2016-03-09 Planning Board Retreat PacketSPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
PLANNING BOARD RETREAT
Brackett Room, 3rd Floor of City Hall
121 5th Avenue North
March 9, 2016
6:00 PM
Call to Order and Roll Call
2. Reading / Approval of Minutes:
a. Approve the minutes of 2/24/2016
3. Announcement of Agenda
Training: Presentation and Discussion with the City Attorney(s) on the Open
4. Public Meetings Act and Public Records.
a. Presentation & Discussion on Open Public Meetings Act and Public Records
5. Discussion: Growth Patterns and Strategies for Edmonds
a. Discussion on Growth Patterns & Strategies for Edmonds
6. ADJOURN
AI-8396
Planning Board Agenda
Meeting Date: 03/09/2016
Approve the minutes of 2/24/2016
Department: Planning
Initiated By: City Staff
Information
Subject/Purpose
Approve the minutes of 2/24/2016
Staff Recommendation
Approve the minutes of 2/24/2016
Previous Board Action
N/A
Narrative
Approve the minutes of 2/24/2016 (Attachment 1)
Attachments
Attachment 1: Minutes of 2/24/2016
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
February 24, 2016
Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety
Complex, 250 — 5d' Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Philip Lovell, Chair
Carreen Rubenkonig, Vice Chair
Matthew Cheung
Alicia Crank
Nathan Monroe
Daniel Robles
Valerie Stewart
Samuel Kleven (Student Representative)
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Todd Cloutier
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Karin Noyes, Recorder
BOARD MEMBER STEWART MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 10, 2016 BE APPROVED AS
WRITTEN. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There were no audience comments.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Chair Lovell referred to the written Director's report, which was included in their packets. He specifically noted the
summary of what has been done to date to implement the Strategic Action Plan, and he encouraged Board Members to
review the document.
DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE
Mr. Chave advised that Ms. Hope and the consultant team provided a progress report on the Development Code Update to the
City Council on February 23`d. For the Board's information, he played a video recording of the presentation. The following
is a summary of the presentation:
Ms. Hope advised that the Development Code Update is intended to make the code more readable, accurate and consistent;
make inadequately -addressed code topics more complete; address new issues as appropriate; clam roles and processes and
resolve conflicts/overlaps. She recalled that the Planning Board previously identified criteria by which the update would
proceed, and the City Council allocated $150, 000 for the project. About $110, 000 of the funds were used in 2015, and
$40, 000 will be carried over into 2016 to continue the project.
Ms. Hope said the update is significantly influenced by staff resources. While they have helpful consultants, a large amount
of staff time is needed to work through the topics. Staff time is influenced by other projects on the work program, as well as
ongoing development review and special projects. The update is also influenced by the Planning Board principles and
objectives, the public process and input, stormwater low -impact design (LID) integration, and the changing legal
environment (new laws and court cases). Ms. Hope introduced John Owen of Makers, the consultant for the Development
Code Update.
John Owen, Makers, advised that he has been working with City staff on a number of code sections in tandem with each
other. One, in particular, is the Subdivision (land development) Code, which is a topic that has received a lot of comments
from the Planning Board, City Council, citizens, and development community. When reviewing the Subdivision Code, he
considered three different types of land use actions: short subdivisions, formal subdivisions and binding site plans for
commercial properties. The proposed concept at this time is to re -define short subdivisions as 8 lots or less rather than 4 lots
or less, while adding stronger design standards and clearer criteria. It is believed that this approach will cut out incentive
for property owners to do two, side -by -side, 4-lot (short) subdivisions and instead have unified design that results in better
land utilization and more opportunities to mitigate impacts of development.
Mr. Owen explained that there are several different design options to consider. The current code allows for conventional
design, as well as Planned Residential Development (PRD), which relaxes some of the requirements for subdividing
properties. Under the proposed new language, it is anticipated there would be less need for PRDs because the updated code
would allow some flexibility that would make some aspects of land division easier. The current code also allows for
modification requests, leading to what is commonly called "staff interpretation " or other review actions, and he proposed
that this option be substituted with LID requirements or options. This approach would allow greater flexibility to cluster lots
and achieve more conservation or enhancement for existing trees, natural areas; greater setbacks next to adjacent
properties; stormwater and LID features; native vegetation protection and solar access. Relaxing the internal subdivision
requirements will allow for greater outer buffers, more LID features, and a greater opportunity to save large trees. The idea
is to do what is important for the environment and surrounding property owners, but allow more flexibility with regard to
how the buildings relate to one another and how they are arranged internally on the lot.
Mr. Owen observed that some may interpret the proposed changes as making it easier for property owners to subdivide by
allowing short subdivisions of up to 8 units. While the proposed LID Standards would allow a developer to vary the width
and area of individual lots to a certain extent and the interior setbacks may be somewhat reduced, there would be greater
requirements for protecting and enhancing critical areas and natural features, stormwater management and solar access.
The standards would also limit the amount of impervious surface to a certain percentage of a lot and require careful
protection of the trees being retained. He emphasized that the concept would not result in an overall density that is greater
than allowed in the zoning district.
Mr. Owen reviewed other concepts for updating the Subdivision Code such as allowing `fee simple" unit lot design for
townhomes, requiring sidewalks on both sides of street for larger subdivisions, requiring access directly from a public right-
of-way, and clarifying language as needed for underground utilities, easements, dedications, etc.
Mr. Owens said that, while the application requirements are nearly the same for both short and formal plats, the review
processes vary. Short plats are administratively reviewed, with appeals going before the Hearing Examiner. Formal plats
are preliminarily approved by the Hearing Examiner, with a recommendation to the City Council for the final decision and
appeals go to the court. No changes have been proposed for the process. However, the proposed amendments will result in
clearer standards related to coverage, massing, stormwater infiltration, etc. This will result in fewer "staff interpretations"
related to impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and more internal site flexibility to protect trees, natural stormwater
drainage, greater buffers around the property, etc.
Planning Board Minutes
February 24, 2016 Page 2
Mr. Owen said there have also been a lot of comments pertaining to the Sign Code, particularly about how the City
calculates sign area. He explained that there are different ways to measure sign area, and Edmonds currently only counts
the actual size of the letters and not the area around the letters. This encourages larger letters instead of the objectionable
panel or backlit signs you see in other communities. The concept is to update the way that maximum sign area is regulated
for multi -tenant commercial buildings. Currently, the maximum allowed sign area is one square foot of sign area per one
lineal foot of building frontage on the main public entrance. He recommended that the language be clarified to apply the
measurement to individual storefronts and not an entire multi -tenant facade.
Mr. Owen said another change that would improve the overall quality and design of signs is to make sure they are centered
in proportion and shape to the architectural features of the building. In addition, signage should not two thirds of the
individual storefront dimension or articulation of the building. In reviewing examples, these proposed changes will help
keep the sign to a reasonable size and proportion to the rest of the building.
Mr. Owen said another thing that is unique to Edmonds is allowing signs to be on the mansard roof of a one-story building,
and no changes are being proposed to this provision. However, one of the more controversial aspects of the sign code is
sandwich board or A frame signs. The proposed concept is to encourage the use of stanchion (portable post style) signs as
an alternative to A frame signs. Stanchion signs are less disruptive, yet highly visible. It is not the intent to discourage
businesses from advertising. At the same time, they want to ensure there is a clear, safe pedestrian environment, as well as a
sense of visual regularity and decorum in the downtown. Another option is to require a permit for stanchion or A frame
signs so they can be tracked. It is also necessary to refine the requirements for A frame or stanchion signs in the right-of-
way to make sure there is clear right-of-way, that they are close to the business, and that the numbers are limited.
Mr. Owen said the proposed amendments also encourage blade signs to advertise the additional businesses. Blade signs do
not have any of the disadvantages of the stanchion signs, and they actually have very good visibilityfor both pedestrians and
people in vehicles. They are also considering a master plan for directional signs in the downtown so that signs can be placed
in key locations. These signs are particularly important for businesses that are off the main streets. Permitting would be
required and some organizational effort would be needed.
Mr. Owen said many Washington Cities no longer allow new pole signs. Currently, the City only allows pole signs on
Highway 99, and he recommended the City consider prohibiting new pole signs altogether and encouraging monument signs,
instead. He recognized this may meet some opposition; but in the end, both businesses and other citizens tend to prefer signs
that are visible but not intrusive.
Mr. Owen said there are also legal issues under review related to signs that are based on recent court decisions. General
miscellaneous clean-up of the sign code language also needs to be done.
Ms. Hope noted that various items came up on the work plan that altered the City's ability to move forward with the
Development Code Update. However, the current plan is to start with updates to the sign and subdivision codes. She
reminded them that a related Development Code issue is the Critical Areas Ordinance, which has not yet been adopted. In
addition, the fire code must be updated every three years and will be coming before the City Council for adoption before
July. Also, the State implemented a change to the impact fee process, which requires that there be a different process for
single-family homes; and the City needs to update its code to implement this new requirement before July. The intent is also
to continue integrating stormwater LID techniques into various sections of the code, and staff is currently working with the
Engineering Department to complete this task.
Mr. Chave announced that the presentation was followed by approximately 15 minutes of questions by the City Council
Members, and the entire presentation is available on line.
Chair Lovell asked if the schedule was developed by the Development Services Department or the consultant. Mr. Chave
answered that it was prepared by the Development Services Director, after consulting with Makers. Chair Lovell reported
that he attended Ms. Hope's presentation to the City Council and recalled that a key concern was that the concept of "0" lot
lines would force the housing units so close together that they could infringe on the concept of personal privacy while trying
Planning Board Minutes
February 24, 2016 Page 3
to preserve sections of a development site for natural habitat, LID, tree preservation, etc. He noted that if an area is deemed
to be in a critical area, all of the requirements contained in the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) would apply.
Chair Lovell recalled that there has been a lot of discussion in the past about sandwich board or A -frame signs, and the issue
came up again at the Council level. These signs seem to populate the sidewalks and interfere with pedestrian access. It was
asked if the City has solicited feedback from retail establishments that use the signs. Obviously, they want to preserve their
sign capacity as much as possible. The task is to create balanced criteria that is acceptable to everyone but also provides a
clear definition as to what comprises a temporary sign. Also, at the Council meeting, it was pointed out that Mill Creek
Village does not allow sandwich board signs. Instead, they use blade signs that seem to go a long way to solving the issue.
Chair Lovell advised that proposed amendments to the Sign and Subdivision Codes will come back to the Board for a\\ work
sessions, a public hearing, and a recommendation to the City Council later in 2016. Mr. Chave agreed and advised that a
major part of the Board's extended agenda will be filled with Development Code update topics.
Board Member Crank said that, based on feedback from retailers in the City, the A -frame signs are more than just a logo.
They provide valuable real estate for temporary advertising. Switching to stanchion or blade signs would eliminate a
business's ability to highlight sales and specials. She presumes that this concern will come up at the public hearing regarding
the proposed changes. A -frames offer critical advertising opportunities that businesses will have to pay for and provide in
another way.
Chair Lovell recalled that the proposed change would not eliminate a -frame signs, but it would add additional standards to
get them closer to the entrances, provide adequate ADA access on the sidewalk, etc. He expects that the updated Sign Code
would continue to allow A -frame signs, but it would clarify the requirements. He also acknowledged that retailers depend on
A -frame signs.
Mr. Chave commented that stanchion signs would not preclude the ability to change messages. They are simply a different
type and shape of sign that takes up less footprint on the ground but still provides ample room for messaging. He noted that
the sidewalks in the downtown area are typically narrow, and the intent is to figure out specific limits and regulations that
will allow businesses to provide messaging without hindering pedestrian access. He commented that a variety of other stand-
up sign types have been used effectively in the downtown.
Board Member Cheung asked if digital signs are allowed in Edmonds, and Mr. Chave answered that they are permitted along
Highway 99, but the decision was made many years ago that digital signs were not appropriate for downtown and most other
commercial areas in Edmonds. However, he acknowledged that there are a few existing digital signs that have been
grandfathered and will be allowed to remain.
Board Member Robles asked if neon or LED signs would be allowed, and Mr. Chave answered that small ones that are
located inside windows are allowed. It's an evolving technology, and historically, it has been tight in the downtown area
because people live in very close proximity to the businesses and it is important to limit glare and light.
Board Member Cheung asked of projection lighting is allowed. Mr. Chave said the City actually encourages indirect lighting
in the downtown. For example, halo signs are a new technology where there is some form of a sign face, with a light that
comes from behind and illuminates outside of the sign area. The code prohibits cabinet signs in the downtown, but halo signs
are indirectly lit and can produce some really attractive effects with very little light bleeding off the site. He explained that it
is tricky to write sign code because the technology evolves quickly. It is necessary to look at performance standards rather
than listing the specific types of signs that are and are not allowed. It is more about effect (what you are trying to prevent or
encourage). For example, Mr. Owen called out the City's method for calculating sign area as unique because it only counts
the area of the applied letters and not the area surrounding the letters. This is a powerful incentive for people to do block
letters, which tend to be more subtle and get the message across well, without a large, bright sign background.
Board Member Stewart commented on the importance of positioning structures on the site to allow for environmental
features to be utilized favorably. Cluster developments use this approach, and it has been done quite a bit in other
jurisdictions. The proposed code talks about LID, which is mandated by the state and will be incorporated into the code. It
is also important that the updated Subdivision Code encourage green building. Under LID, it talks about energy efficiency,
Planning Board Minutes
February 24, 2016 Page 4
locally sourced and sustainable materials, indoor environmental quality, and a host of other things. Usually, when you talk
about green building, you also analyze the site; and if you have flexibility, you can position buildings to take advantage of
environmental features on the site. She noted that King County is moving forward with this evolving concept, and
Snohomish County is lagging behind. Chair Lovell clarified that the idea would be to allow adjustments in the positioning of
the units to enable larger areas of the site to be preserved for natural habitat, shared green space, mini parks, rain gardens, etc.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig observed that signs in the downtown should be designed to attract pedestrians, whereas signs on
Highway 99 must attract vehicles passing by. She recalled previous City discussions where it was decided that signs that can
attract people from more than two blocks away create too strong of a presence in the downtown, and that is where the word
"garish" came into play. It is important to remember that this is the perspective that has been taken when looking at what is
considered acceptable signage. She said she supports the performance based approach, which allows new technologies to be
considered. Chair Lovell agreed that pedestrian -oriented signs are more appropriate for the downtown.
