2021-01-14 Citizens Housing Commission PacketI
OF LU4to
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 14, 2021, 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 JANUARY 14, 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 14, 2021
Page 1
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (SUBMITTED BY EMAIL TO HOUSING.PUB.COMMENTS@EDMONDSWA.GOV)
APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 17, 2020 MEETING NOTES
Approval of December 17, 2020 Meeting Notes
6. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSALS REMAINING FROM DECEMBER
Consideration of Proposals Remaining from December
REVIEW OF SURVEY RESPONSES (30 MINUTES)
Community Engagement Responses
8. UPDATE ON LETTER FROM ALLIANCE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING (5 MINUTES)
Update on Letter from Alliance for Affordable Housing
9. FORMAT/FRAMEWORK FOR FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS (10 MINUTES)
Framework for Final Recommendations
10. WRAP UP, NEXT STEPS & ADJOURN (5 MINUTES)
Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission Agenda
January 14, 2021
Page 2
Citizens Housing Commission Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/14/2021
Approval of December 17, 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 12/17/2020 meeting are attached.
Attachments:
12.17.20 Meeting Notes
Packet Pg. 3
5.a
EDMONDS CITIZENS' HOUSING COMMISSION
Meeting Notes — December 17, 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 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
•
Tanya Kataria, Zone 5
•
Greg Long, Zone 5
•
Jess Blanch, Zone 6
•
Alena Nelson-Vietmeier, Zone 6
•
Will Chen, Zone 7
•
Judi Gladstone, Zone 7
*Indicates an alternate participating as a voting member
Alternates
• 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. There was a motion by a Commission member to change the voting format to a roll call
The motion received a second, but was not approved.
II. 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.i)ub.comments@edmondswa.gov
5. ALTERNATE COMMENTS
I. No alternates provided comment.
6. DECEMBER 10 NOTES APPROVAL
Packet Pg. 4
5.a
The December 10 meeting notes were approved.
7. POLICY PROPOSAL REVIEW & PRELIMINARY SELECTIONS
Commission members walked through 21 policy proposals and voted to approve 19 of
the proposals to draft recommendations. See below for full list of approved proposals
with amendments.
Draft Policy Proposal
Vote count (Y-N)
Amendments Approved
Equity housing incentives
11-4
Amendment for short title:
Incentives for "missing middle"
home ownership
Equity housing options
9-6
Medium -density single family housing (SR-
MD)
13-0
Detached Accessory Dwelling Units
11-4
Cluster/Cottage Housing
9-4
Development of neighborhood villages
15-0
Multi -family tax exemption (MFTE)
11-2
Inclusionary zoning
12-0
Use of existing sales tax revenue for
affordable and supportive housing
13-0
County implementation of sales and use tax
for housing and related services
11-0-2
Edmonds-HASCO interlocal agreement
12-0-1
Develop community housing partnerships
12-0
Low-income emergency home repair
program
13-0
Improved tenant protections (aka "just
cause")
13-0
Multi -family design standards
13-0
Renter's choice security deposit
11-0-1
Simplify zoning code language
13-0
Streamline permitting process
11-0
Childcare voucher program
10-3-1
8. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT UPDATE —Jasmine Beverly
I. Jasmine provided an update on community engagement events scheduled for January
9. WRAP-UP, NEXT STEPS AND ADJOURN — Gretchen Muller
Commission members will reconvene in the new year to review community engagement
results prior to making final recommendations to City Council at the end of January.
Packet Pg. 5
Citizens Housing Commission Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/14/2021
Consideration of Proposals Remaining from December
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Citizens Housing Commission
Prepared By: Debbie Rothfus
Background/History
At the Housing Commission's December 17 meeting, the Commission worked through each of the
proposals from the policy committees and voted on whether to include them as a "Draft
Recommendation" for more public input before the Commission decides on its final recommendations.
Due to the lateness of the hour, several policies proposed by an individual Commissioner were tabled
until the next meeting.
Staff Recommendation
Vote on whether to move each of the remaining proposals to the "Draft Recommendation" stage.
Narrative
Five policies were proposed by Commissioner Ogonowski after the initial policy committee process. The
five proposals were provided to the Housing Commission at the last meeting and planned to be
considered after the various committee proposals. Because the December 17 meeting was going late,
the individual proposals were tabled until the next Commission meeting.
January 14 is the next Commission meeting at which the remaining proposals should be considered for
status as a Draft Recommended Policy.
Short titles of these five remaining proposals are:
Property tax exemption for low income households (see attachment);
Subarea plans for Edmonds growth opportunity areas (see attachment);
Eliminate discriminatory provisions in covenants and deeds (see attachment);
Swedish Medical Center partnership for transitional housing (see attachment);
HASCO partnership to provide emergency use housing (see attachment).
At the January 14 meeting, the process for deciding whether to consider the individual proposals as
"Draft Recommendations" will be the same as was done for the committees' proposals at the last
meeting. Thus, for each remaining proposal, a Commissioner may make a motion to move the proposal
to the next stage (i.e., to be a draft recommended policy) and another Commissioner may second the
motion. Then there could be a brief time for questions or discussion on each before Commission
members vote. Proposals receiving a majority vote will be considered as Draft Recommendations.
(Note: Draft recommendations only become "final recommendations" if they are approved by the
Commission on January 28.)
Packet Pg. 6
NOTE: If a Commissioner wishes to have a prior policy proposal, which was not accepted for the last
round of input, to be reconsidered by the Commission on January 28, she/he should identify any such
proposal at the January 14 meeting.
Then, at the January 28 meeting, all Draft Recommendations (whether from a committee or an
individual) will have further consideration by the Housing Commission as to whether to make them Final
Recommendations.
Attachments:
Property Tax Exemption for Low Income Households Proposal
Subarea Policy Proposal
Covenants and Deeds Policy Proposal
Swedish Hospital Partnership Policy Proposal
HASCO Partnership Proposal
Packet Pg. 7
6.a
November 15, 2020
Draft Policy Recommendation
INTERNAL INFORMATION'
Name of Committee
Independent submission
Names of Committee Members
James Ogonowski
EXTERNAL INFORMATION 2
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.
OPTIONAL INFORMATION 3
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.
1 Internal information" will not be included in the Commission's final recommendations. However, it is always part
of the public record.
2 "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. 8
6.b
November 15, 2020
Draft Policy Recommendation
INTERNAL INFORMATION'
Name of Committee
Independent submission
Names of Committee Members
James Ogonowski
EXTERNAL INFORMATION 2
Short Name of Draft Policy:
Subarea plans for Edmonds growth opportunity areas.
Draft Policy:
Create detailed subarea plans for Perrinville, Five Corners, Firdale, Westgate and the downtown activity
zone which integrates community values (diversified "missing middle" housing, business opportunity,
environmental stewardship, etc.) in these growth areas of the city.
