The URL can be used to link to this page

2020-12-10 Citizens Housing Commission Packet1. 0 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 DECEMBER 10, 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 DECEMBER 10, 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 December 10, 2020 Page 1 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (SUBMITTED BY EMAIL TO HOUSING.PUB.COMMENTS@EDMONDSWA.GOV) APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 19, 2020 MEETING NOTES Approval of November 19, 2020 Meeting Notes 6. LEARNING SESSION Q AND A Learning Session: Q and A PRELIMINARY DRAFT POLICY PROPOSALS Preliminary Draft Policy Proposals 8. WRAP UP, NEXT STEPS & ADJOURN 9. GENERIC AGENDA ITEMS Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission Agenda December 10, 2020 Page 2 Citizens Housing Commission Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/10/2020 Approval of November 19, 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 11/19/2020 meeting are attached. Attachments: ECHC_Notes_11.19 Packet Pg. 3 5.a EDMONDS CITIZENS' HOUSING COMMISSION Meeting Notes — November 19, 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 • Weijia Wu, Zone 2 • Eva -Denise Miller, Zone 3 • George Keefe, Zone 3 • Michael McMurray, Zone 4 • Tanya Kataria, Zone 5 • Greg Long, Zone 5 • Jess Blanch, 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 • 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. Alternate Wendy Wyatt saw a house with a DADU within the Edmonds and wanted to report it. Director Hope explained that some buildings may have DADUs from when they were under County jurisdiction, but that they would look into it further. 6. NOVEMBER 12 NOTES APPROVAL Packet Pg. 4 5.a Commission decided to approve amended meeting notes from the November 12 Commission Meeting, which will include a list of changes to the policy proposals. 7. TIMELINE UPDATE Director Hope announced that Council approved the extended timeline, ending 1/31/21. 8. DISCUSSION OF INITIAL DRAFT POLICY PROPOSALS Commission members walked through eight policy proposals and asked clarifying questions for discussion. 9. WRAP-UP, NEXT STEPS AND ADJOURN —Gretchen Muller I. Director Hope will continue to share links to helpful resources. Commission members to send any additional questions on the draft policy proposals between now and December 10, the second learning session. rn r Packet Pg. 5 Citizens Housing Commission Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/10/2020 Learning Session: Q and A Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Citizens Housing Commission Prepared By: Debbie Rothfus Background/History Over the last several months, Housing Commission members have been reviewing and discussing the policy ideas that originated from the five policy committees. The discussion has included questions and responses about intent, examples, and more. At the November 19 meeting (and to some extent afterward), Commissioners identified remaining questions for which they wished more information. Staff Recommendation Consider information Narrative Questions provided by Commission members, along with responding information for each of the questions, have been summarized in the first attached document. The document identifies specific questions and information about accessory dwellings, single family zoning, and more. One subject that has little discussion in the attached Q and A document is the "multifamily tax exemption program". That's because it is a complex subject and better suited to an oral presentation and follow-up at a Commission meeting. Consequently, at the December 10 meeting, City staff will present more specific information on how the multifamily tax exemption program works and will respond to Commissioner questions. Notably, how to address the cost of housing types was challenging. While one can try to research the property values assigned to different home sales or to tax rolls, the resulting information reflects only what has happened in the past under prior codes and circumstances and does not identify nuances that may be relevant (e.g., specific condition of the property or neighborhood). Certainly, it seems obvious that two or three housing units on one piece of property would be less expensive per unit than only one house on the same property, in particular because the land cost per unit is less when there is more than one home on the land. The attached document provides some generalized information from the literature regarding housing costs. Specific responses to questions about the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) are provided in the second attachment. Also attempting to explain the cost of constructing duplexes under different assumptions is a Packet Pg. 6 spreadsheet produced by the Zoning Standards Committee. See the third attachment. Another subject that lends itself to a different format is the two-part subject of "who is served by the various policies and what is missing". The format used to provide this perspective is a table showing each current draft policy and the population group(s) likely to receive the greatest opportunity from each. See the fourth attachment, "Policy Comparison Table". Attachments: PolicyQA_v1.1.bs.sh HASCO email Duplex Costs.khh Policy Comparisons Table Packet Pg. 7 NN CITIZENS' HOUSING IN,(INwCOMMISSION POLICY QUESTIONS & ANSWERS NOTE: The questions below have come from Commissioners. Some of them have been summarized. Overarching Questions Q.1. Are there populations that are not addressed with any of the proposed policies? Generally, the following population groups have been most clearly considered in the proposed polices: Low income, Moderate income, Seniors, Renters, Owners However, other groups, such as veterans, may fit into any of the above categories and may benefit from the proposed policies. Likewise, disabled people may fit into any of the above. For the disabilities group, newer housing is more likely to have accessibility features built in, as compared to older housing. A table has been developed to identify the groups likely to have the most opportunity from each policy. See the table "Policy Comparisons". It is included in the Housing Commission's December 10 meeting packet. Q.2. Shouldn't we provide survey result information for each policy idea as part of the optional information? This is one of several ideas that can be discussed later as part of framing the Commission's final N vi recommendations. _q r Specific Questions CY Q.3. Are the following policies targeted for Edmonds or the region in general? 