Chair Lovell voiced concern that, typically, when small -lot development occurs, developers put up a fence around the
development and clear cut the entire site. Implementing LID concepts will require careful planning by the City staff and
developers. Board Member Stewart agreed that more planning will be required, but developers can actually save time later
by retaining some of the existing environmental features on the site. It's a different way of thinking, but the concept is being
used more. There are developers that take this approach, and perhaps they can attract developers from outside the City so the
concept can begin to happen more.
Chair Lovell asked if there is sufficient funding to complete the Development Code update. Mr. Chave said he does not
anticipate that the entire update will be finished in 2016. Right now, the consultant and staff are focusing on the most
important parts (signage, subdivisions, and LID integration), and the remaining funds should be sufficient to complete these
items. Staff hopes to complete the remaining work in house. He reminded the Board that another consultant is currently
working with the Engineering Department to integrate LID into the engineering requirements, which will also require
changes to other sections of the code. The City is also working with a consultant to prepare a Highway 99 Subarea Plan. He
summarized that updating the Development Code is a very large project that involves various consultants and City
departments.
Board Member Monroe requested more information about the Council's concerns about "0" lot line development. Mr. Chave
clarified that "0" lot line is not a concept that is currently being considered. Board Member Monroe asked if the changes to
the short plat provisions would allow a developer to bypass some of the standards, and Mr. Chave answered no. The same
standards would apply to both short and formal subdivisions. The proposed amendment relates more to the process. Short
plats are administratively reviewed, but the City Council has to approve formal subdivisions. Board Member Monroe voiced
concern that the proposed amendment would result in eight, small houses placed in the corner of a large lot. Mr. Chave said
there are standards and limitations that would prevent this from happening. However, there needs to be some flexibility
given to allow LID to be worked into the site design. The current formal subdivision provisions offer very little flexibility
and no opportunity to retain trees, etc. The real question is how much and what type of flexibility should be available in both
the short and formal plat standards.
Board Member Crank asked if the City Council's decision to postpone adoption of the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO)
would impact the timeline for updating the Development Code. Mr. Chave said it could complicate the schedule, depending
on how elaborate finishing off the CAO gets, since it will prevent senior staff from being able to work on the code update.
Vice Chair Rubenkonig observed that she does not anticipate a large number of subdivisions with more than eight lots, given
the limited land available in Edmonds for development/redevelopment. Mr. Chave agreed and said most of the future
subdivisions will be 2 or 3-lot short plats. Vice Chair Rubenkonig said that, in her experience with reviewing large
subdivisions that have protected lands in the greater Seattle area, you end up with development that does not protect the last
frontier of the resources that are left. There is not much left of the good part of nature, and the proposed LID regulations
would actually protect what is left on the parcels. She also observed that people seem to like living on these properties.
Protected lands are never going to be developed and they will have them to enjoy in perpetuity. There are some very fine
tradeoffs. Although the houses would be smaller, there has not been a lack of interest on the part of consumers wanting to
get into the developments.
Planning Board Minutes
February 24, 2016 Page 5
Vice Chair Rubenkonig said Mr. Owen made some fine points to help the Board turn its thinking when he referred to the
proposed changes to the interior side and rear setback requirements. He pointed out that only the people living in the
development would be impacted by the reductions, and they would have a clear understanding of the tradeoffs. Mr. Owen
also made a point about lessoning the need for staff interpretation, which is something developers continue to ask for.
Developers want to know what they are working with up front so there are no surprises. Subdividing is a rather expensive
process that involves a large number of experts, and it is important for the City to be very clear about what the rules are.
Staff interpretations drive up the cost for consumers.
UPDATE ON EDMONDS WATERFRONT ACCESS STUDY AT -GRADE RAILROAD CROSSING
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
Chair Lovell explained that his presentation is not an official briefing. He is a member of the Waterfront Access Study Task
Force and volunteered to update the Planning Board on the process because he believes it is important that the Board and
public are kept up-to-date on how the study is progressing. The primary source of information related to the study can be
found on the City's website, including task force meeting agendas and minutes. He advised that the task force meets on the
2nd and 4tb Thursdays of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the Brackett Room at City Hall. The meetings are open to the public,
although the task force does not solicit public comment at their regular meetings.
Chair Lovell reported that two public open houses have been held pertaining to the study. At the first open house, the task
force outlined the purpose of the study, as well as the approach they would take towards the challenge. The second open
house was a work session where members of the public were allowed to walk through all of the proposed concepts being
studied.
Chair Lovell observed that the railroad has been in Edmonds for a very long time, and it is important to keep in mind that
over -implementation of any access solution concept could alter the character of the City. There is a risk that solving the
railroad crossing problems in Edmonds could result in turning the City into a railroad town rather than a waterfront town.
Chair Lovell advised that the task force is comprised of five citizen representatives from the Edmonds community, as well as
five representatives from the primary stakeholders: Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF), Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) Sound Transit (ST), Community Transit (CT), and Washington State Ferries (WSF). In addition to
staff members who attend the task force meetings, the City has hired consultants from TetraTec and EnviroIssues to assist in
the work.
Chair Lovell provided an overview of the study schedule, noting that the project remains on schedule and the 2nd of five
stages is currently underway. He reported that the task force has completed a technical analysis by observing, quantifying
and documenting existing conditions at the Main Street and Dayton Street crossings. They have also reviewed data from
previous studies and community input, compiled potential concepts to improve access and developed the following screening
criteria:
• Provide for continuous emergency response access.
• Reduce delays to ferry loading/unloading.
• Reduce delays and conflicts for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists at the Dayton Street and Main Street railroad
crossings.
• Provide safe and efficient intermodal passenger connectivity between ferry, commuter rail, bus transit, pedestrian,
bicycle and motor vehicle modes of travel.
Chair Lovell reported that the task force has completed its Level 1 review of each of the concepts based on the initial criteria.
He provided an aerial photograph to illustrate the scope of the study area and explained that the remaining concepts have
been divided into the following categories: overpass solutions, underpass solutions, on -site solutions, operational solutions,
railroad modifications, and ferry facility modifications. He summarized that most of the concepts focus on overpass
solutions, underpass solutions and ferry facility modifications. However, some concepts suggest on -site solutions such as
providing first aid training and stationing a response team on the water side of the tracks and putting in a helipad. Railroad
improvements, such as running the trains only at night, relocating the trains to Kirkland, or moving the tracks to the east of
downtown so the waterfront is not interrupted, were also suggested.
Planning Board Minutes
February 24, 2016 Page 6
Chair Lovell shared a series of maps to illustrate the location of the proposed overpass, underpass and ferry facility
modification solutions that are currently under consideration. He briefly described each solution and provided examples of
what the solutions might look like. He explained that as the process continues, the task force will drill down more deeply
into the remaining concepts to include more graphics, related work descriptions, feasibility, cost estimates, etc. The
remaining concepts will be developed into potential alternatives and the following additional evaluation criteria will be
applied:
• Is the concept feasible to implement?
• Does the concept avoid environmental effects/impacts?
• Does the concept avoid creating social and/or economic impacts?
Chair Lovell explained that each solution's feasibility will be evaluated based on project cost, implementation timeframe,
City Council approval/acceptance, stakeholder agency approval/acceptance, disruption during implementation, public
acceptance/approval, regulatory approval, environmental considerations, etc. In addition to the criteria, each of the
stakeholders (WSDOT, BNSF, WSF, ST and CT) all have concerns that need to be considered.
Chair Lovell summarized that at its February 25`h meeting, the task force will review the outcome of the Level 1 screening
workshop. The Level 1 screening process will be completed at the March 10`h meeting, and then the Level 2 screening
process will begin. He advised that interim reports will be provided to the City Council, and updated information will be
made available on the City's website. The public is invited to contribute comments and suggestions throughout the process,
and an open house on the Level 2 outcomes will take place in June or July.
Board Member Monroe asked if any funding sources have been identified to implement the preferred alternative, and Chair
Lovell answered no. Board Member Monroe asked if funding would be provided via WSDOT or the City of Edmonds.
Chair Lovell answered that there have been some peripheral discussions that indicate if the City could put forth some funding
for the project, it would help serve as an impetus to glean more funds from stakeholders, as well as county, state and federal
sources. Once a preferred alternative has been adopted, the City can begin the process of securing funds for implementation.
Board Member Monroe asked if it would be safe to say that BNSF and WSDOT will not provide significant funding towards
implementation. Chair Lovell said these opportunities are still on the table. Board Member Monroe cautioned that the City
should not assume that WSDOT or BNSF would be reliable funding sources.
Board Member Monroe asked if scheduling or program management is also being considered as a possible solution. Chair
Lovell said there has been some effort on the part of CT, ST and WSF to coordinate schedules. His understanding is that the
situation has gotten better, but more improvements are needed. A major concern is that access is blocked while the ferry is
loading and unloading, which can disrupt not only traffic in Edmonds, but other nearby ferry terminals will feel the impacts,
as well. The intent of the study is to find a solution to decrease the number of interruptions to the ferry and provide
emergency access over the tracks. Board Member Monroe suggested that if one of the goals of the study is to eliminate ferry
issues, perhaps WSDOT and/or WSF should be contributing more to the planning and funding.
Board Member Robles expressed his belief that the conflict is between cars, ferries and the railroad, and calling it a safety
issue is simply a diversion. If safety is the only concern, and vehicular access is not part of the equation, a simple pedestrian
bridge over the railroad tracks would suffice. Chair Lovell pointed out that, in addition to ferry traffic, there are also
residents who live on the water side of the tracks, as well as restaurants, retail establishments, office buildings and the
marina. All of these people need regular access over or under the tracks.
Board Member Monroe asked if WSDOT and WSF are sympathetic to the problem or if they believe it is the City's problem
to resolve. Mr. Chave explained that it is not a single -agency problem, and that is why the stakeholders have all been invited
to participate in the process. All of them have a particular problem they want to solve, and there will not be a single pool of
money that will resolve all of the concerns. If everyone is at the table offering solutions that will solve multiple problems, it
will be possible to access more than one set of funding.
Planning Board Minutes
February 24, 2016 Page 7
Board Member Monroe said it does not appear that BNSF has any problems to resolve. Mr. Chave said that do have periodic
safety issue, and they are concerned about ferry riders interfering with their operations. He summarized that this is a huge
problem and there are no simple and/or low-cost solutions.
Board Member Stewart pointed out that the Edmonds Crossing Project is still identified in City plans. She expressed her
belief that Edmonds Crossing is the best location for a solution. She can't imagine spending a significant amount of money
to construct an elevated crossing, only to have it removed if and when Edmonds Crossing comes to fruition at some point in
the future. Chair Lovell said he suspects that Edmonds Crossing will be one of the factors that is considered as the study
progresses and they begin narrowing down the options. He said he is not sure the task force will ever be able to answer the
question of whether or not Edmonds Crossing will be built in the future, and he is fairly certain that WSDOT cannot, either.
Edmonds Crossing has been around a number of years, and a number of changes have occurred during that period of time. A
new enclosed pedestrian walkway was installed for ferry riders and Sound Transit invested money to rebuild the Edmonds
Station, including provisions for the second track. A few years ago, WSDOT offered a piece of land for private development.
In exchange for the land, WSDOT would have required the developer to provide a pedestrian overpass at Railroad Avenue.
However, no proposals were received due to the high number of requirements, and the project was abandoned. In addition,
CT build a mini terminal adjacent to the WSDOT site. He summarized that a lot has been done by various agencies,
investment wise, to create solutions to address their long-term needs.
REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Lovell reported that he and Vice Chair Rubenkonig met with Mr. Chave and Ms. Hope to discuss the issues that are
coming up on the Board's agenda, particularly related to the Development Code update. Ms. Hope will update the extended
agenda based on that discussion.
Chair Lovell reminded the Board that their retreat is scheduled for March 9`' starting at 6:00 p.m. with a potluck dinner. He
advised that the City Attorney would be available to present Part II of his training related to public meeting laws. Mr. Chave
agreed to furnish the Board Members with materials from the Part I training session to refresh their memories.
Chair Lovell reviewed a list of potential agenda topics that included: growth patterns and strategies; maintaining the City's
character; Growth Management Act goals for jobs, housing and population growth; housing strategies; Americans with
Disabilities Act requirements; mixed -use development; fringe rezoning; taller buildings; reprogramming large, single-family
properties; and targeted areas of Edmonds such as Highway 99, Five Corners, Perrinville and Firdale Village. He invited the
Board Members to share their thoughts on which topics they wanted to place on the agenda.
In addition to the training provided by the City Engineer, the Board concurred that the main topic of discussion at the retreat
should be housing alternatives as they relate to the Growth Management Act and whether or not the City can provide housing
to accommodate the projected growth.
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Lovell did not make any additional comments.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
None of the Board Members made additional comments.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
February 24, 2016 Page 8
AI-8394
Planning Board Agenda
Meeting Date: 03/09/2016
Presentation & Discussion on Open Public Meetings Act and Public Records
Staff City Attorney
Lead/Author:
Department: Planning
Initiated By: City Staff
Information
Subject/Purpose
Presentation & Discussion on Open Public Meetings Act and Public Records
Staff Recommendation
N/A
i
Previous Board Action
Previous training on "Appearance of Fairness" was provided by City Attorney Jeff Taraday on October 28, 2015
(see attached).
Narrative
The presentation from October 28th is attached.
Attachments
Attachment 1: October 28. 2015 presentation
Edmonds Planning Board Training
October 28, 2015
' Lighthouse
�� Law Grow
Part 1
Appearance of Fairness
Doctrine
• Chapter 42.36 RCW
Why the name?
—Quasi-judicial hearings involving local land
use matters must be fair in fact and must
appear to be fair.
Lighthouse
L LawGroupp
What does quasi-judicial mean?
• acting like judges
• not policy makers
Lighthouse
L LawGroupp
When is it used?
"...those actions of the legislative body,
planning commission, hearing examiner, ...,
or boards which determine the legal riahts.
duties, or privileges of specific partie
hearing or other contested case
proceeding."
RCW 42.36.010
L
sing
Lighthouse
Law Group p-
When is it NOT used?
"legislative actions adopting, amending, or
revising comprehensive, community, or
neighborhood plans or other land use
planning documents or the adoption of area -
wide zoning ordinances or the adoption of a
zoning amendment that is of area -wide
significance."
RCW 42-36-010
Lighthouse
L LawGroupp
What types of Edmonds
applications?
• Type 111-A (e.g. outdoor dining)
• Type III-6 (e.g. design review before ADB;
variances)
• Type IV-B (site specific rezones)
' Lighthouse
�� Law Grow
Edmonds applications that are NOT
subject to doctrine?