OPTIONAL INFORMATION 3
Using the Hwy 99 corridor subarea plan as a template, this policy would result in creating an integrated
approach toward satisfying multiple city goals simultaneously. Currently the city doesn't have a master
plan for Perrinville, Firdale, Five Corners, Westgate (?) or the downtown activity center. This proposal
provides a path to grow the city both economically and residentially in a planned and disciplined
manner, creating diverse business and housing opportunities in these walkable destination areas of the
city. Utilizing form -based zoning code changes within each subarea provides a pathway to missing
middle housing while maintaining the neighborhood character of the city. Surrounding areas can be
prioritized to either maintain, evolve or transform their relationship to the subarea.
Hwy 99 Subarea Plan:
http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Government/Departments/Development Services/Planning
Division/Plans/Highway99/Highway 99 Subarea Plan Final 081517 web.pdf
1 Internal information" will not be included in the Commission's final recommendations. However, it is always part
of the public record.
2 "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. 9
6.c
November 15, 2020
Draft Policy Recommendation
INTERNAL INFORMATION'
Name of Committee
Independent submission
Names of Committee Members
James Ogonowski
EXTERNAL INFORMATION 2
Short Name of Draft Policy:
Eliminate discriminatory provisions in covenants and deeds
Draft Policy:
Prior to the sale or transfer of any property in Edmonds, all discriminatory language in any associated
covenants and/or deeds must be legally removed from said documents.
OPTIONAL INFORMATION 3
Historically, many parcels of property in Edmonds had legally binding language prohibiting the sale of
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,
and housing discrimination was made illegal by Congress in 1968 under the Fair Housing Law. While
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 a
"restrictive covenant modification" document filed with the county that legally strikes and voids the
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.
While this doesn't erase history, it does provide a means to state our values for future Edmonds
residents and property owners.
1 Internal information" will not be included in the Commission's final recommendations. However, it is always part
of the public record.
2 "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. 10
6.d
November 15, 2020
INTERNAL INFORMATION'
Name of Committee
Independent submission
Names of Committee Members
James Ogonowski
Policy Recommendation
EXTERNAL INFORMATION 2
Short Name of Draft Policy:
Swedish Medical Center partnership for transitional housing
Draft Policy:
Partner with the Swedish Medical Center to develop transitional housing options for patients with no
safe place to go while recovering from hospitalization.
OPTIONAL INFORMATION 3
Legally and morally, hospitals cannot discharge patients if they have no safe place to go. So patients
who are frail, live alone or are homeless and with no medical reason for additional hospitalization after
their initial treatment, occupy scarce and expensive hospital beds. Recently, the IRS clarified that
hospitals could claim housing investments as charitable spending. This encourages hospitals to allocate
charity dollars for housing, recognizing that it's cheaper to provide a month of housing than to keep a
patient in the hospital for a single night.
Partnering with the hospital can provide an affordable safety net for these individuals in the form of
newly developed short—term ADA compatible housing units, vouchers or other forms of housing related
assistance. Located near the medical complex provides readily available resources should they be
needed. A city/medical center partnership should provide benefits to all parties as patients navigate
towards full recovery. Expanding this partnership to neighboring cities provides additional resources to
broaden the appeal and scope of such a project.
1 Internal information" will not be included in the Commission's final recommendations. However, it is always part
of the public record.
2 "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. 11
6.e
November 15, 2020
Draft Policy Recommendation
INTERNAL INFORMATION'
Name of Committee
Independent submission
Names of Committee Members
James Ogonowski
EXTERNAL INFORMATION 2
Short Name of Draft Policy:
HASCO partnership to provide emergency use housing
Draft Policy:
Partner with HASCO to set aside TBD units in their market rate apartments as temporary housing for
domestic abuse victims or other emergency housing situations.
OPTIONAL INFORMATION 3
HASCO receives property tax exempt status for property rented at market rates. As an independent
public organization, setting aside a few units with the explicit intent to use them for community
members who find themselves in an abusive environment makes good use of these tax dollars. This
policy would provide a community benefit to those who could otherwise find themselves homeless
through no fault of their own. It provides a temporary safety net for those with no other immediate
means.
This policy also provides another opportunity for law enforcement and social services to direct victims to
a safe, temporary housing alternative until their situation improves.
Other predefined temporary "emergency" situations could also be considered for use under this policy
1 Internal information" will not be included in the Commission's final recommendations. However, it is always part
of the public record.
2 "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. 12
Citizens Housing Commission Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/14/2021
Community Engagement Responses
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Citizens Housing Commission
Prepared By: Debbie Rothfus
Background/History
Beginning in December 2020, an online open house provided information from Housing Commissioners
about the draft policies that were being considered. This was linked to an online survey, available to
anyone, that reflected each of the Commission's selected draft policies.
Staff Recommendation
Consider the input from the community engagement process to date.
Narrative
Results from the recent online survey, which directly correlate with the Commission's initial draft
policies, are attached.
Also attached is the compiled questions and comments that were identified from online posts during the
January 7, 2021 webinar.
Attachments:
ECHC_SurveyResults_Jan2021
ECHC Webinar Questions
Packet Pg. 13
ECHC Online Open House - Resources and Partnerships
7.a
Q1 What is your level of support for the proposal to use the City of
Edmonds' share of the existing state sales tax that is reserved for
affordable housing?
Answered:241 Skipped:5
Strongly
support
Somewhat
support
Neutral
Somewhat oppose
Strongly oppose
I'm not sure'
1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Strongly support 29.88%
Somewhat support 17.01%
Neutral 10.79%
Somewhat oppose 7.47%
Strongly oppose 32.37%
I'm not sure 2.49%
TOTAL
d
O
N
N
r
N
C
d
E
cv
Of
c
W
E
E
O
U
T
N
O
N
C
R
I
72
m
41
26 NI
U
2
18 IU
78
a�
6 t
v
ca
241 Q
1/8
Packet Pg. 14
ECHC Online Open House - Resources and Partnerships
7.a
Q2 What is your level of support for the proposal to 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?
Answered:243 Skipped:3
Strongly I
support
Soi
Somewha
Strongt)
I'm not sure)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Strongly support 23.87%
Somewhat support 12.76%
Neutral 4.94%
Somewhat oppose 11.52%
Strongly oppose 45.68%
I'm not sure 1.23%
TOTAL
m
r_
O
N
N
r
N
C
d
E
R
aI
C
W
3
E
E
O
U
T
N
O
N
C
R
I
3
a�
58 m
31 NI
U
12 U
w
28
CD
111 t
ca
3 Q
243
2/8
Packet Pg. 15
ECHC Online Open House - Resources and Partnerships
7.a
Q3 What is your level of support for the proposal to execute an interlocal
agreement (ILA) with the Housing Authority of Snohomish County
(HASCO) allowing HASCO to operate within Edmonds geographic
boundaries?
Answered:242 Skipped:4
Strongty
support0
support
Soi
Somewha
Strongt)
I'm not sure'
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Strongly support 22.73%
Somewhat support 11.98%
Neutral 9.92%
Somewhat oppose 11.57%
Strongly oppose 41.32%
I'm not sure 2.48%
TOTAL
m
O
N
N
r
N
C
d
E
R
aI
C
W
3
E
E
O
U
T
N
O
N
C
R
I
3
a�
55 m
29 NI
U
24 U
w
28
CD
100 t
v
ca
6 Q
242
3/8
Packet Pg. 16
ECHC Online Open House - Resources and Partnerships
7.a
Q4 What is your level of support for the proposal to develop community
partners throughout South Snohomish County to create/build non-profit
affordable housing options for low/moderate income residents?
