2020-11-12 Citizens Housing Commission Packeto Agenda
VEdmonds Citizens Housing Commission
,HvREGULAR MEETING
VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE,
HTTP://EDMONDSWA.IQM2.COM/CITIZENS/DEFAULT.ASPX, EDMONDS, WA
98020
NOVEMBER 12, 2020, 6:30 PM
VIRTUAL MEETING INFORMATION
LIVE STREAM: VIRTUAL MEETING BROADCASTED ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNELS 21
(COMCAST) AND 39 (FRONTIER) AS WELL AS THE CITY AGENDA PAGE WEBSITE
(HTTP://EDMONDSWA.IQM2.COM/CITIZENS/DEFAULT.ASPX).
HOUSING COMMISSION'S MISSION
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
ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATEMENT
"WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE ORIGINAL INHABITANTS OF THIS PLACE, THE SDOHOBSH
(SNOHOMISH) PEOPLE AND THEIR SUCCESSORS THE TULALIP TRIBES, WHO SINCE TIME
IMMEMORIAL HAVE HUNTED, FISHED, GATHERED, AND TAKEN CARE OF THESE LANDS. WE
RESPECT THEIR SOVEREIGNTY, THEIR RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION, AND WE HONOR THEIR
SACRED SPIRITUAL CONNECTION WITH THE LAND AND WATER." — CITY COUNCIL LAND
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
OPEN PUBLIC MEETING ACT
THE NOVEMBER 12, 2020 CITIZENS' HOUSING COMMISSION MEETING IS BEING HELD ONLINE
AND WITHOUT A PHYSICAL MEETING PRESENCE, PER GOVERNOR INSLEE'S MOST RECENT
PROCLAMATION REGARDING THE OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT.
1. CALL TO ORDER & AGENDA REVIEW
2. LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
3. ROLL CALL
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (SUBMITTED BY EMAIL TO HOUSING.PUB.COMMENTS@EDMONDSWA.GOV)
Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission Agenda
November 12, 2020
Page 1
APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 29, 2020 MEETING NOTES
Approval of October 29, 2020 Meeting Notes
6. HOUSING SUPPLY & AFFORDABILITY DISCUSSION (10 MINUTES)
Housing Supply & Affordability Discussion
7. PRESENTATION OF ANY REFINEMENTS/ADDITIONS TO POLICY IDEAS (30 MINUTES)
Presentation of any Refinements/Additions to Policy Ideas
8. DISCUSSION OF FULL LIST OF PROPOSED DRAFT POLICIES (40 MINUTES)
Discussion of Full List of Proposed Draft Policies
9. REVIEW OF TIMELINE AND NEXT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT EVENT (20 MINUTES)
Review of Timeline and Next Community Engagement Event
10. WRAP UP, NEXT STEPS & ADJOURN
Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission Agenda
November 12, 2020
Page 2
Citizens Housing Commission Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/12/2020
Approval of October 29, 2020 Meeting Notes
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Citizens Housing Commission
Prepared By: Debbie Rothfus
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Approve the meeting notes.
Narrative
Draft meeting notes from the 10/29/2020 meeting are attached.
Attachments:
ECHC_Notes_10.29
Packet Pg. 3
5.a
EDMONDS CITIZENS' HOUSING COMMISSION
Meeting Notes — October 29, 2020
Zoom Virtual Meeting
6:30 — 8:30 PM
Virtual meetings are broadcast on government access channels 21 (Comcast) and 39 (Frontier). A
recording of the meeting is available on the City website. Meeting materials can be found on
the Citizens' Housine Commission Webaaee.
ATTENDANCE
Commissioners
•
Karen Haase Herrick, Zone 1
•
James Ogonowski, Zone 1
•
Keith Soltner, Zone 2
•
Eva -Denise Miller, Zone 3
•
George Keefe, Zone 3
•
Nichole Franko, Zone 4
•
Michael McMurray, Zone 4
•
Tanya Kataria, Zone 5
•
Greg Long, Zone 5
•
Jess Blanch, Zone 6
•
Alena Nelson-Vietmeier, Zone 6
•
Will Chen, Zone 7
•
Judi Gladstone, Zone 7
•
Bob Throndsen, At -large
*Indicates an alternate participating as a voting member
Alternates
• Leif Warren, Zone 1
• Wendy Wyatt, Zone 2*
• Kenneth Sund, Zone 4
• Rick Nishino, Zone 6
• Jean Salls, Zone 7
• Tana Axtelle, At -large
City Council Liaison
• Vivian Olson, Position 5
• Luke Distelhorst, Position 2
Project Staff
• Shane Hope, City of Edmonds
• Brad Shipley, City of Edmonds
• Amber Groll, City of Edmonds
• Gretchen Muller, Cascadia Consulting Group
• Kate Graham, Cascadia Consulting Group
• Jasmine Beverly, Cascadia Consulting Group
AGENDA
1. TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW— Gretchen Muller
2. REVIEW OF AGENDA
I. Commission member read the land acknowledgement
3. ROLL CALL— Amber Groll
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS
I. Public comments for virtual meetings may be emailed to
housing.pub.comments@edmondswa.gov
5. ALTERNATE COMMENTS
I. No alternates provided comment
Packet Pg. 4
5.a
6. OCTOBER 8 NOTES APPROVAL
I. Commission decided to approve the meeting notes from the October 8 Commission
Meeting.
7. COMMUNITY INPUT TO DATE —Kate Graham
I. Presentation on the community input heard to date including:
i. Response rates and demographics across surveys
ii. Results and feedback on the ideas presented in Survey #3 — October 2020
• Commission members discussed feedback received for each of the
Round 2 policy ideas
iii. Trends from the written feedback and the October Online Open House
8. POLICY COMMITTEE UPDATES
I. Commission members provided an overview of Renter's Choice Security Deposits and
gave updates on the Temporary Multifamily Tax Exemption Program and Inclusionary
Zoning.
9. PROJECT TIMELINE
I. Commission members decided to add timeline pathway 2.5, which adds a meeting on
December 17 and extends the project timeline through January with the option to
cancel a meeting as needed.
II. Commission members decided to move forward with timeline pathway 2.5, which adds
a meeting on December 17 and extends the project timeline through January with the
option to cancel a meeting as needed.
10. HOUSING SUPPLY & AFFORDABILITY DISCUSSION
I. Commission members decided to move Housing Supply & Affordability to the first item
for discussion at the November 12 Commission meeting.
11. WRAP-UP, NEXT STEPS AND ADJOURN — Gretchen Muller and Jasmine Beverly
I. Overview of proposed approach for next community engagement efforts. Timeline for
community engagement will be reassessed due to the updated project timeline.
II. Committees continue to meet to determine recommended next steps for their round 2
policy ideas. Commission will discuss full list of proposed drafts at the November 12
meeting.
Packet Pg. 5
Citizens Housing Commission Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/12/2020
Housing Supply & Affordability Discussion
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Citizens Housing Commission
Prepared By: Debbie Rothfus
Background/History
At the October 8 Housing Commission meeting, an interest emerged in discussing the affordability of
housing types, especially duplexes and two -unit townhomes. A planned discussion at the Commission's
October 29 meeting did not happen, due to time constraints. The item was postponed until the
November 12 meeting.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
Roughly 75% of the Edmonds area is zoned primarily for single-family housing; duplexes or two -unit
townhomes are not allowed there.
A discussion of whether duplexes and two -unit townhomes would provide more affordable options in
Edmonds relates to a policy idea previously introduced by the Housing Types Committee. (See
attachment # 1 for the policy idea.)
At least one member of the Housing Commission has contended that duplexes and two -unit townhomes
would be expensive in a city like Edmonds and therefore would not encourage more affordability. (See
attachment # 2 for an email and data list.)
An argument could also be made that when only a few duplexes or two -unit townhomes are created,
their effect on affordability is minimal but when the supply is significantly increased, the impact on
affordability could be more substantial. (See attachment # 3 for an article on housing production.)
Next steps:
Tonight's discussion may help inform the Housing Commission's future decision on whether to
recommend a policy for duplexes and two -unit townhomes in areas of the city where they are not
currently allowed.
Attachments:
Excerpt from Housing Commission Round 1 Policy Ideas
Racial Equity Policy
McMur.Statement.data
Packet Pg. 6
HousingUnderprod uctionInWashingtonState2020-01-10
Packet Pg. 7
6.a
Excerpt from Housing Commission Round 1 Policy Ideas
Guidelines for Duplexes or Two -unit Townhouses in Single -Family Neighborhoods
Background: In Edmonds, lots within single family residential zones can only have one house on
them, which includes any allowed accessory dwellings. The house can of any size as long as it
fits the lot requirement and height limits for that zone. Currently, duplexes are not allowed in
single-family residential zones.
Note: Changes to the current guidelines would require a zoning code amendment, which
includes a public process.
Policy Idea:
• Provide development guidance or incentives that encourage duplex or two -unit
townhouse buildings in lieu of one large single-family house.
U)
CU
a�
2
0
a
Packet Pg. 8
6.b
Racial equity
and
Social Justice
Policy
Housing Type Committee
Packet Pg. 9
6.b
Drivers
► Focus on addressing past inequities by
providing pathway to building wealth through
home ownership
Lead with racial equity to lift up all
Attainable home ownership through
diversified housing type
Address "Missing Middle Housing"
S
0
0
L
0
Q
06
0
IL
W
a
Packet Pg. 10
6.b
Attainably Housing
Income Level 50% MFI
qqlh
Annual Income $51,900
Max. Affordable $186,000
Home Value
80% MFI 100% MFI
h1EL.
$83,040 $103,800
$370,000 $490,000
Based on: Snohomish County Median Family Income (2020): $103,800
Assumptions: 30% of ones income goes toward housing (mortgage, property
taxes, insurance); 5% down, 30yr. fixed rate at 3.5%, $6,000 taxes/yr
5
�
'`
115% MFI
$119,370
$582,000
Packet Pg. 11
6.b
► Home ownership attainable through smaller
housing options
Integrating housing styles aesthetically
Clear parameters for development and design
standards to fit with the neighborhood feel
Incentives for alternative types housing for
home owners
Focus on housing for people with 60-100%
AMI
c
0
.y
N
L
0
Q
06
CL
tM
.y
0
a
W
E
a
Q
Packet Pg. 12
6.b
Housing types in SFR Areas
► Options for single family attached housing
► Duplex, triplex, fourplex, cottage housing
Use form -based zoning, for example:
Maximum size building without specifying number
of units
Ratio of size building to size lot
S
0
0
L
0
Q
06
N
0
0
IL
s
w
c
m
E
t
�a
r
r
Q
Packet Pg. 13
6.b
Attached Single Family
Housing Examples
Packet Pg. 14
__ ..�. ,
G�`.: �.
;'.��
�'�'"�
* .�� ;R�
�Jk
;Aft
, 4-ftt I!
.4A
00-
LN
id
IM
b
O
South Edmonds area duplex
Packet Pg. 17
0
.y
N
L
O
Q
06
Q
Q
tM
.y
O
:i
O
a
a
w
r
c
m
M
U
a
r
Q
IL urn[)
�74 I P-
reR7: MEA.
I! r4%-
IC
AdOL
ka-
r 1
ar
�1�1.. Hai �til
t, -
WOO
JL
ti F -'
I+f- �F•.t 7 � �•
U -
.
q6 lfad IN I
1Yf T � -� � • • # I
I r rp
r-!%P r ,1-5 �7`
T �r
6.b
Recommended Policy,
Encourage racial equity housing options city
wide by developing clear parameters
(including design guidelines and zoning
changes that may encompass tools such as
maximum size building or ratio of size
building to size of lot) and incentives for
development to achieve aesthetically
compatible home -ownership housing types
(e.g. duplex, triplex, fourplex, cottage
housing) for those in the 60-100% AMI
categories.
Packet Pg. 23
6.c
Hello Everyone.
The question in the survey relating to "Housing Equity" stated several reasons for how Duplexes,
as an example, would automatically provide more housing and ownership opportunities for
people in the 60%-100% income levels. It was inferred this will happen by simply allowing this
type of MF housing in established SF zoning areas along with adopting various zoning changes,
such as form -based code.
I have conveyed my concerns to the Commission and Staff on several occasions about how the
current and recent inflation factors of property land values, construction costs and historic
population growth in the region, do not equate to the creation of housing products that fall into
the 60-100% median income levels. The fact that Edmonds is located on just 8 square miles and
has very limited available land to develop, is one of main contributing factors and challenges, not
to mention its awesome waterfront location and many other desirable factors.
The thoughtful power point presentation on "Racial Equity and Social Justice Policy" presented
by the Housing Type Subcommittee, explained that the people that fall into the MFI of 50-100%,
equate to a max affordable housing price point between $186,000--- $490,000 (page 3 on
presentation).
I have attached a PDF of all new home construction built in Edmonds in the desirable 98020 zip
code, provided to me by Edmonds Windermere. Of the 42 new home units created and sold in
the past 1000 days, nearly all the new construction homes sold for over $1 Million. There was
one small home that sold for 560k at 1024 sq ft. This is a realistic example of what smaller
homes would currently sell for in the 98020 area of Edmonds. My concern is that we, as a
Citizens Housing Commission, are making a large generalization/misrepresentation that if we
simply encourage and allow Duplexes and other MF housing types in SF zones, it will magically
create housing products in the $490k or under range for people in the MFI range of 60%-100%.
This recent history of new construction housing products and price points proves otherwise in the
98020 area of Edmonds.
As we all know, Edmonds is more than 98020. I have attached a breakdown in the 98026 area
code as well. This new construction sales history includes much more townhome proliferation of
development and new construction in the Picnic Point neighborhood and Esperance townhome
developments near HWY 99. I believe in 2017 and early 2018, these developments did
accomplish housing in the stated MFI group as far as I can tell (under $500k). As 2018
progressed, sales of new construction housing products and inflation took hold, with new
construction housing products and values approaching the mid-650k range or higher in the
greater 98026 area of Edmonds and continues to climb higher in 2020.
My conclusion is that new construction of housing products recently built in Edmonds in the
98020 area do not offer any 60%-100% MFI housing on any type of housing product type based
Packet Pg. 24
s.�
on the past 1000 days of sales from Duplexes to Townhomes and Single -Family products. The
98026 area of Edmonds seems to have achieved some MFI in the 60-100% range of housing with
Townhome developments in the past 3 years in Esperance and Picnic Point. The greater 98026
area of Edmonds seems to now be experiencing great housing appreciation and price increases.
I believe we need to refine this message that may be sent along to Council and to the public, that
certain housing types will automatically equate to providing housing for certain MFI groups of
people as a general notion, as it is not the case in Edmonds any longer,. Maybe years ago, but
just not in this massive inflationary housing environment that we are currently experiencing.
Thank you for considering this current data and I hope to have a broader conversation with
everyone about this as a Commission.
See everyone tomorrow.