• Type I (e.g. lot line adjustment)
• Type II (e.g. preliminary short plat)
• Type IV -A (e.g. final formal plat)
0 Type V (e.g. comp plan amendments)
0 Lighthouse
L LawGroupp
Ex Parte Communications —
general rule
"During the pendency of any quasi-judicial
proceeding, no member of a decision -
making body may engage in ex pane
communications with opponents or
proponents with respect to the proposal
which is the subject of the proceeding..."
RCW 42-36-060
0 Lighthouse
L LawGroup
Ex Parte Communications —
exception, part 1
" unless that person: (1) Places on the record
the substance of any written or oral ex pane
communications concerning the decision of
action; and
RCW 42-36-060
0 Lighthouse
L LawGroup
Ex Parte Communications —
exception, part 2
" and (2) Provides that a public announcement
of the content of the communication and of the
parties' rights to rebut the substance of the
communication shall be made at each hearing
where action is considered or taken on the
subject to which the communication related."
RCW 42-36-060
0 Lighthouse
L LawGroup
Ex Parte Communications — not
precluded ...
• "... seeking in a public hearing specific information
or data from such parties relative to the decision if
both the request and the results are a part of the
record."
• " ... correspondence between a citizen and his or
her elected official if any such correspondence is
made a part of the record when it pertains to the
subject matter of aquasi-judicial proceeding."
RCW 42.36.060
0 Lighthouse
L LawGroup
BIAS
A decisionmaker may be challenged for:
• prejudgment concerning issues of fact about
parties
• partiality evidencing a personal bias or
personal prejudice signifying an attitude for or
against a party (as distinguished from policy
leanings of a decision maker)
A challenger must present evidence of actual or
potential bias to support an appearance of
fairness claim.
0 Lighthouse
L LawGroup
Prior advisory proceedings
"Participation by a member of a decision -
making body in earlier proceedings that
result in an advisory recommendation to a
decision -making body shall not disqualify
that person from participating in any
subsequent quasi-judicial proceeding."
RCW 42-36.070
0 Lighthouse
L LawGroup
Disqualification
"Anyone seeking ... to disqualify a member
of adecision-making body ... must raise the
challenge as soon as the basis for
disqualification is made known to the
individual...."
RCW 42-36-080
Lighthouse
L LawGroup
Lack of quorum?
"In the event of a challenge ... which would cause a
lack of a quorum or would result in a failure to obtain
a majority vote ..., any such challenged member(s)
shall be permitted to fully participate in the
proceeding and vote as though the challenge had
not occurred, if the member or members publicly
disclose the basis for disqualification prior to
rendering a decision."
RCW 42.36.090
' Lighthouse
Law Grou
What's wrong with ex pane communication?
• Not fair
*Could lead to wrong findings; not
challenged
• Hard to defend decision if
evidence supporting decision is
in the record
0 Lighthouse
L LawGroup
How to handle it when it happens?
Try to cut it off
Disclose at earliest opportunity
Put substance on record
Opportunity for rebuttal
0 Lighthouse
L LawGroupp
Script for chair, part 1
• Has any member of this decisionmaking
body engaged in communication with
opponents or proponents regarding the
issues in this appeal outsi
hearing process?
de of the public
0 Lighthouse
L LawGroup
Script for chair, part 2
• Is there any member who has a conflict of
interest or believes that he or she cannot
hear and consider this application in a fair
and objective manner?
0 Lighthouse
L LawGroupp
Script for chair, part 3
• Is there anyone in the audience who
objects to my participation or to any other
Board member's participation as a
decisionmaker in this hearing?
0 Lighthouse
L LawGroupp
What to ask yourself?
• Would a disinterested person, with
knowledge of the totality of my personal
interest or involvement, be reasonably
justified in thinking that my involvement
might affect my judgment?
0 Lighthouse
L LawGroupp
Record of the hearing
• Ensure that there is a complete recording
of the hearing.
• No remarks away from the microphone.
• All exhibits made part of record.
0 Lighthouse
L LawGroupp
Only one open record hearing!
• All evidence must be introduced during the
open record hearing.
• City council is relying on you to ask all
relevant questions.
• Should request supplemental information
for questions that cannot be resolved.
0 Lighthouse
L LawGroupp
Support your recommendation
• Not enough to just vote to recommend
• Make clear findings of fact
• Expressly adopt, amend, or reject staff
findings, as appropriate
0 Lighthouse
L LawGroupp
Take your time
• Ask for drafting help, as necessary
• Not required to make final
recommendation on same night
0 Lighthouse
L LawGroupp
AI-8395
Planning Board Agenda
Meeting Date: 03/09/2016
Discussion on Growth Patterns & Strategies for Edmonds
Department: Planning
Initiated By: City Staff
Planning Board
Information
Subject/Purpose
Discussion on Growth Patterns & Strategies for Edmonds
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Previous Board Action
N/A
Narrative
Topics for the discussion include:
5. a.
A. GMA goals and growth -- population, housing, and employment
1. Growth strategies: e.g. Mixed use development, redevelopment and infill; alternative housing (e.g. ADUs); smaller
units or targeted density increases; building design and standards for specific neighborhoods.
2. Opportunities: e.g. Highway 99 special area planning, potential for neighborhood centers (e.g. Westgate, 5
Corners, Firdale, other?).
3. Housing trends and needs: affordable housing, low income housing, AHA.
4. Other issues/considerations.
B. Maintaining the 'character' of Edmonds in a growing region.
C. Planning Board role.
Attachments:
1. Shane Hope's presentation on Edmonds' future growth
2. Adopted Comprehensive Plan section on growth & capacity
3. Adopted Comprehensive Plan Housing Element
4. RCW addressing affordable housing programs
5. Affordable Housing Alliance (AHA) presentation on Edmonds housing profile (Edmonds is a member of the AHA)
6. Kirkland housing performance measures (included at the request of Careen)
7. ULI article: 13 Urban Trends to Watch
Attachments
Attachment 1: Presentation on future growth
Attachment 2: Adopted Comprehensive Plan discussion of growth and capacity
Attachment 3: Adopted Comprehensive Plan Housing Element
Attachment 4: RCW addressing affordable housing programs
Attachment 5: AHA presentation
Attachment 6: Kirkland housing performance measures
Attachment 7: ULI - 13 Urban Trends to Watch
x ,
00
,
IN
r
A
ROM -
Ilk
ILI r7q�.
•.r. '4.:w y �.�`'. 1 fir' _-t.
Photo credit: Janine Harles
Shane Hope, AICP
Development Services Director
City of Edmonds
shane.hope@edmondswa.gov
Washington State is the
8th fastest growing state
in the nation over the last
5 years.
The Future of Edmonds: Will We Be Just Like Bellevue?
Where are People Moving From?
% of Washington in -migration from specific states (2014)
2.1 %
5.8
18.2%
3.1 %
3.0%
2.9%
AN*.-
3
Source: American Community Survey 1-yr data, 2014
The Future of Edmonds: Will We Be Just Like Bellevue?
Where are People Moving From?
Edmonds
62
Bellevue
■ Same house 1 year ago
11.8% Same county
13% Different county within same state
Different state
4.4%
From abroad
3.5%
of total movers coming from abroad
(of those who moved during the previous year)
Washington State 4.6%
Bellevue 16.7%
Edmonds 8.3%
Source: American Community Survey 5-yr data, 2010-2014
The Future of Edmonds: Will We Be Just Like Bellevue?
Population growth from natural increase
Natural increase accounted for approximately 38.4% of population growth statewide in 2015
Washington State
Edmonds
55/1,000
51/1,000
25/1,000
Source: American Community Survey 5-yr data, 2010-2014
The Future of Edmonds: Will We Be Just Like Bellevue?
This is a map of the
Regional Growth Strategy
including the location
The Regional Growth of regional geographies, i_._ - SN0+I0MISH COUNTY
designated regional
centers, and major
transportation corridors.
Strategy seeks to: E -
• minimize the '�•
environmental impact; KIND COUNTY
- �?�� Bellevue
Bremerm -._ .
• improve mobility;
KITSAP J
COUNTY
• make efficient use of m
existing urban land...
• n — wM.arw
ar
it — canoe-nww.a.,
PIERCE COUNTY .cap
wud.a�w.
w.
Source: PSRC, Vision 2040, 2009
The Future of Edmonds: Will We Be Just Like Bellevue?
1
Existing Housing Mix
70%
60%
Lu
40%
CM
10%
0%
SFR MFR
0 King County 0 Snohomish County
Bellevue Edmonds
N O 0
Mobile
hl Future '+f FdmnndS' Will WP Be Just ike Bellevue?
Age Dependency Ratio
Shown as the proportion of dependents per 100 working -age population
r
Median 46.9 37.9
Age (years)
Old -age 30.8% 21.5%
Dependency
Ratio
Child 27.7% 31.6%
Dependency
Ratio
Source: American Community Survey 5-yr data, 2010-2014
The Future of Edmonds: Will We Be Just Like Bellevue?
Housing Tenure
Total Housing Units
Vacant
Owner Occupied
Renter Occupied
L Edmonds
1%693
6.7%
64.1%
29.2
57,370
7.2%
52.3%
40.5
Source: American Community Survey 5-yr data, 2010-2014
The Future of Edmonds: Will We Be Just Like Bellevue?
Employment
2010 total emp. 13,251 127,538
2010 jobs/capita
.33
1.04
2035 proj. emp.
16,046
155,084
2035 jobs/capita
.35
1.30
Source: PSRC and Office of Financial Management
➢ The central Puget Sound region grew by 1.6% between
2014 and 2015, marking the fourth consecutive year of
increased annual growth.
➢ While King County added the most people, Snohomish
County surpassed other counties by percent of growth —
2.2% in 2014-2015.
➢ Snohomish County projects to be the fastest growing
county in the state.
The past is not a good indicator of the future.
➢ Between 2000 and 2010, the City's population grew at
an average rate of 19.4 persons/year.
➢ Since 2010, the City grew at an average rate of 295.3
persons/year.
a
Edmonds is projected to grow by an average of 2453
persons/year for the next 20 years.
The Future of Edmonds
� 1
Historic Growth vs. Projected Growth
50
45
40
35
c
M
30
s
�C-. 25
c
0
0 20
3
a
0
a 15
10
5
0
144.8%
97.7%
29.9%
23.0%
/
140%
120%
100%
s
+,
3
80%
0
c
60% v
49.4 % — a
40%
14.3% 12.5% 20%
8.4% 7.8% o 0 3.9% 7.0%5.5/0 5.2/ nn n I I 0.2% 0.2% �:O
0.7% 0.7%
I I I I ,mot 0%
�Cp ���
ti ti ti ti ti ti ,LO ,tiO .LO ,10
Projected
Growth Targets ❑ Historic Growth ❑ Percent Growth (5-yr period)
The question is not will
we grow, but rather how
will we grow.
The City will need
creative solutions to
house projected
population increases.
The Future of Edmonds
What will future growth look like?
In -fill Development Detached Accessory Mixed -use
Dwelling Units
The Future of Edmonds
What will future growth look like?
• Makes use of vacant of
under-utilized parcels
• May increase density by
subdividing large lots
Infill Development
The Future of Edmonds
What will future growth look like?
Detached Accessory
Dwelling Units
• Provides affordable
housing options
• May be used to house
elderly parents
• Increases density without
significantly altering
existing character of a
neighborhood
The Future of Edmonds
What will future growth look like?
yL :
h tL
Mixed -use
• Improves walkability of a
neighborhood
• Reduces dependency on
cars
• May increase affordable
housing options
The Future of Edmonds
• Highway 99 Corridor
H i h wa 9 9 Subarea Subarea Planning Project
g y
PlanningProject
.r rsa Mdl� ;
'LL
, 6L
3allinger Park
_ - .. Inounllake
Ten ace .
k IaR
0 o.125 0,25 D.5 Mlles
Legend
• aR,awe. 2gning comm.m�a
0 Fxieonp Bunging FampAnt Single Family BN NeWbo,FooG Boe—,
O Pmposetl HP!l A68 r a RS-B Sl &I'* 9,OW w. k 0.de BC Commgnrry BwNrou
��J RSW-12 Wekrtrvnr. ' Fam�b,,t000 eq,ft bA cc co..r., com��rat
MUMI Family C32 0-1-1
RM3 MUMFamdy. 3.Gb0 m. k.W btxn wunY DIMr
— RM-2a Mum FemJy, 2aW a9_R.Nbl area,a ung u
M m ee
— RN-15 Minh Fenury.t�o eq. #.Nbl aee peruntl PPVGIKUe
The Future of Edmonds
Light rail northern link
PROJECT BENEFITS
➢ 8.5 Miles of new light rail
service
➢ Northgate to Lynnwood
with several new light
rail stations
➢ Frequent, reliable service
between south
Snohomish County and
other regional
destinations
➢ Increased mobility,
access, and
transportation capacity
➢ Target opening for
service 2023
Map Key
Potential Stations 000
Potential Added Parking
Potential Routes
At -grade and elevated tracks or a combination of both will be evaluated
for each route option.
Lynnwood ;, 'S'
Edmonds 200th St SW Lynnwood
Community College Transit Center
i
�s
Edmonds
212th St SW Segment C
IPremera
Blue Crass ¢'
220th St SW y
te One route option F , `r'
220west S 5 serves stab a e g m e nt
�24th 5t SW station,
E--
ne option does not.
Mountlake
ountlake Terrace Terrace Library Mou ntla e
Freeway Station.236th St sWTerrace
Mountlake Terrace
Transit Center
Snohomt'sh County
-----King County --N2D5thSt .—. —— — —
— —
99
As we think about what our city will look like in
20 years...
• What
type
of
businesses will we attract?
• What
type
of
services will we need?
Think about the characteristics we
want to preserve and what we
want to improve.
The Future of Edmonds
ne Harles
. 44.►e
Walkability
M- , ' . i `
ML
Jf
1
1 1�
.A*
•112[6l2[•
-MR! ..�
Parks
'tT#
Mk I 4
-'` Photo credit: Janine Harles
Waterfront Access
Photo credit: Janine Harles
•
Livability
M
*1
4FW%- A t
tr
40 V
�h
0
Questions?