Answered:244 Skipped:2
Strongly I
support
Somewhat
support
Neutral
Somewhat oppose
Strongly oppose
I'm not sure
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
RESPONSES
Strongly support
30.74%
Somewhat support
19.26%
Neutral
8.20%
Somewhat oppose
7.38%
Strongly oppose
32.79%
I'm not sure
1.64%
TOTAL
d
O
N
N
r
N
C
d
E
cv
Of
c
W
E
E
O
U
T
N
O
N
C
R
I
75
m
47
20 NI
U
2
18 IU
80
a�
4 t
ca
244 Q
4/8
Packet Pg. 17
ECHC Online Open House - Resources and Partnerships
7.a
Q5 What is your level of support for the proposal to fund a program, or
contribute funding to an existing program such as Homage, to assist low-
income homeowners with emergency home repairs?
Answered:243 Skipped:3
Strongly
support
Somewhat
support
Neutral
Somewhat oppose
Strongly oppose
I'm not sure)
M
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Strongly support 35.80%
Somewhat support 19.75%
Neutral 7.00%
Somewhat oppose 8.23%
Strongly oppose 27.98%
I'm not sure 1.23%
TOTAL
d
O
N
N
r
N
C
d
E
cv
Of
c
W
E
E
O
U
T
N
O
N
C
R
I
87
m
48
17 NI
U
2
20 IU
68
a�
3 t
v
ca
243 Q
5/8
Packet Pg. 18
ECHC Online Open House - Resources and Partnerships 7.a
Q6 What is your level of support for each of the proposals to adopt
measures to improve residential tenant protections?
Just Cause
Eviction...
Prohibiting
arbitrary or...
1
Prohibiting
evictions ba...
1
Answered:244 Skipped:2
6/8 Packet Pg. 19
ECHC Online Open House - Resources and Partnerships 7 a
Prohib
retaliatii
Ador
penalties
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Strongly support 0 Somewhat support MNeutrat Nsomewhatoppose
Strongly oppose M I'm not sure
7/8 Packet Pg. 20
ECHC Online Open House - Resources and Partnerships
7.a
STRONGLY
SOMEWHAT
NEUTRAL
SOMEWHAT
STRONGLY
I'M
TOTAL
SUPPORT
SUPPORT
OPPOSE
OPPOSE
NOT
SURE
Just Cause Eviction Ordinance:
24.79%
17.36%
9.09%
12.40%
35.12%
1.24%
limiting the grounds upon which a
60
42
22
30
85
3
242
landlord may evict a tenant to a "just
cause" or valid business reason
Prohibiting arbitrary or retaliatory
38.49%
15.48%
9.62%
7.95%
24.27%
4.18%
evictions
92
37
23
19
58
10
239
Prohibiting evictions based upon the
41.18%
14.29%
9.24%
6.30%
26.05%
2.94%
tenant's status as a member of the
98
34
22
15
62
7
238
military, first responder, senior,
family member, health care provider,
or educator
N
m
Prohibiting retaliation and
42.32%
17.01%
9.13%
4.98%
22.82%
3.73%
0
discrimination in lease renewal
102
41
22
12
55
9
241 0-
actions
IY
Adopting penalties for violation and
31.82%
21.07%
16.12%
3.31%
22.73%
4.96%
r
c
procedures to protect the rights of
77
51
39
8
55
12
242 m
landlords and tenants
a�
a�
c
w
E
E
0
U
T
N
O
N
C
R
N
a+
7
N
N
N
7
I
U
2
U
W
C
N
E
t
v
co
r
r
Q
8/8 Packet Pg. 21
ECHC Online Open House - Incentives or Requirements to Increase Affordability 7.a
Q1 What is your level of support for each of the proposals to revise the
Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE) program:
Create a third
low income...
1
Mandate that
developers s...
Construction
incentives f...
Answered:271 Skipped:3
1/4 Packet Pg. 22
ECHC Online Open House - Incentives or Requirements to Increase Affordability 7.a
Require MFTE
eligible...
1
Increase th
number of
Create
incentives f...
2/4 Packet Pg. 23
ECHC Online Open House - Incentives or Requirements to Increase Affordability
Askth�
Legislature ..0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Strongly support Somewhat support
E Neutral
0 Somewhat oppose
Strongly
oppose I'm
not sure
STRONGLY
SOMEWHAT
NEUTRAL
SOMEWHAT
STRONGLY
I'M
SUPPORT
SUPPORT
OPPOSE
OPPOSE
NOT
SURE
Create a third low income eligible
20.74%
19.26%
10.37%
5.93%
40.37%
3.33%
category for tenants whose income
56
52
28
16
109
9
is 60% of MFI or less
Mandate that developers set aside
23.79%
15.24%
8.92%
9.67%
40.52%
1.86%
25% of all units in a project for
64
41
24
26
109
5
MFTE (currently it is 20%)
Construction incentives for additional
17.36%
14.72%
4.53%
13.58%
48.30%
1.51%
units/floors, if builders reserve 25%
46
39
12
36
128
4
of units for MFTE tenants
Require MFTE eligible projects to
25.84%
23.60%
11.61%
4.87%
31.09%
3.00%
include some two -bedroom and
69
63
31
13
83
8
larger units
Increase the number of 'residential
20.00%
13.58%
7.92%
11.70%
45.28%
1.51%
target/urban center areas' for MFTE
53
36
21
31
120
4
developments
Create incentives for developers to
27.24%
20.90%
7.46%
6.34%
36.19%
1.87%
renovate existing multi -family
73
56
20
17
97
5
apartments to become MFTE eligible
Ask the Legislature to extend the
21.64%
13.43%
12.69%
9.70%
39.18%
3.36%
current MFTE limits beyond 12
58
36
34
26
105
9
years, to preserve affordable housing
7.a
3/4 Packet Pg. 24
ECHC Online Open House - Incentives or Requirements to Increase Affordability 7.a
Q2 What is your level of support for the proposal to 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?
Answered:274 Skipped:0
Strongly
support
Soi
Somewha
Strongly
I'm not sure'
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Strongly support 21.90%
Somewhat support 17.52%
Neutral 5.47%
Somewhat oppose 8.03%
Strongly oppose 44.53%
I'm not sure 2.55%
TOTAL
m
O
N
N
r
N
C
d
E
R
aI
C
W
3
E
E
O
U
T
N
O
N
C
R
I
3
a�
60 CD
48 NI
U
15 U
w
22
CD
122 t
ca
7 Q
274
4/4
Packet Pg. 25
ECHC Online Open House - Housing Diversity and Equity
7.a
Q1 What is your level of support for the proposal to develop incentives that
apply to "missing middle" housing types citywide that allow home
ownership for those at or below average median family income?
