2024-02-14 Planning Board PacketOF EDA'
v ti Agenda
Edmonds Planning Board
REGULAR MEETING
BRACKETT ROOM
121 5TH AVE N, CITY HALL- 3RD FLOOR, EDMONDS, WA 98020
FEBRUARY 14, 2024, 7:00 PM
REMOTE MEETING INFORMATION:
Meeting Link: https://edmondswa-
gov.zoom.us/s/87322872194?pwd=WFdxTWJIQmxITG9LZkc3 KOhuS014QT09 Meeting ID: 873 2287
2194 Passcode:007978
This is a Hybrid meeting: The meeting can be attended in -person or on-line. The physcial
meeting location is at Edmonds City Hall 121 5th Avenue N., 3rd floor Brackett R000m
Or Telephone :US: +1 253 215 8782
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
We acknowledge the original inhabitants of this place, the Sdohobsh (Snohomish) people and
their successors the Tulalip Tribes, who since time immemorial have hunted, fished, gathered, and
taken care of these lands. We respect their sovereignty, their right to self-determination, and we
honor their sacred spiritual connection with the land and water.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approval of Minutes January 24th meeting
3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
For topics not scheduled for a public hearing. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes
S. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Comprehensive Plan Update - Existing Conditions and Growth Alternatives
8. NEW BUSINESS
9. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
10. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
A. Extended Agenda
Edmonds Planning Board Agenda
February 14, 2024
Page 1
11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
12. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
13. ADJOURNMENT
Edmonds Planning Board Agenda
February 14, 2024
Page 2
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 02/14/2024
Approval of Minutes January 24th meeting
Staff Lead: Michael Clugston
Department: Planning & Development
Prepared By: Michelle Martin
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review & approve draft meeting minutes.
Narrative
Draft meeting minutes from January 24th meeting attached.
Attachments:
PB 01242024_Draft
Packet Pg. 3
2.A.a
CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD
Minutes of Hybrid Meeting
January 24, 2024
Chair Mitchell called the hybrid meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. at Edmonds City
Hall and on Zoom.
LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES
The Land Acknowledgement was read by Board Member Maxwell.
Board Members Present
Jeremy Mitchell, Chair
Lauren Golembiewski, Vice Chair (online)
Judi Gladstone
Susanna Martini
Nick Maxwell
Emily Nutsch (alternate) (online)
Lily Distelhorst (student rep) (online)
Board Members Absent
Richard Kuehn (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Staff Present
Susan McLaughlin, Development Services Director
Mike Clugston, Senior Planner
Jeff Taraday, City Attorney
Rose Haas, Planner
Jeff Levy (online)
Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MARTINI, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER NUTSCH,
TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 10, 2024 AS AMENDED.
Board Member Gladstone offered a friendly amendment to amend the 2nd bullet on page 4 to read, "Vice Chair
Golembiewski expressed support for staff s recommendations." Board Member Martini accepted the
amendment.
MOTION PASSED.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
January 24, 2024 Pagel of 6
Packet Pg. 4
2.A.a
Roger Pence, former Planning Board Member/Chair made suggestions regarding Detached Accessory
Dwelling Units (DADUs). He is supportive of these but acknowledged that they have some issues of
controversy around them. He would like to see more public engagement on this issue to get public concerns
identified and dealt with. He recommended holding some sort of public forum to begin a discussion prior to a
formal public hearing.
Rick Schafer, Edmonds resident, stormwater professional, stated that there is a lot of coordination that needs to
go on between Public Works and the variety of different planning efforts (Comprehensive Plan, Stormwater
Management Plan Update, DADUs). He expressed concern about the increased density and impervious surfaces
in neighborhoods with DADUs. It is likely they would fall beneath the thresholds for stormwater controls being
required on site, but they will still have an impact. He noted they have been hearing about the degradation of
streams in the city for years. Increasing unmitigated impervious densities is going to be a problem.
ADMLNISTRATIVE REPORTS
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
A. Tree Canopy Goal / Legal Aspects of Tree Regulation
City Attorney Jeff Taraday made a brief presentation regarding legal aspects of tree regulation including various
kinds of "takings". General questions and answers followed. He noted that there are multiple competing
priorities we have as a city that we need to try to balance. Director McLaughlin agreed that there are competing
priorities. The City hopes to have a tree canopy goal of either no net loss or a gain. Establishment of a tree
canopy goal is important so we can be aware of the implications. She stressed the importance of the Planning
Board substantiating policies and showing their homework but also moving forward with city goals. City
Attorney Taraday encouraged the Planning Board to focus on one topic at a time and let staff review for potential
issues or conflicts.
