Loading...
2020-11-19 Citizens Housing Commission PacketI o Agenda Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission REGULAR MEETING VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE, HTTP://EDMONDSWA.IQM2.COM/CITIZENS/DEFAULT.ASPX, EDMONDS, WA 98020 NOVEMBER 19, 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). DIAL -IN: THE CITY IS PROVIDING TEMPORARY DIAL -IN CAPABILITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO LISTEN BY PHONE. DIAL (712) 775-7270, ENTER ACCESS CODE 583224. 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 19, 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. CALL TO ORDER & AGENDA REVIEW LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT ROLL CALL Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission Agenda November 19, 2020 Page 1 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS ( SUBMITTED BY EMAIL TO HOUSING.PUB.COMMENTS@EDMONDSWA.GOV) APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 12, 2020 MEETING NOTES Approval of November 12, 2020 Meeting Notes 6. TIMELINE UPDATE (5 MINUTES) Timeline Update DISCUSSION OF INITIAL DRAFT POLICY PROPOSALS (60 MINUTES) Discussion of Initial Draft Policy Proposals 8. WRAP UP, NEXT STEPS & ADJOURN Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission Agenda November 19, 2020 Page 2 Citizens Housing Commission Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/19/2020 Approval of November 12, 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 11/12/2020 meeting are attached. Attachments: ECHC_Notes_11.12.20 Packet Pg. 3 5.a EDMONDS CITIZENS' HOUSING COMMISSION Meeting Notes — November 12, 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' Housing Commission Webpage. ATTENDANCE Commissioners • Karen Haase Herrick, Zone 1 • James Ogonowski, Zone 1 • Keith Soltner, Zone 2 • Weijia Wu, 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 Project Staff • Shane Hope, City of Edmonds • Brad Shipley, 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— Brad Shipley 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS I. Public comments for virtual meetings may be emailed to housing.pub.comments@edmondswa.gov S. ALTERNATE COMMENTS I. No alternates provided comment 6. OCTOBER 29 NOTES APPROVAL Packet Pg. 4 5.a I. Commission decided to approve the meeting notes from the October 29 Commission Meeting. 7. HOUSING SUPPLY & AFFORDABILITY DISCUSSION I. Commission member shared data and led discussion related to affordability of housing types, especially duplexes and two -unit townhomes. 8. POLICY COMMITTEE UPDATES— ROUND 2 POLICY IDEAS I. Commission members walked through all Round 2 Policy Ideas and outlined which are continuing forward, being removed, or being combined. 9. FULL LIST OF PROPOSED DRAFT POLICIES (ROUND 1 AND ROUND 2) I. Commission members walked through all Round 1 and 2 Draft Policies to identify next steps for each policy idea and to discuss any clarifying questions. II. Commission member made a motion to create one definition for "single-family zones." This motion did not receive a second and was not approved. 10. REVIEW OF PROJECT TIMELINE & NEXT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT EVENT— Shane Hope and Jasmine Beverly I. Director Hope provided an update on the extended timeline option (pending Council approval) and associated sequencing of meetings. II. Overview of proposed approach for next community engagement efforts, including a new community engagement timeline based on the updated project timeline. 11. WRAP-UP, NEXT STEPS AND ADJOURN — Gretchen Muller I. Committees to provide list of 2-3 resource documents that they used to help inform their research/conversations at committee level about their policy ideas (for each policy idea, 2-3 resources) 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: 11/19/2020 Timeline Update Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Citizens Housing Commission Prepared By: Debbie Rothfus Background/History The Housing Commission was originally established by Resolution No. 1427 with a due date of December 31, 2020, to submit recommended housing policies to the City Council. The Commission was to sunset on January 1, 21021. On October 29, 2020, the Housing Commission voted to request that the City Council extend the Commission's timeline by one month. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative On November 12, a City Council committee reviewed the Housing Commission's request, presented by Director Shane Hope, for a one -month extension and recommended that the item be placed on the City Council's next "consent agenda". [Note: Adoption of the consent agenda occurs near the beginning of each Council meeting. The consent agenda can be approved without discussion on each item in it.] On November 17, an agenda memo and resolution, extending the Housing Commission timeline by one month, was on the City Council's consent agenda. The Council adopted the consent agenda without removing any items. Therefore, the Housing Commission's timeline is extended by one month. That means the Commission's recommended policies are due to be submitted by January 31, 2021 and the Commission expires on February 1, 2021. With the one -month extension, Option 2.A can guide the Housing Commission's timeline. Option 2.A. (preferred by the Commission) is shown on page 2 of the attached timeline. Option 1 is no longer needed. Attachments: Timeline Options_updated Packet Pg. 6 6.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 0 0 E a Packet Pg. 7 6.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. 8 CL 0 CL 0 E a Citizens Housing Commission Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/19/2020 Discussion of Initial Draft Policy Proposals Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Citizens Housing Commission Prepared By: Debbie Rothfus Background/History The Housing Commission's five policy committees have presented various policy ideas to the full Commission over the last few months. These ideas were primarily discussed in two phases --Round 1 and Round 2. Each set of policy ideas that was approved by the Commission to go forward went to the next stage of public input; they were recognized as ideas that were under initial consideration. At the Commission's November 12 meeting, those current ideas or proposals still under consideration were discussed as one set (not broken up as reflecting Round 1 or 2). Staff Recommendation Review the preliminary draft policy proposals and discuss any questions or issues. Narrative Policy Proposals Current draft proposals have been listed by short title and topical grouping in one list. (See attachment.) The attached list is somewhat revised from the previous one. The revised list has slightly different groupings. Also, instead of a showing a phrase that attempts to summarize each policy proposal, the revised list just uses the titles of each policy proposal. [NOTE: This list may be revised again to incorporate any needed changes.] The full set (to the best of our knowledge) of preliminary draft proposals that have been received from committee leads are attached here in the same order as the list mentioned above. These will be further discussed at the November 19 meeting. (See attachment.) Policy Questions Questions from Commissioners that have been submitted to staff since the last meeting (regarding policy proposals from committees) are attached. Some or all of these questions can be discussed, as time allows, at the November 19 meeting. Policy Resources Policy committees have been asked to identify any key resources or references they used for their policy work. Hyperlinked resources or references that have been specifically identified so far are included here to help give background information about certain policy proposals. (See attachment.) [NOTE: The proposals for simplifying the zoning code and streamlining the permit process do not contain complete information, but may be updated later.] Packet Pg. 9 Other Clarification A Commissioner has brought up that there may be confusion about whether some draft policy proposals, if ultimately implemented by the City Council, would result in changes to the single-family residential zoning code. The simple answer is that some would and some would not. Generally, this is understood by most Commissioners but may be clarified further as part of the Commission's final recommendations. Anyone looking for more specific information about specific regulations for the City's single-family zoning district, may want to view Chapter 16.20 of the Edmonds Community Development Code at: https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/#!