���
h. -�kftw
]F,!-w
Photo credit: Janine Harles
Photo credit: Janine Harles
Land Capacity
Background
The Growth Mangement Act (GMA) provides the framework for planning at all levels in Washington
State. Under the mandate of the GMA (RCW 36.70A.215), local governments are required to
evaluate the density and capacity for Urban Growth Areas (UGAs). Edmonds has been allocated
population, housing, and employment growth targets through County Planning Policies. Population
projections are based on the official 20-year population projections for Snohomish County from the
Office of Financial Management and distributed as represented in Puget Sound Regional Council's
Vision 2040 Regional Growth Strategy.
Edmonds is considered a Larger City for regional growth strategy purposes. The Larger City
designation is applied to cities that have a combined population and employment total over 22,500.
Currently, eighteen cities are grouped in the Larger City designation. As a group, these cities are
expected to accommodate 14 percent of the region's projected population growth and 12 percent of
the regional projected employment growth.
The 2035 population target for Edmonds is 45,550 persons, up 14.4 percent from the 2011 population
estimate of 39,800. To accommodate the targeted growth, Edmonds will require approximately 2,772
new housing units and 2,269 new jobs by 2035. To maintain consistency with the 2012 Buildable
Lands Report, the 2011 population, housing, and employment estimates are referenced in the Land
Capacity Element. The estimated 2013 population is 40,381. Figure 10 summarizes available GIS
data on land supply in Edmonds as it existed in 2014. Developed acres include the entire parcel
boundaries that contained development, not just the building footprint.
Developed
Lands
Vacant
Lands
Land Use
Total Acres
% of Total
% of Total
Acres
Acres
Acres
Acres
Residential
3,959.90
3,794.00
64.1%
165.90
2.8%
Single -Family
3,608.4
3,460.8
58.5%
147.6
2.5%
Multi -Family
351.5
333.2
5.6%
18.3
0.3%
Commercial*
423.1
380.9
6.4%
42.2
0.7%
Public Facilities
1,532.0
1,529.1
25.9%
2.9
0.05%
Parks and Open Space
340.7
340.7
5.8%
Other Public Facilities
64.8
61.9
1.1%
2.9
0.05%
Rights -of -Way
1,126.5
1,126.5
19.0%
5,915.0
5,704.0
F 96.4%
211.0
3.69/6
Source: City of Edmonds GIS data, June-2015
*Some commercial properties include residential development as a type of mixed use.
Note: Measurement ofacreage may vary depending on the methodology used and the date data was retrieved.
Figure 10: City of Edmonds Land Supply Data
Overall, approximately 4 percent of the City's land was vacant in 2014. Of the vacant lands
available, 72.1 percent are designated for residential use, 25.6 percent are designated for mixed use,
16.8 percent are for public use, and 9.9 percent represent the Edmonds Marsh.
Land Use 36
For a more in-depth study, the 2012 Buildable Lands Report (BLR) developed build -out capacity
estimates for vacant and under -developed parcels. Using a process developed by Snohomish County
Tomorrow, the BLR was prepared in 2012 and adopted by the Snohomish County Council in June
2013. This report provided the city with the necessary information to complete a development
capacity analysis.
Additional Housing Unit Capacity
Additional Housing Unit Capacity
Additional Population Capacity
Additional
Employment
(before reductions)
(after reductions)
(after reductions)
Capacity (after
SF
I MF
JSr. Apts
Total
SF
I MF
JSr. is
Total
SF
I F
ISr.Aptsl
Total
reductions)
Buildable Lands Report
561
1 2,381
1 484
1 3,424
444
1 1,868
1 334
2,646
1,236
1 3,437
1 3931
5,065
2,820
Figure 11: Summary of 2012 Buildable Lands Report
Given the limited supply of vacant land within the city, capacity estimates were not calculated strictly
on the amount of vacant buildable land, but also on increased densities and intensity of
redevelopment within various areas of the city. Different methods of development were targeted to
provide additional residential capacity. For example, accessory dwelling units (ADUs) were one
method of attempting to supplement capacity in single family neighborhoods, while encouraging
mixed use development in commercial areas provided for additional capacity in areas already
experiencing a higher level of activity. Planned Residential Developments (PRDs) were also targeted
as a way of assuring maximum buildout of single -family -zoned areas while maintaining the character
of the city.
Following adoption of the 1995 comprehensive plan, the city embarked on an implementation
program to achieve the goals identified in the plan. Many of these implementation measures are
described in the Housing Element under the discussion of "strategies to promote affordable housing."
These measures were taken by the city to address issues related to both capacity and affordable
housing.
A key feature of Edmonds' Comprehensive Plan is its emphasis on mixed use development, which
includes both commercial and residential uses on a single lot or combination of lots. For example, a
mixed use development could include a two-story development with residential dwelling units on the
second floor and offices, shops or other commercial uses on the ground floor, or it could consist of a
mixture of uses arranged in proximity to each other. Mixed use development is allowed in both of the
city's Activity Centers and Corridor development areas. In the 1995 comprehensive plan, mixed use
development was to be allowed under all the alternatives considered, but would only be encouraged
under the adopted "Designed Infill" alternative. The encouragement of mixed use development
continues as a basic assumption underlying the current comprehensive plan. This basic approach is
embodied in much of the development that has occurred in recent years. The importance of mixed use
in the city's land use pattern can be seen in Figure 12.
Land Use 37
Other Public Facilities,_ Rights -of -Way, 19.0%
1.1%
Parks, 5.83,._
Commercial/
Mixed Use*, 7.2%
Multi -Family, 5.9%_
i
Single -Family, 61.0%
Figure 12: General Zoning Categories by percent of City Land Area
Source: City of Edmonds GIS, June-2015
*Some commercial properties include residential development as a type of mixed use.
Note: Measurement of acreage may vary depending on the methodology used and the date data was retrieved.
Population and Employment Capacity
The 2012 Buildable Lands Report (BLR) shows Edmonds to have an additional housing capacity of
2,646 units through the year 2035, which would be needed to accommodate a total population of
45,550 residents. Since the BLR was finalized in 2012, some of the assumptions regarding buildable
lands have changed. During the 2015 Comprehensive Plan update, city staff considered how these
changes affected capacity projections.
For example, recent plans by the City to encourage mixed -use development in the Neighborhood
Business zoned areas of Westgate and Five Corners, plus the removal of restrictions on first and
second floor residential development in CG and CG2 zones along the Highway 99 corridor, should
provide the city with additional housing, employment, and population capacities not considered in the
2012 BLR. In total, the City conservatively estimates these actions can increase the land capacity by
approximately 267 additional net housing units by applying the same methodology used in the
Buildable Lands Report.
With these adjustments, the City estimates a total capacity of 3,039 additional housing units by the
year 2035. The projected housing need to accommodate the targeted population growth is 2,790
housing units as determined by the Countywide Planning Policies. This represents an increase of 15
percent from the estimate of 18,396 housing units in 2011.The land capacity analysis, combined with
the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan, indicate that the 2035 targets for population and
Land Use 38
employment can be accommodated by the City. A summary of historical growth and the 2035
population and housing targets is presented in Figure 13.
The adopted 2035 employment target for Edmonds is 13,948 jobs. This represents an increase of 19.4
percent from the 2011 estimate of 11,679 jobs within the City. The 2012 Buildable Lands analysis
shows a potential capacity increase of 2,820 employees by 2035, which has been increased to 3,522
using the same analysis employed in reviewing the housing and population capacity discussed above.
The 2013 employment estimate was 13,232.
The City should consider using incentives to achieve redevelopment and infill goals and zoning
incentives or other measures to ensure that land adjacent to infrastructure facilities is utilized to
maximize the economic and environmental benefits of that infrastructure. Improvements that
encourage redevelopment along the Highway 99 Corridor are of interest to the City.
Given the extent to which future land use policies, regulations, demographics, and market forces
could affect land capacity estimates, it is important that development trends and remaining land
supply within the city is regularly monitored to ensure the continued supply of adequate urban land
throughout the 20-year GMA planning horizon. Implementation strategies should include
development of a long-term program to monitor the city's progress towards goals contained in the
Comprehensive Plan. As part of the monitoring process, the city should work with the public,
environmental and business leaders, interest groups, cities and other agencies to develop detailed
monitoring criteria or "benchmarks" that could be used to measure progress and identify the need for
corrective action.
Specific implementation measures should seek to reduce barriers or impediments to development.
For example, measures that reduce the regulatory compliance burden of the private sector, if
successful, would reduce the cost imposed by such regulations. Similarly, implementation measures
that are designed to encourage flexibility could also help reduce compliance costs — at least on a case -
by -case basis. Specific measures could include: provision of flexible development standards; density
bonuses for site designs that provide public benefits; and fee waivers or expedited review that lower
financial development risks
50
45
40
v 35
t 30
25
0
20
a
0
a
15
10
le 9a� �ye� tip` tip° ti� ti9�� 1��h ti�� trap ti�� 1� tidy° ycQ ryo1� �pti ryoti0 ryoyh ryo�d ryo�h
■ Growth Targets ■ Historic Growth ❑ Percent Growth (5-yr period)
Figure 13: Edmonds Historic Growth vs. Projected Growth
Source: US Census; Puget Sound Regional Council
140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Land Use 39
• housing, along with cultural and environmental goals.
• Coneurreney -Coordinate the plans and actions of both the public and private sectors.
• Urban design - Provide a context for urban design guidelines that maximize
predictability while assuring a consistent and coherent character of development.
• Adaptive reuse - Provide incentives to encourage adaptive reuse as an alternative to
redevelopment of historic structures in order to preserve these resources.
Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center
Plan Context. A number of public plans and projects have been taking shape in recent years, and
these could have a profound impact on the future of the city's downtown/waterfront area. Some of
these ongoing activities include:
• Increased concern about conflicts and safety issues related to the interaction of rail, ferry,
vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
• Transportation planning to accommodate ferry traffic, including options for a reservation
system, additional parking for ferry users, and the possible Edmonds Crossing
multimodal project. The latter project would move the existing ferry terminal at the base
of Main Street to a new multimodal transportation center at Pt. Edwards.
• Marina Beach planning to provide for enhanced recreational uses and the meeting of
Willow Creek with Puget Sound.
• Continued development of the city's waterfront parks and walkways into an
interconnected necklace of public spaces.
• The Edmonds Senior Center is undertaking strategic planning to look at its facilities,
programs, and services.
• Public access to the water and the natural beauty of the waterfront figures prominently in
the Port of Edmonds' plans, including new plazas, improved walkways and public art.
Public pedestrian/bicycle access across the railroad tracks to the waterfront, in the
vicinity of the south end of the marina, near Marina Beach Park, should remain a high
priority.
• Arts plans continue to be implemented throughout the downtown, including such projects
as the Edmonds Center for the Arts, the Artworks facility, and the continued expansion of
downtown festivals and events.
• Edmonds Community College has expanded its downtown presence through initiatives
with the Edmonds Conference Center (formerly the Edmonds Floral Conference Center)
and is working with the Edmonds Center for the Arts to enhance overall operations.
Land Use 40
Housing Element
Introduction. This section looks at the character and diversity of housing in the City of Edmonds.
Part of this process includes looking at housing types and affordability. The goal of this section is to
provide the necessary information to anticipate housing needs.
General Background
According to the Office of Financial Management (OFM), there were an estimated 18,378 housing
units within the City of Edmonds in 2010. This represents an increase of 5 percent in the city's
housing stock since 2000, when there were 17,508 housing units. In comparison, over the period
1990-2000, the city's housing stock grew 35.2 percent, or approximately 3.5 percent per year. This
increase is largely explained by annexations that occured during the 1990s in the south and southwest
portions of the city. Figure 21 summarizes recent growth trends and forecasts for the City of
Edmonds.
Of the total stock of housing in 2010, 11,685 (63.5 percent) were single family units, 6,664 (36.3
percent) were multi -family units, and 29 (0.2 percent) were mobile homes or trailers. Compared with
Snohomish County as a whole, Edmonds has a lower percentage of single-family homes (63.6 percent
vs. 66.9 percent, respectively) and mobile homes (0.2 percent vs. 6.8 percent, respectively) and a
higher proportion of multi -family homes (36.3 percent vs. 26.4 percent, respectively).
Much of the existing housing stock was built between 1950 and 1969 (see Figure 22) as Edmonds
annexed lands east on Main Street, through Five Corners, and over to the western side of Lake
Ballinger. As part of the greater Seattle metropolitan area, Edmonds experienced growth earlier than
most in Snohomish County.
Housing
Units
Increase
Percent
Increase
Avg. Annual
Increase
Census: 1980
10,702
1990
12,245
1,543
21.0%
1.9%
2000
17,508
5,263
35.2%
3.1%
2010
18,378
870
5.0%
0.5%
Growth Target: 2035
21,168
2,790
15.2%
0.6%
Figure 21: City of Edmonds Housing Growth
Source: US Census; Snohomish County Tomorrow
Housing 79
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1949 or earlier 1950 to 1969 1970 to 1989 1990 to 1999 2000 or later
❑ Edmonds ❑ King County ■ Snohomish County
Figure 22: Age Distribution of Housing Stock, City of Edmonds and Snohomish County
Source: American Community Survey
Household Characteristics
At the time of the 2010 Census, Edmonds Housing stock was approximately 94.6 percent occupied.
The average household size has declined since 1990, when it was 2.37 persons, to 2.26 persons in
2010. The average household size within the city is expected to decrease to approximately 2.2 persons
by 2035 (Snohomish County Tomorrow, 2013).
Understanding how the City's population is changing offers insight for planning housing types that
will be in demand. Based on Census data, residents of Edmonds are older than those of Snohomish
County, taken as a whole. In 2000, the median age of Edmonds residents was 42.0 years, compared
with 34.7 years countywide. By 2010, the median age in Edmonds had increased to 46.3 years,
compared to 37.1 years countywide. During the same period, the population of Edmonds residents, 14
years of age and younger, shrank in each age category (Figure 24). A natural increase in population is
likely to decline as the female population ages beyond childbearing age. These trends are consistent
with national trends.
Housing 80
90 +
85 - 89
80 - 84
75 - 79
70 - 74
65 - 69
60 - 64
55 - 59
50 - 54
45 - 49
40 - 44
35 - 39
30 - 34
25 - 29
20 - 24
15-19
10 - 14
5-9
0-4
2,0
1
00
1,509 1,000 509 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
■ 2010 ■ 2000
Figure 23: Edmonds Population Pyramid
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010
15°/a
10%
5%
0%
-5%
-10%
-15%
20°/
- o
Age Groups 0 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14
❑ Edmonds ■ Snohomish ■ Washington State
Figure 24: Population Growth of Children 14 years of Age and Younger, 2000 to 2010
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010
Housing 81
Household Income: In general, residents of Edmonds earn relatively more income than residents of
Snohomish County as a whole. The Edmonds' median household income was $67,228 according to
the 2011-2013 American Community Survey 3-year data, similar to the County median of $67,192.
