of Edmonds Amber Groll, City of Edmonds Kate Graham, Cascadia Consulting Group Gretchen Muller, Cascadia Consulting Group COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Objectives • Transparency —Community members know when and how they can be involved in the E process; there are no surprises in the final product. v • Access —People have access to information and resources that allow them to participate fully and confidently in the process. o • Respect — People feel heard and respected. • Equity— Intentional efforts are taken to engage historically underrepresented communities a in a meaningful way. W U • Trust —The community understands how public engagement shaped the final product. L V U uJ Media & Stakeholders • Seattle Times, Everett Herald, My Edmonds News, Edmonds Beacon, Snohomish County 0 Appendix C: Stakeholder List Tribune W • Advocacy groups, arts organizations, chambers of commerce and local business }; organizations, City boards & commissions, college and continuing education, community groups and neighborhood organizations, cultural groups and organizations, Edmonds School E District, hospitals & medical centers, local agencies, major developers/property owners, M public facilities, religious organizations, social service organizations and facilities a Public Project Contact I Name: Shane Hope Email: Shane.Hope@edmondswa.gov Webpage:I https://www.citizenshousingcommission.org/ EDMONDS CITIZENS' HOUSING COMMISSION: COMMUNITY ENG Packet Pg. 89 10.1.b Demographics Zip code(s): Census tract(s): XXX Appendix D: Demographic XXXX Translation need(s): List Language (percent) Demographics Section to be updated following the 111712019 commission meeting BUDGET Total Funds $ 86,000 Funding sources City of Edmonds Funding dedicated to $60,000 outreach/engagement PLANNED MAJOR OUTREACH ACTIVITIES Appendix E: Activities Log & Inclusive Engagement c M a - m When What Level of Goal(s) Complet m Engagement November- Online Community Survey Collaborate Understand community values December 2019 around housing -related policies p w >, and their vision for the Commission ' E January 2020 Open House #1 -Held Inform/involve Share commission timeline, input outside the 'bowl' thus far, and opportunities for Elv o future engagement r a February — March Contact key stakeholders; Involve Target key stakeholder groups to 2020 Coordinate meetings with ensure equitable opportunities ❑ Commission representatives for engagement; build al and/or City Staff relationships with community w U groups April 2020 Open House #2; Online Consult Gather feedback on priority of Open House with Poll housing subjects identified by the El_ commission U uJ May -August 2020 Participate in 2 community Inform/ Attend existing community events events Consult to share Commission progress ❑ E and next steps, selected housing w policy subjects, and opportunities for future engagement August- Open House #3; Online Inform/ Share draft policy September 2020 Open House with poll Consult recommendations; gather M community feedback a October 2020 Communication with key Consult Gather targeted feedback on stakeholders draft policy recommendations November- Open House #4 - Held Inform/consult Share final recommendations and December 2020 outside the 'bowl' how public input informed the product Quarterly Report to City Council Inform Share commission progress and community engagement to date Ongoing activities Monthly newsletter Inform Keep the community informed updates, webpage updates, ❑ public comment, promotion * Please note that Commission meetings occur monthly and are not captured in the above activities log. EDMONDS CITIZENS` HOUSING COMMISSION: COMMUNITY ENG Packet Pg. 90 10.1.b SCHEDULE & MAJOR MILESTONES Establish Fall Prioritize Commission 2019 Housing Policy Subjects We are here Appendix F: Commission Schedule & TimeLine Spring Draft Policy Fall 2020 Final Policy Winter 2020 Recommendations Recommendations 1 2020 CITIZENS' HOUSING COMMISSION TIMEFRAME Task Sep-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20 Establish foundation Identify Framwork for Policies Prioritize Policy Topics & Develop Options Develop Preliminary Policy Recommendations Refine & Finalize Recommendations Provide for Community Engagement Update City Council ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Note: This timeframe is proposed and subject to change as the process evolves. 10/25/2019 Key ♦ Potential Online Survey or Poll • Potential Special Event ■ Report to City Council •Attend community events This is a living document intended to guide project staff through the public involvement process. The contents of this Community Engagement Plan are intended to provide an overview of the community engagement process, not to reflect the full extent of each community engagement opportunity and/or activity. Please check with the Project Manager to ensure that you have the latest version of the Community Engagement Plan. EDMONDS CITIZENS' HOUSING COMMISSION: COMMUNITY ENG Packet Pg. 91 aftiLt Citizens' Housing G v 1 m i s s i o n 10.1.b APPENDIX A: PROJECT AREA MAP & LOCATION. PROJECT AREA MAP For the Commissioner appointment process, the city was divided into seven districts. The seven districts are based on