/Edmondsl6/Edmondsl620.html#16.20. Anyone looking for information about the City's current regulations for accessory dwellings, which allow each single-family zone lot to have an attached accessory dwelling provided that certain criteria and processes are met, may see Chapter 20.21 of the Edmonds Community Development Code at: https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/#!/Edmonds20/Edmonds202l.html#20.21. Of course, regardless of zoning code amendments, any ensuing development must meet a host of other requirements, including for stormwater management and lot coverage. Attachments: Policy. ProposaIs. List _11.18.20 General Policy Proposal- SFR Housing Round 1 Medium Density SF Zone 11.9.20 Round 1 ADU.DADU 11.9.20 General Policy Proposal- DADUs V.2 Round 2 Cluster Housing 11.9.20 Round 2 Neighborhood Village 11.9.20 CHC-Policy Proposal-MFTE-11-7-20 draft Inclusionary Zoning_Draft Policy Recommendation Draft Policy Rec - City Resources - 1406 revenue Draft Policy Rec - City Resources - 1590 revenue Draft Policy Rec - City Resources - HASCO ILA_ Draft Policy - Develop Community Housing Partners.docx Draft Policy Rec - City Resources - Home Repair Draft Policy Rec - City Resources - Just Cause Round 2 MF Design Standards 11.9.20 CHC-Renter's Choice Policy draft-11-7-20 Draft Policy - Simplify Zoning Code Language Draft Policy - Streamline the Permitting Process Draft Policy - Childcare Voucher Program Draft Policy - Update Comp Plan to Include "Parking Solutions" as a Goal in Transportation Element Section Questions about Policies 11-17-2020 Resource Links 11.19.20 Packet Pg. 10 7.a nQACT Housing Commission Policy Proposals by Topical Grouping and Short Title The short titles for each of the policy proposals that have been submitted from policy committee leads are listed below and arranged by topic group —NOT by policy committee. Some of the topic groupings are changed from the topical groupings identified in the November 12 meeting. Again, these topics may or may not match with the working names of the various policy committees that have been established. The topical groupings are meant only to assist in looking at the various preliminary draft proposals. The groupings can be changed later or dropped altogether. The most important consideration about this list is simply ensuring that the draft policy proposals are identified correctly. NOTE: The list below is preliminary and may be modified or corrected, based on input from the Housing Commission. Housing Diversity and Equity • Housing in Single -Family Residential Zones • Medium -density single family housing (SR -MD) • Expansion of ADU Policy (v. 1) • Detached Accessory Units (v.2) • Cluster/Cottage housing • Development of neighborhood villages Incentives or Requirements to Increase Affordability • Multi -family tax exemption (MFTE) • Inclusionary zoning Resources and Partnerships • Use of existing sales tax revenue for affordable and supportive housing • County implementation of sales and use tax for housing and related services • Edmonds-HASCO interlocal agreement • Develop community partnerships • Low-income emergency home repair program • Improved tenant protections (aka "just cause") General • Multi -family design standards • Renter's choice security deposit • Simplify zoning code language • Streamline permitting process • Childcare voucher program • Update Comprehensive Plan to include "Parking Solutions" as a goal in Transportation Element Packet Pg. 11 7.b Housing Commission Policy Proposal Date Names of Policy Committee Members: Jim Ogonowski, Judi Gladstone, Will Chen, Nicole Franko, Rick Nishino, Tana Axtelle Policy agreed to by all except Jim Oganowski. Nicole Franco absent. Short title of Policy Proposal: Housing in SFR Purpose of policy being proposed: Expand housing types in SFR areas. Specific proposed policy (What exactly is being proposed?): Allow one duplex or two -unit townhouse buildings on a property in SFR area. How does the proposed policy relate to the Commission's mission "to expand the range of housing (including rental and owned) available in Edmonds... irrespective of age, gender, race, religious affiliation, physical disability or sexual orientation"? Provides for additional type of housing in the SFR area that can accommodate moderate -income housing needs. This policy may impact current zoning designations. Key factors may include some or all of the following, depending on their relevance to the topic. [NOTE: For any factors that do not apply, state "N/A". For any others, briefly explain the Committee's assessment of the factor. If the Committee does not have enough information to give an assessment, insert " TBD" (to be determined) or "not sure".] • Effect on the supply of low-income housing? • Effect on the supply of moderate -income housing? May increase this type of housing since the cost would be expected to be lower than a single family home. Effect on the supply of housing for seniors or others groups with special needs? Packet Pg. 12 7.b Housing Commission Policy Proposal Date Could allow seniors to downscale in the same neighborhood. Not necessarily a solution for families on the same property since they would have to buy both properties. • Effect on property values? Probably doesn't have a negative impact. • Effect on the general tax burden of residents or property owners in Edmonds? Goes hand in hand with property value. • Effect on businesses and economic vitality? With higher population density there should be more economic activity. • Effect on transportation, traffic, or parking? Could have some more cars, but parking shouldn't be increased since there are same conditions as a sole single family residence. • Effect on walkability or transit opportunities? • Effect on (or relationship to) to services, parks, shopping, or other amenities? • Effect on community livability or neighborhood character? More likely to be families than DADU's. Neutral. • Effect on renters? On owners? No different than a single family residence. • Effect on housing opportunities for groups of people who have been discriminated against in the past? Uncertain. • Could this tend to correct the results of past discrimination against any groups? Uncertain. Because duplexes can provide moderate cost housing, it could allow housing for groups of moderate income who were discriminated against. • What other benefits or impacts of this proposal seem likely? • If the proposal might have negative impacts related to a factor above, how could such impacts be reduced or mitigated? Packet Pg. 13 7.b Housing Commission Policy Proposal Date Optional: • What other communities use this approach? Unknown. • What other information is helpful to know about this proposal? How would this policy be implemented? Zoning mechanisms need to be explored. More investigation is needed on how this would be implemented related to zoning. Confined to certain areas, e.g. spot zoning? Packet Pg. 14 7.c October 6, 2020 Draft Policy Recommendation INTERNAL INFORMATION Name of Committee: Zoning Standards Committee Names of Committee Members: Karen Haase Herrick, Commissioner, Zone 1; Greg Long, Commissioner, Zone 5; Keith Soltner, Commissioner, Zone 2; Kenneth Sund, Alternate, Zone 4; Leif Warren, Alternate, Zone 1 EXTERNAL INFORMATION Short Name of Draft Policy: Medium -Density Single Family Housing (SR -MD) Draft Policy: Establish a new zoning type of single-family housing that allows for construction of zero -lot line duplexes, triplexes, and quadruplexes of only 1- or 2-story height located in specified areas of Edmonds that are: • Contiguous to or along high -volume transit routes, or • Sited next to Neighborhood Business (BN) zoning districts, or • Close to schools or medical complexes OPTIONAL INFORMATION This policy acknowledges the value of single-family housing in Edmonds and recognizes a lack of attainable single-family housing options across the city. By providing additional single-family housing types the policy aims to increase housing opportunities for a more diverse group of individuals and families within the community, while preserving the existing neighborhood characteristics. • SR -MD Key Facts: o Opportunity for smaller attached single-family housing by removing side setbacks. o Houses would be on a separate lot with a zero -lot line construction but sharing a common wall o Each individual home would have a front and back yard SR -MD Key Features: o Locates single-family housing in a manner that increases access to essential services o Would create housing at a lower cost per square foot than an individual