This is in contrast to per capita income, which is substantially higher in Edmonds compared to
Snohomish County ($40,892 vs. $31,049, respectively). These figures reflect Edmonds' relatively
smaller household sizes.
Housing Ownership: According to the 2000 Census, 68.1 percent of the housing units within the city
were owner -occupied and 31.9 percent were renter -occupied. This represented an increase in owner -
occupancy from the 65.3 percent reported in the 1990 Census. The trend continued into 2010, with
69 percent of the City's housing being occupied by owners. The direction of the trend in housing
occupancy is similar for Snohomish County as a whole, although ownership rates countywide were
slightly lower in 2010, at 67 percent.
Housing Values: According to the 2011-2013 ACS 3-year data, the median value of owner -occupied
units had increased to $371,700 in Edmonds and $276,800 in Snohomish County, with Edmonds
approximately 34.3 percent higher than the countywide median. Within Edmonds, median housing
values vary considerably between neighborhoods; the highest valued homes are found along the
waterfront, while the lowest values are found within interior neighborhoods and east of Highway 99.
Housing Affordability: For the purposes of calculating the housing affordability in Edmonds, this
document uses the median income for the Seattle -Bellevue HUD Fair Market Rent Area (HMFA)
instead of the Snohomish County Area Median Income (AMI). The Seattle -Bellevue AMI is used as
Edmonds is considered a suburb of Seattle, not Everett. The 2013 HMFA AMI for Seattle -Bellevue is
$86,700, which is the same as Snohomish County's AMI at $86,700. The 2013 median household
income for Edmonds is $67,192.
AMI is an important calculation used by many agencies to measure housing affordability. Standard
income levels are as follows:
• Extremely low income: <30 percent AMI
• Very Low Income: between 30 and 50 percent AMI
• Low Income: between 50 and 80 percent AMI
• Moderate income: between 80 and 95 percent AMI
• Middle Income: between 95 and 120 percent AMI
Using rental data obtained from Dupre and Scott by the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA),
Figure 25 provides a clearer view of what a household looking for a home in Edmonds would expect
to pay for rent and utilities. The data includes both single family and multifamily rental units.
Housing sizes and the corresponding minimum income required for a full time worker to afford the
home are listed. For example, a family of four searching for a 3 bedroom unit could expect to pay on
average $1,679 per month for rent and utilities. In order to afford housing, the family would need an
annual income of $67,160.
Housing 82
Average Rent (w/
Utilities)
Minimum Income Required
Lowest Rent
Highest
Rent
Per Hour
Annual
Studio
$
833
$
16.02
$
33,320
$
546
$
1,187
1 Bedroom
$
887
$
17.06
$
35,480
$
662
$
1,521
2 Bedroom
$
1,097
$
21.10
$
43,880
$
777
$
1,916
3 Bedroom
$
1,679
$
32.29
$
67,160
$
1,094
$
4,215
4 Bedroom
$
2,545
$
48.94
$
101,800
$
1,947
$
41347
5 Bedroom
$
2,844
$
54.69
$
113,760
$
2,276
$
3,771
Figure 25: Average Rent and Affordability (housing plus utilities) by Size
Source: Dupree and Scott, 2013; National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2014
Figure 26 shows the distribution of rent affordability at different income levels using the Seattle -
Bellevue AMI. "Yes" means that the average rent is affordable to a household at that income level,
adjusting for size, "Limited" means that the average rent is not affordable but there are lower end
affordable units, and "No" means that the entire rent range is not affordable. As seen below, a four
bedroom home is not affordable for persons with a household income at 80 percent or below of the
HFMA AMI.
Income Level
Number of Bedrooms
Studio
1
2
3
4+
Extrememly Low
No
No
No
No
No
Very Low
Limited
limited
Limited
Limited
No
Low
Yes
Yes
Yes
Limited
No
Moderate
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Limited
Middle
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Figure 26: Distribution of Rent Affordability by Size
Source: Dupree and Scott, 2013
Between 2008 and 2012, 85 percent of home sales in Edmonds were three or four bedrooms in size
according to County records. According to tax assessor data, the 2012 median sales price for a single
family home in Edmonds was $339,975. Assuming a 20 percent down payment and using average
rates of interest, taxes, utilities, and insurance as determined by the Federal Housing Funding Board,
the monthly payment for this home would be $1,895. For a family to not be cost burdened, they
would require an annual income of at least $75,796, which is above the City's median income.
Figure 27 shows that the percentage of home sales affordable to each income level has changed
between 2008 and 2012.
Housing 83
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Extremely Very Low Low Moderate Middle
Low
Figure 27: Home Sales Affordability, 2008-2012
Source: Dupree and Scott, 2013
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Housing Needs: Edmonds is targeted to grow from a 2013 population of 40,381 to 45,550 by 2035.
This translates to an estimated need of 2,790 housing units in the city to accommodate the targeted
growth. The Buildable Lands Report for Snohomish County indicates that the majority of this
increase will be in redevelopment occurring on multifamily properties, including mixed use projects.
Because the City of Edmonds does not construct housing itself, the housing targets are helpful in
assessing needs and providing a sense of the policy challenges that exist. Future housing needs will be
met by a combination of the housing market, housing authorities, and governmental housing agencies.
However, the City of Edmonds can do things to assist in accommodating projected housing needs,
such as adjusting zoning and land use regulations. The City may also be able to assist in supporting
the quality of housing through progressive building codes and programs for healthy living.
Forecasting future housing needs for specific populations and income ranges is difficult. One method
to arrive at an initial estimate of housing needs is to take the Edmonds' housing target (2,790) and
apply the countywide breakdown for each income group. Data shown in Error! Reference source
not found.29 is based on household income from the 5-year American Community Survey in 2007-
2011. The City of Edmonds will take into account local population and housing characteristics when
determining housing targets.
Total Projected
Under 30%AMI
30-50%AMI
50-80%AMI
Jurisdiction
Housing Unit
Housing Need
Housing Need
Housing Need
Growth Need
(11% of Total)
(11% of Total)
(17% of Total)
Edmonds
2,790
307
307
474
Figure 28: Projected Housing Need
Source: Snohomish County Tomorrow, "Housing Characteristics and Needs in Snohomish County," 2014
Housing 84
As previously mentioned, the median age of Edmonds residents is the highest in Snohomish County
at 48.1 years compared to 37.5 years countywide (2011-2013 American Community Survey) and
second highest of Washington state cities with a population of 25,000 or more. In 2011, the first
persons of the Baby Boom generation turned 65 years of age and represent, what demographers
project, the fastest growing age group over the next 20 years. An older population will require
specific needs if they are to "age in place." In Edmonds, the effects may be particularly strong.
Developing healthy, walkable communities with nearby retail and transit options will help an aging
population retain their independence.
Assisted Housing Availability: In 1995 there were two HUD -assisted developments providing a total
of 87 units for low-income, senior residents within the City of Edmonds. This was more than doubled
by a new development approved in 2004 for an additional 94 units. Since 1995, 167 assisted care
living units have been built in the downtown area, specifically targeting senior housing needs.
Although the Housing Authority of Snohomish County did not operate any public housing units
within Edmonds prior to 1995, it purchased an existing housing complex totaling 131 units in 2002.
The Housing Authority continues to administer 124 Section 8 rent supplement certificates and
vouchers within the city. In addition, there are currently 36 adult family homes providing shelter for
187 residents. This is a substantial increase from the 13 adult family homes providing shelter for 66
residents in 1995.
Growth Management goals and policies contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan encourage
availability of resources to ensure basic community services and ample provisions made for necessary
open space, parks and other recreation facilities; preservation of light (including direct sunlight),
privacy, views, open spaces, shorelines and other natural features, and freedom from air, water, noise
and visual pollution; and a balanced mixture of income and age groups. Land Use policies encourage
strategic planning for development and redevelopment that achieve a balanced and coordinated
approach to economic development, housing and cultural goals; and encourage a more active and
vital setting for new businesses supported by nearby residents, downtown commercial activity and
visitors throughout the area. Policies encourage identification and maintenance of significant public
and private social areas, cultural facilities, and scenic areas; and maintenance and preservation of
historical sites. Commercial Land Use policies encourage identification and reservation of sufficient
sites suited for a variety of commercial uses.
Housing goals are directed toward providing housing opportunities for all segments of the city's
households; supporting existing neighborhoods and preserving/rehabilitating the housing stock;
maintaining high quality residential environments; and providing assistance to developing housing
for special needs populations, such as senior, disabled and low-income households. These goals are
supported by policies which include review of regulatory impediments to control of housing costs and
affirmative measures to support construction of housing for protected groups; encouraging expansion
of the types of housing available, including accessory dwelling units, mixed use, and multi -family
housing; flexible development standards; and review and revision of development regulations,
including assessing the feasibility of establishing time limits for permitting; consolidating permitting;
implementing administrative permitting procedures and instituting preapplication hearings.
Other measures to mitigate potential housing impacts include determining whether any public land is
available which could be used to help meet affordable housing targets; development of a strategy
plan, including target number of units and development timeline; technical assistance programs or
information to encourage housing rehabilitation and development of accessory units; and a strong
monitoring program with mid -course correction features (see the discussion below).
Housing 85
Strategies to Promote Affordable Housing.
In order to respond to the continuing need to provide affordable housing for the community, the City
has undertaken a series of reasonable measures to accomplish this goal, consistent with the policy
direction indicated by Snohomish County Tomorrow and the Countywide Planning Policies. These
reasonable measures or strategies to promote affordable housing include:
Land Use Strategies
• Upzoning. The City upzoned a substantial area of previously large lot (12,000+ square
foot lots) zoning to ensure that densities can be obtained of at least 4.0 dwelling units per
acre. The City has also approved changes to its zoning codes to encourage more
multifamily development in mixed use areas, especially in corridors served by transit
(e.g. Highway 99 along the Swift high capacity transit corridor).
• Density Bonus. A targeted density bonus is offered for the provision of low income
senior housing in the City. Parking requirements are also reduced for this housing type,
making the density obtainable at lower site development cost.
• Cluster Subdivisions. This is accomplished in the city through the use of PRDs. In
Edmonds, a PRD is defined as an alternate form of subdivision, thereby encouraging its
use as a normal form of development. In addition, PRDs follow essentially the same
approval process as that of a subdivision.
• Planned Residential Development (PRD). The City has refined and broadened the
applicability of its PRD regulations. PRDs can still be used to encourage the protection of
environmentally sensitive lands; however, PRDs can also be used to encourage infill
development and flexible housing types.
• Infill Development. The City's principal policy direction is aimed at encouraging infill
development consistent with its neighborhoods and community character. This overall
plan direction has been termed "designed infill" and can be seen in the City's emphasis
and continued work on streamlining permitting, revising codes to provide more flexible
standards, and improving its design guidelines. The City is also continuing the process of
developing new codes supporting mixed use development in key locations supported by
transit and linked to nearby neighborhoods.
Conversion/Adaptive Reuse. The City has established a historic preservation program
intended to support the preservation and adaptive reuse of existing buildings, especially
in the historic downtown center. Part of the direction of the plans and regulations for the
Downtown/Waterfront area is to provide more flexible standards that can help businesses
move into older buildings and adapt old homes to commercial or mixed use spaces. An
example is the ability of buildings on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places to get an
exception for parking for projects that retain the historic character of the site.
Housing 86
Administrative Procedures
Streamlined approval processing. The City generally uses either a Hearing Examiner or
staff to review and issue discretionary land use decisions, thereby reducing permitting
timelines and providing an increased degree of certainty to the process. The City
continues to provide and improve on an extensive array of information forms and
handouts explaining its permitting processes and standards. The City has also established
standards for permit review times, tailored to the type and complexity of the project. For
example, the mean processing time for processing land use permits in 2011 was 36 days,
less than one-third of the 120-day standard encouraged by the State's Regulatory Reform
act.
• Use -by -Right. The City has been actively reviewing its schedule of uses and how they are
divided between uses that are permitted outright vs. permitted by some form of
conditional use. The City has expanded this effort to include providing clearer standards,
allowing more approvals to be referred to staff instead of the Hearing Examiner hearing
process.
Impact mitigation payment deferral. The City's traffic mitigation impact fees are assessed
at the time of development permit application, but are not collected until just prior to
occupancy. This provides predictability while also minimizing "carrying costs" of
financing.
Development Standards
• Front yard or side yard setback requirements. Some of the City's zones have no front or
side yard setback requirements, such as in the downtown mixed use zones. In single
family zones, average front setbacks can be used to reduce otherwise required front yard
setbacks.
• Zero lot line. This type of development pattern can be achieved using the City's PRD
process, which is implemented as an alternative form of subdivision.
• Street design and construction. Edmonds has adopted a `complete streets' policy. Street
standards are reviewed and updated periodically, taking advantage of new technologies
whenever possible. A comprehensive review and update of the city's codes is underway.
• Alleys. The City has an extensive system of alleys in the downtown area and makes use
of these in both mixed use and residential developments.
• Off-street parking requirements. The City has substantially revised its off-street parking
standards, reducing the parking ratios required for multifamily development and in some
mixed use areas, thereby reducing housing costs and encouraging more housing in areas
that are walkable or served by transit.
• Sanitary Sewer, Water, and Stormwater systems. Innovative techniques are explored and
utilized in both new systems and in the maintenance of existing infrastructure.
Housing 87
Low -Cost Housing Types
• Accessory dwellings. The City substantially revised its accessory dwelling regulations,
providing clearer standards and streamlining their approval as a standard option for any
single family lot.
Mixed -use development. The City has strengthened and expanded its mixed use
development approach. Downtown mixed use development no longer has a density cap,
and this — combined other regulatory changes — has resulted in residential floor space
drawing even with commercial floor space in new developments in the downtown area.
Mixed use zoning was applied in the Westgate Corridor, and revised mixed use
development regulations have been updated and intensified in the Hospital/Highway 99
Activity Center as well as along Highway 99.
• Mobile/manufactured housing. The City's regulation of manufactured homes has been
revised to more broadly permit this type of housing in single family zones.
Housing Production & Preservation Programs
• Housing preservation. The City provides strict enforcement of its building codes,
intended to protect the quality and safety of housing. The City has also instituted a
historic preservation program intended to provide incentives to rehabilitate and restore
commercial, mixed use, and residential buildings in the community.