Commissioner Mike McMurray
Packet Pg. 25
Adam E. Cobb Single Family CMA 2 Line P 6.c
;old Properties
Address City Bd Bth Lot Sz SgFt Year CDOM Date SP%OLP
Listing # Style Code Area Community $/SgFt Orig Price List Price Sold Price SP%LP
742 Daley St
1437113
21234 80th Ave W
1393896
523 Paradise Lane
1239660
23920 104th Ave W
1223026
9211 Park Rd
1482980
23922 104th Ave W
1220022
22324 92nd Ave W
1421344
23926 104th Ave W
1240028
9338 232nd St SW
1371096
22924 102nd Place W
1222702
9213 224th St SW
1442356
9602 214th Place SW
1331604
23930 104th Ave W
1311456
23926 104th Ave W
1492209
23936 104th Ave W
1354735
22936 102nd Place W
1249986
9340 232nd St SW
1302959
22934 102nd Place W
1223581
22926 102nd Place W
1271319
318 Howell Wy #A
1427807
22514 93rd Place W
1404880
10723 235th Place SW
1552092
22208 92nd Ave W
1286300
9401 234th St SW
1259535
1054 Walnut St
1241713
9116 Main St
1349798
515 Pine St
1333464
Edmonds
15 - Multi Level 730
Edmonds
12 - 2 Story 730
Edmonds
16 - 1 Story w/Bsmnt. 730
Edmonds
12 - 2 Story 730
Edmonds
12 - 2 Story 730
Edmonds
12 - 2 Story 730
Edmonds
12 - 2 Story 730
Edmonds
12 - 2 Story 730
Edmonds
12 - 2 Story 730
Edmonds
12 - 2 Story 730
Edmonds
15 - Multi Level 730
Edmonds
12 - 2 Story 730
Edmonds
12 - 2 Story 730
Edmonds
12 - 2 Story 730
Edmonds
12 - 2 Story 730
Edmonds
12 - 2 Story 730
Edmonds
12 - 2 Story 730
Edmonds
12 - 2 Story 730
Edmonds
16 - 1 Story w/Bsmnt. 730
Edmonds
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
12 - 2 Story 730
Edmonds
12 - 2 Story 730
Edmonds
12 - 2 Story 730
Edmonds
12 - 2 Story 730
Edmonds
12 - 2 Story 730
Edmonds
12 - 2 Story 730
Edmonds
10 - 1 Story 730
2 1.75 0.240
Edmonds Bowl
3 2.50 0.048
5 Corners
3 3.25 0.200
Downtown Edmond:
5 2.75 0.199
Woodway
3 2.50 0.186
5 Corners
4 2.75 0.187
Woodway
4 3.00 0.230
Edmonds
5 2.75 0.184
Edmonds
5 2.75 0.180
Edmonds
4 3.25 0.200
Westgate
4 2.75 0.225
Edmonds
5 2.75 0.200
Yost Park
5 2.75 0.190
Woodway
5 2.75 0.205
Edmonds
5 2.75 0.226
Woodway
3 2.75 0.280
Westgate
4 2.50 0.190
Westgate
4 3.25 0.232
Westgate
4 3.25 0.180
Westgate
3 2.75 0.081
Downtown Edmond:
5 2.75 0.350
Edmonds
4 3.25 0.251
Edmonds
5 2.75 0.210
Edmonds
5 2.75 0.200
Westgate
5 2.75 0.260
Edmonds Bowl
4 2.75 0.210
Maplewood
3 2.00 0.240
Edmonds
1,024
2019
55
07/18/19
86.16
$546.88
$649,950
$599,950
$560,000
93.34
2,047
2018
42
02/26/19
99.43
$339.52
$699,000
$699,000
$695,000
99.43
3,116
2018
10
03/06/18
100.00
$296.85
$925,000
$925,000
$925,000
100.00
3,277
2017
16
02/01/18
97.92
$297.53
$995,750
$995,750
$975,000
97.92
2,697
2019
9
07/31/19
100.00
$363.00
$979,000
$979,000
$979,000
100.00
3,132
2017
67
02/22/18
98.92
$314.50
$995,750
$995,750
$985,000
98.92
2,800
2019
9
04/30/19
100.00
$352.14
$986,000
$986,000
$986,000
100.00
3,277
2017
6
03/16/18
100.00
$303.86
$995,750
$995,750
$995,750
100.00
2,850
2018
95
03/08/19
96.11
$350.70
$1,040,000
$999,500
$999,500
100.00
3,236
2017
0
01/24/18
100.00
$309.02
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
100.00
3,000
2019
30
07/02/19
98.35
$338.33
$1,032,000
$1,032,000
$1,015,000
98.35
3,112
2018
12
09/07/18
100.00
$337.08
$1,049,000
$1,049,000
$1,049,000
100.00
3,232
2018
49
10/02/18
100.00
$324.57
$1,049,000
$1,049,000
$1,049,000
100.00
3,277
2018
111
12/03/19
93.75
$320.42
$1,120,000
$1,070,000
$1,050,000
98.13
3,112
2018
7
10/09/18
100.01
$337.40
$1,049,950
$1,049,950
$1,050,000
100.00
3,119
2018
5
03/26/18
100.00
$336.65
$1,050,000
$1,050,000
$1,050,000
100.00
3,115
2018
15
08/03/18
93.48
$345.10
$1,150,000
$1,150,000
$1,075,000
93.48
3,257
2017
0
02/05/18
102.38
$330.06
$1,050,000
$1,075,000
$1,075,000
100.00
3,263
2018
6
05/25/18
100.93
$332.52
$1,075,000
$1,075,000
$1,085,000
100.93
2,700
2019
5
06/27/19
100.00
$403.70
$1,090,000
$1,090,000
$1,090,000
100.00
3,232
2018
12
03/08/19
100.00
$340.35
$1,100,000
$1,100,000
$1,100,000
100.00
2020
33
04/17/20
100.82
$0.00
$1,099,950
$1,099,950
$1,108,920
100.82
3,232
2018
8
07/31/18
102.37
$348.08
$1,099,000
$1,099,000
$1,125,000
102.37
2,850
2018
4
04/17/18
109.52
$403.51
$1,050,000
$1,050,000
$1,150,000
109.52
3,084
2018
7
04/19/18
100.00
$372.89
$1,150,000
$1,150,000
$1,150,000
100.00
2,853
2018
8
10/05/18
94.86
$420.61
$1,265,000
$1,265,000
$1,200,000
94.86
2,235
2018
8
08/16/18
100.42
$536.91
$1,195,000
$1,195,000
$1,200,000
100.42
a
Information Deemed Reliable But Cannot Be Guaranteed.
Lot Sizes and Square Footage Are Estimates.
10/07/2020 - 10:23AM Packet Pg. 26
Adam E. Cobb
21231 92nd Place W
1655056
9306 192nd Place SW
1395857
932 Olympic Ave
1330277
1137 6th Ave S
1646857
541 3rd Ave N
1219407
305 Caspers St
1388016
301 Caspers St
1357905
709 Spruce St
1608394
303 Caspers St
1306182
713 Spruce St
1647615
753 Bell St
1371785
919 Pine Street
1550937
18626 94th Ave W
1253699
612 7th Ave S
1391984
703 Spruce St
1580413
Single Family CMA 2 Line
Edmonds
5 2.75 0.184
3,112
2020
3
09/23/20
12 - 2 Story
730
Edmonds
$388.82
$1,200,000
$1,200,000
$1,210,000
Edmonds
4 2.75 0.276
3,220
2019
6
02/28/19
15 - Multi Level 730
Seaview
$380.43
$1,275,000
$1,275,000
$1,225,000
Edmonds
4 3.00 0.510
2,857
2018
49
08/30/18
13-Tri-Level
730
Edmonds
$454.66
$1,298,950
$1,298,950
$1,298,950
Edmonds
3 2.50 0.190
2,640
2017
2
09/16/20
12 - 2 Story
730
Edmonds Bowl
$528.41
$1,395,000
$1,395,000
$1,395,000
Edmonds
4 3.50 0.200
3,755
2017
276
05/23/18
12 - 2 Story
730
Edmonds
$372.84
$1,500,000
$1,450,000
$1,400,000
Edmonds
4 3.25 0.390
3,265
2018
123
11/28/18
12 - 2 Story
730
Edmonds Bowl
$458.81
$1,498,000
$1,498,000
$1,498,000
Edmonds
4 3.25 0.310
3,108
2018
5
10/18/18
11 - 1 1/2 Story 730
Edmonds Bowl
$497.10
$1,545,000
$1,545,000
$1,545,000
Edmonds
5 3.25 0.151
3,343
2020
93
08/12/20
12 - 2 Story
730
Edmonds Bowl
$474.13
$1,749,000
$1,585,000
$1,585,000
Edmonds
4 2.75 0.320
3,545
2018
35
07/26/18
12 - 2 Story
730
Edmonds Bowl
$449.93
$1,595,000
$1,595,000
$1,595,000
Edmonds
5 3.25 0.150
3,343
2020
0
08/28/20
12 - 2 Story
730
Edmonds Bowl
$486.09
$1,625,000
$1,625,000
$1,625,000
Edmonds
4 2.75 0.151
2,980
2018
4
10/22/18
12 - 2 Story
730
Edmonds Bowl
$552.01
$1,645,000
$1,645,000
$1,645,000
Edmonds
4 3.25 0.193
4,430
2019
43
04/03/20
14 - Split Entry
730
Edmonds Bowl
$405.19
$1,975,000
$1,795,000
$1,795,000
Edmonds
4 2.50 0.290
3,350
2018
33
05/11/18
16 - 1 Story w/Bsmnt. 730
Edmonds
$552.24
$1,999,000
$1,895,000
$1,850,000
Edmonds
5 4.00 0.181
3,657
2018
27
02/14/19
12 - 2 Story
730
Edmonds Bowl
$553.73
$2,149,000
$2,149,000
$2,025,000
Edmonds
5 2.75 0.151
3,365
2020
31
05/18/20
12 - 2 Story
730
Edmonds Bowl
$638.93
$2,195,000
$2,195,000
$2,150,000
3,076 2018 32
Listing Count: 42 Averages: $402.33 $1,252,001 $1,237,394 $1,227,717
Price : High $2,150,000 Low $560,000 Median $1,104,460
P 6.c
100.83
100.83
96.08
96.08
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
93.33
96.55
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
90.62
100.00 O
100.00 y
100.00 v
100.00 N
a
100.00
100.00
100.00
90.89
O
100.00 Q
92.55 08
97.63
94.23 Q
94.23 fn
97.95
97.95
98.38
99.33
Grand Totals
Count: 42 Averages: SgFt: 3076 CDOM: 32 OP; $1,252,001 LP: $1,237,394 SP: $1,227,717
Information Deemed Reliable But Cannot Be Guaranteed.
Lot Sizes and Square Footage Are Estimates.
10/07/2020 - 10:23AM Packet Pg. 27
Adam E. Cobb Single Family CMA 2 Line P 6.c
;old Properties
4ddress City Bd Bth Lot Sz SgFt Year CDOM Date SP%OLP
Listing # Style Code Area Community $/SgFt Orig Price List Price Sold Price SP%LP
14913 48th Ave W #B-2
1370714
14913 48th Ave W #J-3
1212078
14913 48th Ave W #K-3
1220027
14913 48th Ave W #L-2
1223101
14913 48th Ave W #J-2
1209252
14913 48th Ave W #K-2
1214823
14913 48th Ave W #J-4
1206358
14913 48th Ave W #L-2
1489068
14913 48th Ave W #G-2
1235952
14913 48th Ave W #L-3
1233144
14913 48th Ave W #E2
1592567
14913 48th Ave W #N-3
1273640
14913 48th Ave W #P-3
1290447
14913 48th Ave W #P-2
1281735
14913 48th Ave W #M-2
1243697
14913 48th Ave W #A-2
1301095
14913 48th Ave W #N-2
1269967
14913 48th Ave W #H-4
1266097
14913 48th Ave W #G-3
1246483
22924 C 79th Lane W #C
1226571
14913 48th Ave W #H-2
1259254
14913 48th Ave W #K-4
1217458
14913 48th Ave W #H-3
1266254
14913 48th Ave W #J-5
1206362
14913 48th Ave W #M-3
1254900
14913 48th Ave W #K-1
1220031
14913 48th Ave W #J-1
1214819
Edmonds
2 2.25
0.029
1,381
2018
81
11/09/18
100.00
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$289.57
$399,900
$399,900
$399,900
100.00
Edmonds
2 2.25
0.025
1,344
2018
7
01/25/18
100.00
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$297.54
$399,900
$399,900
$399,900
100.00
Edmonds
2 2.25
0.025
1,381
2018
2
03/08/18
100.00
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$296.09
$408,900
$408,900
$408,900
100.00
Edmonds
2 2.25
0.027
1,381
2017
4
03/22/18
100.16
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$296.57
$408,900
$418,000
$409,570
97.98
Edmonds
2 2.25
0.027
1,422
2018
7
01/22/18
100.00
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$288.26
$409,900
$409,900
$409,900
100.00
Edmonds
2 2.25
0.025
1,381
2018
13
03/07/18
100.83
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$297.82
$407,900
$407,900
$411,285
100.83
Edmonds
2 2.25
0.027
1,422
2018
5
01/24/18
100.84
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$292.79
$412,900
$412,900
$416,350
100.84
Edmonds
2 2.25
0.030
1,432
2018
53
10/14/19
97.68
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$293.29
$429,950
$419,990
$419,990
100.00
Edmonds
2 2.25
0.028
1,422
2018
6
04/27/18
100.96
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$295.99
$416,900
$420,900
$420,900
100.00
Edmonds
2 2.25
0.027
1,381
2018
6
03/27/18
102.97
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$305.62
$409,900
$409,900
$422,055
102.97
Edmonds
2 2.50
0.030
1,344
2018
3
06/11/20
100.00
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$323.66
$435,000
$435,000
$435,000
100.00
Edmonds
2 2.25
0.027
1,381
2018
6
07/09/18
100.06
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$318.01
$438,900
$438,900
$439,175
100.06
Edmonds
2 2.25
0.027
1,381
2018
5
07/20/18
100.00
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$319.26
$440,900
$440,900
$440,900
100.00
Edmonds
2 2.25
0.027
1,381
2018
5
07/18/18
100.00
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$320.71
$442,900
$442,900
$442,900
100.00
Edmonds
2 2.25
0.027
1,381
2018
4
05/03/18
103.05
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$320.78
$429,900
$443,000
$443,000
100.00
Edmonds
2 2.25
0.029
1,381
2018
16
07/25/18
100.11
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$321.07
$442,900
$442,900
$443,395
100.11
Edmonds
2 2.25
0.027
1,381
2018
7
07/03/18
102.31
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$323.68
$436,900
$436,900
$447,000
102.31
Edmonds
2 2.25
0.019
1,422
2018
6
06/22/18
100.00
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$316.39
$449,900
$449,900
$449,900
100.00
Edmonds
2 2.25
0.028
1,422
2018
7
04/27/18
100.00
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$316.39
$449,900
$449,900
$449,900
100.00
Edmonds
2 2.25
0.020
1,541
2018
8
02/16/18
100.00
32 - Townhouse 730
Esperance
$292.01
$449,990
$449,990
$449,990
100.00
Edmonds
2 2.25
0.021
1,422
2018
4
06/19/18
101.29
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$319.04
$447,900
$447,900
$453,675
101.29
Edmonds
3 3.25
0.037
1,819
2018
3
03/13/18
100.00
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$255.58
$464,900
$464,900
$464,900
100.00
Edmonds
2 2.25
0.019
1,344
2018
6
06/27/18
106.63
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$346.63
$436,900
$436,900
$465,875
106.63
Edmonds
3 2.50
0.040
1,968
2018
9
02/01/18
100.00
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$236.74
$465,900
$465,900
$465,900
100.00
Edmonds
2 2.25
0.027
1,381
2018
5
05/07/18
107.46
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$339.96
$436,900
$467,000
$469,490
100.53
Edmonds
3 3.25
0.037
1,819
2018
27
03/06/18
100.00
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$258.33
$469,900
$469,900
$469,900
100.00
Edmonds
3 2.50
0.050
1,968
2018
3
01/18/18
100.74
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$239.00
$466,900
$466,900
$470,350
100.74
a
Information Deemed Reliable But Cannot Be Guaranteed.
