2021-01-28 Citizens Housing Commission PacketI
o Agenda
Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission
REGULAR MEETING
VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE,
HTTP://EDMONDSWA.IQM2.COM/CITIZENS/DEFAULT.ASPX, EDMONDS, WA
98020
JANUARY 28, 2021, 6:00 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 JANUARY 28, 2021 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
January 28, 2021
Page 1
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (SUBMITTED BY EMAIL TO HOUSING.PUB.COMMENTS@EDMONDSWA.GOV)
APPROVAL OF JANUARY 14, 2021 MEETING NOTES
Approval of January 14, 2021 Meeting Notes
6. PROCESS FOR DECIDING ON POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS (10 MINUTES)
Process for Deciding on Policy Recommendations
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS (90 MINUTES)
Policy Recommendations
8. TRANSMITTAL LETTER (10 MINUTES)
Transmittal Letter
9. WRAP UP, NEXT STEPS & ADJOURN
Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission Agenda
January 28, 2021
Page 2
Citizens Housing Commission Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/28/2021
Approval of January 14, 2021 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 01/14/2021 meeting are attached.
Attachments:
ECHC_Notes_1.14.21
Packet Pg. 3
5.a
EDMONDS CITIZENS' HOUSING COMMISSION
Meeting Notes —January 14, 2021
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 Webpaee.
ATTENDANCE
Commissioners
•
Karen Haase Herrick, Zone 1
•
James Ogonowski, Zone 1
•
Keith Soltner, Zone 2
•
Weija Wu, Zone 2
•
Eva -Denise Miller, Zone 3
•
George Keefe, Zone 3
•
Michael McMurray, Zone 4
•
Nichole Franko, 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
City Council Liaisons
• Luke Distelhorst, Position 2
• Vivian Olson, Position 5
Project Staff
• Shane Hope, City of Edmonds
• Brad Shipley, City of Edmonds
• Amber Groll, City of Edmonds
• Gretchen Muller, 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 Warren provided a comment thanking the Commission for all of their work to
date on housing policies.
Packet Pg. 4
5.a
Alternate Wyatt provided comment recommending Brave New Home by Diana Lind,
which takes a look at moving away from single-family homes.
6. DECEMBER 17 NOTES APPROVAL
The December 17 meeting notes were approved.
7. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSALS REMAINING FROM DECEMBER
Commissioner Ogonowski presented five draft policy proposals for the Commission's
consideration. Decisions for each proposal are outlined below.
i. Property Tax Exemption for Low Income Households Proposal: Commissioners
approved adding this policy to the draft recommendations list. ;n
as
ii. Subarea Policy Proposal: Commissioner Ogonowski will work with the Zoning o
Standards Committee to include details from this proposal into the Z
a�
Development of Neighborhood Villages draft policy recommendation.
r
iii. Covenants and Deeds Policy Proposal: Commissioners approved adding this
policy to the draft recommendations list.
r
iv. Swedish Hospital Partnership Policy Proposal: Commissioner Ogonowski will o
work with Commissioner Throndsen and the Incentives & Requirements
Committee to include details from this proposal into the Develop Community
Housing Partners draft policy recommendation.
• A Commissioner made a motion for details of medical partnerships be
included in the Develop Community Housing Partners draft policy
recommendation, including information on the Verdant Health
Commission. Commissioners approved this motion.
V. HASCO Partnership Proposal: This proposal did not receive a motion.
II. Commissioner made a motion to add the following policy proposal to the draft
recommendation list based on the last round of public engagement: Update
Comprehensive Plan to Include "Parking Solutions" as a Goal in Transportation Element
Section. Commissioners approved this motion.
III. Commissioner made a motion to add the following policy proposal: "Recommend not
allowing SEPA exemption policies to be considered by City Council as they relate to
housing policies." Commissioners did not pass this motion, so the policy proposal will
not be included on the draft recommendations list.
8. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT UPDATE —Jasmine Beverly
I. Presentation on the community input heard in the last round of community
engagement including:
i. Response rates for survey and participation at the January 7 webinar
ii. Results and feedback on the ideas presented in Survey #4 — December
2020/January 2021
iii. Trends from the written feedback from the January 7 webinar
9. UPDATE ON LETTER FROM ALLIANCE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING — Councilmember Distelhorst
Councilmember Distelhorst gave an update on a letter from the Alliance for Affordable
Housing. Commissioners discussed this letter and thanked Councilmember Distelhorst
for providing an update.
Packet Pg. 5
5.a
10. FORMAT/FRAMEWORK FOR FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
I. Commissioner Throndsen gave an overview of the transmittal letter that will be included
in the suite of materials sent to City Council with the final policy recommendations.
Commissioners will send edits to Director Hope prior to the January 28 meeting.
Commissioners will vote on the final letter at the January 28 meeting.
Gretchen gave an overview of the framing for voting on final recommendations.
Commissioners clarified the information included in the final recommendations for
Council and discussed which information they want included. Commissioner a motion to
include vote tallies for each policy recommendation. The motion did not receive a
second. Commissioners voted to include the following information in the final
recommendations: ;n
i. Short title (by Commission vote) o
ii. Policy statement (by Commission vote) Z
a�
iii. Additional/optional information (information previously provided by
r
Committees — not voted on by Commission)
11. WRAP-UP, NEXT STEPS AND ADJOURN — Gretchen Muller
I. The final meeting is on Thursday, January 28. Commissioners will make final policy
recommendations for Council at this meeting.