single-family home and likely at a lower expense than larger multi -family buildings. o Encourage new residents to utilize nearby transit options. o Level -entry single story homes increase the opportunity for active mobile seniors. o The combination of attached and individual single -story homes provides visual interest by modulation and flexibility for seniors and people with special needs. o An important purpose for attached single-family homes is to specifically offer "missing middle" housing options that foster community cohesion, livability, and character. Packet Pg. 15 7.d Draft Policy Recommendation Name of Committee: Zoning Standards Committee Names of Policy Committee Members: Karen Haase Herrick, Commissioner, Zone 1; Greg Long, Commissioner, Zone 5; Keith Soltner, Commissioner, Zone 2; Kenneth Sund, Alternate, Zone 4; Leif Warren, Alternate, Zone 1 Short Name of Draft Policy: Expansion of ADU Policy Draft Policy: The ADU Policy should be expanded to allow either one attached or detached ADU per lot under the standard permitting process and not require a conditional use permit. The revised ADU Policy should require the following': • The maximum size of the accessory dwelling should be limited to 800 square feet or not more than 50% of the primary dwelling's floor area, whichever is less. * • Design should be compatible with the primary residence. * • The owner should be required to live in the primary dwelling or the ADU. • One on -site, non -covered parking space - in addition to the existing parking requirements of primary residence. * • Utilize current setbacks with possible exception when there is a rear alley. • Limit height to 15' or less on detached ADU and 25' on attached ADUs and detached ADUs when built on top of pre-existing detached garages. Optional Information: Accessory dwelling unit are small, self-contained residential units located on the same lot as an existing single-family home. They usually range from 300-1,000 sq. ft. An ADU has all the basic facilities needed for day-to-day living independent of the main home, such as a kitchen, sleeping area, and a bathroom. The development of more ADUs is one part of the on -going efforts around the United States to create more small, low, and moderate priced housing in urban and suburban areas. Mukilteo, Lynnwood, Kirkland, and Redmond have revised their policies in recent years to encourage more of these small dwellings. An expanded ADU code would create additional lower cost rental units, creating more housing options. This proposal is aimed at making the process less costly, time-consuming, and burdensome for the homeowner to build small secondary housing units in single family zoned areas. It is small - thus lower construction and maintenance costs. All the above ADU policy elements received 69% and 72% support in the community survey and are thus key concerns for community members. Many current homeowners like ADUs because it allows them to house parents, loved ones, care providers or guests. The ADUs can be designed to meet the needs of people with disabilities. Many owners like the option to receive rental income. However, the community has expressed concerns about these small homes could become short-term rentals. There are also concerns about ADUs potentially blocking views of other homeowners and adverse environmental impacts. ' A * symbol at the end of the recommendation indicates that it is an existing regulation for the development of ADUs within the city of Edmonds — Edmonds City Code: Chapter 20.21 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS Packet Pg. 16 7.e Housing Commission Housing Type Committee Policy Proposal May 6, 2020 Names of Policy Committee Members: Jim Ogonowski, Judi Gladstone, Will Chen, Nicole Franko, Rick Nishino, Tana Axtelle Short title of Policy Proposal: Detatched Accessory Units Purpose of policy being proposed: Expand housing types in SFR areas. Specific proposed policy (What exactly is being proposed?): Allow one detatched accessory unit on a property, with clear and definitive development guidelines, in SFR area. (Policy agreed to by all committee members except Jim Ogonowski) How does the proposed policy relate to the Commission's mission "to expand the range of housing (including rental and owned) available in Edmonds... irrespective of age, gender, race, religious affiliation, physical disability or sexual orientation"? Provides for additional type of housing that can accommodate special groups and potentially low and moderate -income housing needs. Key factors may include some or all of the following, depending on their relevance to the topic. [NOTE: For any factors that do not apply, state "N/A". For any others, briefly explain the Committee's assessment of the factor. If the Committee does not have enough information to give an assessment, insert " TBD" (to be determined) or "not sure".] • Effect on the supply of low-income housing? The effect on housing supply depends on the number of SFRs that add a DADU. Since DADUs are small, and if rented out, the rent should be low, they would be more affordable to low-income individuals. However, if they are constructed for family members to live onsite, they will not necessarily contribute to the supply of low-income housing. • Effect on the supply of moderate -income housing? Same effect as low-income housing. Packet Pg. 17 7.e Housing Commission Housing Type Committee Policy Proposal May 6, 2020 Effect on the supply of housing for seniors or others groups with special needs? Potentially large impact, depending on the number of SFRs that add a DADU. DADUs can allow seniors to age in place, with family members close by. DADUs can also be helpful with special needs populations, although the DADUs would need accommodations for some groups or classes, • Effect on property values? This requires an assessor's view. In Seattle, DADUs have increased property values. It would also depend on how the property is maintained. In that way it may be no different than any other housing in the neighborhood, recognizing that rentals properties may not be maintained to the same extent as owner -occupied property. Effect on the general tax burden of residents or property owners in Edmonds? Unknown. Requires an assessor's view • Effect on businesses and economic vitality? This will depend on the number of SFRs that add a DADU. With higher population density there would likely be more economic activity, but the extent to which DADUs would be developed or how they are regulated may dampen the impact. 0 Effect on transportation, traffic, or parking? Possible additional cars parking in the same amount of area, depending on code requirements for parking. May also result in some increased traffic, depending on the extent to which SFRs add a DADU. • Effect on walkability or transit opportunities? Unknown • Effect on (or relationship to) to services, parks, shopping, or other amenities? Unknown Packet Pg. 18 7.e Housing Commission Housing Type Committee Policy Proposal May 6, 2020 • Effect on community livability or neighborhood character? Allowing DADUS would change what is allowed in single family zoning. Having more than one building on a lot would increase density to the extent to which SFRs add DADUs. However, the development/design guidelines required by this policy intend to manage how a DADU fits into the neighborhood character. • Effect on renters? On owners? DADUs provide more opportunity for renters by allowing for a rental on a property that may be otherwise owner -occupied. While property owners who choose to construct a DADU on their property will experience costs for building, insuring and maintaining another building on their property, the DADU also offers owners financial means to stay in their home. • Effect on housing opportunities for groups of people who have been discriminated against in the past? The extent to which housing for middle -lower income households is made available, this policy may provide for groups of people who have been discriminated against in the past. Could this tend to correct the results of past discrimination against any groups? Same response as the last question. • What other benefits or impacts of this proposal seem likely? • If the proposal might have negative impacts related to a factor above, how could such impacts be reduced or mitigated? To allay concerns about the nature of a SFR development, guidelines need to be well -thought out with public input to avoid unintended consequences such as creating an environment in which rental agencies are encouraged to "invest" in Edmonds by adding another unit to each investment property in order to increase their rental income. One possible development guideline could be to require that the owner needs to live on the property, if allowable by law. Packet Pg. 19 7.e Housing Commission Housing Type Committee Policy Proposal May 6, 2020 Optional: • What other communities use this approach? Seattle is one community that allows DADUs. However, their policies are more permissive than what is being proposed here. Portland also allows DADUs in SFR areas. What other information is helpful to know about this proposal? — * DADU investment opportunities: https://crosscut.com/2019/07/will-wall-street-invade-seattles- single-family-neighborhoods-not-likely-experts-say — **2019 Seattle DADU legislation: http:Ilwww.seattle.gov/councilImeet-the-council/mike- ob ri en -lb ackyard- cottages -an d-b as ement- units • How would this policy be implemented? 