U.S. Census areas and have roughly equal populations among them. City of Edmonds Census -based Area Map Inc. 1690 p-� 1 "' o Applications:10 o�ymv` veW w�t a Applications:14 i I i 196th St SW i .. f Applications:24� I� Applications 18 Applications 15 `i 0 Includes applications received byzone as cf June 5, 2019 Citizens'Housing Commission EDMONDS CITIZENS' HOUSING COMMISSION: COMMUNITY ENG Packet Pg. 92 10.1.b APPENDIX B: CONTEXT & PROJECT HISTORY ZONING This map represents the official zoning map of the City of Edmonds, updated in 2017. Note: Located in the southeast corner of Edmonds is the unincorporated "island" of Esperance. "r 1„1,, City of Edmonds -IIW= 11, Ail Zoning Zoning Designations and Descriptions ar, p' i r n' al 0 0h, Cy ( H It 1 k y ap Mth 0, �bxss.m� , 2111 Q EDMONDS CITIZENS' HOUSING COMMISSION: COMMUNITY ENG Packet Pg. 93 aftiLt Citizens' Housing G v m m i s s i o n COMISSION CONTEXT 10.1.b APPENDIX B: CONTEXT & PROJECT HISTOR' The Citizens' Housing Commission was established via City Council resolution No. 1427, adopted on April 16, 2019. The commission is made up of 15 commissioners and 8 alternates from across Edmonds. Each Council member appointed two commissioners and one alternate; the mayor appointed one commissioner and one alternate at -large. Two City Council members will attend each commission meetings as non -voting liaisons. District 1— Appointed by Council member Kristiana Johnson • James Ogonowski • Karen Haase Herrick • Alternate: Leif Warren District 2 — Appointed by Council member Dave Teitzel • Keith Soltner • Weijia (Vicky) Wu, • Alternate: Wendy Wyatt District 3 — Appointed Council member Adrienne Fraley-Monillas • George Keefe • John Reed • Alternate: Eva -Denise Miller District 4 —Appointed by Council member Mike Nelson • Nichole Franko • Mike McMurray • Alternate: Kenneth Sund District 5 — Appointed by Council member Tom Mesaros • Greg Long • Tanya Kataria • Alternate: Shirley Havenga District 6—Appointed by Council member Diane Buckshnis • Jess Blanch • Alena Nelson-Vietmeier • Alternate: Rick Nishino District 7 — Appointed by Council member Neil Tibbott • Judi Gladstone • Will Chen • Alternate: Jean Salls At -large —Appointed by Mayor Dave Earling • Bob Throndsen • Alternate: Tana Axtelle EDMONDS CITIZENS` HOUSING COMMISSION: COMMUNITY ENG Packet Pg. 94 MARVII Citizens' Housing C o m m i s , 1 o n STAKEHOLDER CHECKLIST 10.1.b APPENDIX C: STAKEHOLDER LIS- Audiences to Consider Examples I Advocacy groups Edmonds Bicycle Advocacy Group, Alliance of Citizens for Edmonds, Save Our Marsh, ECC Queer Action Team Arts organizations Cascade Symphony Orchestra, Edmonds Arts Festival, Edmonds Center for the Arts, Edmonds Driftwood Players, Olympic Ballet, Artists Connect, Sno-King Community Chorale, Art Walk Edmonds, Cascadia Art Museum, Phoenix Theatre Chambers of commerce and local Edmonds Downtown Business Improvement District, Edmonds Downtown business organizations Alliance, Edmonds Chamber of Commerce City boards & commissions Edmonds Arts Commission, Diversity Commission, Economic Development Commission, Youth Commission, Historic Preservation Commission, Disability Board, Mayor's Climate Protection Committee, Creative District Advisory Committee, Architectural Design Board College and continuing education Edmonds Community College, The Creative Retirement Institute Community groups and Edmonds Senior Center, Edmonds Florentium Garden Club, Edmonds neighborhood organizations Historical Society and Museum, Edmonds in Bloom, Kiwanis Club, The Rotary Club of Edmonds, Edmonds Friends of the Library, Edmonds Masonic center, Edmonds Petanque Club, Sno-King Youth Club Cultural groups and organizations Korean Community Service Center, Morning Star Korean Cultural Center, ECC Center for Student Cultural Diversity & Inclusion, Familias Unidas: Latino Resource Center Edmonds School District Edmonds School Board, parent -teacher associations, Meadowdale Preschool, Edmonds Elementary School, Westgate Elementary School, Sherwood Elementary School, Olympic Elementary School, Seaview Elementary School, Maplewood Parent Cooperative, Chase Lake Elementary School, Madronna School, Edmonds Junior High School, Edmonds-Woodway High School, Meadowdale High School Hospitals & medical centers Community Health Center of Snohomish, Swedish Edmonds Campus Major developers/property owners Compass Housing, Henbart LLC, Goodman Real Estate Media outlets Seattle Times, Everett Herald, My Edmonds News, Edmonds Beacon, Snohomish County Tribune, Senior Focus Newspaper Other agencies Port of Edmonds, Community Transit Populations that may need targeted Business owners along HWY-99, commuters outreach Public facilities Edmonds Library, Frances Anderson Center, Edmonds City Parks Religious organizations Edmonds Unitarian Universalist Congregation, North Sound Church, Rock of Hope Baptist Church, Community Christian Fellowship, Edmonds United Methodist Church, Holy Rosary Parish, Westgate Chapel, United Presbyterian Church, Filipino -American Christian Church, Seattle Joy Church, Corpis Christi Church, Edmonds Adventist, St. Michael Ethiopian Tewanda Church, Iglesia Cristiana Social service organizations and Edmonds Boys and Girls Club, Edmonds Food Bank, Washington