Lot Sizes and Square Footage Are Estimates.
10/07/2020 - 10:32AM Packet Pg. 28
Adam E. Cobb
Single Family CMA 2 Line
P 6.c
7232 212th St SW #B
Edmonds
3 2.50
0.000
1,568
2017
102
11/21/18
100.00
1378038
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$302.93
$475,000
$475,000
$475,000
100.00
14913 48th Ave W #L-1
Edmonds
3 3.25
0.037
1,819
2017
55
03/21/18
100.86
1224842
32-Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$261.66
$471,900
$471,900
$475,955
100.86
7232 212th St SW #C
Edmonds
3 2.50
0.000
1,568
2017
140
01/14/19
100.21
1389397
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$303.57
$475,000
$475,000
$476,000
100.21
22924 E 79th Lane W #E
Edmonds
2 2.25
0.020
1,541
2018
11
02/21/18
103.48
1228394
32 - Townhouse 730
Esperance
$308.89
$459,990
$476,000
$476,000
100.00
14913 48th Ave W #L-4
Edmonds
3 3.25
0.046
1,819
2017
23
03/29/18
101.27
1226598
32-Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$262.71
$471,900
$471,900
$477,875
101.27
14913 48th Ave W #L-1
Edmonds
3 2.75
0.037
1,819
2018
10
08/03/20
97.98
1606457
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$266.63
$495,000
$495,000
$485,000
97.98
14913 48 Ave W #K1
Edmonds
3 3.25
0.060
1,819
2018
114
02/05/19
91.51
1364557
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$266.63
$529,990
$484,990
$485,000
100.00
14913 48th Ave W #B-1
Edmonds
3 3.25
0.072
1,819
2018
52
10/09/18
100.00
..
1354989
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$269.32
$489,900
$489,900
$489,900
100.00
0_
14913 48th Ave W #P-4
Edmonds
3 3.25
0.037
1,819
2018
107
09/20/18
100.00
N
1359935
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$272.07
$494,900
$494,900
$494,900
100.00
3
U
14913 48th Ave W #A-3
Edmonds
3 3.25
0.040
1,819
2018
103
10/12/18
100.00
N
1359931
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$272.07
$494,900
$494,900
$494,900
100.00
7628 222nd St SW #A-4
Edmonds
2 2.25
0.031
1,525
2019
16
03/11/19
100.00
1403298
32 - Townhouse 730
Esperance
$327.84
$499,950
$499,950
$499,950
100.00
7628 222nd St SW #A-3
Edmonds
2 2.25
0.031
1,525
2019
16
03/19/19
100.00
O
1403196
32 - Townhouse 730
Esperance
$327.84
$499,950
$499,950
$499,950
100.00
<
7628 222nd St SW #A-5
Edmonds
2 2.25
0.031
1,525
2019
30
03/20/19
100.00
06
1403024
32 - Townhouse 730
Esperance
$327.84
$499,950
$499,950
$499,950
100.00
>,
7236 212th St SW #C
Edmonds
3 2.50
0.000
1,568
2017
23
06/29/18
100.00
O-
1298225
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$318.85
$499,950
$499,950
$499,950
100.00
N
7909 F 229th Place SW #F Edmonds
2 2.25
0.023
1,401
2018
18
05/25/18
100.00
1270738
32 - Townhouse 730
Esperance
$356.88
$499,990
$499,990
$499,990
100.00
N
7909 B 229th Place SW #B Edmonds
2 2.25
0.023
1,401
2018
43
05/11/18
100.00
O
O
1252213
32 - Townhouse 730
Esperance
$356.88
$499,990
$499,990
$499,990
100.00
2
7628 222nd St SW #C-5
Edmonds
2 2.25
0.031
1,525
2019
125
08/15/19
100.00
to
1416419
32 - Townhouse 730
Esperance
$334.39
$509,950
$509,950
$509,950
100.00
7628 222nd St SW #C-4
Edmonds
2 2.25
0.031
1,525
2019
6
04/17/19
100.00
1414973
32 - Townhouse 730
Esperance
$334.39
$509,950
$509,950
$509,950
100.00
a�
7628 222nd St SW #C-3
Edmonds
2 2.25
0.031
1,525
2019
5
04/15/19
100.00
y
1414174
32 - Townhouse 730
Esperance
$334.39
$509,950
$509,950
$509,950
100.00
r
r
7234 212th St SW #B
Edmonds
3 3.50
0.000
1,808
2017
8
06/28/18
100.00
N
L
1298242
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$282.05
$509,950
$509,950
$509,950
100.00
7909 229th Place SW #C
Edmonds
2 2.25
0.020
1,401
2018
7
09/28/20
98.12
U
1647449
32 - Townhouse 730
Esperance
$371.16
$529,950
$529,950
$520,000
98.12
M
r
14913 48th Ave W #N-4
Edmonds
3 3.25
0.045
1,819
2018
5
07/11/18
100.00
r-
m
1269965
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$288.57
$524,900
$524,900
$524,900
100.00
E
14913 48th Ave W #H-5
Edmonds
3 2.50
0.034
1,968
2018
13
06/27/18
100.00
v
1266076
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$266.72
$524,900
$524,900
$524,900
100.00
r
7628 222nd St SW #B-2
Edmonds
2 2.25
0.033
1,525
2019
2
05/30/19
100.00
Q
1437712
32 - Townhouse 730
Esperance
$344.23
$524,950
$524,950
$524,950
100.00
7628 222nd St SW #B-3
Edmonds
2 2.25
0.033
1,525
2019
158
10/10/19
100.01
1440618
32 - Townhouse 730
Esperance
$344.26
$524,950
$524,950
$525,000
100.01
7628 222nd St SW #B-5
Edmonds
2 2.25
0.033
1,525
2019
1
05/24/19
100.01
1437609
32 - Townhouse 730
Esperance
$344.26
$524,950
$524,950
$525,000
100.01
14913 48th Ave W #M-4
Edmonds
3 3.25
0.037
1,819
2018
5
05/11/18
100.03
1255445
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$288.66
$524,900
$524,900
$525,075
100.03
14913 48th Ave W #A-1
Edmonds
3 3.25
0.040
1,819
2018
3
07/23/18
100.03
1297336
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$289.21
$525,900
$525,900
$526,075
100.03
14913 48th Ave W #P-1
Edmonds
3 3.25
0.046
1,819
2018
6
07/12/18
100.15
1285645
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$290.64
$527,900
$527,900
$528,670
100.15
Information Deemed Reliable But Cannot Be Guaranteed.
Lot Sizes and Square Footage Are Estimates.
10/07/2020 - 10:32AM Packet Pg. 29
Adam E. Cobb
Single Family CMA 2 Line
P 6.c
7232 212th St SW #A
Edmonds
4 3.50
0.000
2,025
2017
19
07/06/18
100.01
1298266
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$261.73
$529,950
$535,000
$530,000
99.07
14913 48th Ave W #G-1
Edmonds
3 2.50
0.073
1,968
2018
5
05/03/18
101.73
1252365
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$271.39
$525,000
$534,099
$534,099
100.00
14913 48th Ave W #B-3
Edmonds
3 3.25
0.040
1,819
2018
9
08/02/18
100.00
1303998
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$295.16
$536,900
$536,900
$536,900
100.00
7236 212th St SW #D
Edmonds
4 3.50
0.000
2,025
2017
3
07/19/18
100.00
1312229
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$266.64
$539,950
$539,950
$539,950
100.00
14913 48th Ave W #H-1
Edmonds
3 2.50
0.034
1,968
2018
5
06/18/18
103.35
1262669
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$275.66
$524,900
$524,900
$542,495
103.35
14913 48th Ave W #M-1
Edmonds
3 3.25
0.045
1,819
2018
6
05/03/18
112.12
1249277
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$300.12
$486,900
$535,000
$545,915
102.04
14913 48th Ave W #G-4
Edmonds
3 2.50
0.049
1,968
2018
4
04/27/18
111.52
1240594
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$277.60
$489,900
$546,310
$546,310
100.00
7706 223rd St SW
Edmonds
4 2.00
0.140
1,785
2018
5
04/08/19
101.85
..
1412781
10 - 1 Story 730
Esperance
$308.12
$539,990
$539,990
$550,000
101.85
0_
22923 E 79th Lane W #E
Edmonds
2 3.00
0.023
1,841
2018
15
06/13/18
98.22
N
1282214
32 - Townhouse 730
Esperance
$298.75
$559,990
$559,990
$550,000
98.22
22924 A 79th Lane W #A
Edmonds
4 3.00
0.031
2,281
2018
7
02/15/18
100.00
N
1226546
32 - Townhouse 730
Esperance
$245.50
$559,990
$559,990
$559,990
100.00
22924 F 79th Lane W #F
Edmonds
4 3.00
0.037
2,281
2018
7
02/21/18
100.00
1228920
32 - Townhouse 730
Esperance
$249.89
$569,990
$569,990
$569,990
100.00
14913 48th Ave W #N-1
Edmonds
3 3.25
0.042
1,819
2018
7
07/02/18
108.63
O
1277758
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$313.46
$524,900
$524,900
$570,175
108.63
Q
<
14913 48th Ave W #J-1
Edmonds
3 2.50
0.030
1,968
2018
25
08/11/20
99.66
06
1614761
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$293.19
$579,000
$579,000
$577,000
99.65
22923 F 79th Lane W #F
Edmonds
4 3.00
0.032
2,122
2018
145
11/15/18
92.54
O-
1286324
32 - Townhouse 730
Esperance
$292.17
$669,990
$619,990
$619,990
100.00
N
20820 72nd Ave W
Edmonds
4 2.75
0.060
2,221
2019
30
02/20/20
100.00
1548323
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$291.76
$648,000
$648,000
$648,000
100.00
N
7909 G 229th Place SW #G Edmonds
4 3.00
0.034
2,122
2018
8
04/23/18
100.00
O
O
1259653
32 - Townhouse 730
Esperance
$306.31
$649,990
$649,990
$649,990
100.00
2
7909 A 229th Place SW #A Edmonds
4 3.00
0.035
2,122
2018
12
04/10/18
100.00
to
1252193
32 - Townhouse 730
Esperance
$306.31
$649,990
$649,990
$649,990
100.00
7628 222nd St SW #C-7
Edmonds
3 3.00
0.064
2,223
2019
6
05/01/19
100.00
1427894
32 - Townhouse 730
Esperance
$292.40
$650,000
$650,000
$650,000
100.00
a�
7628 222nd St SW #A-1
Edmonds
3 3.00
0.041
2,223
2019
28
07/09/19
100.00
y
1427845
32 - Townhouse 730
Esperance
$292.40
$650,000
$650,000
$650,000
100.00
r
r
7628 222nd St SW #A-6
Edmonds
4 3.00
0.048
2,223
2019
45
04/25/19
100.00
N
L
1408714
32 - Townhouse 730
Esperance
$292.40
$650,000
$650,000
$650,000
100.00
20822 72nd Ave W
Edmonds
4 2.75
0.060
2,231
2019
3
01/24/20
100.00
v
1548318
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$292.69
$653,000
$653,000
$653,000
100.00
M
r
20818 72nd Ave W
Edmonds
4 2.75
0.060
2,231
2019
18
02/12/20
100.00
r-
d
1545280
32 - Townhouse 730
Edmonds
$292.69
$653,000
$653,000
$653,000
100.00
E
7628 222nd St SW #B-6
Edmonds
4 3.00
0.044
2,223
2019
287
03/09/20
97.04
v
1438161
32 - Townhouse 730
Esperance
$294.65
$675,000
$664,950
$655,000
98.50
r
7628 222nd St SW #C-1
Edmonds
3 3.00
0.048
2,223
2019
1
04/30/19
100.14
Q
1418960
32 - Townhouse 730
Esperance
$296.85
$659,000
$659,000
$659,902
100.14
22923 A 79th Lane W #A
Edmonds
4 3.00
0.043
2,122
2018
4
06/05/18
100.00
1281979
32 - Townhouse 730
Esperance
$311.02
$659,990
$659,990
$659,990
100.00
7628 222nd St SW #B-1
Edmonds
4 3.00
0.063
2,223
2019
1
05/29/19
100.00
1431119
32 - Townhouse 730
Esperance
$308.14
$685,000
$685,000
$685,000
100.00
21254 80th Ave W
Edmonds
4 2.50
0.054
2,390
2018
59
03/20/19
100.00
1390352
12 - 2 Story 730
5 Corners
$292.47
$699,000
$699,000
$699,000
100.00
21274 80th Ave W
Edmonds
3 2.50
0.051
2,390
2018
138
12/14/18
100.00
1378704
12 - 2 Story 730
5 Corners
$292.47
$699,000
$699,000
$699,000
100.00
23406 88th Ave W
Edmonds
4 3.25
0.092
2,384
2019
15
02/28/20
100.00
1537338
13 - Tri-Level 730
Esperance
$293.60
$699,950
$699,950
$699,950
100.00
Information Deemed Reliable But Cannot Be Guaranteed.
Lot Sizes and Square Footage Are Estimates.