Answered:302 Skipped:1
Strongly I
support
Somewhat-
aNi
support
�
O
N
N
Neutral
r
N
C
d
E
Somewhat oppose
cv
Of
c
W
Strongly oppose
E
E
O
I'm not sure
V
T
N
O
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
R
ANSWER CHOICES
RESPONSES
Strongly support
28.15%
85
W+
m
Somewhat support
15.56%
47
3
Neutral
6.29%
19
UI
2
Somewhat oppose
9.60%
29
IU
Strongly oppose
38.74%
117
a�
t
I'm not sure
1.66%
5
v
ca
TOTAL
302
Q
1/6 Packet Pg. 26
ECHC Online Open House - Housing Diversity and Equity
7.a
Q2 What is your level of support for the proposal to encourage racial
equity housing options by developing design requirements and zoning
changes that allow for home -ownership of two attached single family
homes (duplex or two -unit townhouses) in lieu of one large house in single
family residential areas city-wide?
Answered:301 Skipped:2
S
Sol
Somewha
Strongly oppose
ANSWER CHOICES
Strongly support
Somewhat support
Neutral
Somewhat oppose
Strongly oppose
I'm not sure
TOTAL
I'm not sure)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
RESPONSES
25.91%
10.96%
5.98%
8.97%
46.84%
1.33%
m
O
N
N
N
C
d
E
R
Z3I
C
LU
a+
E
E
O
U
T
N
O
N
C
R
�I
N
a+
7
N
LL'
N
78 NI
U
33 U
LJJ
18 +%
c
O
27 t
141 r
Q
4
301
2/6
Packet Pg. 27
ECHC Online Open House - Housing Diversity and Equity
7.a
Q3 What is your level of support for the proposal to 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?
Answered:301 Skipped:2
Strongly.
support
Soi
Somewha
Strongly
I'm not sure)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Strongly support 18.94%
Somewhat support 15.61%
Neutral 4.32%
Somewhat oppose 10.63%
Strongly oppose 48.50%
I'm not sure 1•99%
TOTAL
m
O
N
N
r
N
C
d
E
R
aI
C
W
3
E
E
O
U
T
N
O
N
C
R
I
3
a�
57 m
47 NI
U
13 U
W
32
CD
146 t
ca
6 Q
301
3/6
Packet Pg. 28
ECHC Online Open House - Housing Diversity and Equity
7.a
Q4 What is your level of support for the proposal to 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?
Answered:302 Skipped:1
Strongly
support
.
uJ
N
O
N
Somewhat
a)
support
I
�
c
a)
Neutral
R
of
C
W
Somewhat oppos
+'
C
E
E
O
Strongly oppose
U
T
N
O
N
I'm not sure
R
U)
41
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
3
N
d'
a)
ANSWER CHOICES
RESPONSES
Strongly support
26.82%
81
NI
U
Somewhat support
22.52%
68
U
w
Neutral
7.28%
22
c
a�
Somewhat oppose
11.26%
34
t
Strongly oppose
30.13%
91
ca
Q
I'm not sure
1.99%
6
TOTAL
302
4/6 Packet Pg. 29
ECHC Online Open House - Housing Diversity and Equity
7.a
Q5 What is your level of support for the proposal to add Cluster/Cottage
housing as an option within single-family or multi -family housing in
Edmonds?
Answered:302 Skipped:1
Strongly
support M"
Somewhat_
aNi
support
�
O
N
N
Neutral
r
N
C
d
E
Somewhat oppose
cv
Of
c
W
Strongly oppose
E
E
O
I'm not sure
U
T
N
O
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
R
ANSWER CHOICES
RESPONSES
Strongly support
26.49%
80
W+
m
Somewhat support
16.23%
49
3
Neutral
8.94%
27
UI
2
Somewhat oppose
6.95%
21
IU
Strongly oppose
40.07%
121
a�
t
I'm not sure
1.32%
4
ca
TOTAL
302
Q
5/6 Packet Pg. 30
ECHC Online Open House - Housing Diversity and Equity
7.a
Q6 What is your level of support for the proposal 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?
Answered:302 Skipped:1
Strongly
support
.
uJ
N
O
f/J
Somewhat
a)
support
�
c
a)
Neutral
R
of
C
W
Somewhat oppos
+'
C
E
E
O
Strongly oppose
U
T
N
O
N
I'm not sure
R
U)
41
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
3
N
d'
a)
ANSWER CHOICES
RESPONSES
Strongly support
32.12%
97
NI
U
Somewhat support
20.20%
61
U
w
Neutral
7.95%
24
c
a�
Somewhat oppose
5.63%
17
t
Strongly oppose
31.46%
95
ca
Q
I'm not sure
2.65%
8
TOTAL
302
6/6 Packet Pg. 31
ECHC Online Open House - General
7.a
Q1 What is your level of support for the proposal to 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?
Answered:216 Skipped:I
Strongly
support
Soi
Somewhat oppos
Strongly oppos I
I'm not surf
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Strongly support 39.81%
Somewhat support 20.37%
Neutral 8.80%
Somewhat oppose 6.94%
Strongly oppose 20.37%
I'm not sure 3.70%
TOTAL
m
O
N
N
r
N
C
d
E
R
aI
C
W
E
O
U
T
N
O
N
C
R
I
3
a�
86 CD
44 NI
U
19 U
w
15
CD
44 t
ca
8 Q
216
1/7
Packet Pg. 32
ECHC Online Open House - General
7.a
Q2 What is your level of support for each of the proposals to reduce the
up -front cost of security deposits for renters while keeping landlords whole
for costs that are normally covered by such deposits?
Answered:215 Skipped:2
Allow tenants
of all incom...
7
Allow tenant
applicants t...
■
Allow tenant
applicants t...
1
2/7 Packet Pg. 33
ECHC Online Open House - General
7.a
Allow tenano
applicants t.�
All
properti
Before si;
a rer
1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
strongly support somewhat support 0 Neutral 0 somewhat oppose
strongly oppose I'm not sure
3/7 Packet Pg. 34
Allow tenants of all income levels
choices in how they pay those
security deposits
Allow tenant applicants to pay by
buying rental security insurance
Allow tenant applicants to pay by
installment payment of security
deposits - at least six equal monthly
payments
Allow tenant applicants to pay by
paying '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 Choice plan
ECHC Online Open House - General
7.a
STRONGLY
SOMEWHAT
NEUTRAL
SOMEWHAT
STRONGLY
I'M
TOTAL
SUPPORT
SUPPORT
OPPOSE
OPPOSE
NOT
SURE
27.91%
22.33%
6.98%
6.98%
33.95%
1.86%
60
48
15
15
73
4
215
20.28%
28.30%
10.85%
7.08%
27.36%
6.13%
43
60
23
15
58
13
212
26.51%
24.19%
6.05%
6.98%
33.49%
2.79%
57
52
13
15
72
6
215
19.53%
11.16%
8.84%
14.42%
42.33%
3.72%
m
42
24
19
31
91
8
215
O
N
N
23.58%
20.28%
11.32%
5.19%
34.43%
5.19%
r
50
43
24
11
73
11
212
d
E
O�
33.18%
18.96%
12.80%
2.84%
28.44%
3.79%
c
70
40
27
6
60
8
211
W
4/7
Packet Pg. 35
ECHC Online Open House - General
7.a
Q3 What is your level of support for the proposal to use diagrams,
pictures, and tables in place of text where applicable and Use plain
language where text is necessary?