4 Packet Pg. 20 7.f Draft Policy Recommendation Name of Committee: Zoning Standards Committee Names of Policy Committee Members: Karen Haase Herrick, Commissioner, Zone 1; Greg Long, Commissioner, Zone 5; Keith Soltner, Commissioner, Zone 2; Kenneth Sund, Alternate, Zone 4; Leif Warren, Alternate, Zone 1 Short Name of Draft Policy: Cluster/Cottage Housing Draft Policy: Add Cluster/Cottage housing as an option within single-family or multi -family housing in Edmonds. Optional Information: Cluster/Cottage housing is a flexible approach to land development that can provide more affordable homes, especially to those in middle -income ranges. Currently, for Edmonds, clustered or clustering of housing is mentioned primarily in ECDC 20.35 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT [PRD]. The policy idea being proposed would allow Cluster/Cottage housing options within single-family or multi -family zones for certain Edmonds areas where site conditions permit. 1. Small homes are clustered together in ways that can maximize open space, create common areas, limit traffic flow to ensure safe play areas for children, and encourage the walkways through the cluster development. These walkways can link to off -site trails and walkways and to off -site activity centers. Cluster housing offers an alternative to conventional lot -by - lot development that is achieved by allowing departures from lot dimension and setback requirements. 2. Housing units are often one-story units, but can be two-story units, and are smaller in size (650 to 1500 sq. ft.). One-story units can also be developed in ways to support independent living for seniors or individuals with unique mobility needs. 3. Allowing site development in clusters may also allow for less infrastructure development thus lowering costs. This will minimize stormwater run-off and erosion which also lessens the burden on the City Storm Sewer system. 4. Offering the Cluster/Cottage housing option would allow developers a more direct permitting process rather than solely through the more costly PRD process. This may lower overall costs for the housing. Density bonuses could incentivize builders by allowing them to build more small and affordable homes in these cluster communities. 5. Additionally, cluster housing could be used in proximity to Neighborhood Villages to increase the housing capacity, enhance the livability, and encourage walking between the housing and the Neighborhood Village. As an example, cluster housing could be developed near Swedish Edmonds medical complex to offer smaller, relatively more affordable housing for seniors and/or employees. Neighborhood Village Policy Idea DRAFT 1 of 1 Packet Pg. 21 7.g Draft Policy Recommendation Name of Committee: Zoning Standards Committee Names of Policy Committee Members: Karen Haase Herrick, Commissioner, Zone 1; Greg Long, Commissioner, Zone 5; Keith Soltner, Commissioner, Zone 2; Kenneth Sund, Alternate, Zone 4; Leif Warren, Alternate, Zone 1 Short Name of Draft Policy: Development of Neighborhood Villages Draft Policy: This policy aims to create community and social gathering points by rethinking areas zoned "Business Neighborhood" (5 Corners, Perrinville, etc.) that already exist as commercial hubs. These areas and the surrounding properties are prime locations to transform into Neighborhood Villages. Optional Information: The Neighborhood Village [NV] concept includes key features: 1. A focal point of the village should be a plaza for socializing and promoting local community activities. 2. The NV concept includes small commercial and mixed -use [live -work] buildings, in designated neighborhoods, often in the current BN zoning. 3. They are accessible by vehicular traffic, bike lanes and connected walkways 4. These NVs would offer unique areas of Edmonds that are on or close to transit lines. 5. NV area itself would include a variety of housing option segments, such as Medium Density Single -Family, cluster housing and artist housing, apartments, or condominiums. Development of these segments could be incentivized so that nearby single-family neighborhoods have separation from thriving business hubs. 6. These NVs would have comprehensive design guidelines to ensure they are developed in a way that enhances and reinvigorates the surrounding communities. 7. Businesses should be clustered independently and on the ground floor of multiple residential buildings, with the following features: a. Multiple residential buildings may include duplex, triplex and four-plex buildings which would be limited to two stories above commercial spaces. b. Multiple residential units of larger capacity, not to exceed 20 units in two stories above commercial spaces could also be a part of the NV. Modulation of these buildings should meet current and revised design standards.' c. Parking should be landscaped at the perimeter and between rows of parking. Capacity could be determined by a percentage of the total lot area. Parking for NVs could be separate from, but integrated into, the residential parking area. d. NV development should accommodate site conditions such as but not limited to site contours, existing natural vegetation such as large trees. 1 Revised design standards are developed by the zoning committee as a separate standard summary. Neighborhood Village Policy Idea DRAFT 1 of 1 Packet Pg. 22 7.h Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission Policy Proposal Names of policy committee members: Tanya Kataria, Eva -Denise Miller, Jean Salls, Bob Throndsen, Alena Nelson-Vietmeier, Short title of Policy Proposal: Multi -Family Tax Exemption (MFTE) Purpose of Policy Proposed: Increase affordable rental housing opportunities for low/moderate income tenants Specific Policy Proposed: The Incentives and Requirements Committee recommends significant changes to the MFTE as it currently exists: • Create a third low income eligible category for tenants whose income is 60% of MFI or less* • Mandate that developers set aside 25% of all units in a project for MFTE (currently it is 20%) • Construction incentives for additional units/floors, if builders reserve 25% of units for MFTE tenants* • Require MFTE eligible projects to include some two -bedroom and larger units* • Increase the number of 'residential target/urban center areas' for MFTE developments* • Create incentives for developers to renovate existing multi -family apartments to become MFTE eligible* • Ask the Legislature to extend the current MFTE limits beyond 12 years, to preserve affordable housing* o *(see attached additional research and information for details.) Key Factors considered: • MFTE can increase low/moderate/missing-middle/senior and special needs housing in Edmonds. • This can increase housing options for people discriminated against in the past. • It will not reduce property values in the long term. • It may or may not increase tax burden on residential and property owners for the term of the exemption • It may reduce tax revenues for the city for the period of years a property is certified as MFTE. • It may increase business opportunity as commercial space (taxable) may be built on ground floors. • These units, built in 'residential target/urban zone areas' take into account accessibility to transit, shopping, parks, the environment, parking and other services. • In properly zoned areas, MFTE will not affect community livability or neighborhood character. • The city has authority to offer MFTE to smaller developments (less than the 20 minimum now set.) Additional information: • Lynnwood, Shoreline, Mountlake Terrace, Everett have MFTE programs. • Affordable housing research urges that rental costs exceed 30% of a tenant's monthly income. • There are no 2-3-bedroom units in