Kids in facilities Transition, Family Center of South Snohomish County, American Legion c ca a c m E m a� c w .E E E 0 U 0 M >I a w U w 0 I U x U c 0 E w c m E ca a EDMONDS CITIZENS' HOUSING COMMISSION: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN 18 Packet Pg. 95 WjftE6;t Citizens' Housing C o m m i s s i o n 10.1.b APPENDIX D: DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATIO Demographics Section to be updated following the 111712019 commission meeting LANGUAGE NEEDS Materials and information are provided in non-English languages if five or more percent of the population in the project area speaks a given non-English language. For any project, materials in other languages are available upon request. District Zip Code(s) Census Tract(s) Translation Needs Source List the district Zip Tract Indicate the language Source spoken if over 5% EDMONDS CITIZENS' HOUSING COMMISSION: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN 1 9 Packet Pg. 96 10.1.b MAN6 Citizens' Housing APPENDIX E: ACTIVITIES LOG & INCLUSIVE ENGAGEMEN C o m m i s s i o n ACTIVITIES LOG The table below details the outreach activities completed to date. Future planned activities can be found in the Planned Major Outreach Activities table. Levels of engagement are determined using the International Association for Public Participation Spectrum. When What Month day, year Type of activity (e.g. Briefing, mailer, etc.) INCLUSIVE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Level of Who gagement (Inform, Consult, Involve, Collaborate,) Details Stakeholder Indicate the project phase with audience(s), if which the activity was applicable associated or otherwise explain why this outreach was done In addition to the outreach activities listed on the cover sheet, the project team will ensure that the project's public participation opportunities are inclusive of the affected stakeholders. Accordingly, outreach activities will include: Events • Providing translated materials at all project open houses. • Sending direct invites to key stakeholder groups, translated if necessary. • Advertising events with enough time for attendees to request accommodation services (at least 2 weeks) • Ensuring that event venues are ADA-accessible. Mailings • Including translation resources on mailings. Web • Developing a text block for the project webpage explaining that project materials in other languages can be provided upon request. • Captioning all online videos. • Using alt-text for all online images. • Ensuring information is available both online and through non -digital avenues, such as mobile displays, handouts, and posters. c ca a c m E m CD a� c w .E E E 0 U r L M >I a w U w cc 0 I U x U 13 c 0 E w :.o c a� E U ca Q EDMONDS CITIZENS' HOUSING COMMISSION: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN 1 10 Packet Pg. 97 MANLO Citizens' Housing C o m m i s s i o n COMMISSION TIMELINE 10.1.b APPENDIX F: COMMISION SCHEDULE & TIMELIN The Commission meets on the second Thursday of each month from 6:30-8:30 PM. Meetings are held in the Bracket Room on Floor 3 of Edmonds City Hall (1215th Ave N, Edmonds, WA 98020). All Housing Commission meetings are open to the public and will allow for public comment. Meetings will be live -streamed here. Meeting materials can be found on the Citizens' Housing Commission Webpage. CITIZENS' HOUSING COMMISSION TIMEFRAME Task Sep-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20 Establish foundation Identify Framwork for Policies Prioritize Policy Topics & Develop Options Develop Preliminary Policy Recommendations Refine & Finalize Recommendations Provide for Community Engagement Update City Council ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Note: This tirneframe is proposed and subject to change as the process evolves. 10/25/2019 Key ♦ Potential Online Survey or poll • Potential Special Event ■ Report to City Council Attend community events PROPOSED MEETING TOPICS September 2019 — Welcome & Overview of Commission October 2019 — Operating Principles & Introduction Planning Policies November 2019 — Demographics Data & Housing Affordability Terms and Metrics December 2019 — Public Engagement & Introduction to Housing Types January 2019 — City Characteristics and Metrics of Livability & Actions Taken by Cities & Agencies February 2020 — Mission and Goals & Subjects for Housing Policies March 2020 —Housing Policy Subjects & Community Input April 2020 — Approach to Policy Development & Identify First Set of Policies May 2020 — Refine First Set of Policies & Identify Second Set June 2020 — Refine Second Set of Policies & Identify Third Set July 2020 — Refine Third Set of Policies & Identify Fourth Set EDMONDS CITIZENS' HOUSING COMMISSION: COMMUNITY ENGAGE Packet Pg. 98 10.1.b APPENDIX F: COMMISION SCHEDULE & August 2020 — Refine Fourth Set of Policies & Community Engagement September 2020— Combine Policy Recommendations & Discuss Community Input October 2020 — Refine Recommendations & Community Engagement Next Steps November 2020 — Community Input to Date & Draft Report on Commission Process December 2020 — Finalize Housing Policy Recommendations EDMONDS CITIZENS' HOUSING COMMISSION: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN 112 Packet Pg. 99