• Public housing authority / Public and nonprofit housing developers. The City supports the
Housing Authority of Snohomish County, as evidenced by its approval of the conversion
of housing units to Housing Authority ownership. Edmonds is also a participant in the
Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA) in Snohomish County, which is a consortium
of cities pooling resources to collectively address housing needs in the county.
For -profit housing builders and developers. Many of the strategies outlined above are
aimed at the for -profit building market. The City's budget restrictions limit its ability to
directly participate in the construction or provision of affordable housing, so it has chosen
instead to affect the cost of housing by reducing government regulation, providing
flexible development standards, and otherwise minimize housing costs that can be passed
on to prospective owners or renters. However, as noted above, the City is also a
participant in the Alliance for Housing Affordability in Snohomish County, which is
intended to collaborate on housing strategies countywide.
Housing Financing Strategies
• State / Federal resources. The City supports the use of State and Federal resources to
promote affordable housing through its participation in the Snohomish County
Consortium and the Community Development Block Grant program. These are important
inter jurisdictional efforts to address countywide needs.
Housing 88
Jurisdictions face challenges in meeting affordability goals or significantly reducing the current
affordable housing deficit. Edmonds is a mature community with limited opportunities for new
development and has limited powers and resources to produce subsidized housing on its own.
However, it is hoped that Edmonds' participation in joint planning and coordination initiatives, such
as the Alliance for Affordable Housing will point the way to new housing initiatives in the future.
Housing Goals & Policies
Each key goal in this element (or section) is identified by an alphabet letter (for example, "D").
Goals are typically followed by associated policies and these are identified by the letter of the goal
and a sequential number (for example, "D.2")
Housing Goal A. Encourage adequate housing opportunities for all families and individuals in
the community regardless of their race, age, sex, religion, disability or economic circumstances.
A.1 Consider opportunities for short-term housing that can meet local needs in
case of an emergency or disaster.
Housing Goal B. Ensure that past attitudes do not establish a precedent for future decisions
pertaining to public accommodation and fair housing.
Housing Goal C. Provide for special needs populations — such as low income, disabled, or senior
residents — to have a decent home in a healthy and suitable living environment, including through
the following policies:
C.1. Encourage the utilization of the housing resources of the state or federal
government to assist in providing adequate housing opportunities for special needs
populations, such as low income, disabled, or senior residents.
C.2. Work with the Alliance for Housing Affordability and other agencies to:
C.2.a. Provide current information on housing resources;
C.2.b. Determine the programs which will work best for the community.
C.2.c. Conduct periodic assessments of the housing requirements of special needs
populations to ensure that reasonable opportunities exist for all forms of
individual and group housing within the community.
Housing Goal D. Maintain a valuable housing resource by encouraging preservation and
rehabilitation of the older housing stock in the community through the following policies:
D.1. Support programs that offer assistance to households in need, such as units with
low income or senior householders.
Housing 89
D.2. Enforce building codes, as appropriate, to conserve healthy neighborhoods and
encourage rehabilitation of housing that shows signs of deterioration.
D.3. Ensure that an adequate supply of housing exists to accommodate all households
that are displaced as a result of any community action.
DA. Evaluate City ordinances and programs to determine if they prevent rehabilitation
of older buildings.
Housing Goal E. Provide opportunities for affordable housing (subsidized, if need be) for special
needs populations, such as disadvantaged, disabled, low income, and senior residents through the
following policies:
E.1. Aggressively support efforts to fund the construction of housing for seniors, low
income, and other special needs populations, while recognizing that units should
blend into the neighborhood and/or be designed to be an asset to the area and create
pride for inhabitants.
E.2. Aim for city zoning regulations to expand, not limit, housing opportunities for all
special needs populations.
Housing Goal F. Provide for a variety of housing that respects the established character of the
community.
F.I. Expand and promote a variety of housing opportunities by establishing land use
patterns that provide a mixture of housing types and densities.
F. La. Provide for mixed use, multifamily and single family housing that is targeted
and located according to the land use patterns established in the land use
element.
F.2. Encourage infill development that is consistent with or enhances the character of
the surrounding neighborhood.
F.2.a. Within single family neighborhoods, encourage infill development by
considering innovative single family development patterns such as Planned
Residential Developments (PRDs).
F.2.b. Provide for accessory housing in single family neighborhoods to address the
needs of extended families and encourages housing affordability.
F.2.c. Provide flexible development standards for infill development, such as non-
conforming lots, when development in these situations will be consistent
with the character of the neighborhood and with the goal to provide
affordable single family housing.
Housing Goal G. Provide housing opportunities within Activity Centers consistent with the land
use, transportation, and economic goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
G.I. Promote development within Activity Centers that supports the centers' economic
activities and transit service.
Housing 90
G.l.a. Provide for mixed use development within Activity Centers.
G. Lb. Plan for housing that is located with easy access to transit and economic
activities that provide jobs and shopping opportunities.
G.l.c. Consider adjusting parking standards for housing within Activity Centers to
provide incentives for lower -cost housing when justified by available transit
service.
Housing Goal H. Review and monitor permitting processes and regulatory systems to assure
that they promote housing opportunities and avoid, to the extent possible, adding to the cost of
housing.
H.1. Provide the maximum amount of efficiency and predictability in government
permitting processes.
H.1.a. Consider a wide variety of measures to achieve predictability and efficiency,
including such ideas as:
... establishing time limits for permitting processes;
... developing consolidated permitting and appeals processes;
... implementing administrative permitting procedures;
...using pre -application processes to highlight problems early.
H.2. Establish monitoring programs for permitting and regulatory processes.
H.2.a. Monitoring programs should review the types and effectiveness of
government regulations and incentives, in order to assess whether they are
meeting their intended purpose or need to be adjusted to meet new
challenges.
Housing Goal I. Increase affordable housing opportunities with programs that seek to achieve
other community goals as well.
I.1. Research housing affordability and program options that address Comprehensive
Plan goals and objectives.
I.2. Develop housing programs to encourage housing opportunities that build on
linkages between housing and other complementary Comprehensive Plan goals.
I.2.a. New programs that address housing affordability should be coordinated with
programs that address development of the arts, encourage historic
preservation, promote the continued development of Activity Centers and
transit -friendly development, and that encourage economic development.
Housing Goal J. Recognize that in addition to traditional height and bulk standards, design is an
important aspect of housing and determines, in many cases, whether or not it is compatible with
its surroundings. Design guidelines for housing should be integrated, as appropriate, into the
policies and regulations governing the location and design of housing.
J.1. Provide design guidelines that encourage flexibility in housing types while
ensuring compatibility of housing with the surrounding neighborhood.
Housing 91
J.1.a. Incentives and programs for historic preservation and neighborhood
conservation should be researched and established to continue the character
of Edmonds' residential and mixed use neighborhoods.
J. Lb. Design guidelines for housing should be developed to ensure compatibility of
housing with adjacent land uses.
Implementation Actions and Performance Measures
Implementation actions are steps that are intended to be taken within a specified timeframe to address
high priority sustainability goals. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan contains a small number
performance measures (no more than one per element) that can be used to monitor and annually
report on the implementation and effectiveness of the Comprehensive Plan.
Performance measures, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, are specific, meaningful, and easily
obtainable items that relate to sustainability and can be reported on an annual basis. They are intended
to help assess progress toward achieving the goals and policy direction of each major Comprehensive
Plan element. {Note: The measure identified below is specifically called out as matching the above
criteria and being important to housing goals and will be reported annually, along with performance
measures for other Comprehensive Plan elements. It is not intended to be the only measure that the
City may use for housing purposes.
Implementation Action: Develop a strategy by 2019 for increasing the supply of
affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs.
Performance Measure: Report the number of residential units permitted each year with a
goal of reaching 21,168 units by 2035, or approximately 112 additional dwelling
units annually from 2011 to 2035.
Housing 92
RCW 36.70A.540: Affordable housing incentive programs —Low-income housing units.
RCW 36.70A.540
Affordable housing incentive programs —Low-income housing units.
(1)(a) Any city or county planning under RCW 36.70A.040 may enact or expand affordable
housing incentive programs providing for the development of low-income housing units
through development regulations or conditions on rezoning or permit decisions, or both, on
one or more of the following types of development: Residential; commercial; industrial; or
mixed -use. An affordable housing incentive program may include, but is not limited to, one or
more of the following:
(i) Density bonuses within the urban growth area;
(ii) Height and bulk bonuses;
(iii) Fee waivers or exemptions;
(iv) Parking reductions; or
(v) Expedited permitting.
(b) The city or county may enact or expand such programs whether or not the programs
may impose a tax, fee, or charge on the development or construction of property.
(c) If a developer chooses not to participate in an optional affordable housing incentive
program adopted and authorized under this section, a city, county, or town may not condition,
deny, or delay the issuance of a permit or development approval that is consistent with zoning
and development standards on the subject property absent incentive provisions of this
program.
(2) Affordable housing incentive programs enacted or expanded under this section shall
comply with the following:
(a) The incentives or bonuses shall provide for the development of low-income housing
units;
(b) Jurisdictions shall establish standards for low-income renter or owner occupancy
housing, including income guidelines consistent with local housing needs, to assist
low-income households that cannot afford market -rate housing. Low-income households are
defined for renter and owner occupancy program purposes as follows:
(i) Rental housing units to be developed shall be affordable to and occupied by
households with an income of fifty percent or less of the county median family income,
adjusted for family size;
(ii) Owner occupancy housing units shall be affordable to and occupied by households
with an income of eighty percent or less of the county median family income, adjusted for
family size. The legislative authority of a jurisdiction, after holding a public hearing, may
establish lower income levels; and
(iii) The legislative authority of a jurisdiction, after holding a public hearing, may also
establish higher income levels for rental housing or for owner occupancy housing upon finding
that higher income levels are needed to address local housing market conditions. The higher
income level for rental housing may not exceed eighty percent of the county area median
family income. The higher income level for owner occupancy housing may not exceed one
hundred percent of the county area median family income. These established higher income
levels are considered "low-income" for the purposes of this section;
(c) The jurisdiction shall establish a maximum rent level or sales price for each low-income
housing unit developed under the terms of a program and may adjust these levels or prices
based on the average size of the household expected to occupy the unit. For renter -occupied
http://app.leg.wa.gov/Rcw/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.540 3/3/2016
RCW 36.70A.540: Affordable housing incentive programs —Low-income housing units. 2
housing units, the total housing costs, including basic utilities as determined by the
jurisdiction, may not exceed thirty percent of the income limit for the low-income housing unit;
(d) Where a developer is utilizing a housing incentive program authorized under this
section to develop market rate housing, and is developing low-income housing to satisfy the
requirements of the housing incentive program, the low-income housing units shall be
provided in a range of sizes comparable to those units that are available to other residents. To
the extent practicable, the number of bedrooms in low-income units must be in the same
proportion as the number of bedrooms in units within the entire development. The low-income
units shall generally be distributed throughout the development and have substantially the
same functionality as the other units in the development;
(e) Low-income housing units developed under an affordable housing incentive program
shall be committed to continuing affordability for at least fifty years. A local government,
however, may accept payments in lieu of continuing affordability. The program shall include
measures to enforce continuing affordability and income standards applicable to low-income
units constructed under this section that may include, but are not limited to, covenants,
options, or other agreements to be executed and recorded by owners and developers;
(f) Programs authorized under subsection (1) of this section may apply to part or all of a
jurisdiction and different standards may be applied to different areas within a jurisdiction or to
different types of development. Programs authorized under this section may be modified to
meet local needs and may include provisions not expressly provided in this section or RCW
82.02.020;
(g) Low-income housing units developed under an affordable housing incentive program
are encouraged to be provided within developments for which a bonus or incentive is
provided. However, programs may allow units to be provided in a building located in the
general area of the development for which a bonus or incentive is provided; and
(h) Affordable housing incentive programs may allow a payment of money or property in
lieu of low-income housing units if the jurisdiction determines that the payment achieves a
result equal to or better than providing the affordable housing on -site, as long as the payment
does not exceed the approximate cost of developing the same number and quality of housing
units that would otherwise be developed. Any city or county shall use these funds or property
to support the development of low-income housing, including support provided through loans
or grants to public or private owners or developers of housing.
(3) Affordable housing incentive programs enacted or expanded under this section may be
applied within the jurisdiction to address the need for increased residential development,
consistent with local growth management and housing policies, as follows:
(a) The jurisdiction shall identify certain land use designations within a geographic area
where increased residential development will assist in achieving local growth management
and housing policies;
(b) The jurisdiction shall provide increased residential development capacity through
zoning changes, bonus densities, height and bulk increases, parking reductions, or other
regulatory changes or other incentives;
(c) The jurisdiction shall determine that increased residential development capacity or
other incentives can be achieved within the identified area, subject to consideration of other
regulatory controls on development; and
(d) The jurisdiction may establish a minimum amount of affordable housing that must be
provided by all residential developments being built under the revised regulations, consistent
with the requirements of this section.
http://app.leg.wa.gov/Rcw/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.540 3/3/2016
RCW 36.70A.540: Affordable housing incentive programs —Low-income housing units. 3
[2009 c 80 § 1; 2006 c 149 § 2.]
NOTES:
Findings-2006 c 149: "The legislature finds that as new market -rate housing
developments are constructed and housing costs rise, there is a significant and growing
number of low-income households that cannot afford market -rate housing in Washington
state. The legislature finds that assistance to low-income households that cannot afford
market -rate housing requires a broad variety of tools to address this serious, statewide
problem. The legislature further finds that absent any incentives to provide low-income
housing, market conditions will result in housing developments in many areas that lack units
affordable to low-income households, circumstances that can cause adverse socioeconomic
effects.
The legislature encourages cities, towns, and counties to enact or expand affordable
housing incentive programs, including density bonuses and other incentives, to increase the
availability of low-income housing for renter and owner occupancy that is located in largely
market -rate housing developments throughout the community, consistent with local needs and
adopted comprehensive plans. While this act establishes minimum standards for those cities,
towns, and counties choosing to implement or expand upon an affordable housing incentive
program, cities, towns, and counties are encouraged to enact programs that address local
circumstances and conditions while simultaneously contributing to the statewide need for
additional low-income housing." [2006 c 149 § 1.]