10/07/2020 - 10:32AM Packet Pg. 30
Adam E. Cobb
23402 88th Ave W
1536023
21250 80th Ave W
1401223
21270 80th Ave W
1368511
21290 80th Ave W
1274151
22029 86th Park W #7
1424393
23408 88th Ave W
1541734
8102 228th St SW
1433820
21276 80th Ave W
1312356
21256 80th Ave W
1295432
5326 160 St SW
1451322
8118 206th St SW
1300086
23202 76th Ave W
1451362
7919 203rd St SW
1386213
7237 Soundview Lane
1581521
7718 238th Place SW
1377331
14829 57th PI W
1641289
8715 236th St SW
1427676
7902 203rd St SW
1562806
19323 80th Ave W
1537818
8717 236th St SW
1428106
19824 86th Place W
1442405
19325 80th Ave W
1532377
7235 Soundview Lane
1568334
8634 184th St SW
1423595
19816 86th Place W
1437859
8632 184th St SW
1423655
8704 188th St SW
1487469
19824 86th Place W
1633515
18807 88th Ave W
1442365
Single Family CMA 2 Line
Edmonds
4 3.25
0.099
2,384
2019
2
01/28/20
13 - Tri-Level
730
Esperance
$293.60
$699,950
$699,950
$699,950
Edmonds
4 2.50
0.067
2,390
2018
48
04/15/19
12 - 2 Story
730
5 Corners
$294.98
$715,000
$715,000
$705,000
Edmonds
4 2.50
0.064
2,390
2018
179
02/07/19
12 - 2 Story
730
5 Corners
$297.07
$749,000
$715,000
$710,000
Edmonds
3 2.50
0.060
2,047
2018
10
06/19/18
12 - 2 Story
730
5 Corners
$349.29
$715,000
$715,000
$715,000
Edmonds
3 2.25
0.096
2,011
2019
44
05/28/19
12 - 2 Story
730
Edmonds
$358.01
$724,950
$719,950
$719,950
Edmonds
4 3.25
0.055
2,384
2019
1
02/10/20
13 - Tri-Level
730
Esperance
$304.11
$724,950
$724,950
$725,000
Edmonds
4 2.75
0.240
2,560
2019
166
10/31/19
12 - 2 Story
730
Esperance
$292.97
$829,950
$759,990
$750,000
Edmonds
3 2.50
0.050
2,390
2018
4
07/25/18
12 - 2 Story
730
5 Corners
$322.18
$775,000
$775,000
$770,000
Edmonds
3 2.50
0.055
2,390
2018
38
07/30/18
12 - 2 Story
730
5 Corners
$324.27
$775,000
$775,000
$775,000
Edmonds
5 3.00
0.310
2,642
2019
47
08/06/19
14 - Split Entry
730
Meadowdale
$299.02
$797,950
$789,950
$790,000
Edmonds
3 2.50
0.209
2,267
2018
33
08/22/18
12 - 2 Story
730
Edmonds
$366.12
$855,000
$855,000
$830,000
Edmonds
3 2.50
0.210
2,700
2019
106
09/05/19
12 - 2 Story
730
Lake Ballinger
$322.20
$949,950
$899,000
$869,950
Edmonds
5 2.75
0.240
3,112
2018
61
02/21/19
12 - 2 Story
730
Edmonds
$292.42
$949,900
$949,900
$910,000
Edmonds
5 3.50
0.275
3,054
2020
91
07/20/20
16 - 1 Story w/Bsmnt. 730
Edmonds
$307.79
$1,049,000
$990,000
$940,000
Edmonds
3 3.50
0.190
2,674
2018
86
01/31/19
10 - 1 Story
730
Lake Ballinger
$351.53
$1,025,000
$954,950
$940,000
Edmonds
5 2.50
0.240
2,839
2020
37
09/30/20
12 - 2 Story
730
Edmonds
$336.39
$995,900
$995,900
$955,000
Edmonds
4 3.25
0.194
2,940
2019
205
11/26/19
12 - 2 Story
730
Edmonds
$331.63
$1,100,000
$975,000
$975,000
Edmonds
5 2.75
0.210
3,065
2020
3
03/06/20
12 - 2 Story
730
Edmonds
$321.37
$985,000
$985,000
$985,000
Edmonds
4 2.75
0.180
2,894
2019
14
12/13/19
12 - 2 Story
730
Seaview
$343.81
$995,000
$995,000
$995,000
Edmonds
4 3.25
0.191
2,940
2019
155
10/09/19
12 - 2 Story
730
Edmonds
$343.20
$1,100,000
$1,009,000
$1,009,000
Edmonds
5 2.75
0.180
2,983
2019
108
08/30/19
12 - 2 Story
730
Maplewood
$349.46
$1,184,950
$1,049,950
$1,042,450
Edmonds
5 2.75
0.297
3,277
2019
52
01/16/20
12 - 2 Story
730
Seaview
$318.89
$1,065,000
$1,065,000
$1,045,000
Edmonds
5 2.75
0.275
3,403
2020
119
07/22/20
12 - 2 Story
730
Edmonds
$314.43
$1,225,000
$1,090,000
$1,070,000
Edmonds
4 3.25
0.232
3,501
2018
243
05/28/19
12 - 2 Story
730
Edmonds
$313.62
$1,098,000
$1,098,000
$1,098,000
Edmonds
5 2.75
0.180
2,997
2019
92
08/21/19
12 - 2 Story
730
Maplewood
$368.70
$1,184,950
$1,125,000
$1,105,000
Edmonds
4 3.25
0.280
3,490
2018
175
04/12/19
12 - 2 Story
730
Edmonds
$325.21
$1,150,000
$1,150,000
$1,135,000
Edmonds
4 2.75
0.274
3,232
2019
73
09/20/19
12 - 2 Story
730
Seaview
$355.51
$1,149,000
$1,149,000
$1,149,000
Edmonds
5 2.75
0.180
2,983
2019
3
08/26/20
12 - 2 Story
730
Maplewood
$385.52
$1,145,590
$1,145,590
$1,150,000
Edmonds
5 2.75
0.319
3,232
2019
28
06/10/19
12 - 2 Story
730
Seaview
$355.82
$1,200,000
$1,200,000
$1,150,000
P 6.c
100.00
100.00
98.60
98.60
94.79
99.30
100.00
100.00
99.31
100.00
100.01
100.01
90.37
98.69
99.36
99.35 O
100.00 y
100.00 v
99.00 N
a
100.01
97.08
97.08
91.58
O
96.77 Q
95.80 06
95.80
89.61 Q
94.95 N
91.71
98.43
N
95.89
95.89 2
88.64 to
r
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00 y
r
100.00 r
91.73 N
100.00
87.97 u
99.29
r
98.12
98.12 E
87.35 v
98.17 r
100.00 Q
100.00
93.25
98.22
98.70
98.70
100.00
100.00
100.39
100.38
95.83
95.83
Information Deemed Reliable But Cannot Be Guaranteed.
Lot Sizes and Square Footage Are Estimates.
10/07/2020 - 10:32AM
Packet Pg. 31
Adam E. Cobb Single Family CMA 2 Line
8822 218th St SW
Edmonds
5 2.75
0.283
3,000
2018
7
1263106
12 - 2 Story
730
Edmonds
$383.33
$1,150,000
$1,150,000
8820 218th St SW
Edmonds
5 2.75
0.277
3,110
2018
2
1269118
12 - 2 Story
730
Edmonds
$377.81
$1,150,000
$1,150,000
8638 184th St SW
Edmonds
4 3.25
0.248
3,427
2018
13
1313017
12 - 2 Story
730
Edmonds
$364.75
$1,295,000
$1,295,000
8917 192nd St SW
Edmonds
5 4.25
0.660
3,828
2019
10
1499264
18 - 2 Stories w/Bsmn1730
Seaview
$359.72
$1,377,000
$1,377,000
18111 84th Ave W
Edmonds
5 3.75
0.310
3,350
2020
27
1640265
12 - 2 Story
730
Edmonds
$417.91
$1,485,000
$1,485,000
18109 84th Ave W
Edmonds
4 4.50
0.349
3,932
2019
171
1573253
15 - Multi Level 730
Edmonds
$394.20
$1,600,000
$1,600,000
6614 143rd St SW
Edmonds
4 3.50
1.710
3,803
2019
122
1510104
12 - 2 Story
740
Picnic Point
$420.72
$1,695,000
$1,695,000
16404 75th Place W
Edmonds
5 4.00
0.420
8,151
2018
115
1347317
18 - 2 Stories w/Bsmn1730
Meadowdale
$519.57
$4,298,000
$4,298,000
2,153 2018 42
Listing Count : 122 Averages: $313.27 $704,305 $698,018
Price : High $4,235,000 Low $399,900 Median
Grand Totals
Count : 122 Averages: SgFt: 2153 CDOM: 42 OP: $704,305 LP: $698,018
P 6.c
04/18/18
100.00
$1,150,000
100.00
04/20/18
102.17
$1,175, 000
102.17
07/31/18
96.53
$1,250,000
96.53
09/06/19
100.00
$1,377,000
100.00
09/23/20
94.28
$1,400,000
94.28
05/18/20
96.88
$1,550,000
96.88
12/06/19
94.40
$1,600,000
94.40
11/16/18
98.53
$4,235,000
98.53
O
.y
N
99.29
v
$693,439
99.76
N
a
$544,205
ca
L
SP:
$693,439
Q
06
N
c
.y
7
O
2
R
r
R
C
N
E
N
r
R
r
N
L
C�
G
CV
G
cd
C
L
V
a
Information Deemed Reliable But Cannot Be Guaranteed.
Lot Sizes and Square Footage Are Estimates.
10/07/2020 - 10:32AM
Packet Pg. 32
HOUSING UNDERPRODUCTIO
S�.
, 5
tir
IN WASHINGTON STAT
Economic, Fiscal, and Environmental Impacts of
Enabling Transit -Oriented Accessible Growth to Address r
Washington's Housing Affordability Challeng.e__--,1-,'
i
r
i -A Et A,
. .
,, c
64STLAKE & REPUBIL'"N 1���
_ UP FOR ARnWTN®
- -`�Packet Pg. 33
6.d
•n � C
UP FOR GROWTH°
Up for Growth is a 501(c)(3) organization that represents
a vibrant, diverse, and growing coalition of stakeholders
who believe that communities should grow for the benefit
of every person. Our mission is to improve equitable,
environmental and economic health through strategies
that enable vibrant, walkable communities to build
housing close to jobs, transportation and amenities.
ECONorthwest
ECONOMICS • FINANCE • PLANNING
ECONorthwest specializes in economics, finance,
and planning. We work with public jurisdictions and
developers throughout the United States on housing
policy issues, including studies related to density bonuses
and inclusionary zoning. Our work is used to inform city
comprehensive planning, master planning, and site -
specific feasibility studies, as well as large-scale housing
needs assessments. Our staff hold advanced degrees
in economics, community and regional planning, and
public administration.
ADVISORY BOARD:
Up for Growth's Advisory Board comprises leading experts
across the housing spectrum, drawn from leaders in
accounting, finance, academia, planning, development, and
law. The purpose of the Advisory Board is to review and offer
feedback on Up for Growth's research agenda.
While the Advisory Board's contributions to the organization
are invaluable, it should be noted that research released by
Up for Growth and reviewed by the Advisory Board is not
necessarily reflective of the views of any individual member
or their organizations, and should not be characterized as
such. In addition, Advisory Board members serve in their
own capacities and independently of the organizations and
institutions they represent.
AUTHORS:
Madeline Baron
Marley Buchman
Mike Kingsella
Randall Pozdena, Ph.D.
Michael Wilkerson, Ph.D.
Melissa Winkler
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
Up for Growth
ECONorthwest
Copyright @2020 Up for Growth
All rights reserved.
1875 K Street NW, 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20006
Phone: 202.716.20641 Twitter: @Up4Growth
www.upforgrowth.org
c
0
.N
N
0
0
r
0
L
�0
a
08
Q.
a
0
- c
.N
0
0
0
0
0
N
0
N
N
M
r n
■
a
Printed January 2020
Packet Pg. 34
-+r
y�
R ++==?
CONTENTS
WHO WE ARE......................................................2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................4
INTRODUCTION..........................................5
COST BURDENING..............................................6
NATIONAL HOUSING UNDERPRODUCTION ...... 7
HOUSING UNDERPRODUCTION ........................8
DISTRIBUTING UNDERPRODUCTION ...............10
DISTRIBUTING NEW GROWTH:
TWO SCENARIOS..............................................1 2
COST ESTIMATES &
PROTOTYPE ASSUMPTIONS .............................14
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .............................16
INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING ..........................18
ECONOMIC IMPACTS.......................................19 -
FISCAL IMPACTS..............................................22
POLICY DISCUSSIONS & CONCLUSIONS ......... 23
i L I
;t
R
OLLY
F,r
r A .L
6.d
From 2000 to 2015 Washington state underproduced housing by
' I I approximately 225,600 units, or roughly 7.5% of the total 2015 housing
stock.This underproduction has created a supply and demand imbalance
MUCED that is reflected in the housing and homelessness crisis playing out in
communities across the state.
�14
HIGI
DENS
MORE OF THE SAME GROWTH PATTERN
HIGH
ACCESSIBLE GROWTH PATTERN
80/0
LOW
DENSITY
If housing development in Washington continues its current pattern with More of the Same growth, 67% of the 225,600 new hou:
units would be single-family homes, while 29% would be "missing middle" (such as accessory dwelling units, duplex, triplex, and qi
homes, or courtyard style apartments) and medium -density (podium apartments), and 4% would be in residential apartment towers. I
report's scenario -based investigation of development growth potential found that if these 225,600 units were instead developed in
Accessible Growth pattern — building to higher -density inside transit corridors and leveraging existing infrastructure — 8% of the new u
would be single-family homes, while 54% would fall under the "missing middle" and medium -density category, and 38% would be hi
density residential.
CLEAR SKIES AHEAD
Shifting from current development patterns
to an Accessible Growth scenario uses just
12% of the land to deliver the same number of
units. These areas would be denser, transit -
adjacent, and near employment centers,
which could reduce vehicle miles traveled by
as much as 36%.
E
GSP BOOST
Using an Accessible Growth develop-
ment pattern, cumulative Gross State
Product (GSP) increases by $25 billion
over a 20-year period compared to a
More of the Same growth pattern —
delivering a total of $103 billion in cu-
mulative GSP over a baseline forecast.
STATE
TAX REVENUE BENEFITS
Building these units in an Accessible Gro
development pattern would generate
additional $660 million in state revenue
sales tax and business and occupation 1
compared to More of the Same developm
over the 20-year growth period.
0
N
W
G
7E
L
Q
0a
Q
Q
7
0)
C
.y
0
x
E
a
UP FOR GROWTH
Packet Pg. 36
6.d
Washington State is entering its tenth year of solid economic
growth, buoyed by strong population growth with new residents
seeking jobs, education, and economic opportunities. However,
the housing market has not kept up with growing demand,
and many communities are reeling from a housing crisis
with significant quality -of -life impacts. Challenges stemming
from home price escalation, a frenetic sellers' market, strong
rent growth, rising application fees, and increasing rates of
homelessness are particularly acute in the 1-5 corridor, from
Bellingham to Vancouver. In addition, rural areas and smaller
towns in Washington are struggling to attract new housing
development and to provide housing for households at all
income levels.
After the global financial crisis and housing market crash in
2008, housing production in many places took years to recover
from the historic lows and credit freeze of the recession.
While the market was recovering, many Washington cities
experienced strong in -migration; generational preferences
and household demographics shifted toward walkable, urban
housing near transit and amenities; and competition for housing
intensified. The resulting imbalance in supply and demand for
urban, walkable housing led to rapidly rising rents and home
prices, increases in homelessness, and economic displacement
of lower -income families and communities of color.
While the current supply and demand imbalance was
exacerbated by the 2008-2009 recession, in the Seattle -Tacoma
metropolitan area and other western portions of the state, it
reflects a decades -long trend: restrictive local development
and land -use policies motivated by opposition to high -density,
affordable, or multi -family housing development in favor of
low -density, single-family homes. Local, anti -growth opposition
in established single-family neighborhoods has prevented the
addition of new units in high -opportunity areas. This has made
housing increasingly less affordable to young households and
those earning less than the median income, while home values
have risen largely for older, wealthier households who already
own homes in these areas.
In the Seattle -Tacoma metropolitan area, limitations on new
housing construction have translated into economic pain for
thousands of households in and around the region. In 2017,
48% of all Seattle metropolitan statistical area (MSA) renters
paid more than 30% of their incomes on housing, and HUD's
biannual count of people experiencing homelessness in King
County increased 15% from the prior year. News articles have
highlighted families doubled -up or living in their vehicles and
those who were pushed to the outer edges of the region in
search of more affordable housing. Additionally, the Washington
State Department of Transportation noted that vehicle miles
traveled on the five major Puget Sound highways increased
almost 2% from 2015 to 2017.