Answered:215 Skipped:2
Strongly
support
Somewhat
support
Neutral
Somewhat oppose
Strongly oppose
I'm not surf
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Strongly support 38.60%
Somewhat support 23.72%
Neutral 12.09%
Somewhat oppose 4.65%
Strongly oppose 18.14%
I'm not sure 2.79%
TOTAL
d
O
N
N
r
N
C
d
E
cv
Of
c
W
E
E
O
U
T
N
O
N
C
R
I
83 W
m
51
26 NI
U
2
10 IU
39
CID
6 t
v
ca
215 Q
5/7
Packet Pg. 36
ECHC Online Open House - General
7.a
Q4 What is your level of support for the proposal to reduce the number of
conditional uses to streamline the permit process?
Answered:215 Skipped:2
Strongly.
support
Somewhat.
I
support
d
Neutral
Q
N
N
Somewhat oppose
r
N
y
E
cv
Of
Strongly oppose
c
W
I'm not sur� E
O
U
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
r
N
O
N
C
R
ANSWER CHOICES
RESPONSES
�I
Strongly support
23.26%
50
Somewhat support
22.33%
48
a�
m
Neutral
11.16%
24
N
Somewhat oppose
7.44%
16
UI
2
Strongly oppose
31.16%
67
U
LU
I'm not sure
4.65%
10
+;
r-
E
TOTAL
215
v
ca
Q
6/7 Packet Pg. 37
ECHC Online Open House - General
7.a
Q5 What is your level of support for the proposal to 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?
Answered:216 Skipped:I
Strongly. 1
support
Somewhat
support
Somewhat op
Strongly opp
I'm not sure
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Strongly support 25.00%
Somewhat support 18.98%
Neutral 8.33%
Somewhat oppose 6.48%
Strongly oppose 36.57%
I'm not sure 4.63%
TOTAL
m
O
N
N
r
N
C
d
E
R
aI
C
W
3
E
E
O
U
T
N
O
N
C
R
I
3
a�
54 m
O
41 NI
U
18 U
w
14
CD
79 t
c�
10 Q
216
7/7
Packet Pg. 38
7.b
ECHC Webinar — Public Comments
Questions
• How will Edmonds ensure that Missing Middle housing will actually address racial inequity,
rather than providing additional housing for white residents?
• Exactly what "incentives"?
• What incentives will be offered? Is there really a need for "affordable Housing? ..if so where are
these needs coming from? Can you show us the need?
• How is it "equitable" to only encourage development in certain areas of the city? Or to say - you
haven't been able to purchase single family housing due to red lining or loan policies, so we'll
now provide a duplex or townhouse option, rather than a single family home? That's not racial
equity.
• Edmonds is hoping to encourage additional development in areas with bus service and other
transit options, but in order to get to many other places in Edmonds, you may need a car. How
is Edmonds going to address additional parking and traffic impacts from more intense
development?
• For fixed income seniors, can't they defer the property tax? The property tax accumulates until
they sell the property.
• Edmonds is a unique city and has always been a higher income area. Can we give tax relief to
seniors or current lower fixed income families?
• What is the s.f. allotment for detached accessory dwelling units? Is is a set percentage of the
main house?
• If single family zoning is changed city-wide to encourage "missing middle" housing, how does
that keep housing affordable for existing Edmonds residents? Increased density zoning leads to
increased property taxes - making Edmonds less affordable for all.
• 1 voted for Mayor Nelson because at the time of voting, his focus was to develop Hwy 99 area.
This area has built in transit and bus service making it an easy area for commuters. Why is this
commission now focused on zoning the entire city of Edmonds and establishing ? Why
establish villages when this is all available on hwy 99?
• How many individual units do you anticipate these changes to add to the city over and above
what's allowed under the current zones?
• Do you anticipate that the new zoning will incentivize developers to redevelop existing
structures. Pulling down structures that are at or past their life expectancy and building
structures that maximize the new development allowances?
• Seattle has increased density, added ADUs, rezoned single family housing, etc and it has not
helped with affordability - prices are still skyrocketing. In addition it has driven the historical
residents (gentrification) of neighborhoods out in favor of new development (Ballard, Central
District). How will Edmonds do this better? Changing our neighborhoods and forcing current
residents out with higher taxes and housing prices isn't helpful or equitable.
• For developing community housing partnerhsips... how would you avoid loss of control over the
dollars we all would contribute to this initiative?
• Corporate landlords routinely keep the entire security deposit, regardless of the condition of the
apartment. THEN, they come back to the renter for spurious fees after they've taken the
Packet Pg. 39
7.b
security deposit. What are you going to do to combat them finding a way to game the new
system and continue to dip into renters' pockets?
• As you incentivize development for low income, you bring in more and more low income people
who may require additional financial assistance. You make development tax exempt for these
units. Who is going to make up for the tax deficit you are proposing?
• What is the "problem" that this commission is trying to solve? It seems to be assumed that
Edmonds must support more people with more housing, at all price levels. Why? What is the
definition of "done"? When will the commission consider that it has succeeded? Is this going to
be a never ending process of densification?
• Why is Q&A only 25 minutes? Why is there no room for comments?
• Will the commission consider limiting the "changes" to a reasonable approach such as Policies 1-
6 only?
• Missing Middle Program - Seattle is one of the most expensive markets in the Country. Will
there be artificial price ceilings set, and how will surrounding home owners and property owners
be compensated for potential drops in property value or how will fair value be determined for
the first time buyers?
• Missing Middle Program - What other Federal, State & Local programs overlap with this
program?
• Duplex Programs - Where? A community on a cul de sac with 12 homes is ill suited for duplexes,
quads, etc. Is there any thought of zones that allow for developments of this nature - dropping
a duplex into a single family neighborhood "because" does not make sense to peanut butter
zone all of Edmonds
• Redlining and racial exclusionary practices have been illegal since Civil Rights Act of 1968. Why
do you suggest zoning is a mechanism for racial exclusion. It was used to protect residencial
neighborhoods from industrial intrusion.
• Medium Density - more of a comment - the 212th Subdivisions near five points are a great
example - what is the Commission doing to explore additional development potential of this
nature?
• Has Edmonds studied how these proposed policies might impact racial equity? Its one thing to
assume a less expensive option will increase racial equity, but the outcome may be far different
than the intent.
• Detached ADU - Off street or on street parking? Would there be codes governing this? Will there
be incentives for home owners to develop and rent ADU's to lower income or marginalized
populations?
• Will you have to raise taxes to pay for this project? Do you plan to prohibit single residence
zoning in Edmonds to accommodate this project?
• How will we ensure the small town character of Edmonds? How will we prevent big developers
from taking advantage of such "loose" zoning guidelines and turn us into Kirkland or Ballard?