Edmonds only MFTE property at Westgate. • 75% of all MFTE units built in the state are studios or 1-bedroom. Only two areas in Edmond (Westgate and the Highway 99 subareas) are designated for MFTE properties. State law already allows Edmonds to create incentives for renovation of existing properties for MFTE. o *for additional information on the citations above, please see these research reports - hard copies are attached to this Policy Proposal: ■ The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee — 2019 report on MFTE. ■ The Puget Sound Regional Council — Housing Innovations Report. Packet Pg. 23 7.i November 12, 2020 Draft Policy Recommendation INTERNAL INFORMATION' Incentives and Requirements Committee Alena Nelson-Vietmier, Bob Throndsen, Eva Denise Miller, Jean Salls, Tanya Kataria EXTERNAL INFORMATION 2 Short Name of Draft Policy: Inclusionary Zoning Draft Policy: Require new developments in Edmonds (that are above a certain size) to provide a percentage of affordable housing units or require in lieu of fees that will go towards funding Affordable housing elsewhere in the city. OPTIONAL INFORMATION 3 Background: • The purpose of policy being proposed is to increase supply of affordable housing and increase funding for affordable housing development in Edmonds • Inclusionary Zoning is a great tool to provide housing for the missing middle in Edmonds, as it can serve renters who earn 50-80% AMI and homeowners who earn 80-120% AMI. These families usually don't qualify for federal or local housing programs and cannot afford market rate housing prices either. • Inclusionary zoning ties the creation of affordable homes for low- and moderate -income households to the construction of market -rate housing or commercial development. These policies leverage the profitability of new development to pay for new affordable housing units and support the creation more economically diverse and inclusive communities. • A trade: in exchange for providing affordable housing, developers are granted incentives like additional height, reduced parking requirements or faster processing, etc. • As new affordable housing would be funded by developers, this program would require no additional city investment. • Projects are required to build affordable units on site or pay 'In Lieu of fees that will go towards an Affordable housing fund. The 'In Lieu of fees will be calculated based on the use and square footage of the building. 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. 24 November 12, 2020 7.i This Affordable Housing Fund can be used in several ways: o build new affordable housing, o renovate or refurbish units o offer landlord protection or assurance— use this fund to guarantee individual landlords due payment in case their renters default on their rent. This may promote individual homeowners across Edmonds to rent out their homes or portions of their homes at affordable prices to households that earn below 80% AMI. This might also help remove some of the burden of creation of affordable housing from developers, concentrated in certain areas over to individual homeowners, across the city. o used for the city to sub -contract with a housing agency (such as HASCO), or a social service agency, a church, or a Community Land Trust to build new affordable housing. It reinforces the idea of not asking the city to become involved in building or supervising affordable housing but that the city of Edmonds will administer the money raised from the 'in lieu of fees and then audit the success of the program. • Research shows that inclusion of mixed income housing can provide for increased community livability or neighborhood character and provide better outcomes for children and families. • Several neighboring cities such as Federal way, Redmond, Issaquah, Sammamish, Seattle and Portland utilize this program. Designing the policy: • The need: to address the lack of housing for low- and modern -income households • Type of program: Mandatory i.e., requiring developers to provide a % of affordable housing in all new developments. • Geographic coverage: geographically targeted areas, such as areas where zoning increase is proposed, or in transit -oriented areas. • Application: rental as well as ownership • Protect threshold size: o Residential: will be applicable to developments with more than 10 units. (This is the most common "trigger" size). o Commercial: will be applicable to spaces larger than 4,000 sf at varying 5-10% of floor area (% may vary based on location, zoning, etc.) • % of affordable units: 10-20% (most common) • Affordability for rental units: below 60% AMI • Affordability for ownership units: 80-100% AMI • Duration: 50 years • Design Standards: Flexibility (in terms of interior finishes, appliances, but basic design factors same, exterior must be same, units must be dispersed evenly throughout the building) • Incentives options available to developers (1 or more): o Density bonus increase o Parking ratio reduction o Expedited processing • 'In -lieu of fees: yes (allow developers to pay fees in lieu of building Affordable units on site) 2 Packet Pg. 25 November 12, 2020 7.i Calculating the 'in lieu of fees: There are several ways to set this fee, but no single "right" formula. In general, the goal is to set a fee that is high enough, so developers choose to build units on site. Here are two methods of calculating this: • Affordability Gap Method: The fee is based on the typical difference in price (or rent) between market rate and affordable units. For example, if a typical market rate home sold for $300,000 and the affordable price was $200,000 the fee would be $100,000. • Production Costs Method: The fee is based on the average amount to construct each additional off - site affordable unit. For example, if it generally cost $250,000 to build a new unit and qualified low- income buyers could generally afford $200,000, then the fee would be $50,000. Below is a snapshot of proposed fees for commercial spaces set by Seattle's MHA policy. It varies by zoning (and building height) and % of area subject to fees. Proposed MHA performance I(%) and payment ( ) amounts Low Area Medium Area [ High Area Standard M suffix 5 $7.00 6% $13.25 7% $20.75 Zones with M1 suffix S $11,25 9 N $20.00 10% $29.75 Zones with MZ suffix 9 n $12.50 1096 $22.25 11% $32.75 Source: City of 5earde office of Planning and Community Development Examples of our neighboring cities: There are over 900 inclusionary housing programs in 25 states. They serve large central cities and smaller suburban communities wherever housing prices are rising. Several of our neighboring cities such as Federal way, Redmond, Issaquah, Sammamish, Seattle and Portland utilize this program as well. Below are some examples: I�C�: u=A Since 1995, Redmond has provided long-term affordable "contracts" on nearly 500 units. (Source: https:Hwacities.org/dots/default-source/resources/h3manual.pdf?sfvrsn=8) • Federal Way: Affordability: Below 50% AMI for rental units. Through its inclusionary zoning provisions, Federal Way has also created a sizable number of affordable units. (Source: https:Hwacities.org/dots/default- source/resources/h3manual.pdf?sfvrsn=8) • Issaquah: Since its implementation in 1995, about 700 affordable units have been created and $2 million in fees have been collected Packet Pg. 26 November 12, 2020 7.i • Seattle: o It is estimated that Seattle's MHA program will result in an additional 6,300 affordable homes over the next ten years (Source:https://www.housingconsortium.org/policy/inclusionaryhousing/) o Grounded Solutions Network (formerly Cornerstone Partnership) studied Seattle's Incentive Zoning program and found that $27 million of in -lieu fees enabled Seattle to finance 616 affordable housing units that would not have been built without the inclusionary funds. o This local money enabled the city to bring in $97 million in federal and state funds that otherwise were unlikely to be invested in Seattle. Furthermore, their analysis found that Seattle invested the fees primarily in projects located downtown and in other higher -cost central neighborhoods —the same neighborhoods where the projects paying the fees were located. Additional resources: Please see next page for Incentive Zoning Programs and their requirements in East King County Cities. (Source: https://www.housingconsortium.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Incentive-Zoning-East-KC- Cities-Updated.pdf) Please refer to https://inclusionaryhousing.org for more information on this policy. Please refer to the calculator found at https://calc.inclusionarvhousing.org/ihc/ to check feasibility of a project with inclusionary zoning. 