II. Commissioner made a motion to start the January 28 meeting at 613M. Commissioners
passed this motion, so the January 28 meeting will begin at 613M.
Packet Pg. 6
Citizens Housing Commission Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/28/2021
Process for Deciding on Policy Recommendations
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Citizens Housing Commission
Prepared By: Debbie Rothfus
Background/History
At its January 14 meeting, the Housing Commission discussed the process to be used at its final meeting
for voting on policy recommendations to make to the City Council. That process was to take the title
and policy statement for each draft policy, one by one, and:
1. Ask for a motion and a second to move it forward as a policy recommendation (to the City
Council (However, if no motion and second occurs on January 28, the draft would not move
forward.)
2. After a motion and second, ask for any discussion.
3. During the discussion, Commissioners could make comments or ask questions or propose
amendments.
4. Any amendments would need both a motion and a second, then be subject to further discussion
and a vote on the amendment itself. (Amendments approved by the majority would
immediately become part of the draft policy.)
5. Any further discussion of the draft policy could occur.
6. The facilitator or a Commissioner could request to move the draft policy to a vote.
7. The vote would be by roll call.
8. Each draft policy receiving a majority vote would become a recommendation to the City Council.
Since then, concerns have been raised that the above process could take too long if carried out for each
of the 22 draft policies and that not enough time would be available to discuss those draft policies that
had the most questions or disagreement. A modified process is proposed below.
Staff Recommendation
Use the modified process.
Narrative
The slightly modified process, described below is intended to allow the Housing Commission to
deliberate longer on the more difficult draft policies and move faster on those draft policies that are
fairly easy and that the Commission has considered previously. This can be done on January 28 by:
Skipping the "motion and second" step to begin the discussion of each draft policy;
Allowing a longer time to discuss the more difficult policies;
Allowing those draft policies that were previously considered by the Commission and are
relatively straightforward to be voted on with minimal or no discussion.
Aiming for a time limit to the January 28 policies discussion --but not being absolutely locked
Packet Pg. 7
into it. (This could be done by following the example of the City Council. The Council ends its
meetings by a certain time unless there's a motion, second, and immediate vote to continue
the meeting for a specific extra amount of time. That approach helps keep the agenda moving
along and avoids people getting burnt out before the meeting's end.)
o We would aim for the target end time for the "policy voting process" to be 9:00 pm.
However, if the target end time is nearing, any Commissioner can make a motion to
extend the session for a specific period of time (such as 15 minutes). If someone else
seconds that, a quick vote will be taken and (assuming the majority vote "yes"), the
session will continue. If the majority does not want to continue, this portion of the
agenda ends. (NOTE: After the Commission is done voting on the draft policies during
this portion of the agenda, approximately ten more minutes will be needed to finish the
agenda.)
Note: Items 3 through 8 that are listed in the "Background" section of this memo would still apply --
except that some draft policies, which have been previously considered and are relatively
straightforward, could be voted on by the Commission without discussion or amendment. Also, as
discussed on January 14 (and earlier), the Commission's vote is needed for the policy title and
statement, but not for the additional information that was prepared by committees.
Finally, it may be good at the meeting to recall that:
(a) Discussion among members should be courteous -even if there is disagreement.
(b) Avoiding repetition of individual points can save time.
(c) Everyone should help the group make progress.
Commissioners have worked hard to get this far and have made changes to some of their original drafts
to reflect public comments. Seeking and thoughtfully considering public comments is very important.
Still, Commission members have different opinions about things. No matter what ends up being
recommended, some people in the community will agree and others not. Regardless, it appears that
Commissioners are committed to considering all perspectives and making the best choice they can,
given what they know at this time.
After the Housing Commission's recommendations are finalized, they will get more analysis and more
opportunity for community input before the City Council takes final action. For some recommendations,
that stage may take many months, perhaps more than a year or even two years. It will also be up to the
City Council to decide which of the Commission's specific recommendations should be explored further.
Ultimately, the Council may decide to move forward on some items (with possible changes) and reject
others. That is perfectly fine. The Commission will have contributed to the effort.
On January 28, the Commission is encouraged to decide on its recommendations, using the modified
process described in this memo.
REMINDER: The actual draft policies are included in a separate agenda memo for "Recommended
Policies".
Packet Pg. 8
Citizens Housing Commission Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/28/2021
Policy Recommendations
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Citizens Housing Commission
Prepared By: Debbie Rothfus
Background/History
Since spring of 2020, the Housing Commission has been considering a number of housing policy ideas for
possible recommendation to the City Council. Consideration included researching information (in part
through several small policy committees), having discussions at public meetings, considering public
comments, looking at examples from other places, providing several community surveys, and
considering the survey results.
A number of the original draft ideas were revised, in part based on public input, before being offered for
a final recommendation.
Of course, none of the Commission's policy recommendations will be automatically implemented.
Rather, recommendations will be carefully considered by the City Council over a period of time, which
could extend many months or longer and include more study and public input as part of the process.