How will we prevent foreign money from changings the character of Edmonds and driving up
prices (like Bellevue)?
• Edmonds is a unique city and has always been a higher income area. Can we give tax relief to
seniors or current lower fixed income families?
• Rather than build our way "out of expensive housing, how can we make existing housing more
affordable for others?
Packet Pg. 40
7.b
• How many individual units do you anticipate these changes to add to the city over and above
what's allowed under the current zones?
• Was there a reason this Open House didn't allow for comments?
• 1 am just listening to the q & a about parking. If I understand correctly, it was said that it has
been removed from being addressed, even though it was one of the issues that many residents
commented on as we already have parking issues, and increasing density will only make this
worse. If this issue is removed as something needing to be addressed, what else has been
removed?
• How do you propose to pay for the extra law enforcement and fire service that this type of
dense development requires?
• Where is the need to expand housing? Where is the study to show that there is really a need for
additional housing?
• what incentives will be offered? Is there really a need for "affordable Housing?..if so where are
these needs coming from? Can you show us the need?
• If you are not considering upzoning/duplexes for entire city, can you specifically put into your
proposals where they should be implemented?
• Is the commission going to tell the city council that the greatest feedback received from
Edmonds citizens is to not change single family zoning per the first survey?
• What proposal was removed due to public outcry?
• Can you please tell us when there will be a large/official public forum to truly collect public
comments - prior to sending your proposal to the city council?
• I'd like some clarification ... Comissioner Throndsen stated that the MFTE handouts to developers
"will be" recommended to council ... but Shane Hope stated that DADU zoning changes are in the
"maybe" category. Might be recommended to council, might not. What is the status of each of
these policies? Are any of them already decided or are they all in play?
• How will the city council proceed once they get the proposals? Will they eventually put it to
vote before they enact any of this?
• What are some benefits of the Medium Density Zoning versus duplex or two -unit townhouses?
• Why were zero lot lines considered in single family residential zones?
• How can you declare the populus is involved with input when less than 2% of residence have
responded.....??
• What exactly has been amended due to citizen input?
• Have any of these ideas been studied and tried SUCCESSFULLY in other places? Seattle has been
trying these ideas for years with little success. How will it be different here?
• Sno County .1% Tax Increase - is there a plan in place that details where this approx 15 million
per year will be spent? Is this just another tax and spend without a plan?
• MTFE Program - Rather than funding our developer community which has failed so far, why not
city just give some candidates rent vouchers and skip this 12 year tax forgiveness to developers?
• Cottage Housing - How many per lot, where? Artificial price supports for neighboring land
owners or compensation for any negative effects? What will the planning process be - what is a
"cottage" - 400 sq ft, 800 sq ft, what defines a cottage?
• MFTE - What other Federal, State, and Local programs overlap or exist for these programs?
Packet Pg. 41
7.b
• Deposits - What is this insurance program that owners are protected by? Is this a City insured
program? I think the deposit and payment schedules are a good idea, I just wonder who is
insuring what.
• Do these proposed changes go to vote in the community or are you going to pass and enact
these policies without a vote?
• Detached ADU's - Will there be incentives or programs to offset the cost of developing the ADU
(i.e additional utility drops or sewer connections) assuming that these will be rented to lower
income tenants.
Comments
• Policy 4 (DADU) needs to have requirements that AirBnB does not overwhelm all of these new
units. Many communities (Chelan County for example) are struggling right now with the fact
that owners can make more money renting via AirBnB that renting on a lease to families or
couples.
• 1 am very, very tired of hearing about systematic racial injustice, something that has been
successfully outlawed for 60 years (3 generations). Stop using this no longer problem as a
justification. This muddles the conversation that we need to have.
• 1 am 100% in support of missing middle housing in Edmonds BUT I believe the commission is
stretching by using racial equity as a sales pitch for it. The benefit of missing middle housing
types that younger working people can afford
• What are you talking about, "Single family zoning was developed to keep people out of
neighborhoods?" You are speaking as an authority on the topic, but you are not. The goal of
single family housing is to develop and protect type of neighborhood that families can live in a
community that is desireable to people who can afford to live their. It has nothing to do with
race as you specify. Look to Seattle to see the failures of this type of thinking. You simply
overcrowd once nice neighborhoods and eventually they become untenable. I have lived here
in Edmonds 54 years, as Chen said, the citiies around us have some of these features. This is
why I choose to work hard to be able to afford to stay in Edmonds. Regardless of how bad you
feel for low income people, ruining Edmonds won't help the problem. This is ridiculous.
• You guys are really going for the gusto here. Everything that make Edmonds - Edmonds is under
attack from you at once. Do you have any idea what you are doing?
• 1 believe you are ignoring one very important factor - the actual existing residents of Edmonds.
For many, the reason why they chose and aspired to move to this area is because it is a single
family, generally owner occupied. My husband and I had to save for years to move to this area.
That is the way a capitalistic system works. Now you want to change the rules. Please listen to
the taxpayers that live and pay taxes here. Not everyone wants these multi family styles of
housing.
• Lowering the cost to the developer will NOT lower the cost to the final buyer/resident. It will
only increase the profit for the developer. We should streamline the development process but
expecting developers to pass on savings is silly. Market price will always dominate.
• MFTE policies benefit nobody except developers. Those types of projects overburden our traffic
and risk turning Edmonds into Ballard. Please stick to dispersed growth, not targeted big
projects on the arterials. The big MFTE project approach has already been attempted and ruins
Packet Pg. 42
7.b
neighborhoods. Stick with Polices 1-6, those will not overburden the streets with densely packed
developed led projects.
• MTFE - It is not working at Westgate. The first floor which is taxable to pay for this idea, is vastly
vacant. This is our tax revenue for the next 12 years, which was to pay for this "affordable"
housing. This only benefits the developers.
• 1 am very concerned that policies 7 through 13 will be used as a crutch by the Bowl interests
(Chamber of Commerce types) to "fob off' all the growth into developer led projects along Hwy
99. Just another form of red lining if it happens.
• # 16 Renter's Choice: Landlords ascertain financial responsibility based on a potential tenant's
readiness to come up with deposit amounts
• Thank you commission members, I know you have put in a lot of work. Why is Shane Hope the
kingpin of this commission? She is the Development Director and has will hand pick her groups,
direct the ccommisson's groups to specific goals, and benefit the Developers. Shane Hope
should be a resource to ask questions, and that is all. My question is, can I create housing
commission #4, make the selections of who is on these different teams, direct the goals and
outcomes for each team, and restrict public comment ? The public comment is very obvious.
So, can I please be the leader and create my housing commission #4 ?
• As a landlord, I want my security deposit up front. Do you have any idea how much damage can
be done to a property in even one month? That is why a security deposit is asked for up front.
As it is, we used to obtain a first, last and security deposit. As most tenants can no longer afford
this, it is a large amount to come up with -we have foregone the last months rent. But the
security deposit is critical. Making policy as to security deposits, child care credits, etc. seems to
be very far reaching in terms of what this commission should be about.