'o (L • Use of existing sales tax revenue for affordable and supportive housing (Response: The proposed policy c allows for either approach but prioritizes regional partnerships as being the most effective way to use m limited funds) • County implementation of sales and use tax for housing and related services (Response: This can be used countywide.) Q • Develop community partnerships (Response: Focus is on the south Snohomish County area.) Q.4. What is the expected [state sales and use tax] revenue for Edmonds? The annual amount expected for Edmonds from this revenue is about $71,000, though the exact amount may vary from year to year. It can be spent only for housing purposes allowed under SHB 1406 (codified in Chapter 82.14 RCW). Q.5. There are three tax-exempt properties within Edmonds that are managed by HASCO. Which are subsidized and which provide market rate housing? Of the total number of these rental units, what percentage are market Packet Pg. 8 6.a RR. CITIZENS' [HOUSING COMMISSION rate? Are there any income requirements/restrictions to be able to rent at the Highlands apartment complex? What property tax break are they receiving? Can we compare the rent for the Highlands apartments with comparable non -tax exempt apartments within Edmonds? In essence, is HASCO a net benefit to our community or are we just subsidizing market rate housing? See attached email responses to these questions from Duane Leonard, Executive Director at the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO), along with a map that shows the area in Edmonds that has an interlocal agreement in effect between HASCO and the City. Q.6. Which policies address the needs of renters and which address the needs of homeowners? See "Policy Comparison" table. Q.7. Which policies address the needs of low-income households and which address the needs of moderate - income households? See attached "Policy Comparison" table Q.8. How do the proposals relate to the existing requirements for single-family zoning? Policy proposals involving land use and the expansion of allowed development types would be a departure from existing single-family zoning criteria. Some of this is known based on the policy proposal Any changes to site development regulations in single-family zones will need to be carefully considered to encourage the desired development type. Q.9. Is there information on the cost of duplexes v. cost of single family detached housing? Local data is hard to find, few duplexes were built in Edmonds historically. However, there are known cost efficiencies in development and construction of duplexes v. detached single family housing. For example, land and some construction costs can be shared (including labor, common walls, access drives, sewer and stormwater infrastructure, etc.). The City of Minneapolis passed an ordinance, effective January 2020, which allows any residential lot to have up to three housing units. Edmonds staff contacted Zoning Administration staff in Minneapolis to inquire about their experiences. Minneapolis staff shared that in the year the ordinance was effective, most building applications were conversions of detached single-family homes into duplexes, not new buildings. In fact, only three applications for new triplex buildings were received in a city with a population 10 times that of Edmonds. It is too early to know if this pattern of development will change in the future, if it is influenced by the market conditions created by the pandemic, or if there are development codes that unintentionally limit development of new triplexes. Based on their experiences, Minneapolis staff feel it may be a combination of all three. The new generation of homebuyers is generally more open to housing types not often found in post -World War II suburbs. The rapid spread of zoning laws in the 1940's and 50's made many types illegal. It may take time for builders to get comfortable with a housing product they are not used to. By lifting restrictions on "missing middle" housing types, Minneapolis expects changes in housing production as the industry changes to meet the evolving market. a Packet Pg. 9 6.a PRO CITIZENS' HOUSING COMMISSION The pandemic has undoubtedly slowed development, but not stopped it altogether. Record low interest rates continue to fuel strong market demand for homes. Minneapolis has noticed some limitation in their development code as well. Notably, their development code does not adjust for the number of units in their site design standards. Lot coverage, a metric that measures the ratio between the footprint of all structures on a property and the total land area, is the same for one unit as it is for three units. They recommend carefully considering changes to existing development code regulations to encourage desired outcomes. Recently, the Zoning Standards Committee provided a spreadsheet identifying estimates of construction costs for build duplexes based on different assumptions. (See Attachment, entitled "Sampling of Cost to Build Duplexes Given Current Land Valuations in Edmonds Area".) Q.10. Is there information about the housing value and tax implication of duplexes in single family zoning? Tax assessed value is based on the value of the land plus improvements. The more property is worth relative