The Council will ultimately decide what should be explored further and what should be revised,
approved, or dropped. However, the Commission's effort will be useful in considering future options.
Staff Recommendation
Vote on draft policies to be recommended to the City Council
Narrative
A wide range of policy ideas have been discussed by the Housing Commission. Some of these have
changed from their original drafts in response to public input.
At the January 28 meeting, the Housing Commission will have more discussion on key proposals and
may consider amendments. Some simpler proposals may need little or no discussion or amendment.
Deciding that balance is up to the Housing Commission.
A separate agenda memo identifies the decision process for voting.
Attached are all 22 draft policies that the Commission has decided to consider for a recommendation to
the City Council. These will be approached in order.
Packet Pg. 9
Also attached is a set of proposed amendments from Commissioner McMurray. The amendments
address several proposals and can be taken up --not all at once, but-- during the discussion of each draft
policy for whch it is proposed.
Attachments:
Missing Middle Housing In Single Family Neighborhoods Draft Policy Recommendation
Equity Housing Incentives Draft Policy Recommendations
Medium Density SF Zone Draft Policy Recommendation
Neighborhood Village Draft Policy Recommendation
Cluster Housing Draft Policy Recommendation
DADU-Housing Types Draft Policy Recommendation
MFTE Draft Policy Proposal Recommendation
Inclusionary Zoning Draft Policy Recommendation
Use of Existing Sales Tax Revenue Draft Policy Recommendation
County Implementation of Sales and Use Tax Draft Policy Recommendation
Edmonds HASCO Interlocal Agreement Draft Policy Recommendation
Develop Community Housing Partners Draft Policy Recommendation
Improved Tenant Protections Draft Policy Recommendation
Childcare Voucher Program Draft Policy Recommendation
Renter's Choice Draft Policy Recommendation
Low Income Emergency Home Repair Draft Policy Recommendation
Property Tax Exemption for Low Income Households Draft Policy Recommendation
Simplify Zoning Code Language Draft Policy Recommendation
Streamline Permitting Process Draft Policy Recommendation
MF Design Standards Draft Policy Recommendation
Update Comp Plan for Parking Solutions Draft Policy Recommendation
Covenants and Deeds Draft Policy Recommendation
Amendment Proposals
Packet Pg. 10
1/28/21
7.a
Draft Policy Recommendation
***Revised from original "Equity Housing Options" Policy Proposal***
Short Name of Draft Policy: Missing Middle Housing in Single Family Neighborhoods
Draft Policy:
Develop design requirements and zoning changes that allow for home -ownership of two attached single
family homes (duplex or two -unit townhouses) in single family residential areas and are compatible with
those neighborhoods.
Additional Information:
Two attached single family homes, otherwise known as duplexes or two -unit townhomes, offer an
alternative to typical detached single family homes. They help to address the need for smaller, more
affordable housing choices in neighborhoods characterized by single-family homes. Over the past fifty
years, the median square footage of new single family units has increased from about 1600 to 3100. This
policy would allow two units within the same square footage. Structures containing two dwelling units
designed to look like a detached single family home can have the exact same footprint as one single
family home, and isn't much different than having a single family home with an attached accessory
dwelling unit. More and more cities across the country are allowing two attached single family houses in
traditional single family residential areas to address the need for more affordable housing. One example
locally is the City of Kirkland.
This policy also helps to balance out the housing unit types available with the household size need. Data
provided to the Housing Commission in its early days showed that one or two person households'
account for 69% of the households in the city, yet only 37% of the housing is one or two bedrooms. At
the same time, four person households make up 12% of the households and 21% of the housing are four
bedroom units. Only 2% of the available housing is duplexes. Scaling housing to the demographics offers
more affordable options for those who want to own a smaller house, such as seniors who want to
downsize and first time homeowners.
Allowing two attached single family homes in single family areas would be considered up zoning. That
term, however, is often associated with the image of allowing large apartment buildings. The Housing
Type Committee considered the possibility of including triplex and four-plexes in earlier versions of this
policy, but we narrowed it to two units based on feedback from the commissioners and the community
This policy does not include more than two attached single family units like the ones in the photos
below located in the Edmonds/Lynnwood area. Allowing smaller homes in our single family
neighborhoods makes them more affordable and accessible to middle income households that are
seeking the amenities that we enjoy in Edmonds, i.e. excellent public schools and low crime. Not
allowing smaller homes into our neighborhoods helps to create housing scarcity which in turn
contributes to the continued high cost of housing.
This policy represents incremental change to increase the stock of missing middle housing in our city to
more closely align housing needs with household size. With appropriate design requirements we can
increase housing availability and help stabilize housing prices without changing the character of single
family neighborhoods.
N
C
0
r
c
a�
E
E
0
a�
2
0
9m
Packet Pg. 11
7.a
Packet Pg. 12
7.b
1/28/21
Draft Policy Recommendation
Short Name of Draft Policy: Equity Housing Incentives
Draft Policy:
Develop incentives that apply to "missing middle" housing types city-wide that allow home -ownership
for those at or below average median family income.
c
:r
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
E
1. "Missing Middle Housing" types provide diverse housing options such as duplexes, triplexes,
o
fourplexes, and cottage courts. These house -scale buildings fit seamlessly into existing
U
residential neighborhoods.