Some of the barriers to increasing housing production include:
Zoning restrictions, biased against high -density sites, that
prevent adding "missing middle" units in single-family
neighborhoods;
• Escalating and misaligned fee structures, such as impact
and linkage fees;
• Poorly calibrated inclusionary housing requirements;
• Lengthy review processes that invite gaming and abuse
by growth opponents.
Removing these artificial barriers to housing production in
Washington's highest -opportunity areas will ease the economic
and environmental pain felt by thousands of households across
the state. Overcoming the destructive narrative that new
housing overburdens schools, strains city finances, and makes
traffic worse will require a public conversation that focuses on
the benefits of delivering units as cost-effectively as possible
in areas residents want to live in. The findings in this report
emphasize the need to enact new public -private solutions that
increase the supply and reduce the cost of new housing in
Washington's urban centers.
Because Washington residents place a high premium on
protecting forestland and farmland, the state must make
the best use of the land inside each growth boundary. The
Accessible Growth scenario in this report describes what
is possible by reducing limitations on development and
constructing dense, new housing around transit corridors:
narrowing the gap between supply and demand; leveraging
existing roadway and sewer infrastructure and thereby reducing
infrastructure costs for local governments; and housing people
near jobs, transit, and in high opportunity neighborhoods.
Focusing on developing "missing middle" and medium -density
housing in underutilized sites and in transit corridors can reduce
transportation costs for households while creating net -positive
fiscal revenue for local governments. It also adds density in
single-family neighborhoods through accessory dwelling units
(ADUs), quads and garden -style apartments to increase density
in walkable, high -opportunity areas. ■
c
m
E
c�
Q
Packet Pg. 37
HOUSING UNDERPRODUCTION5
6.d
High housing cost burdens occur when incomes lag behind
rapidly rising rents and housing prices due to supply shortfalls.
Although incomes have begun to rise in recent years, they were
stagnant for several decades — while housing costs increased
at much higher rates. This divergence has led to increased cost
burdening rates across the state.
In every county in Washington at least 21% of households
experienced high cost burdening in 2017, and in the majority of
counties, more than 30% of households were cost burdened.
High spending on housing reduces funds available for
other family necessities, such as food, medical services,
transportation, childcare, and emergencies. Many Washington
households are just one emergency — perhaps an unexpected
car repair or medical bill — away from eviction or job loss. In
addition, point -in -time counts in Washington show that the
number of households experiencing homelessness statewide
increased almost 16% from 2017-2019, as more people become
priced out of their already precarious living situations. This
•
— Less Than 20%
21 % to 25%
26% to 30%
31 % to 40%
- More Than 40%
- No Data Available
instability is detrimental to job stability and to children's
educational outcomes. Access to safe, affordable housing sets
the foundation for economic mobility.
In addition to impacts on household affordability, this study seeks
to understand the social, economic, fiscal and environmental
implications of underproduction by assessing the potential for
housing production in the absence of regulatory and other supply
impediments. The study does not address complementary
uses, such as office, industrial, or hospitality development, that
would accompany an increase and redistribution of housing
units. There are likely significant impacts associated with those
related uses, but they have been excluded from the analysis.
For the purpose of this study, the focus is on understanding the
incremental impact related to housing. It should be noted that
this report is primarily interested in investigating the impact of
different models for growth, and is therefore not conducting
a policy analysis to determine the effectiveness of individual
policies to affect an increase in housing production. This is an
important area for future study. ■
PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT SPEND
MORE THAN 30% OF GROSS INCOME ON HOUSING, 2017
Source: St. Louis Federal Reserve GEFRED
MINN. +• "
6`�
E ■
s%, AN �. 2
VPy
■ill■ �
t
�i■ ■a ■ ■ � * r..
Yee;
.
l D
r
�■ `i ■'
■ ■■■ ■■■
l
o
1►-
W
■
COST BURDENING
Households are considered "cost -burdened" when they spend more than 30% of their gross income on housing expenses (not including
transportation costs). While it is a commonly used measure of the maximum amount that should be spent on housing, it fails to consider
that cost burdening disproportionately affects low-income households, who have very little discretionary income after paying for housing,
transportation, childcare, and medical expenses.
Packet Pg. 38
6 UP FOR GROWTH
Q
6.d
Up for Growth's national report on housing underproduction
was released in April 2018 and highlights the economic,
political and social consequences of housing underproduction
----------------
HOUSING caused by inefficient land -use policies
UNDERPRODUCTIONel,ti, and overly burdensome regulations.
A
It also demonstrates the potential
.,
economic, environmental, and fiscal
"• ds�" = benefits that could occur if housing
.. ..nn. w ■ '
development shifted from the status
quo to an Accessible Growth pattern,
similar to the one detailed in the
following pages.
The report calculates the total number of units underproduced
on a national level from 2000 to 2015 by using an econometric
statistical model to estimate each state's historic relationship
between the production of housing units and a host of
demand -side indicators. It approximates each state's baseline
housing production through 2000 and forecasts the number
of units that would have been produced in 2015 if each market
maintained the historical national average (supply elasticity).
Using the actual number of housing units in 2015, the report
calculated the total units that were under- or over -produced
from 2000 to 2015 at the state level.
The study finds that 23 states underproduced housing
units from 2000 to 2015. The remaining 27 states produced
enough housing at the statewide level, although there may be
imbalances and underproduction in certain cities within each
state. Residents facing supply shortages and price increases
in populous urban locations are not
DATA INPUTS TO helped by surplus housing elsewhere
THE MODEL INCLUDE:
in their state.
• HOME PRICES
• POPULATION The data needed to replicate the
• INCOME national report's methodology for
•HOUSING STOCK Washington are not available for
smaller units of geography (such as
counties). Recognizing that housing markets are regional and
need to be examined locally (rather than at the state level),
this report offers three different methods to evaluate the
imbalance in supply and demand at the county level, which
are detailed on pages 8 through 11. The remainder of the report
focuses on the economic, fiscal, and environmental benefits
of producing housing at the state level, using the statewide
underproduction figures from the national study. ■
225,600 WA UNITS UNDERPRODUCED
NUMBER OF NATIONAL HOUSING UNITS UNDERPRODUCED FROM 2000-2015
ESTIMATED REDUCTION IN STATEWIDE HOME PRICES
IF ALL UNITS PRODUCED OVER 20 YEARS*
21.7%
15.8%
c
13.4% c
_ 8.0%
73%
a
_ 7.0%
- 6.3%
c
a
c
05.5%
c
5.4%
5.0%
c
m
E
1 4.5%
a
14.3%
5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0%
*The chart above displays the states with the largest price reductions associated with developing their underproduced housing over the
20-year growth period. For example, if 225,600 units were built in Washington over the next 20 years, prices would be 4.3% lower than
they would have been absent this additional production of units. This does not mean that prices would be reduced from current levels, but
that prices would be lower in the future than they would have been due to the increase in the number of housing units.
Packet Pg. 39
HOUSING UNDERPRODUCTIO 7
6.d
RATIO OF HOUSING STARTS
TO HOUSEHOLD FORMATION
At its most basic level, a functioning housing market needs to
produce at least one new housing unit for each new household
formed. When factoring in demolition, second homes, changing
consumer preferences, and the deterioration of the existing
housing stock, this ratio actually needs to be higher than one-to-
one. Nationally, the historic ratio (from about 1960 to 2017) has
been closer to 1.1 housing units for every new household formed.
It is difficult to determine the appropriate ratio of housing
production to household formation for a given market, because
the variables are related (otherwise known in economics
as "endogenous"). This means that the rate of housing
production influences the rate of household formation and
vice versa.
Despite the complicated relationship, this simple ratio can
be a helpful guidepost for measuring underproduction.
Using this measure, it is clear that Washington State has
underproduced. From 2000-2017, the state produced
only 0.99 units for every household formed, including the
building boom, subsequent bust, and most recent increase
in housing construction. Although this time period includes
the building boom in the run up to the housing market crash,
this rate of production falls short of the national benchmark
by 11 units per 100 households.
During the recovery from the housing market crash —
from 2010 to 2017 — housing production fell further
behind household formation. Although it may seem like
development is thriving in some areas, many counties are
still not producing enough housing to meet new household
growth. Over this time period, only 10 of 39 counties
produced more than 1.1 units per new household. The map
below lists the ratio by county from 2010 to 2017 — statewide
68 units were produced for every 100 households formed.
COUNTY -LEVEL RATIO OF HOUSING UNITS VS. HOUSEHOLD FORMATION (2010-2017)
com .. ,
O.bS ry
San7ua Fer'
i 0.76
1.3� �f
1.6
Clallam Steven§11111
0.63 O:A't Snohomish 0.65
ish 1.08
Jefferson Douglas
0.71 0.86 Spokane
King i' 0.73
Masan Tr 0.65
0.62
Grays Grant
Harbor Kittitas 0.91
0.8 Pierce 0.66
Thurston 0.64 Whitman
0.76 0.32
_ Less than 0.5
Lewis
0.5 0.75 0.46 Yakima FraO 81�n Garfield
0.75-1.0 0.86 ' .
_ 1.0-1.1 Cowlitz Benton1 01 Wa 0W alla As 65n
0.66
_ More than 1.1
Decrease in households Clark 1.26
0.77 pj� — I
Source: U.S. Census, Washington Office of Financial Management
Packet Pg. 40
Q
8 UP FOR GROWTH
6.d
Washington's robust and growing economy has been fueled
by strong population growth. Simultaneously, however,
an increasing number of households are leaving the state
in search of more affordable housing options. Across
Washington, two themes have emerged: 1) highly populated
urban centers have seen home prices grow to an unsustainable
level while, 2) exurban and suburban areas have grown with
households seeking more affordable housing. This imbalance
leads to transportation and environmental challenges as
households are pushed farther away from jobs, education, and
economic opportunities.
Prior to the Great Recession, the statewide ratio of primary
jobs (which is different than total jobs because it does not
double count secondary or multiple part-time jobs, so is a
good measure of people with jobs) to housing units was about
one to one. More recently, the state has been adding jobs and
attracting newcomers at a greater rate: from 2010 to 2017, the
state added 2.24 primary jobs for every new housing unit.
Given the complex relationships of regional economies
throughout the state, it is not realistic to assume a perfect
balance of jobs and housing will occur in any area. Not every
person desires to live in the county where they work. This is
certainly the case in the high population centers where regional
economies straddle multiple counties. However, regional
imbalances between job growth and housing unit production
can cause problems for housing affordability as workers
compete for limited housing, for traffic as commuters drive
for housing, and for emissions as congestion worsens, among
other issues. Workers filling new jobs need some place to live.
The map below displays the location of employment (rather
than the workers' locations of residence), which is helpful in
understanding the transportation and environmental impacts
of an imbalance between jobs and housing. Some areas saw
less job growth than housing production (ratios below 1.0)
while others — like King County — saw far more new jobs than
new housing (more than 3.3).
In counties with large imbalances, rents and home prices
have rapidly increased and have even surpassed the previous
housing bubble's peak prices. If these ratios worsen in the short
run, substantive policy interventions may be necessary to bring
the ratio of jobs -to -units back into longer -term equilibrium. ■
COUNTY -LEVEL RATIO OF JOBS CREATED VS. HOUSING UNITS PRODUCED (2010-2017)
San Juan 11
0.76
a
C la lla m Islam
0.63 0.83
Jefferson ;
Kitsap
Mason 0_99
Grays
iFf
0.4A2.02
Harbor0.66
■
ific
Lew
4
1.03
- Greater than 3.0
4ahki
_ 2.0-3.0
aku
0.7
Cowlitz
- 1.0-2.0
1.95
0.5-1.0
Less than 0.5
No increase in jobs
or data not available
Whatcom
1.63 Ferry
Okanogan 0.98 Pend
ka 0.53 Oreille
s
v Stevens
nohomis �0.66
2.12
Chelan
1.93 i)oug�
.
2.34 Lincoln Spokane
Kittitas
IjPY121
ia2.9
Skamania
Klickitat
2.81
Grant
Adams
. r%N�
P
Franklin Garfield
1.45
Columbia
Benton Walla Walla 0.27
1-26 0.82
Q
Source: Washington Office of Financial Management, U.S. Census Bureau LEHD Origin -Destination Emp
Packet Pg. 41
HOUSING UNDERPRODUCTIO 9
6.d
The 225,600 units underproduced since 2000 represent the
need for a mix of housing — ownership and rental — that are
affordable to a range of incomes. The econometric model used
to calculate this underproduction relies on statewide data and
does not differentiate underproduction based on location
within the state, nor underproduction by price or income level.
While underproduction at the state level can help inform the
order of magnitude of needed housing, more geographic
specificity is required to create nuanced policy solutions. The
previous two county -level maps showing household formation
and job creation versus housing production provide a good
starting place to understand which counties experienced the
most underproduction.
To evaluate housing need by income and location, the following
approach measures the change over time in the number of
households at different Area Median Incomes (AMI) and the
change in the number of units affordable to those AMIs. If
housing markets were in equilibrium, the change in the number
of households should roughly correspond to a similar change
in the number of units. However, due to the mechanisms of
development feasibility requiring rents high enough to offset
the costs of borrowing and construction, most markets do not
operate in equilibrium and therefore do not provide enough
housing at the lowest income levels to meet the demand.
Using American Community Survey (ACS) county -level data
from the Census Bureau, this analysis evaluated the change
from 2000 to 2017 in the number of households by AMI level
UNIT
NEED
and the number of units that are affordable to rent at the
corresponding AMI levels (assuming households pay 30% of
gross income on housing costs). Because housing prices and
rents in Washington State have increased faster than incomes
over time, the prevalence of cost burdening has increased. This
analysis focuses on low- and moderate -income (80% or less
of AMI) renter households because they have been priced out
of many housing markets, as demand outpaced production
pushing prices upward. Quantifying the gap in housing that is
affordable at other income levels would be preferred (such as
renter households making 0-30% of AMI or 30-60% of AMI).
Unfortunately, the data does not permit the ability to accurately
distinguish need for these additional groups due to margins of
error in the data for small geographies.
CHANGE IN RENTAL UNITS AND RENTER HOUSEHOLDS
EARNING LESS THAN 80% AMI IN WASHINGTON STATE
° INCREASE IN UNMET NEED SINCE 2000
UNMET UNIT NEED IN 2000
I181K UNIT GAP
INCREASE
UNITS THAT ARE AFFORDABLE
2000 2017 L
Source: ECONorthwest
KING COUNTY
105,000 UNITS
10 UP FOR GROWTH
6.d
This approach finds that many counties throughout the state
did not produce enough units affordable to renter households
earning 80% or less of AMI to meet the growing number of
households in these income brackets. Since 2000, the state
underproduced 181,000 rental units for households earning
80% or less of AMI relative to the increase in the number of
households formed in these income levels.
These 181,000 units are equivalent to about 80% of the
225,600 units underproduced statewide over the 2000-
2015 time period. The remaining 20% are a mix of ownership
product and workforce rental units affordable to households
earning more than 80% of AMI.
The chart on the prior page shows the variation between
the number of households formed (80% AMI and below)
and the number of units that are affordable to this income
group for each county. The calculated 181,000 units are not
representative of total need, but rather the increase in need
since 2000 for individual counties statewide.