to the average, the higher proportion of the overall tax levy it pays. It appears there are too many market variables and few local examples of duplexes to draw any conclusions from this general question. Q.11. Is there information from other cities about home ownership v. rental of "missing middle" housing? "Missing Middle" generally refers to attached single family and small multi -family buildings that once were common until zoning ordinances were enacted in the early -to -mid 20t" century. Local data is unreliable; however, on a national level the owner -occupancy of attached single family units (e.g. townhomes) is —63 percent, duplexes —23 percent, and triplexes/quadplexes —13 percent. For comparison, r nearly 85 percent of detached single-family homes are owner -occupied. >i a CY Q 12. What about the multifamily tax exemption program (MFTE)? How does it benefit low- and moderate- o income households? How does it affect local taxpayers? a r c The program was adopted fairly recently in Edmonds, although many other cities in our region have been using it longer. It is in effect in two areas of Edmonds. A percentage of units must be provided to low- and moderate - income households at a total cost (including utilities) that does not exceed 30% of the low- or moderate- income level, according to HUD -based statistics. Generally, it has little impact on other city taxpayers. However, more Q detailed information will be provided by staff at the Commission's December 10 meeting. Packet Pg. 10 6.b From: Duane Leonard To: Shipley. Brad Cc: "ccollier(n hasco.org" Subject: Areas in which HASCO can operate within Edmonds Date: Monday, August 17, 2020 6:09:56 PM Attachments: Jurisdiction Mao Edmonds Feb 2020.odf Brad, Thank you for your work on this I appreciate the questions. I sense there is a lot to unpack in some of these questions, so I apologize for the length of my response in advance. I am just trying to provide the appropriate background. First of all, Chris was correct, HASCO does not currently have an ILA with the City. We have never asked for one which I can address later but would love for the City to consider that. We currently have these with Lynnwood and Snohomish. JURISDICTION I have attached a map we have of Edmonds for reference, the dark green areas were the City's incorporated boundaries as of May 1971, when HASCO was created. As a county housing authority we cannot do a project in an incorporated area without getting the city's permission. The County can only grant HASCO jurisdiction over what they have jurisdiction, and cities could create their own housing authority, e.g. Everett Housing Authority. The lighter green areas and the gray areas, are areas that were annexed by the city after May of 1971 and unincorporated areas (county areas) respectively. In these areas HASCO can operate freely. TAXES I will try to give a little overview first as I see by the chain there have been some questions already covered in some previous emails. Many of these questions stem from our enabling legislation, which was federal legislation that States adopted, allowing for the creation of housing authorities at local levels. In our case as you noted RCW Chapter 35.82. The idea being that housing authorities were local government agencies created to garner federal resources to bring to the local community. Which is why housing authorities have no taxing authority. We cannot levy any taxes on our own, we are supposed to go get federal money. We are tax exempt because as a local government entity, just as in the case of any city, school district, etc., we serve an essential public and governmental purpose. RCW 35.82.210 allows for a payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT). However it allows for a PILOT payment at the housing authority's discretion, i.e. " in lieu of such taxes an authority may agree to make such payments to a city..." This comes from the HUD requirements for the Public Housing program (note the capital PH) This is a nationwide deep subsidy program administered by HUD. HASCO used to have 253 units of Public Housing throughout the County and we did pay PILOT on those projects. This was viewed as an enticement to get communities to accept deeply subsidized HUD housing, and there were several ways to calculate it. However none of these properties were located in Edmonds. (Interesting side Packet Pg. 11 6.b note; because of HUD's chronic underfunding of the PH program, HASCO brought suit against HUD to get out of the program although we did keep the units. We no longer pay PILOT on these properties because they are no longer subsidized.) We could pay PILOT on our other projects, some housing authorities do. But it has always been HASCO's policy to not pav property taxes or PILOT on any of our public housing (note the lower case ph), which is essentially all the other housing we own. Lower case ph, refers to housing we own — that is then considered public housing because it is owned by a public agency. This has been our policy because this is one of the few tools we have to create affordability in the community. It is also quite cumbersome to administer and it is more restricted than you think. RCW 35.82.210 also states "but in no event shall such payments exceed the amount last levied as the annual tax of such city, county or political subdivision upon the property included in said project prior to the time of its acquisition by the authority'. For example, HASCO purchased the Edmonds Highlands Apartments in 2001. So the most the PILOT payment could be is the amount of the assessment in place in 2001. Furthermore, this amount would be sent in to the County Treasurer, and would be distributed in the correct distribution according to the Tax Code Area (TCA). I believe there are 4 TCA's for Edmonds and of the total taxes paid, the City portion is only about 14.3%. So, frozen in time and the City would only get about 14%. This