2. This policy is designed to promote homeownership of smaller homes for people who
a
would not otherwise be able to afford purchasing a home in Edmonds.
3. The policy encourages racial equity housing options by allowing ownership of smaller type
N
o
housing in neighborhoods where households that may occupy those homes were excluded from
in the past. C
Additional material to be made available.
Packet Pg. 13
7.c
1/28/21
Draft Policy Recommendation
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
ADDITIONAL 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:
c
0
M
c
a�
E
E
0
as
o:
0
a
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. 14
1/28/21
7.d
Draft Policy Recommendation
Short Name of Draft Policy: Neighborhood Village Subarea Planning
Draft Policy:
Develop subarea plans to rethink areas zoned "Business Neighborhood" such as 5 Corners, Perrinville,
etc. The subarea plans should create unique, thriving neighborhoods and social gathering points with
the surrounding properties to integrate community values including missing middle housing, business
opportunity and environmental stewardship in these areas. Additional areas that could be intentionally
rethought are Westgate area and Downtown Business (BD) areas.
Additional 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, creating a path to grow the city economically, environmentally, and residentially.
2. The NV concept includes small commercial and mixed -use [live -work] buildings, in designated
neighborhoods, often in the current BN zoning.
3. NVs 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 areas would include a variety of housing option segments, such as Medium Density Single -
Family, cluster housing and artist housing, apartments, or condominiums, creating diverse
housing and business opportunities. 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
planned and disciplined manner to enhance and reinvigorate 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.
c
0
r
c
m
E
E
0
U
a�
0
a
m.
Packet Pg. 15
1/28/21
7.e
Draft Policy Recommendation
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.
Additional 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.
Packet Pg. 16
1/28/21
7.f
Draft Policy Recommendation
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.
ADDITIONAL 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. These can be guided by existing standard for ADU's in Edmonds and may
reference the standards already adopted by other neighboring cities and reclined as
needed speciifcally for the current needs of Edmonds based upon on favorable
community feedback. Examples of requirements include: limitations on floor area
based on lot size, yard setbacks, height limitations, and off street parking specifications,
and ownership stipulations are some of the requirements the City should consider.
3. This policy makes it possible to develop detached accessory dwelling units without the
added expense and trouble of a conditional use permit.
Additional material to be made available.
0
a�
E
0
U
a�
0
a
Packet Pg. 17
7.f
a
Packet Pg. 18
7.g
Draft Policy Recommendation
Short Name of Draft Policy: Multi -Family Tax Exemption (MFTE)
Draft Policy:
Make significant changes to the MFTE as it currently exists to:
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%)
N
Construction incentives for additional units/floors, if builders reserve 25% of units for MFTE tenants* o
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 E
0
eligible*
Ask the Legislature to extend the current MFTE limits beyond 12 ears, to reserve affordable
g� Y Y p >,
housing* 2
0
a
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION c
Increase affordable rental housing opportunities for low/moderate income tenants
ca
• MFTE can increase low/moderate/missing-middle/senior and special needs housing in Edmonds.
a�
• This can increase housing options for people discriminated against in the past. E
E
• It will not reduce property values in the long term. 0
• It may or may not increase tax burden on residential and property owners for the term of the a
exemption.
• It may reduce tax revenues for the city for the period of years a property is certified as MFTE.
• It may increase business opportunity as commercial space (taxable) may be built on ground floors.
• These units, built in 'residential target/urban zone areas' take into account accessibility to transit,
shopping, parks, the environment, parking and other services.
• In properly zoned areas, MFTE will not affect community livability or neighborhood character.
• The city has authority to offer MFTE to smaller developments (less than the 20 minimum now set.)
• Lynnwood, Shoreline, Mountlake Terrace, Everett have MFTE programs.
• Affordable housing research urges that rental costs exceed 30% of a tenant's monthly income.
• There are no 2-3-bedroom units in Edmonds only MFTE property at Westgate.
• 75% of all MFTE units built in the state are studios or 1-bedroom.
• Only two areas in Edmond (Westgate and the Highway 99 subareas) are designated for MFTE
properties.
• State law already allows Edmonds to create incentives for renovation of existing properties for
M FTE.
*For additional information on the citations above, please see these research reports:
■ The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee — 2019 report on MFTE.
■ The Puget Sound Regional Council — Housing Innovations Report.
Packet Pg. 19
1/28/21
7.h
Draft Policy Recommendation
Short Name of Draft Policy: Inclusionary Zoning
Draft Policy: Require new developments (above a certain size) in Edmonds 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.
Additional Information:
Overall purpose of policy is to leverage profitability of new developments to increase supply of
affordable housing units and funding for affordable housing development; to create more inclusive
and economically diverse communities.
Specific policy proposal includes:
• Applicable to residential developments with more than 10 units and commercial spaces larger than
4,000 sf (chargeable at 5-10% of floor area based on location, zoning, etc.).
• Developments must provide 10-20% affordable units on site or pay an in lieu of fees.
• Rental units must serve households that earn below 60% AMI. Ownership units must serve
households that earn 80-100% AMI. Units must remain affordable for 50 years.