4 Packet Pg. 27 7.j November 12, 2020 Edmonds Citizen's Housing Commission Draft Policy Recommendation INTERNAL INFORMATION Name of Committee: City Resources Policy Committee Names of Committee Members: Jess Blanch (lead), George Keefe, Weijia Wu EXTERNAL INFORMATION Short Name of Draft Policy: Use of existing sales tax revenue for affordable and supportive housing Draft Policy: Per RCW 82.14.540, use the City of Edmonds' share of the existing state sales tax that is reserved for affordable housing: a. In the short term, to provide rental assistance to low-income households in Edmonds that have been impacted by the coronavirus b. In the longer term, to contribute to a regional organization, which could be the County, the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA), or a partnership of cities in southwest Snohomish County with the goal of the revenue going toward affordable housing in the sub -region. OPTIONAL INFORMATION Under RCW 82.14.540, housing and services may be provided only to persons whose income is at or below 60% of the median income of the city or county utilizing the tax revenue. Counties over 400,000 population and cities over 100,000 population may use the revenue for only: a. Acquiring, rehabilitating, or constructing affordable housing, which may include new units within an existing structure or facilities providing supportive housing services under RCW 71.24.385 (behavioral health organizations); b. Funding the operations and maintenance costs of new units of affordable or supportive housing. For counties under 400,000 population and cities under 100,000 population, the revenue may be used for the purposes above AND for providing rental assistance to tenants. The estimated population is over 800,000 for Snohomish County, and 42,000 for City of Edmonds. The bill sets a maximum tax rate of 0.0146%. The County is eligible to receive the maximum tax rate of the taxable retail sales (TRS) in unincorporated Snohomish County and could potentially receive 0.0073% or 0.0146% of TRS in individual Cities. The amount the County could potentially receive through Packet Pg. 28 7.j November 12, 2020 TRS in Cities is dependent on each individual City and if they choose to participate or not. WA Department of Revenue currently sets maximum annual capacity at $1,343,274.79 for Snohomish County, and $71,931.05 for City of Edmonds. Jurisdictions may bond against the revenue that would be produced over a period of 20 years to provide an up -front investment. Under this revenue source, Edmonds' 20-year bond revenue would be $1,438,621. Packet Pg. 29 7.k November 12, 2020 Edmonds Citizen's Housing Commission Draft Policy Recommendation INTERNAL INFORMATION Name of Committee: City Resources Policy Committee Names of Committee Members: Jess Blanch (lead), George Keefe, Weijia Wu EXTERNAL INFORMATION Short Name of Draft Policy: County implementation of sales and use tax for housing and related services Draft Policy: Advocate for Snohomish County Council to adopt the optional 0.1% sales tax as allowed by state law to provide affordable and supportive housing for low-income households. OPTIONAL INFORMATION RCW 82.14.530 (otherwise known as HB 1590) allows cities and counties to adopt a 0.1% sales tax (or 10 cents for every $100) for affordable and supportive housing, facilities, and services that benefit people earning less than 60% of the area median income of the county, and who are persons with behavioral disabilities, veterans, senior citizens, families who are homeless or at -risk of being homeless, unaccompanied homeless youth or young adults, persons with disabilities, or domestic violence survivors. The Metropolitan King County Council voted on October 13, 2020 to implement a 0.1% sales tax to fund housing for people who have been chronically homeless. Packet Pg. 30 November 12, 2020 7.1 Edmonds Citizen's Housing Commission Draft Policy Recommendation INTERNAL INFORMATION Name of Committee: City Resources Policy Committee Names of Committee Members: Jess Blanch (lead), George Keefe, Weijia Wu EXTERNAL INFORMATION Short Name of Draft Policy: Edmonds-HASCO Interlocal Agreement Draft Policy: Execute an interlocal agreement (ILA) with the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) allowing HASCO to operate within Edmonds geographic boundaries. OPTIONAL INFORMATION The Housing Authority of Snohomish County is the public housing agency of Snohomish County and receives federal funding to acquire, develop, and operate low-income housing. To do so, HASCO must have an agreement with each city in which it operates. HASCO owns three properties in Edmonds. Some areas of the city are not currently covered by an agreement with HASCO, so the agency cannot acquire property there without an extensive process involving the City Council. This policy would allow HASCO to better compete in the market to purchase property to build and preserve affordable homes in Edmonds. While an ILA would reduce red tape and timelines for property acquisition, HASCO would still be required to meet all permitting and development requirements. Packet Pg. 31 7.m Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission Policy Proposal Names of policy committee members: Tanya Kataria, Eva -Denise Miller, Jean Salls, Bob Throndsen, Alena Nelson-Vietmeier, Short title of Policy Proposal: Multi -Family Tax Exemption (MFTE) Purpose of Policy Proposed: Increase affordable rental housing opportunities for low/moderate income tenants Specific Policy Proposed: The Incentives and Requirements Committee recommends significant changes to the MFTE as it currently exists • Create a third low income eligible category for tenants whose income is 60% of MFI or less* • Mandate that developers set aside 25% of all units in a project for MFTE (currently it is 20%) • Construction incentives for additional units/floors, if builders reserve 25% of units for MFTE tenants* • Require MFTE eligible projects to include some two -bedroom and larger units* • Increase the number of `residential target/urban center areas' for MFTE developments* • Create incentives for developers to renovate existing multi -family apartments to become MFTE eligible* • Ask the Legislature to extend the current MFTE limits beyond 12 years, to preserve affordable housing* o *(see attached additional research and information for details.) Key Factors considered: • MFTE can increase low/moderate/missing-middle/senior and special needs housing in Edmonds. • This can increase housing options for people discriminated against in the past. • It will not reduce property values in the long term. • It may or may not increase tax burden on residential and property owners for the term of the exemption. • It may reduce tax revenues for the city for the period of years a property is certified as MFTE. • It may increase business opportunity as commercial space (taxable) may be built on ground floors. • These units, built in 'residential target/urban zone areas' take into account accessibility to transit, shopping, parks, the environment, parking and other services. • In properly zoned areas, MFTE will not affect community livability or neighborhood character. • The city has authority to offer MFTE to smaller developments (less than the 20 minimum now set.) Additional information: • Lynnwood, Shoreline, Mountlake Terrace, Everett have MFTE programs. • Affordable housing research urges that rental costs exceed 30% of a tenant's monthly income. • There are no 2-3-bedroom units in Edmonds only MFTE property at Westgate. • 75% of all MFTE units built in the state are studios or 1-bedroom. Only two areas in Edmond (Westgate and the Highway 99 subareas) are designated for MFTE properties State law already allows Edmonds to create incentives for renovation of existing properties for MFTE. o *for additional information on the citations above, please see these research reports - hard copies are attached to this Policy Proposal: • The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee — 2019 report on MFTE. ■ The Puget Sound Regional Council — Housing Innovations Report. Packet Pg. 32 7.n November 12, 2020 Edmonds Citizen's Housing Commission Draft Policy Recommendation INTERNAL INFORMATION Name of Committee: City Resources Policy Committee Names of Committee Members: Jess Blanch (lead), George Keefe, Weijia Wu EXTERNAL INFORMATION Short Name of Draft Policy: Low-income Emergency Home Repair Program Draft Policy: Fund a program, or contribute funding to an existing program such as Homage, to assist low-income homeowners with emergency