issue of taxation, and exemption from it, comes up a lot since there are so many citizens concerned about taxes, but the amounts we are talking about are quite small, although I realize even small amounts may not be small enough to assuage all citizens. I did a quick analysis of the current assessed values for the City and the impact on taxes: • The total taxable value for property in the 4 Edmonds TCA's is just over $11.04 Billion; • The assessed values of the 3 properties HASCO owns is $29.1 million; • By adding our assessed value back to the total taxable value and recomputing for the same certified tax amount, means that: • The owner of a home assessed for $800,000 is currently paying an extra $19.65 per year, or $1.64 per month, because our properties are tax exempt; • The city's portion of that $19.65 is about 14.3%, or $2.81 per year; • For a $400,000 home the assessment differential would be half that amount, $9.82 per year, or $0.82 per month, with the city portion being $1.40 per year. OUR PROPERTIES IN EDMONDS The Olympic and Sound View apartments combined have 88 units. These units are for elderly and disabled citizens and they are all (100%) subsidized with Project Based Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8), and we maintain a waitlist for each building. Currently there are 180 names on the wait lists, although some people may have their name on each list. The Edmonds Highlands apartments total 120 units and none of these units are subsidized. State law requires that 50% of these units be rented to families under 80% of the area median income (AMI). The property met that definition when we purchased it and our goal is that all the households there would be under 80% of median income. Of course many of the residents are much Packet Pg. 12 6.b lower income than 80% AMI. We do not maintain a wait list for this property because it is not subsidized. Units are rented to the first qualified applicant when one becomes available. Currently only 7 of the units, 3.3%, are occupied by families over 80% AMI. MARKET RATE AND AN ILA HASCO was created in 1971, and did not hire our first employee until 1982. As such, we came to the table a little late to garner significant amounts of federal funding for construction of new units. When we had Public Housing (again capital PH — deep subsidy HUD program) it only accounted for 10% of our units. HASCO has focused on a "housing preservation" model to bring affordability to the community. Virtually all our units (90%) have been purchased on the open market. Edmonds Highlands is a perfect example of this. In 2001 when we purchased, Edmonds Highlands it was a "market rate" property with rents at or near the top of the market. The property still competes in the marketplace for tenants, but over time through public ownership, HASCO's preservation model is to limit rent increases while continuing to maintain the asset as a benefit to the community. We have succeeded! Current "market rents" for 2-bedroom units in the area are anywhere from $1800 to $2100 per month while 2-bedroom units at Edmonds Highlands are between $1445 and $1540. That means the residents there have more money to spend in the community! Or to save for an emergency, or the down payment for a house. Edmonds Highlands is also an example of why we had not asked for an ILA in the past. Although as you can see from the map I sent you, this property is in an area that was annexed after 1971. That means we did not need to get a cooperation agreement from the City but we did, because it is not our intent to surprise, or try to deceive anyone. We want to be viewed as a partner and an anchor institution in the community. In 2001, we entered into a purchase and sale agreement that included a six month (180 day) due diligence period with an opportunity to add 60 more days. That was standard back then. It gave us plenty of time to get on a city council agenda to discuss the project or any concerns. Fast forward to today — the last acquisition we made in 2018 we closed in 45 days — not enough time to seek and get city council approval. That is the primary benefit an ILA would provide, so that we can move more quickly, otherwise the market will not view HASCO as a serious buyer. But by all means we would still view our relationship with the city as a partnership regardless of whether we had an ILA or not. I know this was quite lengthy but I wanted to provide enough background information. Prior to the COVID shut down orders HASCO was scheduled to present to the EHC but that ended up getting cancelled. I was hoping to answer these types of questions then, but better late than never. Sincerely Duane Leonard Executive Director From: Shipley, Brad <Brad.Shipley(@edmondswa.gov> Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 2:07 PM To: Chris Collier <ccollier(@hasco.org>; Duane Leonard <dleonard(@hasco.org> Packet Pg. 13 6.b Subject: RE: Areas in which HASCO can operate within Edmonds As a follow up, a Commission member emailed me the questions below. I want to be factual in my response so any information you can provide will be helpful. I don't believe HASCO has any market rate housing, but I could be wrong. • What percentage of the HASCO properties are subsidized vs. market value rental? • Why are market rental properties tax exempt? • Is HASCO sitting of units that should be available for low income households and renting at market rates? If so, how many? Brad Shipley I Associate Planner City of Edmonds 121 5th Ave N Edmonds WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 ext. 1367 From: Shipley, Brad Sent: Friday, August 14, 2020 1:52 PM To: Chris Collier <ccollier(@hasco.org> Cc: dleonard(@hasco.org Subject: RE: Areas in which HASCO can operate within Edmonds Hello Chris and Duane, Hope all is well. I am circling back around on this conversation and had a follow up question that was brought up during the Housing Commission meeting