• Projects that do not build affordable units on site must 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. The 'in lieu of fees should be set high enough that motivates developers to build
units on site.
• The Affordable Housing Fund can be used to build new affordable housing, renovate existing units,
offer landlord protection or assurance, or used by the city to sub -contract with housing agencies,
social service or religious agencies, or Community Land Trusts to build new affordable housing.
• Participation in this program would be mandatory and can be offered along with incentives such as
density bonus increase, parking ratio reduction and expedited processing. It can be applied to
geographically targeted areas within Edmonds, such as areas where zoning increase is proposed, or
in transit -oriented areas.
• Inclusionary Zoning is a great tool to provide housing for the missing middle in Edmonds.
• 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.
• There are over 900 inclusionary housing programs in 25 states. Several of our neighboring cities such
as Federal way, Redmond, Issaquah, Sammamish, Seattle and Portland utilize this program.
N
C
O
O
c
m
E
E
O
m
0
pmm.
Packet Pg. 20
7.i
1/28/21
Draft Policy Recommendation
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.
ADDITIONAL 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
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.
c
0
c
m
E
E
0
U
m
0
a
m.
Packet Pg. 21
1/28/21
7.j
Draft Policy Recommendation
0
Short Name of Draft Policy: County Implementation of Sales and Use Tax for Housing and Related -a
Services a0i
E
E
0
as
Draft Policy:
Advocate for Snohomish County Council to adopt the optional 0.1% sales tax as allowed by state law to a0
provide affordable and supportive housing for low-income households. _
ADDITIONAL 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. 22
7.k
1/28/21
Draft Policy Recommendation
Short Name of Draft Policy: Edmonds-HASCO Interlocal Agreement
0
c
m
Draft Policy: E
0
Execute an interlocal agreement (ILA) with the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO)
allowing HASCO to operate within Edmonds geographic boundaries.
0
a-
c
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 0
0
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 E
have an agreement with each city in which it operates. 0
m
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 2
0
involving the City Council. This policy would allow HASCO to better compete in the market to a -
purchase property to build and preserve affordable homes in Edmonds. L
0
While an ILA would reduce red tape and timelines for property acquisition, HASCO would still be
required to meet all permitting and development requirements. E
Packet Pg. 23
7.1
1/28/21
Draft Policy Recommendation
Short Name of Draft Policy: Develop Community Housing Partners
Draft Policy:
N
• Edmonds needs more affordable housing options for: o
o low/moderate income residents (especially those who earn less than 50% of AML)
o special needs residents
o seniors E
E
o veterans 0
• Construction and land costs make building low income housing economically challenging.
• This policy establishes community partnerships with for-profit/non-profits to build affordable >+
housing: o
o public agencies a
o neighboring communities o
o housing/for-profit/non-profit groups
o community care providers (transitional housing for patients with 'no safe place to go'
while recovering from hospitalization) E
o Edmonds would establish regulations for these partnerships o
o The city contract would contract with those partners to manage this housing m
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Edmonds should develop community partners throughout South Snohomish County to create/build
affordable housing options for low/moderate income residents.
• Potential partnerships already exist in South Snohomish County.
o The cities of Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, Brier
o 'Homes & Hope' Community Land Trust 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 community resources available from Appendix E. Edmonds Housing Strategy (2018)
• Our Community I Verdant — representing Public Hospital District #2/Swedish-Edmonds
Packet Pg. 24
1/28/21
7.m
Draft Policy Recommendation
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
ADDITIONAL 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.
c
0
r
c
m
E
E
0
U
m
0
a
Packet Pg. 25
7.n
1/28/21
Draft Policy Recommendation
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.
ADDITIONAL 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.
c
0
c
a�
E
E
0
U
a�
2
0
a
Packet Pg. 26
1/28/21
7.0
Draft Policy Recommendation
Short title of Policy Proposal: Renter's Choice Security Deposit
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:
Buying rental security insurance
Installment payment of security deposits - at least six equal monthly payments.
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.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Purpose of policy proposal: remove a rental barrier for all tenants regardless of income.
Key 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.
c
0
ca
c
a�
E
E
0
m
0
a
Packet Pg. 27
1/28/21
7.p
Draft Policy Recommendation
Short Name of Draft Policy: Low -Income Emergency Home Repair Program c
0
c�
c
Draft Policy:
E
E
Fund a program, or contribute funding to an existing program such as Homage, to assist low-income 0
homeowners with emergency home repairs.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION o
a -
Emergency home repair programs correct housing conditions that threaten low-income homeowners'
r_
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
E
assistance of these repairs, residents are better able to remain safely housed for as long as possible. E
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 imay be seen in the following webpages:
• Sound Generations
• City of Renton
• Rebuilding Together
• City of Seattle
Packet Pg. 28
1/28/21
7.q
Draft Policy Recommendation
Short Name of Draft Policy: Property tax exemption for low income households
Draft Policy:
Extend the property tax exemption program currently available to seniors and the disabled to low
income households.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
This policy would mirror the current property tax exemption available to qualifying seniors and
disabled households. Those homeowners with an AMI below TBD would be eligible subject to a
qualifying criteria similar to what's currently defined in:
https://snohomishcountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1387/Senior-Citizen-Disabled-Person-
Exemption-Program-Publication?bidld=
This policy results in a direct benefit to qualifying households, thus fostering home ownership with
its associated wealth creating opportunities.