Urban counties with the highest populations throughout the
state account for the majority of the underproduced rental units
for households earning less than 80% of AMI. To represent the
need for units in counties with vastly different populations, the
map below shows the underproduced rental housing as a share
of the total renter households earning less than 80% in 2017.
For example, based on this analysis there were 105,000 units
underproduced in King County. There were 223,400 renter
households earning less than 80% of AMI in 2017, so the
underproduced units are equivalent to about 61% of all renter
households. This analysis demonstrates the need for more
rental units available to households earning less than 80% of
AMI in the most populous areas of the state. ■
UNITS UNDERPRODUCED FROM 2000 TO 2017
AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL RENTER HOUSEHOLDS EARNING BELOW 80% AMI
SANJUAN
24%
&061166
JEFFERSON
7%
MASO
33%
GRAYS
HARBOR
19%
PERCENTAGE OF STOCK PACIFIC
UNDERPRODUCED
12000-20171
WAHKIAKUM
0% - 5% 14%
6% - 25%
26% - 45%
46% - 60%
_ 61%-65%
NO UNDERPRODUCTION
WHATCOM
13%
SKAGIT
ISLAND
SNOHOMISH
__.
CHELAN
2%
LEWIS
34 , SKAMANIA
4°/a
CLARK
42%
KITTITAS
B%
YAKIMA
2%
KLICKITAT
15%
OKANOGAN
5%
DOUGLAS
11%
GRANT
PEND
FERRY
OREILLE
33%
9%
STEVENS
SPOKANE
LINCOLN
2%
21%
ADAMS WHITMAN 'D
4% 14%
a
c
.N
3
FRANKLIN GARFIELD =
COLUMBIA;
BENTON WALLA WALLA ASOT IN
° 11 /o E
b /° 15%
t
V
fC
The shaded colors represent each county's shortage of housing for households earning at or below 80% of AMI as a percent of the total
number of households at or below 80% of AMI.
Q
Source: U.S. Census, Washington Office
Packet Pg. 43
HOUSING UNDERPRODUCTIO 11
6.d
These three different methods for calculating the
underproduction of housing (1. The national estimate using a
statistical model; 2., The ratio of housing starts to household
formation; and, 3., The rate of change in households earning
at or below 80% AMI and the units affordable to them) all
demonstrate the same trend: Washington State has not
produced enough housing since 2000 to meet demand in
different counties and at different income levels.
Given three different lenses into Washington's housing
underproduction, the rest of this report analyzes two potential
development scenarios that quantify how the 225,600
statewide housing units could be developed if there were
fewer land use regulatory barriers in place.
The report constructs two development scenarios to test the
implications of policies that encourage housing production in a
denser, more cost efficient manner, compared to an approach
that perpetuates the development patterns seen since World
War ll, which favors detached single-family homes. The report
then compares the economic, fiscal, and environmental
impacts associated with the two development patterns. The
report finds that continuing to build the same types of units
in the same location is unlikely to provide a feasible solution
that delivers a range of housing units along the entire income
spectrum of households.
The two development scenarios are:
• A More of the Same approach distributes housing and
density as they have been in the past, compared to
• An Accessible Growth approach that leverages existing
infrastructure by building housing at higher densities
around high -capacity transit and in high -opportunity
neighborhoods.
It is important to note that both scenarios produce the same
number of total housing units. The differences lie in the varied
building prototypes — single-family homes, "missing middle"
and medium -density housing, and residential towers — that
would be produced in each scenario (See pages 14-15 for details
on the building prototypes).
To distribute this new housing development, the 2015 housing
density is calculated in Units Per Acre (UPA) at the census
"block group" level — an area with 600 to 3,000 people that
varies in size based on population density. To account for areas
that cannot easily accommodate additional development (i.e.
water, wetlands) and with a goal of preserving natural areas
(forests and farmland), the housing density is adjusted using
the 2011 National Land Coverage Database's satellite imagery
data to include only those areas considered to be "developed."
HOUSING UNITS PER ACRE (ADJUSTED FOR BUILDABLE LAND), SEATTLE METRO AREA
ADJUSTED DENSITY:
Less Than 1
1-2.9
3-4.9
- 5-12.49
_ 12.5-29.99
_ 30 or More
rAW
Q
Source: NLCD 2011, U.S. Census
12 UP FOR GROWTH
Packet Pg. 44
6.d
To take advantage of existing infrastructure and to avoid
increasing the footprint of land required to accommodate
additional units, new development is not added in areas
with density below one UPA. The map on the prior page
shows the existing adjusted housing density for the Seattle
Metro Area.
MORE OF THE SAME GROWTH The More of the Same
Growth scenario looks at the current share of single-
family homes, "missing middle" and medium -density units,
and high-rise towers across the state, and assigns new
growth proportionally above the threshold of one UPA. For
example, if the state has only 5% of dwelling units in high-
rise towers, it will get 5% of new growth as high-rise towers.
Building prototype proportions are estimated using the
matrix on page 15, which uses examples from the existing
built environment and block group densities from 2010 to
determine the estimated mix (See page 15 for more details
on prototype selection).
ACCESSIBLE GROWTH The Accessible Growth scenario
assigns new housing units based on a formula of existing
density, distance to transit stops, and the share of
commuters in the census block group who drive their
own vehicles to work. The goal of the Accessible Growth
scenario is to increase density in a way that conforms with
the existing urban form, focusing on delivering lower -cost
mid -rise units, and most importantly, locating units in
transit corridors to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and
the number of cars on the road. In order to achieve these
goals, unit distribution was prioritized in:
Locations within a quarter mile of existing transit
stations;
2. Locations within a half mile of a high -capacity transit
station;
3. Non -transit corridor locations with a low share of
people using private transportation to commute to
work (A proxy for low VMT, described on pages 16
and 17).
The majority of units (77%) were assigned within one mile
of transit stations due to the low share of private vehicle
commuters. Throughout Washington state, 57% of units
were located within a half mile of stations, and 39% of units
were within a quarter mile of transit stations. To achieve
higher densities in priority areas, the addition of new units
could triple existing density within the first quarter mile
of transit stations (subject to a cap of 150 UPA) and could
double existing density from a quarter mile to half mile
(subject to a cap of 120 UPA). ■
SEATTLE ACCESSIBLE GROWTH SCENARIO
4
or
ACCESSIBLE GROWTH
TOTAL UNITS ADDED
Less Than 1,000
1,001-2,000
- 2,001-3,000
- 3,001-4,000
_ More Than 4,000
This map displays where new units would be built in Seattle under an
Accessible Growth scenario. As the map demonstrates, new housing
units are distributed near high -capacity transit areas and in areas that
already have high -density towers to align with the current built form.
Q
Packet Pg. 45
HOUSING UNDERPRODUCTIO 3
6.d
id..10-Ai
From an urban planning and design perspective, the
additional units built in each block group match the existing
housing prototypes observed in that block group. The goal
is to minimize neighborhood opposition, where adding new
high -density housing units in block groups with mostly single-
family homes would drastically change the neighborhood
composition. Each block group is assigned a prototype
distribution based on the existing density of that block group
(which can be seen on the matrix on page 15). The cutoffs
for the prototypes were determined by looking at satellite
imagery of block groups and attempting to find breakpoints
that matched the existing distribution of prototypes.
The images on page 15 demonstrate examples of existing
neighborhoods with different levels of housing density. The
image on the left is the upper limit of density — showing
a block group with 150 units per adjusted acre. Adjusted
densities measure gross land and include right of ways
and other non-residential uses. The achievable density on
a residential parcel in this area is higher than the average
density for the block group. The picture on the right shows a
block group with 30 units per adjusted acre. In the Accessible
Growth scenario, block groups with more than 30 units per
acre will receive additional housing units until they look
more like the picture on the left. Similarly, block groups with
density between 12.5 and 30 units per acre (less dense than
the photo on the right), would receive a variety of "missing
middle" housing to achieve higher densities. The table on
page 15 details this density distribution.
Each growth scenario builds the same number of total units,
but differs on the types of prototypes built (single-family
homes, medium -density units and towers). Each development
prototype has different construction costs and different
infrastructure investment requirements. The two different
growth scenarios allow for comparison of the same number
of units produced with different development patterns.
For example:
• Infill projects located in urban cores do not require new
roads and require only minor infrastructure investment
compared to fringe and greenfield developments.
• Building near transit infrastructure reduces vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) and emissions (See discussion on page 16).
• "Missing middle" housing can be built in high -opportunity
single-family neighborhoods and can be built at a lower
cost per unit than the existing stock of housing. These units
can also be well -integrated into existing neighborhoods.
• Obtaining better balance between jobs and housing
improves agglomeration benefits and reduces the traffic
congestion in a region.
c
a�
E
t
c�
Q
14 UP FOR GROWTH
Packet Pg. 46
6.d
DENSITY DISTRIBUTION & PROTOTYPE MATRIX
30.0+ Units per acre
12.5-30 Units per acre
5.0-12.5 Units per acre MMA
3.0-5.0 Units per acre
1.0-3.0 Units per acre
Less Than 1.0 UPA
The table above shows the prototype distribution for the
Accessible Growth scenario. Block groups with more than 30 UPA
see 100% of new units added in towers, until they reach the density
threshold for that scenario based on the location of the block
group. The scenario distribution then moves to the next -densest
block group and adds units in a 50% tower and 50% medium -
density mix. This continues further, adding additional medium -
density units and, finally, single-family units until the total number
of units underproduced has been allocated. The net result of the
prototype allocation is to achieve higher densities than what is
currently observed by including a mix of units to better utilize the
existing infrastructure.
WASHINGTON PROTOTYPE DISTRIBUTIOI
BY GROWTH SCENARIO
TO
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
MORE OF THE SAME ACCESSIBLE GROWTH
= SFH = Medium = Tower
The More of the Same scenario does not use a distribution are allocated in each growth scenario. Continuing a More
mechanism because it assigns new growth proportionally based of the Same approach throughout Washington state would
on the currently observed distribution of prototypes. For example, deliver 68% of new units as single-family homes. Under the
an area with only 5% of units in high-rise towers will see that same Accessible Growth scenario, single-family homes would
share of new units built as high-rise towers. be reduced to just 8% of newly produced units. Accessible
Growth focuses on delivering more "missing middle" units,
The chart demonstrates this distribution pattern, showing how increasing these units to 54%, as opposed to just 29% in a
many towers, medium -density units, and single-family homes More of the Same approach. ■
HOUSING UNDERPRODUCTIO
5
The goal of the Accessible Growth scenario is to generate
more high -density, transit -oriented housing while improving
economic, fiscal, and environmental impacts compared to the
More of the Same scenario. The Accessible Growth scenario,
therefore, prioritizes assigning unit growth in existing high -
density areas in transit corridors. At its most basic level,
Accessible Growth achieves higher density than current
housing development patterns, and therefore requires less land
to accommodate the same number of units. In Washington,
Accessible Growth requires just 12% of the land area needed in
the More of the Same scenario. Utilizing less land means higher
economic efficiency for local jurisdiction service delivery, as
well as environmental benefits such as storm water remediation
and undisturbed land for forestry and farming.
In addition to land -use benefits, locating housing near public
transportation reduces the burden of cars on the road. To
quantify the benefits of locating housing units in transportation
corridors, a first -of -its -kind model was developed to estimate
the VMT of a neighborhood based on the characteristics of the
built environment at the census tract level. The study finds a
very strong relationship between VMT and the proportion of
households who commute by car and truck (also known as
"commute mode split") as demonstrated by the scatterplots
on page 17.
HOME -BASED VMT
PER HOUSING UNIT
_ Less Than 10
- 10-20
= Greater than 50
The map below shows commuting VMT for the Seattle Area,
with transit stations overlaid. The green and blue areas near
transit demonstrate where Accessible Growth units would be
prioritized for distribution. These areas have very low VMTs of
about 10 miles. By prioritizing housing in areas with transit and
low VMTs, the Accessible Growth scenario would result in 2.3
million fewer miles traveled daily for commuters compared to
the More of the Same scenario. This difference is equivalent to
74,000 fewer cars on the road annually.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF ACCESSIBLE GROWTH:
LOWER VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
OM
Q
16 UP FOR GROWTH
Packet Pg. 48
The Accessible Growth approach has the largest increase in
transit corridor density. With the relationship between VMT and
commute mode split clearly demonstrated, increasing density
in transit corridors would be an important way to reduce VMT
and leverage public infrastructure investments.
The scatterplots below compare housing density and daily
commuting VMT for transit corridors (dark blue dots) and non -
transit corridors (light blue dots) in Washington at the block -
group level. These scatterplots demonstrate that commuting
VMTs are lower in transit corridors than in non -transit corridors,
with a median of 16 VMT and 29 VMT, respectively. They also
show that the median transit corridor block group has a higher
housing density than the median non -transit corridor block
group, with eight units per acre compared to two units per acre,
respectively. In addition:
■ The majority of transit corridor block groups have VMT
below 20 miles.
■ Almost all the transit corridor block groups have low
commute mode splits (under 50%).
■ Almost all the highest -density block groups are in transit
corridors.
■ There are few outliers in either scatterplot, indicating
strong relationships between VMT and housing density
and between VMT and commute mode split.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMMUTERS WHO DRIVE
AND PREDICTED VMT IN WASHINGTON
40 Within 1/4 Mile of HC Transit
Outside 1/4 Mile of HC Transit
40
201
The Accessible Growth strategy has numerous benefits
beyond increasing Gross State Product, jobs, tax revenues and
housing density. The Accessible Growth strategy also delivers
meaningful environmental benefits compared to the More of
the Same housing development pattern. ■
ACCESSIBLE GROWTH BENEFITS
VMT PER DAY CARS PER YEAR
MEDIAN HOUSING 99TH % HOUSING
DENSITY DENSITY
OUTSIDE 1/4 MILE
1.5
11.3
WITHIN 1/4 MILE
7.9
52.2
MEDIAN VMT
99TH % VMT
OUTSIDE 1/4 MILE
29.7
58.9
WITHIN 1/4 MILE
16.9
30.5
40
20
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HOUSING DENSITY
AND PREDICTED VMT IN WASHINGTON
a
0 25% 50% 75% 100%
PERCENT OF COMMUTERS WHO DRIVE
0 20
HOUSING DENSITY
Packet Pg. 49
HOUSING UNDERPRODUCTIO 17
6.d
As cities grew in the post -World War II era, high rates of new
housing unit growth paid for costly infrastructure projects that
were generally funded by local governments with federal- and
state -level subsidies. More recently, as rates of growth have
decreased, cities have struggled with funding new infrastructure
to support growth. This forms a classic "Catch-22."
COMPARING GROWTH SCENARIO IMPACTS
22K A
new single-family homes have increased faster than inflation
over the past decade. Nationally, 60% of new single-family
homes are priced at more than $300,000, 20% higher than at
the peak of the previous housing bubble.
Remedying the problem requires cities and municipalities
to compare the cost of developing new infrastructure to the
associated fee revenues from that development. What are
the infrastructure costs and tax revenues from a single-family
home in a greenfield, and how does that compare to the
costs and revenues associated with medium- or high -density
development in the urban core?