last night. Not sure if you have the answer, but you have always been helpful so it's worth a shot. At the meeting, a few Commissioners were concerned about the tax-exempt status of HASCO-owner properties. Councilmember Luke Distelhorst, who acts as a liaison to the Housing Commission, and I followed up after the meeting to find the enabling RCW language that allows for the tax-exempt status. In RCW 35.82.210, it discussed payments in lieu of taxes. I am just wondering if payments in lieu of taxes is commonly written into an ILA or other such agreement. I'd like to let the Housing Commission know as they consider housing policy recommendations to City Council. If so, can you give me an example to look at? Thanks for your help! Brad Shipley I Associate Planner City of Edmonds i c Cl c 0 .N (D U) a� c L CU a� J CU E 0 O U U) Q x c a� E Q Packet Pg. 14 6.b 121 5th Ave N Edmonds WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 ext. 1367 From: Chris Collier <ccollier(@hasco.org> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 11:22 AM To: Shipley, Brad <Brad.Shipley(@edmondswa.gov> Subject: RE: Areas in which HASCO can operate within Edmonds No problem! One thing I should have been specific about is that, any annexations post-1971 by the City are still within HASCO's operational area (without express permission by Council). I think that goes without saying, but I could see someone else reading in a hurry not catching that point. Let me know if I can be of any further help! CHRIS COLLIER Program Manager Alliance for Housing Affordability 425.293.0601 1 ccollier(@hasco.org From: Shipley, Brad <Brad.ShipleyCcDedmondswa.gov> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 11:20 AM To: Chris Collier <ccollier6Dhasco.org> Subject: RE: Areas in which HASCO can operate within Edmonds This is very helpful, Chris. Thank you for the clarification. I can create a map. Brad Shipley I Associate Planner City of Edmonds 121 5th Ave N Edmonds WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 ext. 1367 From: Chris Collier <ccollierCcDhasco.org> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 11:00 AM To: Shipley, Brad <Brad.Shipley(@edmondswa.gov> Subject: RE: Areas in which HASCO can operate within Edmonds Hi Brad, Reviewing the email chain, it looks like there's a little confusion going on. Packet Pg. 15 6.b HASCO does not have an ILA with Edmonds at this time. The purchase of Edmonds Highlands and Sound & Olympia View only required Council permission prior to purchase, but not the creation of an ILA. The city -boundary discussion can be summed up thus: HASCO can purchase property in any area that was part of unincorporated Snohomish County in 1971 (when HASCO was created), without City Council permission. If you have a map of the Edmonds city limits in 1971, that will show you the area that would be added into HASCO's operational area (that is, where HASCO could purchase property without case -by -case Council permission). I believe someone at HASCO created a map like that, but I'll have to do some digging to find it, due to recent staff turnover. You may be able to do it quicker, if you're in a hurry. Let me know if this clarifies things, and if you'd like me to look on my end for a map. Happy to speak by phone, Zoom or whatever if you have more detailed questions. Best, Q Chris c CI CHRIS COLLIER c Program Manager N y Alliance for Housing Affordability aD 425.293.0601 1 ccollier(@hasco.org �+ c L From: Shipley, Brad <Brad.ShipleyCcDedmondswa.gov> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 10:49 AM To: Chris Collier <ccollier(@hasco.org> E Subject: FW: Areas in which HASCO can operate within Edmonds O U U) Q Hello Chris, _ c a� Hopefully you can help us. We are looking for a copy of the ILA between HASCO and the City of E Edmonds to try to determine which areas of the city are currently covered by the agreement. Do you know who we can reach out to? Q Thanks, Brad Shipley I Associate Planner City of Edmonds 121 5th Ave N Edmonds WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 ext. 1367 Packet Pg. 16 6.b From: Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope(@edmondswa.gov> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 9:33 AM To: Shipley, Brad <Brad.Shipley(@edmondswa.gov> Subject: RE: Areas in which HASCO can operate within Edmonds Yes, please check with HASCO, or maybe Chris Collier of AHA, as any such ILA may be old enough that it's not easy to find. Thanks, Shane From: Shipley, Brad Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 9:23 AM To: Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope(@edmondswa.gov>; Chave, Rob <Rob.Chave(@edmondswa.gov> Subject: RE: Areas in which HASCO can operate within Edmonds Is there a copy of the ILA? If so, I can create a map. I can check with HASCO for a copy if it hasn't already been done. -Brad From: Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope(cDedmondswa.gov> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 3:16 PM To: Chave, Rob <Rob.Chave(@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Shipley, Brad <Brad.Shipley(@edmondswa.gov> Subject: RE: Areas in which HASCO can operate within Edmonds Not surprised. That may need to happen later, but it can be a separate process. Thanks. From: Chave, Rob Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 2:50 PM To: Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope(@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Shipley, Brad <Brad.Shipley(@edmondswa.gov> Subject: Re: Areas in which HASCO can operate within Edmonds We'll have to check with HASCO; I have no idea. Rob Chave Planning Manager, City of Edmonds From: Hope, Shane <Shane.Hope(@edmondswa.gov> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 1:33 PM To: Chave, Rob <Rob.Chave(@edmondswa.gov> Cc: Shipley, Brad <Brad.Shipley6Dedmondswa.gov> c Cl c 0 .N (D a� c L CU a� J CU E a) O U U) Q 2 c a� E Q Packet Pg. 17 6.b Subject: Areas in