• Streamline permitting process: does the commission realize how expensive a "normal" building
permit is, not conditional use, just a standard building permit? That cost is one of the factors
that drives up the cost of housing. That is the cost that should be reduced, would have a large
impact if combined with policies 1-6.
• 1 agree with the comment above. There are many areas in the Seattle area that I cannot afford
to live in, and I'm ok with that. Who can afford to live in Medina?
• My take on all this: Policies 1-6 potentially benefit existing homeowners by allowing us to add
DADU or ADU without overwhelming our neighborhoods. All the other policies will concentrate
development into developer -led multi unit building clogging up and Ballardizing our arterials.
• 1 take offense at Commissioner Throndsen stating that MFTE expansion is already a "done deal"
and will be recommended to Council, but meanwhile DADU is presented as a "maybe". Seems
like this whole public process is wasted if your minds are already made up about which options
will make the cut and which will not.
• Edmonds is about 5% of the population, I have no idea of the property value percentage, but
how does Edmonds insure that it is getting its fair share of the taxes to apply to Edmonds based
projects.
• Adding on to the above comment, it seems that we're only hearing about the positive, expected
effects. I haven't heard anything about the known downsides of these proposals. In that sense
this doesn't feel like an honest presentation.
• Changing zoning will increase property taxes - which WILL impact existing Edmonds residents.
Packet Pg. 43
7.b
• The process of managing a land trust sale seems like a nightmare. Trying to control what profit
a seller makes so it is not "excessive" would be very difficult. What do you do when property
values drop? Make up the difference?
• 1 have written several critical notes here. I recognize that serving on this commission is a
significant gift of time. Thanks to the commissioners for their efforts, even if I disagree with
some of them.
• AGREE with the note above. Thank you Commissioners - this is not an easy task :)
• 1 am very concerned that policies 7 through 13 will be used as a crutch by the Bowl interests
(Chamber of Commerce types) to "fob off' all the growth into developer led projects along Hwy
99. Just another form of red lining if it happens.
• Having a neighbor (or business) right on top of you/adjacent to your house will greatly change
the character of Edmonds neighborhoods. This also seems to be at odds with other Edmonds
priorities, such as the tree code.
• Thank you Commissioner Ogonowski for your honesty and concern about doubling the density
by allowing duplexes on every lot. There needs to be transparency about the effects of these
policies.
• That was a very good point: do we want a dense urban environment or a suburban city? Years
ago I decided to NOT live in Seattle due to the density. I like Edmonds the way it is. This gets to
the "why" question to the left. When did we vote for up -zoning for the whole city??!
• Thank you Ogonowski for being forth right with information about zoning. I hate feeling like
people are slipping one in on us. Thank you McMurry for shooting straight as well. I am slightly
encouraged by your comments.
• Agreed. We moved here for a single family home with a yard and big trees. I can't find that in
Seattle. I also appreciate the small town neighborhood feel. I also didn't get that in Seattle.
• 1 would like to point out that traditional small towns, truly small towns, have multiple types of
housing often on the same street or block. Diversity in housing stock increases diversity in the
population.
• If your proposals go through, it sounds like you haven't thought it through completely
• 5,000 people over 10 years is 500/year. What is the death rate in Edmonds for these
demographic studies. It was left out of the last study. Being that the boomers were the largest
generation, I'm assuming the death rate is higher. You can't have a growth rate without a death
rate to counter!
• The rail transit (Sounder and soon to be light rail) have damaged bus transit. As a former bus
commuter to Seattle, I saw how many bus routes, both local and to Seattle, disappeared with
Sounder. The bus I used to take to Seattle no longer runs in my neighborhood. This will become
much worse when light rail arrives in 2024.
• Agreed. The elimination of direct bus service forces commuters to transfer multiple times or
have to drive to a train station or transit center - this is not helpful from an ADA standpoint. I
am actually not looking forward to light rail arriving in 2024.
• Focusing on race does NOT help anything. Isn't focusing on race reverse discrimination?
• Gladstone is making blanket statements without supporting facts! Just repeating what she heard
at a Seattle training.
• Our education system is failing us right now!
Packet Pg. 44
7.b
• Affordable housing is far down the list of why people are homeless: drug addiction and mental
illness were 1 & 2. Maybe that should be the focus?
• It floods our schools, fire, police, hospitals with no tax dollars coming in for the people moving
in.
• 1 agree that we need to lead with race, I'm just not sure these tools will actually accomplish the
intent.
Packet Pg. 45
Citizens Housing Commission Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/14/2021
Update on Letter from Alliance for Affordable Housing
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Citizens Housing Commission
Prepared By: Debbie Rothfus
Background/History
At a prior Housing Commission meeting, Council Member Luke Distelhorst was going to speak to the
Commission about a letter he had supported. However, due to schedule conflicts, he had to miss the
meeting for which this was planned.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
The Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA) is an organization of Snohomish County jurisdictions that
share information and collaborate on housing issues. The City of Edmonds is a member of the
organization. Our City Council representative on the AHA Joint Board is Luke Distelhorst.
AHA worked in the fall of 2020 on a letter (see attachment) supporting Snohomish County action related
to HB 1590, which is legislation that provides local options for more housing resources. This legislation
also directly relates to a draft policy proposal of the Housing Commission. The draft policy is:
"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."
Council Member Distelhorst will speak to the AHA letter at the Housing Commission's January 14
meeting.
Attachments:
AHA Letter - Council
Packet Pg. 46
8.a
Arlington -Edmonds-4Everett-4Granite Falls -Housing Authority of Snohomish County -A
AHA ALoke Stevens ALynnwood-4Marysville -4Mill Creek-4Mountlake Terrace A
Alliance for-4Mukilteo ASnohomish -Snohomish County-4Stanwood-AWoodway A
Housing
Affordability
Snohomish County Council
3000 Rockefeller Ave.
M/S 609
Everett, WA 98201
October 30, 2020
The Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA), a collaboration of local municipal governments, was
formed in 2013 to address the issue of our housing affordability crisis in Snohomish County. One of the
major needs in housing affordability is the commitment of local policy and funding. RCW 82.14.530,
amended by HB 1590 in the 2020 Legislative Session, provides the opportunity for legislative bodies like
the Snohomish County Council to address the need for local funding for affordable housing.
Today, the AHA Joint Board writes to encourage Council action on this issue as an important and needed
step to address the County's growing housing affordability crisis.
Data that shows the need for affordable housing is exhaustive and widely available, notably in the
Snohomish County HART report. That data clearly and strongly speaks to the need for increased
affordability across the socio-economic spectrum. Instead of retreading that ground, AHA would like to
draw attention to three perspectives that we believe makes clear the need to support adoption of a 0.1 %
sales tax for affordable housing.
Housing Affordability Deserves a Response Like Any Disaster
The first perspective is best framed through this question: "What response would we expect if the
Cascadia earthquake happened tomorrow and thousands of Snohomish County residents were suddenly in
need of assistance?" One would hope that funding from all levels of government- local, state, and federal
- would flow to the region to assist those suddenly displaced by the disaster. This need would be both
immediate (emergency shelter) and long-term (as the region's economy would suffer for years after).