Construction-2006 c 149: "The powers granted in this act are supplemental and
additional to the powers otherwise held by local governments, and nothing in this act shall be
construed as a limit on such powers. The authority granted in this act shall extend to any
affordable housing incentive program enacted or expanded prior to June 7, 2006, if the
extension is adopted by the applicable local government in an ordinance or resolution." [2006
c 149 § 4.]
http://app.leg.wa.gov/Rcw/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.540 3/3/2016
11; ZA;7
Z 701;
Z S
Z474;
ZA;7
Z 70
�QKS
Z7*'ZS
aKS
Z7*'ZS
Z70KS
Z70KS
Z�,
00,
11 h
a MUM
h
a MV
h
a MV
h
a h MWA
h
a MVA
a
S
a h VVA
a
d I %hoa,
a
a I VVA
a
a I VVA
a
a VVA
a
a MV
MNA
a
a MV
a
a MV
I h
a VU
bCtG
ALLIANCE FOR HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
UPDATE
• Introduce self, AHA
• Overview of preso:
• Reintroduction to AHA
• General housing concepts
• Housing profile information
• Question time
Edmonds City Council
October 28, 2012
1
WHAT'S THE ALLIANCE FOR HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY?
Background and purpose of the Alliance
Work to date
Where we're headed
• Came out of Snohomish County Tomorrow, based on King County ARCH
• PSRC mandate — must plan for housing for all segments of the population — but
how?
• Housing is a growing regional challenge requiring specialized resources, achieve
economies of scale by collaborating
• 1 serve as another shared staff person
• 1 provide research — housing conditions, examples of best practices for
housing policy, approaches in other communities
• Making a venue for discussion and collaboration between cities
• Connecting other resources and opportunities — partnerships with local
organizations, connections with elected officials
• Work to date: profile project
• "initial conditions" for housing — staff and elected officials have the information
they need
• Looking forward: comprehensive plan update support
• Expanding educational offerings -developing our website to be a "one stop
shop" resource one housing —will also be home to the housing profiles
• Further forward:
• Highlighting funding opportunities
2
HOUSING
CONSIDERATIONS
Diverse needs and preferences
Adequacy and safety
Proximity to transportation, jobs, and
services
Affordability
• Approaching housing in a way that includes the broader context
• Change in preferences and needs over time — aging populations are a big one
• Define affordability
• What can local government do, outside of providing housing directly?
3
HOUSEHOLD INCOME LEVELS
2013 HUD regional median household
income: $86,700
• Extremely Low: <30% AMI
• Very Low: 30-50% AMI
• Low: 50-80% AMI
• Moderate: 80-95% AMI
• Middle: 95-120% AMI
Share of Population by HUD Income Level, City of
Edmonds and Snohomish County
40%
35%
30A
25 %
20%
15%
10%
5%
o%
Extremely Very Low Low Moderate Middle Above
Low Middle
■ Edmonds ■ 5—homiSh County
S-- US C— Bureau; A—;— Cer —jfy Survey, 2008-2012
• Explain use of HUD income — affordable housing standards — 2012 Edmonds median
income $73,072 ($68,338 for County)
• Data limitation prevents breaking down by household size
• Edmonds HH tend to be smaller compared to County
• First I will walk through income levels
• Subsidized vs. Workforce and income levels targeted
N
INCOME LEVELS IN CONTEXT
Extremely Low
Very Low
Teachers
Low
Social Workers
Moderate
Accountants
-Middle
Engineers
Food Service Employees -
Medical &Dental Assistants,
Real Estate Agents &
Police Officers &
Line Cooks, Servers,
Dishwashers, Baristas
Home Health Aides
Brokers
Firefighters
Veterinarians
Security Guards
Graphic Designers
Architects
Web Developers
Manicurists
Hairdressers
EMTs & Paramedics
Electricians
Construction Managers
Childcare Workers
Receptionists
Paralegals
Registered Nurses
Physical Therapists
Minimum Wage Workers
Construction Workers
Car Mechanics
Loan Officers
Financial Advisors
Edmonds households in these income brackets:
82% cost burdened 630/c cost burdened 47% cost burdened 38% cost burdened 22% cost burdened
Income -Based Rent BeIow-Morkef Rent Home Ownership
Sa US Deporlmenr of He r� and U,6 D-6p—, 20I S; VS 8— of tabor s1aM1�lice, 201
Cutoffs: ex low - $26k, v low $43k, low $69k, moderate $82k, middle $104k
"Housing Continuum" at the bottom
5
WHAT'S IN THE PROFILE?
Project status
Intended use and audience
Content and presentation
Data sources
Table of Contents
K'Mjortr wwvg- la
• Overview: "describes context of housing in the city from economic and demographic
standpoints"
• Demographics, housing, challenges and opportunities — also a glossary of terms and
explanation of methods
• Predominantly narrative form, with charts, figures, and a number of maps
• Sources: primarily census 5 yr 2012 for demographics, Dupre and Scott for rentals,
Assessor for home sales, HASCO records for voucher holder information and other
subsidized property info
• Will walk through sections 1 and 2
I
POPULATION AND COMMUNITY
Population Pyramid, City of Edmonds, 2000-2010
Stable population with modest growth
Accommodating growth may still be a 90+
challenge
85 -89
80 - 84
75 - 79
• Median income - $73,072
70-74
65 - 69
60 - 64
• Smaller households compared to
55-59
County overall
50 - 54
45-49
• 69% of households 1-2 people vs. 58% across
41,44
35 - 39
County
30 - 34
25-29
20-24
• 48% of renters and 34% of
15. 19
10-14
homeowners are cost burdened
5-9
0-4
E 2010
. 2000
2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 5o0 1,000 1,500 2,000 700
S— US Censor fi—, 2000, 2010
• Growth — 2,790 additional housing units required by 2035, capacity is only 2,646 — of
current capacity, vast majority is in MF, high portion through redevelopment
• County median income of $68,338
• HH avg size 2.3 vs 2.6
• Cost burden — expand on next tab
7
COST BURDEN BY INCOME LEVEL AND HOUSING TENURE,
CITY OF EDMONDS
79% 82% 82%
81% 86% 63%
29% 46% 47%
13% 43% 38%
7% 26% 22%
S.,— US C-- Suravu; Aare k— C....-Ry S—y, 0008-201 ]
• Extremely low owners — 82% vs 73% across County
• V low owners — 86% vs 80% across County
• Low owners — 46% vs 72% across County — most dramatic difference
• Middle owners — 26% vs 32% across County
• Low income, all — 47% vs 65% across County
III
EXISTING HOUSING STOCK
Construction concentrated between
1950 and 1989
• 67% single family homes
• 29% renter -occupied
42% of homes two bedrooms or less
in size, 69% of households one to two
people
2012 median home sale - $339,975
Third highest average assessed value
in 2014 - $351,100
Age Distribution of Housing Stock, City of Edmonds
& Snohomish County
45%
40%
35°%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Before 1949 1950-1969 1970-1989 1990 of Later
■ Edmonds ■ Snohomish County
• Projected growth largely coming through redevelopment and in multifamily units —
postwar growth boom came before other cities in the County
• 78% of rentals are two bedrooms or less in size
• Minimum income for 2012 sale - $75,796 —just above median city income. Middle
income for HH of 2-3, moderate for 4-5
• 2014 average value —10.7% increase over 2013
ASSISTED HOUSING
Assisted Units by Income Level
• Subsidized Units: Served
178 Section 8 Vouchers
125 other units in 6 properties Extremely Low 233
• Workforce Units: Very Low 79
• 201 units in 3 properties Low 194
Moderate 2
Total 508
• Subsidized housing providers: HASCO, EHA, Compass Health — most units reserved for
seniors and mentally ill people, families served by one large HASCO property with a mix
of subsidized and workforce housing (Edmonds Highlands)
• Workforce: SHAG, HASCO, Compass Health — again, seniors, mentally ill, but most still
Edmonds Highlands for families
10
I Bed
2 Bed
3 Bed
4+ Bed
Extremely
No
Low
No
No
No
Very Low Limited
Limited
Limited
No
Low Yes
Yes
Limited
No
Moderate Yes
Yee"
Limited
Middle Yes
Yes
Yelm
Sou..e. wp wd S-o ,,
20r3
MARKET RENTAL
HOUSING
Average Rent
(With utilities)
Minimum Income Required
Minimum
Hourly Wage
Minimum
Annual Wage
i Bed
$887
$17.06
$35,480
2 Bed
$1,097
$21.10
$43,880
3 Bed
$1,679
$32.29
$67,160
Bed
$2,545
$46.94
$101,800
5 Bed
$2,844
$54.69
$113,760
• Mention adjustment for household size
WHAT CAN WE DO?
How the planning process can support affordability
Working with community partners
Exploring new opportunities with AHA
• Range of options from inexpensive to very expensive
• Ensuring type, density, quantity of housing supports the population moving forward —
accommodating demographic shifts, lifestyle changes, access to transportation and
employment centers, etc.
• Balancing need to keep
• Monitoring and evaluating policy performance
• Other partnerships — groups that support homeownership, like homesight — goal is to
not duplicate efforts
• AHA goal over the next year — how to leverage funding sources effectively
12
4 ol/ 7
a %hoa,
a
VaA
a
a %hoaA
h
a Moa,
a
a MUM
h
a MVA
h
a %hoa,
m
a %,,OaA
.
3.4,0a,
Lao
a %hu
a
a mv
a
a %hoa,
m
d I moa,
a
a %hoaA
a
d I %hoa,
.
sma,
.
sma,
.
a %hu
a
"I
on,
70m
Voi
� I
Vol
� I
Voi
� I
Vol
� I
Voi
� I
Voi
� I
Voi
� I
Voi
� I
Voi
� I
TZ
TZ
TOON
TZ
7d
OTNN
1
42
&
OTAON
&
0ATON
&
42
&
I
&
oz
&
01474aNab&
047TN
&
elz,7101�
THANK YOU
13
GOALEnsure the construction and preservation of housing
stock that meets a diverse range of incomes and needs.
City funds
affordable housing
So that...
City has a sufficient stock of
affordable housing to meet
the needs of the community
City contributions to
$280,000
ARCH Housing Trust
Fund (A Regional Coali-
$282,301
$294,337
$442,098
$424,108
$406,092
to
tion for Housing)'
$350,000
Number of low income
housing units produced
(units affordable to those
0
39
58
15
19*
69 units
earning less than 50%
per year
of King County median
income) **
Number of moderate
income housing units
produced (units affordable
7
21
26
23
3*
49 units
to those earning between
per year
50-8001oof King County
median income)**
Total number of low and
118 units
moderate income units
7
60
qd
38
22*
brought online
per year
(Includes General Funds, Community Development Block Grant Funds, and reallocation of affordable housing loans that have
been repaid.
*ADU and housing market survey units not included
** The City has reported this in percentages in prior years, but has moved to reporting units for clarity.
I 1 OW DO WE MEASURE AFFORDABLE HOUSING?
King County's Countywide Planning Policies determine the affordable housing targets for cities based on a variety of factors, includ
ing the projected affordable housing needs of low and moderate income households, the existing stock of market rate and subsi-
dized housing, and the number of jobs by wage level and location.
Kirkland's progress towards meeting those targets include affordable housing units that have been built as a result of:
• Housing Trust Fund contributions
• Housing regulations that the City has adopted, such as affordable housing requirements, Accessory Dwelling Units, and tax
exemptions.
• Private housing development with market rents at affordable levels.
HOW ARE WE DOING?
The City continues to make significant contributions to the ARCH Housing Trust Fund. Following the annexation of the North
Juanita, Finn Hill and Kingsgate neighborhoods, the City's target for contributions to the Housing Trust Fund increased to reflect the
larger population. The combination of the City increasing its contributions, plus a one-time increase in Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) funds allocated to ARCH through King County, account for the large increase in funding in 2012. The City
continued to contribute above targets in 2013 and 2014.
I OW ARE WE DOING? continued
Progress towards meeting affordable housing targets established in the Countywide
Planning Policies fluctuates annually. This is due to a variety of factors, including when
the City's trust fund contributions get allocated and to which projects. The City gets
credit for affordable housing units based on its monetary contributions, regardless of
where the units are built, as well as affordable units that are built in the City through
regulatory requirements and market forces. The good news is that affordable housing is
being built in Kirkland!
WHAT ARE WE DOING?
Kirkland continues to take a multi -faceted approach to creating a diverse housing stock that
meets a variety of income ranges and needs. Several multifamily and mixed use develop-
ments where affordable housing will be required by Zoning regulations are currently in the
pipeline, from conversations prior to permit submittal through actual construction. The City's
growing list of regulations to encourage and enable affordable and diverse housing include:
• Accessory Dwelling Units
• Small lot single family allowances
• Cottage and carriage housing regulations
• Affordable housing requirements with offsetting density bonuses
• Multifamily residential tax exemptions
• Standards for transit -oriented development at South Kirkland Park and Ride
• Impact fee exemptions for affordable housing
Following adoption of the updated Comprehensive Plan at the end of 2015, Planning staff
and the Planning Commission will prepare a new Housing Strategy Plan to provide direc-
tion for additional future initiatives that the City will undertake in support of affordable and
diverse housing.
In addition, the City sees a tremendous return on its annual investment in the ARCH Housing
Trust Fund. All of the low income units and about 20% of the moderate income units that the
City has been given credit for producing are a result of financial contributions made by the
City to affordable housing projects within Kirkland and other ARCH cities through the ARCH
Housing Trust Fund.
AFFORDABLE & INNOVATIVE HOUSING LOCATED in KIRKLAND
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
77
36
28
31
24
23
1
3
m
tko
Ca Y
�
o
CD
x
a
0
a
2
m
2
2
E
O
M 000
}
C
OD
C
N
O
t
C 7
N E 7O
m E
N
7
O
LL
N
"
a >
J
Cr
N
=
o
o
U
ARCH
Innovative
Affordable Housing
Housing
7AREGIONAL COALITION FOR HOUSING (ARCH)
Working together to house East King County
ARCH is a partnership of the fifteen cities in
East King County, along with King County,
who have joined together to assist with pre-
serving and increasing the supply of housing
for low— and moderate -income households
in the region. ARCH assists member govern-
ments in developing housing policies, strate-
gies, programs, and development regula-
tions; coordinates the cities' financial support
to groups creating affordable housing for
low— and moderate -income households; and
assists people looking for affordable rental
and ownership housing.
Through the Housing Trust Fund (HTF),
ARCH's member governments have sup-
ported a wide range of housing created and
operated by local organizations and private
developers that serve individuals, families, se-
niors, the homeless, and persons with special
needs. The HTF process allows ARCH mem-
bers to jointly administer their housing funds,
and assist the best available housing oppor-
tunities that meet the housing needs of the
community.