which HASCO can operate within Edmonds Rob, as I understand it: Two HASCO-owned properties provide low-income housing in Edmonds under a prior ILA with the City. However, the agreement with HASCO apparently does not include areas that were subsequently annexed to the City. Do we know for sure which areas are covered by the agreement and which are not? If so, can someone create a map to show this? The issue is something the Housing Commission is working on now. Thanks, Shane Shane Hope, AICP Development Services Director City of Edmonds 425.771-0220 X ext.1216 Shane. hopena edmondswa.gov Packet Pg. 18 6.b Housing Authority of Snohomish County Operating Area in Edmonds 0 0.75 1.5 Miles I I Legend Proposed Operating Area Current Operating Area City Boundary Roadway a HASCO Property t - e1 of c o\ �p y aD a� L CU J 196t St S — CU E 0 U 9 Ma 2osth St S W `I in _ y it E t 21'th Its Y v °k dot a Vie Pine St 1 218th St S 220th St SW s� dy L N1h. W onds n s 104 Lake Ballinger 244th St SW Packet Pg. 19 6.c Sampling of Cost to Build Duplexes Given Current Land Valuations in Edmonds Area Square Footage of One Duplex Unit Approx Lot Size Assessed Value - 1/2 in square feet Assessed Value Full Lot for Duplex Assumption View Lot 1000 sq. ft. 1200 sq ft 1350 sq ft 1500 sq. ft Zone 1 Area 10000 $380,000.00 $190,000.00 no building costs @ $ 450/sq.ft $640,000.00 $730,000.00 $797,500.00 $865,000.00 building costs @ $ 500/sq.ft. $690,000.00 $790,000.00 $865,000.00 $940,000.00 12000 $315,000.00 $157,500.00 no building costs @ $ 450/sq.ft $607,500.00 $697,500.00 $765,000.00 $832,500.00 building costs @ $ 500/sq.ft. $657,500.00 $757,500.00 $832,500.00 $907,500.00 Zone 2 Area 10000 $312,000.00 $ 156,000.00 no building costs @ $ 450/sq.ft $606,000.00 $696,000.00 $763,500.00 $831,000.00 building costs @ $ 500/sq.ft. $656,000.00 $756,000.00 $831,000.00 $906,000.00 12000 $408,000.00 $ 204,000.00 no $654,000.00 $744,000.00 $811,500.00 $879,000.00 building costs @ $ 450/sq.ft $704,000.00 $804,000.00 $879,000.00 $954,000.00 building costs @ $ 500/sq.ft. Zone 3 Area 10000 $807,400.00 $ 403,700.00 maybe building costs @ $ 450/sq.ft $853,700.00 $943,700.00 $1,011,200.00 $1,078,700.00 building costs @ $ 500/sq.ft. $903,700.00 $1,003,700.00 $1,078,700.00 $1,153,700.00 8000 $470,400.00 $ 235,200.00 no building costs @ $ 450/sq.ft $685,200.00 $775,200.00 $842,700.00 $910,200.00 building costs @ $ 500/sq.ft. $735,200.00 $835,200.00 $910,200.00 $985,200.00 Zone 4 Area 20000 $643,700.00 12000 $527,000.00 $321,850.00 maybe building costs @ $ 450/sq.ft building costs @ $ 500/sq.ft. $263,500.00 no building costs @ $ 450/sq.ft building costs @ $ 500/sq.ft. $771,850.00 $861,850.00 $929,350.00 $996,850.00 $821,850.00 $921,850.00 $996,850.00 $1,071,850.00 $713,500.00 $803,500.00 $871,000.00 $938,500.00 $763,500.00 $863,500.00 $938,500.00 $1,013,500.00 a Q Packet Pg. 20 6.c Zone 5 Area 12000 $358,000.00 $179,000.00 no building costs @ $ 450/sq.ft $629,000.00 $719,000.00 $786,500.00 $854,000.00 building costs @ $ 500/sq.ft. $679,000.00 $779,000.00 $854,000.00 $929,000.00 18000 $403,500.00 $201,750.00 no building costs @ $ 450/sq.ft $651,750.00 $741,750.00 $809,250.00 $876,750.00 building costs @ $ 500/sq.ft. $701,750.00 $801,750.00 $876,750.00 $951,750.00 Zone 6 Area 10000 $404,000.00 $202,000.00 no building costs @ $ 450/sq.ft $652,000.00 $742,000.00 $809,500.00 $877,000.00 building costs @ $ 500/sq.ft. $702,000.00 $802,000.00 $877,000.00 $952,000.00 12000 $386,000.00 $193,000.00 no building costs @ $ 450/sq.ft $643,000.00 $733,000.00 $800,500.00 $868,000.00 building costs @ $ 500/sq.ft. $693,000.00 $793,000.00 $868,000.00 $943,000.00 Zone 7 Area 12000 $330,000.00 $165,000.00 no building costs @ $ 450/sq.ft $615,000.00 $705,000.00 $772,500.00 $840,000.00 building costs @ $ 500/sq.ft. $665,000.00 $765,000.00 $840,000.00 $915,000.00 12000 $320,000.00 $160,000.00 no building costs @ $ 450/sq.ft $610,000.00 $700,000.00 $767,500.00 $835,000.00 building costs @ $ 500/sq.ft. $660,000.00 $760,000.00 $835,000.00 $910,000.00 a c 0 CY c 0 .y N d U) a� c C L J z ui U) 0 U x m a 0 r c a� E t 0 Q Packet Pg. 21 6.d CITIZENS' HOUSING 1111 COMMISSION �1 1 �I111111 o1■ Policy Comparisons Target Population May Benefit Q Target Population Summary Policy Proposals Renters Home- Low- Moderate- Seniors Owners Income Income HOUSING DIVERSITY AND EQUITY Allow one duplex or two -unit townhouse buildings on a property in SFR area. 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 0 Q W • Sited next to Neighborhood Business (BN) zoning districts, or • Close to schools or medical complexes. 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. Q Allow one detached accessory unit on a property, with clear and definitive development guidelines, in SFR area. W Add Cluster/Cottage housing as an option within single-family or multi -family housing in Edmonds. Q Q Develop neighborhood villages. Q Q Packet Pg. 22 6.d CITIZENS' HOUSING ;�;� ... COMMISSION 1 11 NINE Policy Comparisons Target Population May Benefit O Target Population Summary Policy Proposals Renters Home-M-mm INCENTIVES AND PROGRAMS FOR AFFORDABILITY Change to 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 • • • Q • 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 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 O funding affordable housing elsewhere in the city. REGIONAL APPROACH Execute an interlocal agreement (ILA) with the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) allowing HASCO to operate within Edmonds geographic boundaries. 0 Edmonds should develop community partners throughout South Snohomish County to create/build non-profit affordable housing options for low/moderate income residents. e LQ a c CJ 0 as a� c a a� as c 0 N a E 0 c� 0 a c m E U 0 r a Packet Pg. 23 6.d CITIZENS' HOUSING } ;�;� ... COMMISSION 11� ■NE Policy Comparisons Target Population May Benefit O Target Population . '. ' ... PROGRAMS Home-M-mm 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. 