0
r
a�
E
E
0
U
a�
2
0
a
Packet Pg. 29
7.r
1/28/21
Draft Policy Recommendation
0
r
Short Name of Draft Policy: Simplify Zoning Code Language -a
c
m
E
E
0
U
Draft Policy:
Use diagrams, pictures, and tables in place of text where applicable. Use plain language where 2
0
text is necessary. a
Packet Pg. 30
1/28/21
7.s
Draft Policy Recommendation
Short Name of Draft Policy: Streamline Permitting Process
Draft Policy:
Reduce the number of conditional uses to streamline the permit process.
c
0
r
R
c
m
E
E
0
m
0
a
Packet Pg. 31
7.t
1/28/21
Draft Policy Recommendation
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.
c
m
E
Additional Information: o
m
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 2
0
summary is a supplement to current zoning design standards. a
1. Building visual interest: o
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 E
0
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. .0
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.
Packet Pg. 32
7.0
1/28/21
Draft Policy Recommendation
Short Name of Draft Policy: Update Comprehensive Plan to Include "Parking Solutions" as a Goal in
Transportation Element Section 0
c�
c
a�
E
Draft Policy: E
0
Adopt LANGUAGE that includes Parking Solutions as a goal defined in our Transportation Element
under the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan.
0
a
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Current traffic impact fees assessed by the 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. 33
7.v
1/28/21
Draft Policy Recommendation
Short Name of Draft Policy:
Eliminate discriminatory provisions in covenants and deeds
N
C
O
cC
Draft Policy:
a�
Prior to the sale or transfer of any property in Edmonds, all discriminatory language in any associated E
covenants and/or deeds must be legally removed from said documents. c°,
as
U
ADDTIONAL INFORMATION ao
Historically, many parcels of property in Edmonds had legally binding language prohibiting the sale of
c
0
said property to individuals based on their race, religion, sex or other discriminatory provisions.
Covenants restricting ownership by race were ruled unenforceable by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1948,
c
E
and housing discrimination was made illegal by Congress in 1968 under the Fair Housing Law. While
E
today enforcing these documents is illegal, none -the -less they still exist and are passed down to
successive property owners at the time of sale. This policy is targeted to break that cycle. State
legislation (SHB 2514) has recently been enacted with provisions to modify these documents through
2
a "restrictive covenant modification" document filed with the county that legally strikes and voids the
o a
unenforceable provisions from the deed. This policy would mandate that property owners file a
restrictive covenant modification document with the county (at no cost) prior to the sale or transfer of
said property.
U)
While this doesn't erase history, it does provide a means to state our values for future Edmonds
m
0
residents and property owners.
Packet Pg. 34
7.w
Based on Public feedback, it was clear that Edmonds residents supported some density expansion in one
or more areas. It is clear that they also agreed additional density near transit should be considered. The
Public feedback from surveys and comments was overwhelmingly clear they wanted to preserve Single
Family zones and Neighborhoods as SF zones. I feel, based on the public engagement received, this
Citizens Housing Commission of Edmonds has a responsibility to be offering more moderate and
balanced recommendations to the council. The commission should consider an amendment to the
inclusionary zoning policy recommendation, leading to more compromise and responding to the public's
collective voice of concern. I feel there are two extremes of the spectrum to this decision/challenge: 1)
the residents who don't want absolutely any change in single-family zoning and 2) the residents/and or
outside regional forces who prefer broad based absolute citywide change. Right now, this commission is
offering one extreme policy recommendation/solution to this challenge with city wide augmentation of
all Single Family zones in Edmonds. Please review my amendments for thoughtful consideration and
together let's revisit these citywide proposals and make recommendations that all spectrums of this
diversity of housing challenge can appreciate at some level. I have also included other amendments the
commission should consider to previous recommended policies, based on direct results of our public
engagement using these as well as input accumulated by this commission over the past 16 months or so,
Amendment Consideration: Inclusionary Zoning Policy
Amendment Title: Meet in the Middle:
50% of current Single Family zones would allow Duplexes or Two townhomes in exchange for one single
residence, 25% of these augmented SF Zones would be near transit friendly access, as public feedback
was favorable to this concept. This Amendment would be a welcomed compromise and would respect
50% of Edmonds' long time established traditional Single Family neighborhoods. We, as a commission,
must acknowledge the community's concerns as it is well -documented over the past 17 months in
survey responses and written comments. This meeting in the middle, sort of speaks to meet the desire
of the missing middle, I suspect, would be welcomed on both sides of the spectrum of challenge and
would offer a more moderate recommendation and some balance. Port Orchard has developed a similar
policy, but as a smaller populated city (14,700) they have decided to augment more of their current SF
Zone at a 75% level.
*Note: Currently roughly 30% of Edmonds is non SF Zone, so an additional 35%, half of the current SF
zone allocated to this augmentation of zoning, would now allow for Edmonds to supply 65% non SF
zone, more than doubling the current makeup of the town's non SF zoning.