22.5E 1.50B In the early stages of sprawl, new growth fueled the expansion,
while long-term maintenance obligations had not yet been
528M 64M incurred, so net -negative infrastructure costs were still a minor
issue. However, this dynamic is changing, and infrastructure
Infrastructure is needed to make greenfield development possible,
but the cost of infrastructure limits the ability to develop in these
"green fields" In most cities and metro areas around the country,
the prime developable areas have already been consumed. The
remaining areas available for development either require costly
infrastructure upgrades or are faraway from existing infrastructure.
As a result, the cost -per -unit of infrastructure has increased over
time as homes are built even farther from urban cores.
Cities and local governments have reacted to higher infrastructure
costs in rational ways: by raising fees to cover the higher costs
of installing new infrastructure. However, this response ignores
difficult questions: Do the revenues generated by new units
support the up -front costs? More importantly, do recurring
incremental revenues cover the continued public operations and
maintenance costs of this new infrastructure?
The short answer to both questions is `no,' particularly for
low -density housing in greenfield locations that requires new
infrastructure. Because infrastructure costs for a single-family
home typically exceed the local government revenues collected
from such a home, municipal debt is used to finance the required
infrastructure. However, adding new debt service limits the ability
to properly maintain existing facilities, which leads to increased
costs for deferred maintenance. In the long run, an existing
property tax base consisting of primarily single-family homes
cannot support the installation of new infrastructure as well as the
deferred maintenance costs of all the existing roads, sewers, and
other infrastructure.
Continuing to build new housing units away from the existing
infrastructure in urban cores not only fails to remedy the problem,
it exacerbates it. Consequently, development costs and prices of
costs must rise to cover the costs of ongoing operations
and maintenance.
Cities now face unfunded operating liabilities that will require
new units to bring in more revenues to cover the associated
costs of installing and operating the infrastructure that services
each unit. This profitability is necessary if there is hope to
"right -size" municipal budget problems, and there are several
ways to do this:
• Growth policies can target areas that already have
existing infrastructure, thereby reducing the demand for
increased infrastructure investment.
• Policies can also set impact and development fees on a
per -acre, gross land, or square -foot basis, rather than a
per -unit basis to reflect the true infrastructure costs and
support density.
This report demonstrates that changing development
patterns for the 225,600 units that were underproduced a
in Washington state can have positive effects for local
rn
government infrastructure funding. If these units are built in c
an Accessible Growth pattern, 88% less land would be needed =
compared to building in a More of the Same approach (2,700
acres compared with 22,300 acres). Furthermore, the cost E
of infrastructure is 15 times smaller in the Accessible Growth UM
approach — $1.5 billion compared with $22.5 billion in the Q
More of the Same approach. ■
18 UP FOR GROWTH
Packet Pg. 50
6.d
This study is the first to use the Regional Economic Model (REMI)
to simulate large-scale housing development. REMI is a structural
representation of a regional economy and uses publicly available
data to build an economic forecast. Variables can be altered to
reflect changes in public policy (e.g., lower taxes, new regulation,
or new consumer preferences). The model simulates the
economic impacts of such policy changes and produces a new
forecast capturing these effects. By comparing the simulated
forecast to the baseline forecast, the economic impacts of the
policies modeled can be quantified.
The model contains feedback loops to capture the cumulative
impacts of development spending, as well as any time -based
changes to the structure of the economy, such as migration,
induced demand, lower costs, supply chain spending, and tax
effects, among others. Any change to one sector of the economy
will ripple through the others. This is beneficial, as the model is
able to capture the relationships between different economic and
demographic changes, such as migration, government spending,
personal income, and more.
The Accessible Growth scenario produces a substantial boost
to economic growth: A housing expansion under this scenario
would produce a $102 billion cumulative increase in Washington
GSP through 2037 compared to the baseline economic forecast.
�> .�
■�
i., M
i.r .E iR i�i .•, � *� �at fir+ ��f ■� �
ir • 1 ►ti
ASSUMPTIONS
0
HARD CONSTRUCTION COSTS Calculated based on industry Q
standards for the three different housing prototypes and varied 06
%
across each state. Q.
a
SOFT CONSTRUCTION COSTS Primarily architecture, engineer- in
ing, and legal costs (excluding financial costs), assumed as a
percentage of hard costs.
o
INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS Includes installation costs and =
ongoing operations and maintenance costs. Paid for by impact o
fees estimated by state. Assumes government sector pays for
infrastructure not covered by impact fees, through bond issuance.. e
SOURCE: Arup Engineering based on real data from developments in California, adjusted regionally.
1b ADDITIONAL HOUSING PRODUCTION PER YEAR
16,000 MAX 7% OF
UNDERPRODUCTION
14,000
12,000 11,282
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,256
2,000 ■ ■
15,795
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
The model phases in new housing development over a 20-year period beginning in 2018 since underproduction was calculated through
2015. It is not reasonable to assume the housing construction industry could immediately start producing new units on this scale.
The industry — including producers up the supply chain — needs time to recruit and train new employees and to increase supplies of
raw materials.
s
a
Packet Pg. 51
HOUSING UNDERPRODUCTIO 9
6.d
The report describes the environmental and local government
financing impacts of these two development patterns. This
section describes the economic impacts of developing 225,600
units in Washington State via either the Accessible Growth or the
More of the Same approach.
The Accessible Growth scenario generates greater economic
benefits compared to the More of the Same scenario. Rather than
generating debt to finance infrastructure costs, leveraging existing
infrastructure is a far more efficient use of scarce resources. By
doing this, the Accessible Growth pattern focuses on generating
consumer spending to benefit the regional economy.
Additionally, the Accessible Growth development approach
provides more tax revenue -generating units while requiring less
infrastructure. Because the Accessible Growth scenario adds
additional housing to the densest areas in transit corridors,
it leverages existing infrastructure, while providing more tax
revenue per acre. Thus, development in the Accessible Growth
scenario requires fewer borrowing costs and places a smaller
burden on local governments and property developers on a
per -unit basis. With much of this infrastructure already in place,
building density of this type in cities around the state would
PRODUCTION - Awp_
c
o
N
7
Increased housing production reduces housing prices, which
.N
increases personal income and spending, and increases GSP,
which creates more jobs.
L
not require a radical restructuring of existing land -use and 0
zoning policies. Q
08
21
Over the simulated 20-year period of housing production, a
the Accessible Growth scenario generates $25 billion more in
in cumulative GSP ($102 billion) compared to a More of the am
c
Same scenario ($77 billion). With lower up -front infrastructure 'rn
costs and reduced operating and maintenance costs =
associated with development, this scenario deploys capital
0
more efficiently and produces higher economic output. r
' j WASHINGTON CUMULATIVE GROSS STATE PRODUCT BY SCENARIO
20-YEAR PRODUCTION PERIOD COMPARED TO REMI BASELINE FORECAST
$100
$BO
$60
$40
$20
0
$102
$77
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
= ACCESSIBLE GROWTH = MORE OF THE SAME GROWTH
Q
This chart demonstrates the cumulative GSP achieved in each of the growth scenarios. The growth in GSP is measured against the REMI
model's baseline forecast.
Packet Pg. 52
20 UP FOR GROWTH
6.d
The Accessible Growth scenario produces greater economic
benefits than the More of the Same approach. This scenario
targets development in transit corridors (areas with existing
transportation infrastructure and a large number of households
commuting by public transit).
As the 225,600 underproduced housing units are built over the
20-year growth period in each scenario, more jobs are added
to the economy above the REMI model's baseline forecast.
Jobs should not be thought of as cumulative impacts. It's not
uncommon for one individual to be employed by the same
company for several years, so it's difficult to trace the number
of individuals employed year by year. Looking at employment
impacts, one can see how many additional jobs are supported in
the Accessible Growth development scenario compared to the
model's baseline forecast in each year of the production period.
For example, at the peak job year (2025), Accessible Growth
creates 71,000 more jobs than the REMI baseline forecast, while
the More of the Same scenario only generates 65,000.
To summarize, both growth scenarios lead to large economic
benefits for the state economy compared to the REMI baseline
forecast. Producing 225,600 housing units (in addition to
expected development over the next 20 years) provides a boost
to state and local economies and fiscal revenues. However, there
is opportunity for greater economic growth, fiscal health, and
environmental benefits by implementing an Accessible Growth
development scenario that distributes the new growth in areas
with existing density and transportation infrastructure. ■
S% ACCESSIBLE GROWTH ANNUAL INCREASE IN JOBS STATEWIDE
r 20-YEAR PRODUCTION PERIOD COMPARED TO REMI BASELINE FORECAST
70
N
60
0
0
H
5
0
0
0
40
VJ
f0
CD
30
d
cc
20
CD
d
E
a
10
E
W
f0
0
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Illllllllllllllli A
MEN EMENEEMENEEMEN Q
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
This chart demonstrates the increase in "job years" above the REMI model baseline projections resulting from the Accessible Growth
scenario. Job years are an economic measure representing one year's worth of full-time work. One job year could be one person working
full time for one year, or two people working half time for one year. The increases in jobs correlate with the 20-year development time
frame and span every sector.
Packet Pg. 53
HOUSING UNDERPRODUC I IUN IN WASHINU1
Throughout this report, the benefits of the Accessible Growth
alternative are evaluated against the More of the Same
approach. The economic impacts of both scenarios are similar,
but stark differences emerge when looking at the fiscal impacts
of each scenario.
The location and type of construction of the Accessible Growth
scenario contribute to greater local and state revenues via
higher property tax, Business and Occupancy (B & 0) tax, and
sales tax. Over the 20 year production period, this means an
additional $1 billion in cumulative property tax revenues in the
Accessible Growth scenario compared to the More of the Same
scenario. Accessible Growth also generates more B & 0 tax
and sales tax revenues through the 20-year production period,
generating nearly $700 million of additional state revenue
compared to the More of the Same approach.
WASHINGTON STATE REVENUE
43 CUMULATIVE 20-YEAR PRODUCTION
BILLIONS FIXED, 2016
MORE OF THE SAME
3.813
BLE GROWTH
B & 0 TAX M STATE SALES TAX
4.513
The red represents cumulative business and occupation (B & 0) tax,
and the blue area represents total sales taxes. Corporate taxes and
other federal revenue sources are not shown in these calculations.
The Infrastructure Spending section on page 18 describes the
costs and revenues associated with installing the infrastructure
required in each growth scenario. The chart below evaluates
the net fiscal impacts of each scenario — combining property
tax revenues with impact fee revenues and subtracting
infrastructure spending and the ongoing operations and
maintenance costs.
0
l�
While the two growth scenarios generate roughly the same in
local government revenues, the Accessible Growth scenario
requires 93% less local government spending over the 20
year development period, due to less upfront infrastructure
installation costs and less ongoing Operations and Maintenance
(0 & M) costs. With such high upfront and ongoing infrastructure
costs, revenues generated from the More of the Same approach
are insufficient, and local governments would need to continue
to rely on debt to finance this type of growth.
In order to determine the incremental impact of new
development, the cost of constructing the required
infrastructure and the ongoing operations and maintenance
costs are subtracted from the total revenue generated by the
new development. Although the More of the Same approach
generates more impact fees, these increased fees do not
nearly cover the required infrastructure investments to support
this type of low -density growth. Accessible Growth is able to
leverage existing infrastructure to limit installation costs and
0 & M costs while adding additional revenue. The result is a net -
positive fiscal impact for Accessible Growth, providing local
governments with the revenue needed to continue investing in
services to attract and support growth. ■
COMPARING SCENARIO IMPACTS
1
- 11
,
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
REVENUES
Total Impact Fees
$3.1B
$2.1B
7
-31%
Property Tax Revenue (20 Yrs.)
$6.3113
$7.3113
15%
TOTAL
$9.4B
$9.401
-0.2%
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
EXPENDITURES
Total Infrastructure Spend
$22.5B
$1.56
-93%
Total 0 & M Spend
$528M
$64M
-88%
TOTAL
$23.OB
$1.6B
-93%
NET REVENUE (REVENUES - EXPENDITURES)
Packet Pg. 54
c
E
a
22 UP FOR GROWTH
6.d
Washington has seen robust job and population growth as
entrepreneurs, high -skilled workers, and businesses flock to
the state. With the increase in jobs, economic activity, and new
residents, innovative policies are needed inside urban areas
to maximize access to affordable homes so that Washington
maintains its high quality of life for the next generation.
Beyond conversations about subsidized housing, housing
policy and land -use decisions have largely been left to local
governments. At a time when many local governments find
themselves paralyzed from making meaningful reforms by a loud
but vocal minority motivated to protect and preserve an unfair
and unsustainable status quo, a leadership opportunity has
emerged for state officials to speak directly and substantively
about the need for novel solutions to a growing crisis.
In the end, solving the housing crisis will require a reimagining of
how state and local investments can help make population- and
job -centers more accessible to people and families across the
income spectrum. This reimagining relies on local jurisdictions
having access to new resources that will allow them to meet
their housing needs in new ways.
Partnerships between the public and private sectors can bolster
local jurisdictions' motivation to make the needed changes in
their land -use regulations and turbocharge private -sector
production of more housing where it is needed most.
Achieving the right balance of incentives to bring down
artificially inflated development costs of new housing in urban
centers can help ensure more units are built affordably. Cities
can incentivize housing production to meet demand, and the
state can incentivize cities to utilize a set of tools that allow
them to do so without forfeiting their ability to meet their
environmental and fiscal obligations.
Policy concepts include:
• Creating incentives for localities to produce more private
sector housing in under -developed, high -opportunity
areas;
• Implementing clear and objective state development
standards in high -opportunity areas — especially those
near transit centers;
• Providing for planned -action, area -wide environmental
review in the permitting process;
• Impact fee reform that allows municipalities flexibility
when charging fees on denser development while at the
same time continuing to realize revenue to fund ongoing
maintenance liabilities and environmental mitigation;
• Providing support to local jurisdictions to broaden
permissiveness of building and operating additional
dwelling units in single -family -zoned neighborhoods.
The table below is a four -pronged policy prescription
for achieving higher densities and more housing units,
through smarter growth in transit corridors and urban infill
development. ■
n�
C
UP FOR GROWTH'
Citizens Housing Commission Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/12/2020
Presentation of any Refinements/Additions to Policy Ideas
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Citizens Housing Commission
Prepared By: Debbie Rothfus
Background/History
The Housing Commission has been working on policy ideas, in part through small policy committees.
The committees bring back their ideas to the full Commission in a public meeting.
Staff Recommendation
Consider any new or refined policy ideas, particularly from the Round 2 set of ideas, along with the one
new idea (regarding security deposit options for renters) presented on October 29.
Narrative
Policy committees have been asked to transfer their ideas, with any refinements, to a new template
(attached) for Commission consideration as a draft policy proposal. Policy committee will be getting
their draft proposals (based on previous policy ideas but with any refinements) ready for the
Commission's November 19 meeting.
On November 12, the Commission will hear from Councilmember Distelhorst about one of the
Commission's ideas that have been discussed by a board on which he represents the City. (See
attachment.) Then any policy committees that have been working on an update to their Round 2 ideas
(see attached list) will share key information. The committee leads will identify whether any of their
Round 2 ideas have been --or may be --revised and whether any ideas are not planned to move forward.
A brief time will follow each committee's updates for commissioners to ask questions or provide
comments.
At a future meeting, the Commission will have more discussion and select which draft policy proposals
should be circulated for community input. Then after receiving community input, the Commission may
update their draft proposals and finalize them for the City Council's consideration in 2021.