home repairs. OPTIONAL INFORMATION Emergency home repair programs correct housing conditions that threaten low-income homeowners' safety, such as failing plumbing or heating systems, rotten floors, or a leaking roof. Beyond home insurance coverage, home repair costs can typically be covered by a bank -issued home equity loan or line of credit. However, banks may reject loan applications due to bad credit or lack of income. With the assistance of these repairs, residents are better able to remain safely housed for as long as possible. Other emergency home repair models offer financial assistance, in grants or below -market -rate loans, for emergency home repairs to low-income homeowners. Homage's Minor Home Repair program serves low- and moderate -income elderly and special needs homeowners in Snohomish County. Funding for this program is provided by the Snohomish County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, the City of Everett CDBG Program, the City of Marysville CDBG Program, city funding from City of Bothell, and other private donations. Edmonds' participation could better fund this program, or potentially help expand it to serve more low-income homeowners. Other local example programs include: • Sound Generations • City of Renton • Rebuilding Together • City of Seattle Packet Pg. 33 November 12, 2020 7.0 Edmonds Citizen's Housing Commission Draft Policy Recommendation INTERNAL INFORMATION Name of Committee: City Resources Policy Committee Names of Committee Members: Jess Blanch (lead), George Keefe, Weijia Wu EXTERNAL INFORMATION Short Name of Draft Policy: Improved Tenant Protections Draft Policy: Adopt measures to improve residential tenant protections, such as: • Just Cause Eviction Ordinance: limiting the grounds upon which a landlord may evict a tenant to a "just cause" or valid business reason • Prohibiting arbitrary of retaliatory evictions • Prohibiting evictions based upon the tenant's status as a member of the military, first responder, senior, family member, health care provider, or educator • Prohibiting retaliation and discrimination in lease renewal actions • Adopting penalties for violation and procedures to protect the rights of landlords and tenants OPTIONAL INFORMATION Seattle has had a Just Cause Eviction Ordinance since 1980. Federal Way and Burien have more recently enacted eviction protection legislation, and a statewide bill was proposed in the 2019-2020 legislative session. More information about just cause eviction protections can be found at Local Housing Solutions and PolicyLink's All -In Cities Initiative The City must determine what types of rental properties and landlords (e.g. small vs. large) should be regulated in this way. The City must also determine what reasons would constitute a just cause eviction. Examples can be found in the links to other communities' approaches, above. Packet Pg. 34 7.p Draft Policy Recommendation Name of Committee: Zoning Standards Committee Names of Committee Members: Karen Haase Herrick, Commissioner, Zone 1; Greg Long, Commissioner, Zone 5; Keith Soltner, Commissioner, Zone 2; Kenneth Sund, Alternate, Zone 4; Leif Warren, Alternate, Zone 1 Short Name of Draft Policy: Multi -Family Design Standards Draft Policy: Enhance current design standards of new multi -family dwellings, especially those with low to middle income housing, to maintain and enhance the unique characteristics of the Edmonds community. Building types would include mixed use buildings, small multi -family buildings and larger multi -family buildings. Optional Information: This policy creates design standards to achieve an end solution that is visually appealing and reflects a human scale, resulting in compatibility with the City of Edmonds neighborhoods. This summary is a supplement to current zoning design standards. 1. Building visual interest: a. Vertical and horizontal modulation. This condition is important for larger scale buildings b. Site and building landscaping, ground level: At entry and in courtyards. c. Landscaping integrated into the building where stepped modulation on decks of units and common area decks occur shall be enhanced with free-standing or hanging pots and/or built-in platforms or planters. d. In common areas, roof decks and modulation step -back decks enhance livability. 2. Step-backs/Incentives: Street and alley sides a. Maintain the current 3-story height limit. Step -back the upper floors. Stepping back the 3rd Floor provides the developer the opportunity to increase income from creative use of space that may increase building costs. The higher income from the use of creative space will help offset affordable housing income on the lower floors. b. Further incentives would include a partial 4th Floor (not within view corridors). Step -back all sides to provide a combination of common and private areas for the 4th Floor. This 4th Floor reward provides a developer another opportunity to increase income from the above items that will result in building cost increases and to offset affordable housing loss of income. c. Height exception: Elevators and Stairwells d. Color and material variations should be used to complement modulation. Multi -Family Design Standards DRAFT 1 of 1 Packet Pg. 35 7.q Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission Policy Proposal Names of Policy Committee members: Tanya Kataria, Eva -Denise Miller, Jean Salls, Bob Throndsen, Alena Nelson -Vietmeier Short title of Policy Proposal: Renter's Choice Security Deposit Purpose of Policy Proposal: remove a rental barrier for all tenants regardless of income. Specific Policy Proposal: Reduce the up -front cost of security deposits for renters while keeping landlords whole for costs that are normally covered by such deposits. The policy may be implemented through the following steps: • Allow tenants of all income levels choices in how to pay those security deposits. • Allow tenant applicants to pay by: o Buying rental security insurance o Installment payment of security deposits - at least six equal monthly payments. o Pay 'reduced' security deposit of no more than 50% of one months' rent. • All rental properties of 25 or more units will offer the Renter's Choice program. • Before signing a rental agreement, the landlord provides tenant written notice of the Choice plan. Factors Considered: • Landlords charge prospective tenants security deposits which may be as high as two months' rent. • Renter's Choice eliminates a barrier to rentals for all tenants regardless of income. • It is likely to increase housing options for people who have been discriminated against in the past. • Changing the way security deposit fees are paid can save significant money for all tenants. • That puts money back into the local economy. • Security Deposit insurance is available from a number of companies. • The proposal is based on a unique policy developed for the city of Cincinnati, Ohio in 2020. • Cincinnati got 'buy in' from landlords who helped develop the policy. • It provides landlords with protection for any damage to their property. • There are also legal remedies for landlords, if tenants violate the terms of the agreement. • The policy can be expanded to cover all landlords, regardless of the number of units they control. • Edmonds has the authority to regulate rental fees, though it has not done so in the past. • State law recognizes that "...certain tenant application fees should be prohibited". * • State law recognizes that "...guidelines should be established for the imposition of other tenant fees" • * Contained in findings to Washington State law - RCW 59.18.253. Additional research Information: • Hard copy attached of City of Cincinnati Renter's Choice Law. • Hard copies attached of media articles on the Cincinnati Renter's Choice Law. • Virginia, New Hampshire, New York City and Atlanta are considering this policy. Packet Pg. 36 7.r Edmonds Citizen's Housing Commission Draft Policy Recommendation 1011"NU1111111Ii;I19]:1u1_1WIIQ0] Name of Committee: Program & Processes Committee Names of Committee Members: Mike McMurray (lead), Eva -Denise Miller EXTERNAL INFORMATION Short Name of Draft Policy: Simplify Zoning Code Language Draft Policy: Use diagrams, pictures, and tables in place of text where applicable. Use plain language where text is necessary. Packet Pg. 37 7.s Edmonds Citizen's Housing Commission Draft Policy Recommendation IZ11"dU_11fIi;IY9]:Zu1_tIIQ0] Name of Committee: Program & Processes Committee Names of Committee Members: Mike McMurray (lead), Eva -Denise Miller EXTERNAL INFORMATION Short Name of Draft Policy: Streamline Permitting Process Draft