Amendment Title: Gradual rollout of zoning augmentation in Single family Zones:
Years 1 through 5 only 25% of Single-family zones in Edmonds receive zoning augmentation. Year 5-10,
another 25% of Single-family zones receive augmentation. Each 5 year milestones public engagement
and assessment is revisited, facilitated by City Council, Planning department and maybe also the
Planning Board to see if policy change has been well received by our community, successful and/or if
adjustments or expansions of policy need to be made at those milestones.
c
0
ca
c
as
E
E
0
m
0
a
Packet Pg. 35
7.w
*Note: Edmonds is a small geographical town of just 8 miles and change has always been slow here. A
more thoughtful and considerate policy is to gradually introduce zoning changes to see if they work, but
also this Amendment allows flexibility and opportunities to make adjustments in the future, also to
measure environmental impacts of density expansion.
*This amendment was a recommendation by a long time Edmonds resident. I happened to run into this
person on my walk the other day and he conveyed his concern about the velocity and broadness of the
Commission's current recommendations.
Amendment Consideration: Inclusionary Zoning Policy and/or Medium -density single family housing
0
(SRMD) Policy
c
1) Amendment Title: Pocket Forest: Neighborhoods with significant tree canopy (pocket forest)
E
should be considered exempt from being included in SF zone augmentation. Pocket Forest could be o
identified by the Tree Board with help from the local Sierra Club and assimilated into this zoning
recommendation.
0
a
*Environment was one of major concerns by our citizens, so this amendment helps to address some of
those concerns. I personally don't feel any development size or type is more important than the
Edmonds environment.
2) Amendment Title: Neighborhoods of small scale: Small Scale cul-de-sac neighborhoods are located
on AKA "Dead End Streets", should also be excluded in SF zone augmentation. Not all cul-de-sacs and
dead end streets would qualify, but neighborhoods organized with 10-15 homes or less, for example,
with limited surface street parking would be excluded from increased density to mitigate what some
have labeled as the "Green Lake effect" (cars jammed down small neighborhood streets making only a
small channel to access homes and little to no parking capacity preserved for owners or visitors due to
increased density in traditional SF zones, not taking into account infrastructure and proper thoughtful
planning). The Final definition of what constitutes a "Small Scale Neighborhood" could be further
defined by Edmonds Planning department. More public engagement and discussion would be
recommended to define small scale neighborhoods.
*The Westgate Neighborhood letter and many public comments and survey results received over the
past 17 months, made very compelling points especially in regards to infrastructure concerns,
neighborhood character, parking capacity, and Tree Canopy protection. These proposed amendments
help address some of those concerns.
Packet Pg. 36
7.w
Amendment Consideration for: Detached Accessory Dwelling Units Policy
Amendment Title: ADU View impact statement requirement:
1) Require a conditional use component to this policy, (1) Requires Neighbors to be notified of planned
additional structure being proposed by mail. (2) Create a view impact statement Liability form: Does
this proposed Detached ADU substantially impact your(s) or your neighbors view: Yes/No?
*If the answer is "yes", the Neighbor(s) and proposed property owner would have to come to an
agreement and work out terms to have the agreement signed, otherwise permit would not be issued
without this form. The neighbors would have 60 day window to receive and mail back form and respond, o
otherwise permit would not require this form after notification period expires. Second mail attempt
would be required 30 days after initial notification.
E
*A signed or attempted notification of the Release statement of Liability, would help alleviate the c°,
m
chance of any future law suits brought forward by diminished value to Neighbor(s) property regarding
this additional structure being authorized by City of Edmonds and built by property owners. 2
0
a
Amendment Consideration for: Multi -family design standards policy, & Medium -density single family
housing (SRMD) Policy
Amendment Title: An Edmonds Kind of Townhome/Duplex Amendment:
1) Recommend City conducts a total review of Townhome developments. Most recent large scale
townhome developments have little open space and available parking capacity, and buildings are placed
very close together to maximize builders profit. Recommend City requires Townhome developments
that are greater than two units on existing or merged large parcel protects proposed (or recently divided
parcels), leave 20% open space total. 5% of this space could qualify as additional visitor or resident
parking capacity.
2) Allow an Administrative review process to be created/ implemented by the city planning
department giving them the authority to make adjustments to this open space requirement that allows
for some concessions to be granted, if Large amounts of existing trees are preserved and assimilated
into proposed development plans.
Note:
Packet Pg. 37
7.w
The most recent large scale townhome development of "Bracketts Corner" located on 212t" serves
as a great case study and example of what our Edmonds community can expect with large scale
zoning changes that afford the proliferation of larger scale Townhome developments in Edmonds.
Bracketts Corner utilized around a 1 acre parcel, combining 3 separate lots, to create a development
of 14 units. There is very little parking capacity and very little open space preserved; the lots
previously were the home to many trees and open green space. The fact is this development could
have created 10 townhomes and left more green space and parking capacity and space between
units frankly. The recent price inflation in Edmonds still makes a development of this scale very
profitable for the developer, in my professional opinion. Townhomes could assimilate better into
surrounding single-family Neighborhoods and the Edmonds' community, by allowing the ability to
plant or preserve existing trees and requiring more open spaces in these future developments. Also,
by allowing for more visitor and resident parking, you alleviate some of the strains on neighbors'
surface street parking capacity. The current examples of recent Townhome developments in
Edmonds is replicating what has already taken place in Green Lake and Ballard, by overcrowding of
cars in neighborhoods and the elimination of much desired and necessary green space in
communities. Edmonds has the good fortune to now make adjustments and learn from neighboring
communities' mistakes of overly pro -development for profit zoning and polices. I urge this Citizens
Commission to acknowledge the negative aspects of current Townhome zoning standards and
consider these amendments.
c
0
ca
c
as
E
E
0
m
0
a
Packet Pg. 38
7.w
I
Brackets Corners Development on 212tn
Thanks for your consideration.