0 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. 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 • • • 0 • Adopting penalties for violation and procedures to protect the rights of landlords and tenants a c CJ 0 a� a, c a a� m Z N C 0 y �L a E 0 c) 0 a c m E U 0 r a Packet Pg. 24 6.d CITIZENS' HOUSING ;�;� ... COMMISSION 1 11 NINE Policy Comparisons Target Population May Benefit O Target Population . '. ' ... Home-M-mm PROGRAMS (cont'd) 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 W manager. Fund a program, or contribute funding to an existing program such as Homage, to assist • • 0 low-income homeowners with emergency home repairs. FINANCIAL INVESTMENTS TO CREATE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES Per RCW 82.14.540, use the City of Edmonds' share of the existing state sales tax that is reserved for affordable housing: • In the short term, to provide rental assistance to low-income households in Edmonds that have been impacted by the coronavirus • In the longer term, to contribute to a regional organization, which could be the County, Q 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. DESIGN STANDARDS FOR MULTI -FAMILY 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 C Edmonds community. Building types would include mixed use buildings, small multi -family buildings and larger multi -family buildings. a a Packet Pg. 25 6.d CITIZENS' HOUSING } ;�;� ... COMMISSION 11� ■NE Policy Comparisons Target Population May Benefit 0 Target Population a Home-M-Mm . '. ' ... GENERAL Recommend council adopt LANGUAGE that includes Parking Solutions as a goal defined in our Transportation Element under City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. 0 Simplify Zoning Code Language Streamline Permitting Process r Q Packet Pg. 26 Citizens Housing Commission Agenda Item Meeting Date: 12/10/2020 Preliminary Draft Policy Proposals Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Citizens Housing Commission Prepared By: Debbie Rothfus Background/History At its November 19 meeting, the Housing Commission reviewed the current policy ideas being considered. (See Attachment 1, Draft Policy Proposals by Topical Grouping and Short Title.) Staff Recommendation Review as needed. Narrative Each of the policy ideas and preliminary draft proposals that currently are under consideration by the Housing Commission are attached, in the same order as the Draft Policy Proposals List. These ideas originally came from one of five Commission policy committees. Several of them have been updated from the original versions. You may notice, in particular, that one of the alternative proposals for detached ADUs has been revised, with new language in red font. The preliminary drafts are attached in the following order, as Attachments 2 - 21: SFR Housing Medium Density SF Zone DADU-Zoning (NOTE: This version is from the Zoning Standards Committee and has more specific details than the other version) DADU-Housing Types (NOTE: this version is from the Housing Types Committee, and is at a broader level than the other version; it has been revised since the 11/19 meeting) Cluster/Cottage Housing Neighborhood Village Multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) Inclusionary Zoning Resources- 1406 revenue Resources- 1590 revenue Resources- HASCO ILA Community Housing Partners Resources -Home Repair Resources -Just Cause MF Design Standards Renter's Choice Simplify Zoning Code Language Packet Pg. 27 Streamline Permitting Process Childcare Voucher Program Update Comp Plan for Parking Solutions A quick reminder of the policies on the current list will be presented at the December 10 meeting -- mainly to make sure that nothing the Commission had intended to be on the list at this stage is missing. NOTE: While 20 policy ideas and preliminary proposals are included on the current list, none are final. The first eight preliminary draft proposals were already discussed at the November 19 meeting so won't be revisited except where a change has occurred. Discussion on December 10 will focus on: (a) the one revised policy for detached accessory dwellings; and (b) the 12 remaining policies not previously discussed. Then on December 17, the Housing Commission will decide which of the 20 ideas should be considered as a set of Commission "draft recommendations" and go out for a final round of public review. By the end of January, after considering public input and other information, the Commission will decide on the actual "final policy proposals" to be recommended for City Council consideration in 2021. (Of course, Council "consideration" does not mean automatic approval; additional thought will go into the City Council's process for deciding at that time what should be further explored or implemented.) Attachments: Policy.Proposals.List_11.19.20.Rvsd SFR Housing Medium Density SF Zone DADU-Zoning DADU-Housing Types Cluster Housing Neighborhood Village M FTE Inclusionary Zoning Resources-1406 revenue Resources-1590 revenue Resources-HASCO ILA Community Housing Partners Resources -Home Repair Resources -Just Cause MF Design Standards Renter's Choice Simplify Zoning Code Language Streamline Permitting Process Childcare Voucher Program Update Comp Plan for Parking Solutions Packet Pg. 28 7.a 11/19/20 (Revised from 11/18/20) DRAFT 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 • Equity housing incentives • Equity housing options • 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. 29 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 a moderate -income housing needs. c This policy may impact current zoning designations. c x U_ 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, E 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".] a • 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. 30 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? a Packet Pg. 31 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? Q Packet Pg. 32 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. 