The HTF awards loans and grants to Eastside
developments that include below -market rate
housing. Between 1993 and 2014, ARCH
member jurisdictions committed over $44
million to this fund, including Community De-
velopment Block Grant (CDBG) and General
Funds. Also included in this amount is over $7
million in contributions of land, fee -waivers
and other in -kind donations. Since 1993, the
ARCH HTF has funded over 3,033 housing
units in East King County.
ARCH works with housing providers to de-
velop a viable proposal, and coordinates ef-
forts with other funders to meet the proposal's
funding needs. ARCH is an important part
of a provider's funding package. Affordable
housing providers are often able to leverage
ARCH funding assistance where other com-
petitive funding sources gives greater consid-
eration to proposals with local funding. One
dollar of funding from ARCH can result in
$10 of funding from a variety of other public
sources, such as the Washington State Hous-
ing Trust Fund, King County Housing Oppor-
tunity Fund and HOME Program, Federal Low
Income Housing Tax Credits and Tax -Exempt
Bond Financing.
Community housing providers are critical
to efforts to create and preserve affordable
housing. These agencies finance and build,
or acquire and rehabilitate, permanent rental
or ownership housing. As a result of public
and private resources working together there
is greater housing affordability and housing
opportunity for those who need it most.
3/30/2015
13 Urban Trends to Watch -Urban Land Magazine
NO Ri NmF " 11 ` " 1 ■ 111160 Advertisement
THE MAGAZINE OF THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE
SECTIONS
Urban Land > Market Trends > 13 Urban Trends to Watch
13 Urban Trends to Watch
By Henry Cisneros
March 26, 2015
I
MORE ULI SITES
Text Size: A A A
Adapted from Urban Real Estate Investment: A New Era of Opportunity, which will be published by ULI in 2015.
The contours of an urban renaissance —long in the making —are quickly coming into focus. Massive societal and
economic changes are converging to create a new urban reality, a transformation of importance to the millions of
Americans in the nation's metropolitan areas. Demographic changes are creating markets for mixed -use and mixed -
income models of urban design. Job growth in advanced industries fits the preferences of knowledge workers attracted to
urban neighborhoods. The "smart" institutions of the new economy, such as research universities and medical centers, are
becoming the knowledge anchors of cities, spinning off employment, contracts, businesses, residences, and public
amenities. Global energy challenges are putting a premium on core city locations and on public transit. New technologies
are matched to creative financial architecture to advance concepts of sustainability, walkability, and affordability.
Register for the ULI Spring Meeting I Tour: Award -Winning Affordable Housing in Houston
As a result, cities are becoming denser, more diverse, smarter (as measured by the skills of their residents), safer, more
dynamic, more interconnected, more social, more environmentally aware, more attractive as 24/7 locales, and more
essential to the nation's prosperity.
The city -building professions —urban planning and design, architecture, municipal governance and administration, real
estate development and construction, capital and finance, transportation and infrastructure —must understand how the
following individual trends are together creating a new moment of opportunity for the nation's metro areas.
1. Building for Sustainability
Community builders must be attentive to the use of building materials and systems that minimize environmental impacts.
Important contributions have been made by individual builders, advocacy organizations, and nonprofit community builders
who have designed prototype homes and other buildings using more sustainable materials, HVAC systems, water
conservation, landscaping, and construction methods.
http://urbanland.uli.org/economy-markets-trends/13-urban-trends-watch/ 1/13
3/30/2015
13 Urban Trends to Watch -Urban Land Magazine
Urban leaders must also seek to make entire cities
contributors to environmental solutions. As the
starker dimensions of climate change become more
widely understood —hotter daily temperatures,
longer heat spells, drier conditions in some regions,
and more violent storms with accompanying
inundations in others —public and private sector
leaders will confront higher pricing for scarcer water
allocations, higher energy costs for more air
conditioning, worker productivity losses, and the
insurance costs of flooding and other storm damage
from rising sea levels and more powerful storms.
2. Embedding Technology in Urban Real Estate
The wave of automation is growing. Home systems
currently exist to calibrate landscaping to weather
conditions, to monitor energy use, to tighten
security, and to communicate with light switches,
locks, and other devices in a smart building via a
remote tablet or smartphone app. At the city level,
computer automation can help first responders
arrive faster, assist police in reducing crime, help
decrease peak energy loads, and schedule public
transit arrival times. The advent of cloud computing
makes it possible for millions of residents to be
connected to "the internet of things" in their smart
homes and for entire cities to be interconnected.
3. Harnessing Advanced Industries and Anchor
Institutions
The advanced industries powering the new
(Antonia Giroux)
American economy apply research and
development to computers and communications equipment, aerospace products, medical equipment, and
pharmaceuticals. They employ a workforce skilled in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. In many
metropolitan areas, these advanced industries work in concertwith anchor institutions —research universities, world -class
medical centers, corporate headquarters, research and development complexes, and arts and cultural institutions. As
these advanced industries become America's crucial drivers of global competitiveness, urban real estate professionals
should prepare to build the needed facilities, and incorporate the unique building features and spatial designs these
advanced industries and anchor institutions will require.
4. Modernizing Urban Infrastructure
In the core areas of many U.S. cities, water lines are more than 100 years old and pose health and safety risks. Vehicular
traffic lurches along rutted roadways and congested arterials. Public facilities, whose deterioration undermines public
confidence in urban governance, include aged airports, dated rail stations, dingy parking structures, and crumbling
bridges, tunnels, and underpasses.
America's municipal and metropolitan leaders must make extensive investments in their basic infrastructure if they are to
position cities as platforms for economic competiveness. Cities must focus on the three levels of infrastructure that will
create the conditions to draw future private investment to urban areas:
http://urbanland.uli.org/economy-markets-trends/13-urban-trends-watch/ 2/13
3/30/2015
13 Urban Trends to Watch -Urban Land Magazine
URBAN REAL ESTATF INVESTMENT
A NEW EPA OF 0 P POIR TUN MTY
�1l151IkY I hl I r•i,, i%%-,rc1 ft I rfc Gum!!I11• mVW Sri Lq1} A r g■Ir•%
7
11
�1
�•1 ■
�
11�1fy
■
`
_
r-
■r
r `
1 I r 6
Jop Wr -
• The existing infrastructure in need of repair, such as bridges and tunnels;
• The modernization of existing infrastructure with new technologies, such as interactive power grids linked to smart
appliances; and
• The installation of completely new forms of infrastructure for the future, such as high-speed telecommunications
http://urbanl and.ul i.org/econom y-m arkets-trends/13-urban-trends-watch/ 3/13
3/30/2015
lines.
13 Urban Trends to Watch -Urban Land Magazine
5. Addressing Mixed Incomes Positively
A well -functioning city needs a mix of housing types. The increasing cost of urban housing in many cities has pushed
lower -income and even middle -income workers to the metropolitan periphery. Developers and public officials must make
affordable and workforce housing a priority. An important way to add affordable and workforce units is cross -subsidization
within a project, with a developer voluntarily or mandatorily including a percentage of such units. It has been demonstrated
that distribution of those units within a project has no negative effect on the marketability or functionality of the community,
and the positive effects for a city are important.
6. Preparing for Demographic Trends
Over the next 30 years, the population of Americans over age 65 will double, and the number of those over 85 will triple.
Minorities are already approaching 50 percent of the homebuying market and in many areas account for 100 percent of
population growth. These are just two indicators of the pace of the demographic transformation sweeping across the
United States.
The Washington, D.C.—based American Seniors Housing Association reports that the demand for appropriate housing for
seniors will increase from 18,000 units per year in 2015 to 82,000 per year in 2030. The greatest need will be for types of
for -sale and rental properties for the 90 percent of aging Americans who say they want to age in place.
Also, the rapid growth of minority populations means that residential builders must consider affordability, floor plans,
locations, and community amenities that respond to such factors as larger family sizes, multigenerational families, younger
average ages, and specific cultural preferences.
7. Taking on Density
Greater demand for core urban sites almost always means higher land prices. To offer competitive rents or sales prices,
increased density is often the only business solution. Density, however, frequently generates a negative response from
nearby residents and from public officials who oppose large, overbearing structures and increased traffic. But good design
can be an antidote to such opposition. Creative architects can break up the mass of large structures, altering heights and
varying elevations and exteriors, as well as reducing the unsightly imposition of parking structures. Careful attention to
density can generate positive urban dynamics, including more vibrant neighborhoods and more cost-effective public
services.
8. Making Walkability Real
Many surveys show that residents place a higher value on homes within walking distance of stores, public spaces, and
employment. Developers and planners must imagine designs for urban sites that can be assembled into a compatible
pattern of mixed uses to create an urban village. "Villages within the city" create a sense of identity for submarkets within
an urban area, encourage resident involvement at a human scale, and create loyalties to neighborhood businesses.
9. Adding Transit -Related Value
As urban cores become denser, public transportation systems can reduce traffic congestion and automobile pollution,
enhancing the neighborhood environment. A light -rail system that carries 120 passengers along a city arterial street
removes 60 cars with two passengers each from the city's streets. Mass transit stops are obvious locations for urban
residential, commercial, and office developments. Developers should probe beyond the obvious sites to explore the
potential of underused properties along transit lines to unlock the value of transit -related real estate.
http://urbanland.uli.org/economy-markets-trends/13-urban-trends-watch/ 4/13
3/30/2015
13 Urban Trends to Watch -Urban Land Magazine
�_' '¢.�v Lv`.a:� •: .. . :'+ate x
Light -rail system in downtown Charlotte, North Carolina. (ttueni)
10. Incorporating Public Spaces and Amenities
James Rouse, the revered city builder, once said that he designed Baltimore's Inner Harbor principally as a venue for
people watching. He understood the importance of creating common areas where people can safely relax and enjoy the
urban setting. In a commercial project, common space may take the form of a sitting area with internet connectivity; in a
multifamily community, it may be meeting spaces for professionals who work at home. On a public street, common space
may mean wider sidewalks or a lighted bus stop shelter for transit passengers. Plantings, water features, street furniture,
public art, green open spaces, exercise equipment, performance stages, jogging paths, children's play equipment, and pet
parks are all desirable features that help make the urban streetscape more humane and vital.
11. Using Creative Design
Good design is a worthy goal for private developers and public city builders alike. It should be the goal for every kind of
structure at every price point. Urban designers today can use materials of various textures, weights, and colors; light
patterns; nontraditional shapes and soaring lines; water features and foliage; and nearby topographical features to make
projects attractive, functional, and economically feasible.
12. Financing Urban Real Estate
It is possible to anticipate some likely developments in capital flows to urban real estate. For example, the flow of global
capital to U.S. metropolitan markets will accelerate because foreign investors value the relative stability of U.S. markets
and are particularly attracted to the "gateway cities" with which they are most familiar. Institutional investors with actuarial
obligations for pension and retirement funds will continue to be attracted to the higher returns associated with various
forms of real estate as they seek to achieve acceptable overall returns at a time when bond and equity returns
underperform. Some investors —institutional funds, family offices, and high -net -worth individuals —may seek to bypass
capital allocators and instead make direct investments in properties. For those investors, relationships with highly
competent real estate operators who manage strong pipelines of attractive projects and who have stellar records of
performance will be especially valuable.
13. Cementing Public Sector Partnerships
http://urbanl and.ul i.org/econom y-m arkets-trends/13-urban-trends-watch/ 5/13
3/30/2015
13 Urban Trends to Watch -Urban Land Magazine
City governments have become very capable drivers of economic development, using every municipal resource to create
comparative advantages and to offer incentives. These economic development calculations almost always involve urban
real estate decisions. Cities provide property tax abatements to make the economics of industrial sites more palatable for
relocations or expansions. They offer cash outlays from bond programs to offset the construction costs of apartments, and
they often add further incentives for including percentages of workforce or affordable housing units. Public authorities
commit to investing in physical infrastructure to support employment -generating projects, including approach roads,
freeway exit ramps, transit stations, water extensions and pumping stations, electrical power generators, land acquisition
and assembly, and leases of public land or facilities. This kind of aggressive involvement by the public sector in real estate
transactions is likely to increase as cities become more determined to be masters of their economic destinies and to
connect permanent jobs with the urban workforce.
Opportunity for City Builders
Many of the trends responsible for America's urban renaissance have been coming for years. However, demographic
shifts, technological advancements, and sustainability concerns have all accelerated recently. Taken together, they create
a new professional reality for city builders. The need to adapt older urban real estate to modern purposes —and the
imperative to develop new forms of the built environment in cities —ensure that urban real estate investment will be an
essential enterprise of long duration. The volume of capital required to support the scale of both recycled uses and new
developments will require resourcefulness in aligning traditional sources of capital for urban projects, as well as creativity
in applying capital in new ways. Urban real estate is a powerful domestic engine that will help determine the shape of the
national landscape and make bright futures possible for urban professionals skillful enough to imagine, invest, and
execute wisely.
Adapted from Urban Real Estate Investment: A New Era of Opportunity, which will be published by ULI in 2015. Henry
Cisneros is chairman of Cisneros City Group, which invests in urban real estate and infrastructure projects. He is also
chairman of CityView, a partner in building more than 7,000 residential units in 13 states over the last 15 years. Cisneros
served four terms as mayor of San Antonio and was secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
from 1993 to 1997.
SHOW COMMENTS
Biotech Industry Drives Life Science REITs
By Susan Persin
March 30, 2015 Text Size: A A A
This article is republished with permission from REITCafe.
The life sciences industry is growing rapidly, accounting for 15 of the 29 initial public offerings (IPOs) so far in 2015 and
more than one-third of IPOs in 2014. Illustrating the growth in life sciences, the NASDAQ biotech index has gained almost
60 percent since year-end 2013. Robust industry growth has generated demand for specialized life science real estate
that usually includes a mix of office and lab space. REITs that focus on life science real estate benefit from the growth in
this industry but take on less risk. Fueled by strong expansion among life science companies, the two major pure -play life
science real estate investment trusts (REITs) are expanding their portfolios through both acquisitions and new
development, with earnings that reflect the benefits of this growth.
For many life science companies, their ability to lease space depends on funding. Federal government grants, particularly
from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), are a significant source of funding. NIH funding was cut in recent years, but
earlier this month, President Obama asked for a $1 billion, or 3.3 percent, increase in the NIH's budget for fiscal year 2016.
http://urbanl and.ul i.org/econom y-m arkets-trends/13-urban-trends-watch/ 6/13