Michael McMurray
"Compromise is the Work of Mature People"- Rita Mae Brown
�N
0
E
E
O
a
N
R
N
O
Q
O
L-
a.
r
c�
Q
Packet Pg. 39
Citizens Housing Commission Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/28/2021
Transmittal Letter
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Citizens Housing Commission
Prepared By: Debbie Rothfus
Background/History
At the January 14 meeting, the Housing Commission considered a proposal to have a transmittal letter
from the Commission that would accompany the policy recommendations. A draft letter was part of the
January 14 meeting packet.
Staff Recommendation
Approve the transmittal letter, with any revisions
Narrative
Why have a "transmittal letter" from the Housing Commission?
A transmittal letter (or transmittal memo) can provide a framework for the set of recommendations
being provided to the City Council.
Is a transmittal letter required?
No, it is optional. However, it may be helpful to share a sense of the overall work that went into the
Commission's decisions.
What does the proposed transmittal letter say? How long is it?
The proposed letter is fairly short --about one -page, which is an easy -to -read length. (See attachment.)
Should anything be added to the proposed memo?
The Commission may want to consider adding a statement about the environment, for example, a new
paragraph could be added to say:
"We are strongly committed to protecting the environment and ensuring that any new housing
programs and opportunities do the same. Providing for trees and open space will always be
important."
Has it been revised since January 14?
It has been revised a bit, mostly to reorganize the order of some statements.
How would the letter be used?
It be included as a "first page" to the full set of Commission recommendations.
Who drafted the transmittal letter in this packet?
Packet Pg. 40
Commissioner Throndsen drafted it.
What action step is proposed for January 28?
The Commission will be asked for a simple vote on whether to have the transmittal letter (memo)
accompany the policy recommendations when they are given to the City Council. NOTE: Before voting,
a Commissioner could propose an amendment (whether the environmental statement above or
something different). However, the Commission majority would need to approve any such
amendments.
Attachments:
Report Submittal .01.28.21
Packet Pg. 41
8.a
January 31, 2021
To: Edmonds City Council and Mayor Mike Nelson
From: The Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission
RE: Submittal of Final Housing Policy Recommendations from the Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission
Council members and Mayor Nelson,
You gave the Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission this 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-
- City Council Resolution No. 1427
Our mission set this Commission on an extraordinary path. Meanwhile, our community has been through a
pandemic and the Housing Commission has suffered the loss of one of our members. For the past 17-months,
Commissioners have solicited public input from city residents; learned about current, and future population
growth and housing needs; examined city codes and state law; studied what works and why; and worked to create _J
new opportunities for all residents.
r
E
Community engagement has been a top priority. Early outreach included 'in -person' events. After COVID-19
c
struck, most events happened online. We live -streamed all our meetings and community outreach events. We
M
conducted online community surveys, and sent out news releases updating the community, flyers encouraging
--
public involvement, and hundreds of post card notifications and survey invitations. The input received from that
N
engagement was one consideration in developing recommendations.
00
N
Each Commission member has appreciated the opportunity to serve the people of Edmonds. Each member
brought commitment, passion and vision to this process. Discussion among Commissioners reflected our wide
range of opinions. Our considerations included whether proposed ideas fit with our mission and whether they
could achieve the intended results. There were some policies considered that are worthy of future discussion, but
didn't make it into the final report because they went beyond the mission of the Commission.
The Housing Commission voted on each draft recommendation we developed. Those with majority approval are
compiled in this report for your consideration. The Commission believes that the set of policy ideas we are
submitting is consistent with your Resolution #1427. Additional support material is outlined in many of the
proposals, and the Commission would be happy to provide any further input required. We offer opportunities to
a broad section of diverse groups. We believe our ideas can enhance our unique city to keep Edmonds a vibrant,
diverse and welcoming community for all.
We profoundly appreciate the expertise, the insight and patience of Development Services Director Shane
Hope, Associate Planner Brad Shipley, Planner Amber Groll and so many others on city staff who helped us
navigate the complexities of Edmonds housing needs. Our grateful thanks to Councilmembers Vivian Olson and
Luke Distelhorst, our Council liaisons, for their commitment and support. To Gretchen Muller and her colleagues
at Cascadia Consulting, we are grateful you were our guides and helped to keep us on task and moving forward.
Our final Commission report is dedicated to the memory and public service of Commission member John Reed
who passed away during his tenure on the Housing Commission. John was a friend and a public servant who gave
himself, his ideas and his hard work to the efforts of this Commission. He cared passionately about the people of
Edmonds and the city's future. We'd like to believe that this report is one he would have taken pride in.
--Submitted by all members of the Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission
Packet Pg. 42