Wouldn't it be appropriate to raise funds from the public to render assistance to those in need in that case?
We hope the answer to that question is, "It would be appropriate, and expected, for that aid to be
rendered."
If help would be appropriate in event of an earthquake, what do we say to the thousands of households
struggling despite their 40+ hours of work a week? The thousands who are currently homeless, or soon to
be made so by COVID-19's economic impacts? A common refrain, heard for many years, is to "Pull
yourself up by your bootstraps," or simply "Go live somewhere else." Would we say that to residents
displaced by an earthquake? Is this difference in response because of the slow-motion nature of the
current housing crisis compared to the immediacy of an earthquake? Is it because we simply view the
growing number of our affected friends, neighbors, and coworkers as undeserving? Or is it something
else? This question bears discussion.
If Not Now, When?
Setting disaster aside, consider one common reason to reject tax measures: "Now is not the time for a tax
increase." If not now, when? When would be the appropriate time for the County Council to use its
councilmanic authority to raise taxes? Is the answer, "When times are better, and the economy is
stronger"? If that is the case, we would like to encourage the County Council to consider the 8%
`banking' of councilmanic property taxes (last done in Ordinance No. 19-065). There were surely good
Packet Pg. 47
8.a
Arlington -Edmonds-4Everett-4Granite Falls -Housing Authority of Snohomish County -A
AHA ALoke Stevens ALynnwood-4Marysville -4Mill Creek-4Mountlake Terrace A
Alliance for-4Mukilteo ASnohomish -Snohomish County-4Stanwood-AWoodway A
Housing
Affordability
reasons at the time to bank that taxing authority despite a strong economy, just as there are good
arguments today. Putting it all together, it appears that no time will feel right to raise taxes, and in that
case, then today is as good as any other time to adopt this measure.
Using the Tools We Have
Third and finally, it is indeed unfortunate that a sales tax is the option that we must take in support of
funding affordable housing creation. Property taxes are the only other funding mechanism of
significance, and as discussed above, have been left unused for eight years with no sign of change in the
future. In the case of a sales tax, it is notable that as we stood on the precipice of a deep economic
recession in 2008 we still passed the 0.1% Chemical Dependency and Mental Health (CDMH) sales tax.
We can look back to see what negative impacts were experienced in the wake of its passage. Notably,
CDMH has done great work in assisting providers in the work they do to serve Snohomish County
residents. Further, like CDMH, this measure for affordable housing would assist in making Snohomish
County more competitive in applications for state and federal dollars, which often require or incentivize
local funding commitments. These state and local funds are often granted in much larger values than the
local funding commitment, so in addition to making Snohomish County more competitive, this measure
would leverage funds at a greater than 1:1 ratio from state and federal sources.
While the COVID-19 pandemic creates challenging circumstances to adoption of this tax, it also provides
a greater imperative to do so. A year from now, whether the pandemic itself has been overcome or not,
its impact on the economy and thus the housing market will surely still be with us. At that time and
beyond, the lack of a source of local funding to support those affected will be sorely felt, and even more
urgently needed.
Looking ahead to that future, AHA's members strongly urge the County Council to make it clear that
those who work hard, but still make below 60% of the County's median income, deserve as much support
as would be expected in the wake of any other disaster. It is understood that taxation is difficult, uniquely
so during this pandemic. However, we often do not consider that the impacts of failing to adequately
address the shortage of housing will have outsized financial impacts that we will all ultimately pay.
Those costs will manifest themselves in the form of charity hospital care, emergency treatment and
intervention, law enforcement and incarceration, lowered educational attainment, and more. Worse yet, a
lack of action on this will contribute to an ever -thinning social fabric that holds us together in common
purpose of decency to one another and the dream of a prosperous future for all. AHA's mission is to keep
that dream alive for Snohomish County residents of today and tomorrow, and we thank you for continued
support of that work.
This letter was approved by a vote of 8-1, with 4 abstentions and 2 absent, by the AHA Joint Board on
October 28, 2020.
Sincerely,
AHA Joint Board
Packet Pg. 48
Citizens Housing Commission Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 01/14/2021
Framework for Final Recommendations
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Citizens Housing Commission
Prepared By: Debbie Rothfus
Background/History
The Housing Commission is tasked with providing housing policy recommendations to the City Council
by January 31, 2021. The Commission sunsets the next day, February 1, 2021.
The Commission has been actively working on policy ideas and is getting close to wrap-up.
All policy recommendations are advisory to the City Council. The Council will consider them, perhaps
over a period of months, and decide whether or which of the recommendations to explore further.
None of them will be automatically adopted but will go through further review and public input prior to
any decisions by the City Council.
Staff Recommendation
Approve draft transmittal letter
Approve general format for recommendations
Narrative
The Housing Commission meets on January 28, 2021, to finalize its policy recommendations to the City
by January 31. The policy recommendations will initially be submitted via email to the City Council.
Although we expect one or more presentations to be made in a City Council meeting later, the first
priority now is to submit the set of recommended housing policies by the due date.
Thinking ahead to the end -of -the -month submittal, Commissioner Bob Throndsen has drafted a
transmittal letter (attached) that could accompany the recommendations when they are ready.
The Housing Commission has already prepared draft policies and its committees have prepared a one -
page policy statement for each draft policy.
At the January 14 meeting, the Housing Commission will discuss and may approve the draft transmittal
letter (with any changes) and the format/framework for the policies that will be recommended on
January 28.
Attachments:
Submittal letter to council.02_proposed
Packet Pg. 49
9.a
Revised draft 1/7/21
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 has set this Commission on extraordinary path. 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 diverse communities throughout Edmonds; researched current, and future
population growth and housing needs; examined city codes and state law; studied what works and why; and
worked to create new opportunities for all residents. We believe our ideas can enhance our unique city to keep
Edmonds a vibrant, diverse and welcoming community for all.
Community engagement has been a top priority. Early outreach included 'in -person' events. After COVID-19
struck, most events happened online. We live -streamed all our meetings and community outreach seminars with
diverse groups city-wide. We have conducted online community surveys; sent out extensive news releases
updating the community and flyers encouraging public involvement, as well as hundreds of post card notifications
and survey invitations.
The Commission believes that the set of policy ideas we are submitting is consistent with your Resolution 41427
Additional support material is outlined in each proposal and the Commission would be happy to provide any
further input required.
Each Commission member appreciates the opportunity to serve the people of Edmonds. Each member brought
commitment, passion and vision to this process. We had frank and robust discussions among Commissioners that
reflected our wide range of opinions. Our considerations included whether proposed ideas fit with our mission
and whether they could achieve the intended results. We offer opportunities to a broad section of diverse groups
We believe this city and our city leaders can fulfill these proposals to benefit all of Edmonds.
We profoundly appreciate the expertise, the insight and the 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.
The Housing Commission voted on each draft recommendation we developed. Those with majority approval are
now brought together for your consideration. There remain many other ideas worthy of future discussion.
Submitted by all members of the Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission
Packet Pg. 50