33 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 a� c 0 N 0 a 0 c m E U 0 r a Packet Pg. 34 7.e November 17, 2020 Draft Policy Recommendation INTERNAL INFORMATION Committee: Housing Types Committee Members: Judi Gladstone, Zone 7 Will Chen, Zone 7 Tana Axtelle, Alternate At -Large Rick Nishino, Alternate Zone 6 Nichole Franko, Zone 4- absent member Jim Ogonowski, Zone 1- dissenting member EXTERNAL INFORMATION Short Name of Draft Policy: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units Draft Policy Allow either one attached or detached accessory unit on a property in the SFR area, with clear and definitive development requirements such as size, ownership, and parking, under the standard permitting process and not require a conditional use permit. OPTIONAL INFORMATION 1. This policy does not limit the detached accessory dwelling to any specific zone(s) within the City. 2. This policy allows the City to generate its own development and design requirements, and codes,—. a These can be guided by existing standards for ADU's in Edmonds and may =refcFcnEe the Stand—ards aalre-ady adepted by -other neighboring Cities, a444-refined acted -specifically for the current needs of Edmonds based upon on f^%c community feedback. As aR examp4 Examples of requirements include;_ limitations on floor area based en lot -;i;z^, yard setbacks, height limitations, aPA-off street parking specifications, and ownership stipulationsare some of the requirements the City she ld cvrrzrcrcT. 3. This policy makes it possible to develop detached accessory dwelling units without the added expense and trouble of a conditional use permit. Attachment 1— General Policy Proposal — DADUs V.2.docx [provides supporting discussion related to detached accessory dwellings] Packet Pg. 35 November 17, 2020 7.e Attachment 2 — DADU Policy Minority View.docx [provided for informational purposes] r a Packet Pg. 36 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. 37 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. 38 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. E • It may reduce tax revenues for the city for the period of years a property is certified as MFTE. m • It may increase business opportunity as commercial space (taxable) may be built on ground floors. a • These units, built in 'residential target/urban zone areas' take into account accessibility to transit, w shopping, parks, the environment, parking and other services. LL • 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.) E Additional information: 0 • Lynnwood, Shoreline, Mountlake Terrace, Everett have MFTE programs. Q • 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. 39 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. 40 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. 41 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. 42 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. 43 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. 44 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. 45 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. 46 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. 47 7.m Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission Policy Proposal - Incentives & Requirements Committee: Tanya Kataria, Eva -Denise Miller, Alena Nelson-Vietmeier, Jean Salls, Bob Throndsen Short Title of Policy Proposal: Develop Community Housing Partners. Purpose of Policy Proposal: Edmonds should develop community partners throughout South Snohomish County to create/build non-profit affordable housing options for low/moderate income residents. Specific Policy Proposal: • Edmonds needs more affordable housing options for: o low/moderate income residents (especially those who earn less than 50% of AMI.) o special needs residents o seniors o veterans • Construction and land costs make building low income housing economically difficult. • This policy would establish partnerships to build non ro it housing with: 0 other public agencies o neighboring communities o non-profit housing/charity groups o The city contracts with those agencies to manage this housing Factors considered: • Potential partnerships already exist in South Snohomish County. o The cities of Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Brier o 'Homes & Hope' Community Land Trust has built in Lynnwood o Housing Authority of Snohomish County o The Alliance for Housing Affordability o Habitat for Humanity • Partnerships can seek private grants/state/federal funding. • Create incentive opportunities for land donation from private owners. • Explore 'surplus' property of the School District, PUD, other entities. • Existing agencies can be contracted to manage projects. • Apply for Washington State Housing Trust Fund monies. • Some funding from existing sales tax revenue is already dedicated for low income housing. • Work with the county to create additional sales tax revenue as authorized by state law. • Satisfy all zoning criteria for housing/apartments/MFTE renovation properties. • Meet needs for services, parking, access to transit, green space, environmental impacts. Additional Research and Information: • The Commission has already developed contact with Homes & Hope CLT. • Additional sources available from Appendix E. Edmonds Housing Strategy (2018) Packet Pg. 48 7.m Packet Pg. 49 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. 50 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. 51 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. 52 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. 53 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. 54 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. 55 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. 56 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 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. 57