In 2021, it will be up to the City Council to further review and decide on the recommendations. Taking
action on any of the recommendations would include more public input.
Attachments:
Template.Draft Policy Recommendation_10.06.20
AHA Letter - Council
Round2.Policyldeas_11.09.20
Packet Pg. 57
7.a
October 6, 2020
Template for Each Draft Policy Recommendation
--To Be Completed by Committee Lead or Designee --
INTERNAL INFORMATION'
Name of Committee
Names of Committee Members (underline name of Committee Lead)
EXTERNAL INFORMATION Z
Short Name of Draft Policy:
Draft Policy (State the policy language, as much as possible, the way you would want it provided to the
public and City Council):
OPTIONAL INFORMATION 3
(Here you can add background information, explain your purpose, or whatever you want to share about
the draft policy. This part may be incorporated into a narrative that explains the policy but it is NOT the
policy itself.)
1 Internal information" will not be included in the Commission's final recommendations. However, it is always part
of the public record.
z "External Information" (with any updates) will be included in the Commission's final recommendations.
3 The Commission has only been asked for "policy recommendations", not a report. Committees are not obligated
to complete "Optional Information". However, such info may help provide context for further discussion.
Packet Pg. 58
7.b
Arlington -Edmonds-4Everett-4Granite Falls -Housing Authority of Snohomish County -A
AHA ALoke Stevens ALynnwood-4Marysville -4Mill Creek-4Mountlake Terrace A
Alliance for-4Mukilteo ASnohomish -Snohomish County-4Stanwood-AWoodway A
Housing
Affordability
Snohomish County Council
3000 Rockefeller Ave.
M/S 609
Everett, WA 98201
October 30, 2020
The Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA), a collaboration of local municipal governments, was
formed in 2013 to address the issue of our housing affordability crisis in Snohomish County. One of the
major needs in housing affordability is the commitment of local policy and funding. RCW 82.14.530,
amended by HB 1590 in the 2020 Legislative Session, provides the opportunity for legislative bodies like
the Snohomish County Council to address the need for local funding for affordable housing.
Today, the AHA Joint Board writes to encourage Council action on this issue as an important and needed
step to address the County's growing housing affordability crisis.
Data that shows the need for affordable housing is exhaustive and widely available, notably in the
Snohomish County HART report. That data clearly and strongly speaks to the need for increased
affordability across the socio-economic spectrum. Instead of retreading that ground, AHA would like to
draw attention to three perspectives that we believe makes clear the need to support adoption of a 0.1 %
sales tax for affordable housing.
Housing Affordability Deserves a Response Like Any Disaster
The first perspective is best framed through this question: "What response would we expect if the
Cascadia earthquake happened tomorrow and thousands of Snohomish County residents were suddenly in
need of assistance?" One would hope that funding from all levels of government- local, state, and federal
- would flow to the region to assist those suddenly displaced by the disaster. This need would be both
immediate (emergency shelter) and long-term (as the region's economy would suffer for years after).
Wouldn't it be appropriate to raise funds from the public to render assistance to those in need in that case?
We hope the answer to that question is, "It would be appropriate, and expected, for that aid to be
rendered."
If help would be appropriate in event of an earthquake, what do we say to the thousands of households
struggling despite their 40+ hours of work a week? The thousands who are currently homeless, or soon to
be made so by COVID-19's economic impacts? A common refrain, heard for many years, is to "Pull
yourself up by your bootstraps," or simply "Go live somewhere else." Would we say that to residents
displaced by an earthquake? Is this difference in response because of the slow-motion nature of the
current housing crisis compared to the immediacy of an earthquake? Is it because we simply view the
growing number of our affected friends, neighbors, and coworkers as undeserving? Or is it something
else? This question bears discussion.
If Not Now, When?
Setting disaster aside, consider one common reason to reject tax measures: "Now is not the time for a tax
increase." If not now, when? When would be the appropriate time for the County Council to use its
councilmanic authority to raise taxes? Is the answer, "When times are better, and the economy is
stronger"? If that is the case, we would like to encourage the County Council to consider the 8%
`banking' of councilmanic property taxes (last done in Ordinance No. 19-065). There were surely good
Packet Pg. 59
7.b
Arlington -Edmonds-4Everett-4Granite Falls -Housing Authority of Snohomish County -A
AHA ALoke Stevens ALynnwood-4Marysville -4Mill Creek-4Mountlake Terrace A
Alliance for-4Mukilteo ASnohomish -Snohomish County-4Stanwood-AWoodway A
Housing
Affordability
reasons at the time to bank that taxing authority despite a strong economy, just as there are good
arguments today. Putting it all together, it appears that no time will feel right to raise taxes, and in that
case, then today is as good as any other time to adopt this measure.
Using the Tools We Have
Third and finally, it is indeed unfortunate that a sales tax is the option that we must take in support of
funding affordable housing creation. Property taxes are the only other funding mechanism of
significance, and as discussed above, have been left unused for eight years with no sign of change in the
future. In the case of a sales tax, it is notable that as we stood on the precipice of a deep economic
recession in 2008 we still passed the 0.1% Chemical Dependency and Mental Health (CDMH) sales tax.
We can look back to see what negative impacts were experienced in the wake of its passage. Notably,
CDMH has done great work in assisting providers in the work they do to serve Snohomish County
residents. Further, like CDMH, this measure for affordable housing would assist in making Snohomish
County more competitive in applications for state and federal dollars, which often require or incentivize
local funding commitments. These state and local funds are often granted in much larger values than the
local funding commitment, so in addition to making Snohomish County more competitive, this measure
would leverage funds at a greater than 1:1 ratio from state and federal sources.
While the COVID-19 pandemic creates challenging circumstances to adoption of this tax, it also provides
a greater imperative to do so. A year from now, whether the pandemic itself has been overcome or not,
its impact on the economy and thus the housing market will surely still be with us. At that time and
beyond, the lack of a source of local funding to support those affected will be sorely felt, and even more
urgently needed.
Looking ahead to that future, AHA's members strongly urge the County Council to make it clear that
those who work hard, but still make below 60% of the County's median income, deserve as much support
as would be expected in the wake of any other disaster. It is understood that taxation is difficult, uniquely
so during this pandemic. However, we often do not consider that the impacts of failing to adequately
address the shortage of housing will have outsized financial impacts that we will all ultimately pay.
Those costs will manifest themselves in the form of charity hospital care, emergency treatment and
intervention, law enforcement and incarceration, lowered educational attainment, and more. Worse yet, a
lack of action on this will contribute to an ever -thinning social fabric that holds us together in common
purpose of decency to one another and the dream of a prosperous future for all. AHA's mission is to keep
that dream alive for Snohomish County residents of today and tomorrow, and we thank you for continued
support of that work.
This letter was approved by a vote of 8-1, with 4 abstentions and 2 absent, by the AHA Joint Board on
October 28, 2020.
Sincerely,
AHA Joint Board
Packet Pg. 60
Nov. 9, 2020
Edmonds Housing Commission
7.c
Round 2 and "25' Policv Ideas
The following policy ideas were part of the Housing Commission's "Round 2" discussion. One
new idea ("Renter's Choice") was added on October 29.
Note: If Commission members find that any Round 2 policy ideas have been omitted, they
should let staff know so the idea can be included in the list.
❑ Adopt city ordinance that prevents evictions from one's home without just cause
❑ Provide financial assistance for emergency home repairs to homeowners earning less
than 50% of the area median income.
❑ Revise MFTE program (including to add new lower income tier)
❑ Replace tax incentive programs with zoning incentives
❑ Develop options for cluster housing & cottage housing in single-family zones
❑ Provide "medium density single-family zoning" (viz., townhomes that each have front
and rear yards) in areas that are adjacent to/near arterials on high -volume transit lines
❑ Create Neighborhood Villages that encourage a mix of commercial and residential uses
❑ Develop design standards for multiple -family development to promote visual interest,
landscaping, etc.
❑ Develop design standards that incentivize affordable units by allowing greater height
when upper floor is stepped back
❑ Encourage equitable housing options citywide by developing standards and incentives
that could apply to additional housing types (e.g., duplexes)
❑ Encourage equitable housing options with incentives for households earning 60-100%
AMI, including more options for "missing middle" housing (aka "racial equity policy")
❑ Update transportation element of City's Comprehensive Plan to include "parking
solutions"
❑ Provide childcare voucher program for those who work/live in Edmonds
❑ Adopt inclusionary zoning to require that multifamily development include a portion of
units for low- and moderate- income households
❑ Create options for rental housing security deposits (aka "renter's choice")
Packet Pg. 61
Citizens Housing Commission Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/12/2020
Discussion of Full List of Proposed Draft Policies
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Citizens Housing Commission
Prepared By: Debbie Rothfus
Background/History
The Housing Commission developed its policy ideas in two separate batches --Round 1 and Round 2.
Each batch was presented to the public for input. Together, Round 1 and Round 2 (along with one
additional idea presented on October 29) comprise the Housing Commission's full set of policy ideas to
date. The policy ideas are preliminary and do not represent any final decisions.
Staff Recommendation
Begin discussing full list of policy ideas by topic category
Narrative
Policy ideas from Rounds 1 and 2 have been combined into one larger policy idea list and grouped into
major topic categories. (See attachment.) The major topic categories that are likely to need the most
Commission discussion are shown first on the list. These topics are being suggested to discuss first.
Some of the topics shown later on the list can be addressed much more quickly when the time comes.
NOTE: Some of the ideas overlap and may be combined. We expect the combining effort to begin with a
committee that is pulled together to work with staff and make recommendations to the full Commission
at a subsequent meeting.
On November 12, the Commission would begin working through the list, providing comments and
questions and identifying which ideas overlap. On November 19, the Commission would work through
the next part of the list.
At a subsequent meeting, the Commission may select which of the draft policy proposals should move
forward for public input. Then, after reviewing input, the Commission would decide which of proposals,
with any refinements, will be finalized to submit to the City Council.
Attachments:
Topic Groupings of Policy Ideas
Packet Pg. 62
8.a
Topic Groupings of Policy Ideas
The following topical groupings of policy ideas are listed in order of their presumed difficulty to
address. However, ideas within a topic group are not necessarily in any priority order. The
listing represents a high-level summary version of each policy idea; the full ideas have been
presented previously.
Notes:
1. Some ideas are shown in cross -out format ( X) because they appear to have been
dropped or replaced with a newer idea by the initiating policy committee.
2. Commissioners are welcome to alert staff if any policy ideas are missing or mistaken in
some way.
3. Some of the listed ideas could later be refined or combined.
Housing equity
that ee, 'd @pply to dd;�� l heu types ( d� lexe -ate m„-�as+��s���� ice*
• Encourage equitable housing options with incentives for households earning 60-100%
AMI, including more options for "missing middle" housing (aka "racial equity policy")
Incentives / Requirements
• Revise MFTE program (including to add new lower income tier)
• Replace tax incentive programs with zoning incentives
• Adopt inclusionary zoning to require that multiple family development include a portion
of units for low- and moderate- income households
Housing diversity
• Develop options for cluster housing & cottage housing in single-family zones
• Allow "medium density single-family zoning" (viz., townhomes that each have front and
rear yards) in areas that are adjacent to/near arterials on high -volume transit lines
• Create transition areas along transit routes adjacent to commercial zones for "missing
middle" housing
• Create Neighborhood Villages that encourage a mix of commercial and residential uses
• Allow detached accessory dwelling units (DADUs), subject to criteria
• Provide DADU design examples
Packet Pg. 63
8.a
Programs
• Provide childcare voucher program for those who work/live in Edmonds
• Create options for rental housing security deposits (aka "renter's choice")
• Provide financial assistance for emergency home repairs to homeowners earning less
than 50% of the area median income
• Adopt city ordinance that prevents evictions from one's home without just caus
Financial investments to create housing opportunities
• Short-term, use City's housing fund (from existing sales tax) to provide rental assistance
for low-income households
• Longer -term, use City's housing fund (from existing sales tax) to provide for low-income
housing needs either through: (a) regional partnerships; or (b) a local Edmonds -only
program
• Encourage County to adopt a 0.1% county sales tax for housing
Regional approach
• Coordinate regionally on housing solutions
• Expand Edmonds' cooperation with HASCO under new interlocal agreement
Design standards for multiple -family development
• Develop design guidelines for multiple -family development to promote visual interest,
landscaping, etc.
• Develop design standards that incentivize affordable units by allowing greater height
when upper floor is stepped back
• Require new multifamily projects to have a percentage of larger units
General
• Update transportation element of City's Comprehensive Plan to include "parking
solutions"
• Simplify zoning code language and add graphics
• Streamline the permitting process to reduce need for "conditional use permits"
Packet Pg. 64
Citizens Housing Commission Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 11/12/2020
Review of Timeline and Next Community Engagement Event
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Citizens Housing Commission
Prepared By: Debbie Rothfus
Background/History
Per Council Resolution No. 1427, the Housing Commission's recommendations are due on December 31,
2020, and the Commission will dissolve on January 1, 2021. However, a one -month extension has been
requested.
The Commission is also considering the next major community engagment opportunity.
Staff Recommendation
Approve timeline option(s) and community engagement approach
Narrative
The Housing Commission has been working hard to engage the community and to meet its deadline for
making housing policy recommendations for the City Council to consider in 2021.
Timeline
At the October 29 meeting, the Housing Commission voted to request a one -month extension. Director
Shane Hope has submitted the request, including a proposed resolution, for the City Council's approval.
A Council decision is expected on November 17.
Based on other discussion at the Commission's October 29 meeting, a small committee of the Housing
Commission met recently to follow up on questions about the specific timeline milestones. The
committee agreed with a revised schedule to reflect having a learning session ahead of some other
steps. The revised schedule, which tentatively includes two options, is attached. Option 1 is without
the one -month extension; Option 2 is with the one -month extension.
Community Engagement
For the last round of major community engagement activities, the Commission's Community
Engagement Committee has been making tentative plans. These will be shared at the November 12
meeting.
Attachments:
Timeline Options_updated
Packet Pg. 65
9.a
Option 1: December 2020 deadline
November 12 Combine round 1 and 2 ideas into •
one list •
November 19 Discuss + learn •
December 3 Public Engagement Event(s)
December 10 Select drafts — vote •
December 17 Final decision - vote •
Present round 2 idea recommendations
Discuss full list of proposed drafts
Discuss community input on drafts
Learning session with City Staff
What do you need to know to vote on this proposal?
Vote on set of formatted draft policy
recommendations
Vote on final policy recommendations
Packet Pg. 66
9.a
Option 2A — January 2021 deadline
Preferred Commission Option - Pending Council Approval
November 12
November 19
Combine round 1 and 2 ideas into •
one list
Discuss + learn
I,
December 10 Discuss + learn (continued) •
December 17
Week of Jan 4
January 14
January 28
Select drafts - vote
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT EVENT(S)
T
Discuss •
Final Decision - vote •
Confirm and/or present ALL round 2 idea
recommendations (including new proposals)
Discuss full list of proposed drafts
Identify topics for discuss and learn session
Discuss community input on drafts
Learning session with City Staff
What do you need to know to vote on this
proposal?
Discuss community input on drafts
Learning session with City Staff
What do you need to know to vote on this
proposal?
Vote on set of formatted draft policy
recommendations
Discuss all drafts and final refinements
Vote on final policy recommendations
Packet Pg. 67