Policy: Reduce the number of conditional uses to streamline the permit process. Packet Pg. 38 7.t Edmonds Citizen's Housing Commission Draft Policy Recommendation IZ11"dU_111111IZLIY9]:Zu1_tIIQ0] Name of Committee: Program & Processes Committee Names of Committee Members: Mike McMurray (lead), Eva -Denise Miller EXTERNAL INFORMATION Short Name of Draft Policy: Childcare Voucher Program under the Direction of Newly Established Human Service Manager Draft Policy: Recommend Council explores Childcare Voucher program for people who work and/or live in Edmonds under the direction of the City's newly established Human Services manager. OPTIONAL INFORMATION Not everyone who works in Edmonds can afford to live in Edmonds, that's just the facts of life, and the geography constraints of a small seaside town of just 8 square miles. We as a community can be more creative and make Edmonds more desirable to work in and perhaps make it more achievable to afford to live in for some in Edmonds by offering Childcare subsidize voucher program. Packet Pg. 39 7.0 Edmonds Citizen's Housing Commission Draft Policy Recommendation IL111":1ZT-A41Z1to] :1►Vi/-111I IQ L1 I Name of Committee: Program & Processes Committee Names of Committee Members: Mike McMurray (lead), Eva -Denise Miller C EXTERNAL INFORMATION Short Name of Draft Policy: Update Comprehensive Plan to Include "Parking Solutions" as a Goal in Transportation Element Section Draft Policy: Recommend council adopt LANGUAGE that includes Parking Solutions as a goal defined in our Transportation Element under City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. OPTIONAL INFORMATION Current traffic impact fees assessed by city to new traffic contributing developments to our community currently do not allow these fees to be allocated to solve parking solutions in our community. The Irony of imposing fees calculated on the anticipated traffic impact to our community by newly established development then consequently not allowing parking solutions to be one of current possible uses of these funds collected is a flawed policy. Simply updating language in our Comprehensive plan would allow flexibility for some of these Traffic impact fees' to be allocated for parking solutions more efficiently (examples of parking solutions: leasing parking lots, shuttle services, trolley services, purchasing land for parking lots, and low profile parking structures). Packet Pg. 40 November 17, 2020 7.v QUESTIONS ABOUT POLICIES Housing Equity - Is there information about the cost of duplexes v. cost of singe family detached housing? - Is there information about the housing value and tax implication of duplexes in single family neighborhoods (anecdotal or examples is ok)? - How are fees based in Edmonds- by square foot or by unit? - Is there information from other cities about home ownership v. rental of missing middle housing? M FTE - What are the long term benefits and costs? Can we see that for the Westgate? - What are the cost implications and comparisons of the policy proposals? - Is it possible to do a cost benefit analysis of this program compared to something like the childcare voucher program? Cluster Housing - What kind of options was the committee thinking about related to cluster and cottage housing? - Do we know the available land opportunities for this type of housing? - Does there need to be special zoning for cluster housing or can that be city-wide? - What are the implications of being allowed city-wide v. specific areas? - Can cluster and cottage housing be lumped with and handled the same way as duplexes? Transition Areas Do we know the future plans of community transit for bus routes in Edmonds related to the light rail starting in 2024 to Mountlake Terrace? Other than being in transit corridors, how does this idea differ from neighborhood villages? How do the transition areas along transit routes differ from "medium density single-family zoning?" Childcare Voucher Program - Do we have information that informs the potential demand for this program? - How will the program identify participants to make it have the desired impact? Does the need currently exist or is it presuming that it will be for incoming households with more affordable housing? - Is there are known funding source for this? - Does the city have the administrative infrastructure for this program or would it need to be created? - What are the administrative costs? Emergency Home Repair Assistance - Do we have information that informs the potential demand for this program? - Is there are known funding source for this? - Does the city have the administrative infrastructure for this program or would it need to be created? - What are the administrative costs? HASCO Inter -local Agreement Packet Pg. 41 7.v November 17, 2020 - Are there financial impacts to the City of an agreement? - Why don't they currently operate with an agreement? Overall Questions 1. What polices/programs are potentially competing for the City's housing fund? 2. Which policies address needs of renters and which address needs of homeowners? AND 3. Which polices address low-income households and which address medium income households? (See attached Policy Comparisons document) 4. Are there populations that are not addressed with any of the proposed policies? S. Are people equipped with the tools they need to responsibly and/or successfully rent or own? If not, is there a policy idea that could help with this particular side of the equation? Packet Pg. 42 7.w Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs/DADUs) Reference Links 1. The Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) is a nonprofit organization that helps local governments across Washington State better serve their communities by providing legal and policy guidance on any topic. This is a brief overview of ADUs. http://mrsc.org/Home/Explore-Topics/Planning/General-Planning-and-Growth- Management/Accessory-Dwelling-Units-in-Plain-English.aspx 2. This article gives an overview of ADU policies in Kenmore, Kirkland, Snohomish County and links to information on Tacoma and Burien. https://www.theurbanist.org/2020/09/18/kenmore-kirkland-adu-reform-snoco-next/ 3. This article is the best evaluation research that I found on ADUs. It is getting dated. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Accessory Dwelling Unit Survey for Portland, Eugene, and Ashland (2013) — Includes data on ADU use, occupancy, construction, energy use, and demographics HOUSING TYPES COMMITTEE RESOURCE LIST Portland's Fourplex Legalization Would Reduce Displacement Almost Everywhere - Sightline Institute Oregon Just Voted to Legalize Duplexes on Almost Every City Lot California Looks to a Future beyond Single -Detached House Zoning - Sightline Institute Gov. Brown Oust signed 15 housing bills. Here's how they're supposed to help the affordability crisis - Los Angeles Times Cities Start to Question an American Ideal: A House With a Yard on Every Lot - The New York Times Housing Advocates in Portland Just Did the Nearly Impossible - Sightline Institute Policy objective: Expanding affordable housing in resource -rich neighborhoods Finding 'Missing Middle' Housing in Olympia, Washington Don't Miss the Middle: The Critical Role of Moderate -Priced Housing to Affordability "Gentle" density can save our neighborhoods Seattle Permits- Establishing a Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit Packet Pg. 43 7.w Microhousenw.com Kenmore ON Council Agenda item for 1/13/20 P. 342- ADU consideration Kenmore City Council Agenda item for 2/24/20 P. 654- ADU consideration https://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/#!/Edmondsl6/Edmondsl620.html#16.20 (City's code for single-family zoning district) Cluster/Cottage Housing References 1. The Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) is a nonprofit organization that helps local governments across Washington State better serve their communities by providing legal and policy guidance on any topic. This is a brief overview Cottage/Cluster Housing. http://mrsc.org/Home/Explore-Topics/Planning/Specific-Planning-Subiects-Plan-Elements/Cottage- Housing.aspx This link gives a wealth of data on Cottage Housing in Snohomish County and several Snohomish County Cities. The second link which is a tab on the first link gives information on several cities' Cottage House Policies in Snohomish County. httos://snohomishcountvwa.eov/3461/Cottaee-Housin https://snohomishcountvwa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/38688/Comparison-of-Snohomish-County- Jurisdictions-that-have-CottaLye-HousinLy-Reeulations?bidld= Packet Pg. 44