Director McLaughlin made a presentation regarding the City of Edmonds Tree Canopy Goals. Edmonds current
tree canopy was 34.6% in 2021. Best practice in the region is a goal of 38% tree canopy. She reviewed three
options for Edmonds depending on how ambitious we want to be with an estimated cost of $105,000 per acre
of tree canopy over 30 years.
• 2.0% increase: 122 acres to reach 36.6% ($12.8m)
• 3.4% increase: 207 acres to reach 38% ($21.7m)
• 5.4% increase: 330 acres to reach 40% ($34.7m)
Jeff Levy explained that the cost per acre includes the total cost of planting an acre of trees including trees,
labor, and time. Director McLaughlin explained next steps include re-engaging the 2020 consultants to study
possible vegetation areas and run feasibility studies. This would be followed by developing policy to increase
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
January 24, 2024 Page 2 of 6
Packet Pg. 5
tree canopy coverage and promote responsible development, not hindering GMA goals with HB 1337 and HB
1110 developments.
B. Accessory Dwelling Unit Code Amendment to allow for Detached Accessory Dwelling Units -
"Expanding housing options by easing barriers to the construction and use of accessory dwelling units
in accordance with HB 1337."
Planner Rose Haas reviewed a summary table of the existing code and the proposed code updates as required
by HB 1337. She recapped discussion items from January 10 and the Planning Division's responses. Regarding
concerns about the cost of water meters, sewer connections, and utility undergrounding, Planning Division
recommends reducing costs for homeowners as much as possible and collaborating with the Public Works
Department, Utility Billing, South County Fire, and OVWSD to ensure all requirements are met.
Engineering Division Recommendations:
• New and extended utilities must be undergrounded. (already in the code)
• All units must have unrestricted access to utility control systems.
• Only one water service and meter allowed per parcel.
• Only one sewer lateral is allowed per parcel.
• Upsizing or replacement of existing service lines/laterals may be required.
Chair Mitchell asked if there would be a separate power meter. Ms. Haas was not sure about that. She offered
to check with Engineering.
Ms. Haas explained that OVWSD ADU policies require that ADUs and DADUs must be served by a separate
water service line and meter. Shared sewer lateral is not required. Sewer pipe upsizes may be required based on
site conditions. Ms. Haas explained that there can be different regulations for the water and sewer districts or
the City can synchronize policies with OVWSD.
Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager, referred to Chair Mitchell's earlier question about power
and stated that Edmonds doesn't specifically regulate how power is provided to each one of the properties and
whether one meter is required or multiple meters are allowed. Snohomish County PUD is the regulatory body
on that. She is not sure what their position would be. Edmonds' code would specify that whoever is residing in
each of the residences has access to the controls for power systems and any shared utilities. She stated they just
recently learned that OVWSD has a policy in place already for ADUs and DADUs. Staff realizes they need to
have additional conversations with OVWSD. Ideally it would be convenient to have the same policies but it
may not end up that way. Currently, staff s opinion is that they should require shared utility systems for each
residential property. This may result in the need to upsize the current water meter, but that is less expensive than
adding an additional water meter.
Chair Mitchell asked about situations where the existing residence's sewer laterals are clay or concrete pipe.
Ms. McConnell explained that currently when there is an addition to a single-family residence like an ADU or
a DADU, they do not require that the sewer lateral be reviewed unless there is a known issue. The utility system
on site may need to be upgraded depending on what will be joining to that system and how they decide to route
the utilities through the site. However, if there are existing clay lines it may be to the owner's benefit to replace
them anyway so they don't have a sewer issue with a future resident of one of those units.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
January 24, 2024 Page 3 of 6
Packet Pg. 6
2.A.a
Board Member Martini asked how condominiumization would impact this. Ms. Haas replied that they would
have one shared meter for the property. Board Member Maxwell explained that part of what the condominium
association deals with is how to allocate the costs.
Vice Chair Golembiewski asked if properties within the OV W SD have the same facility charges for new meters.
Ms. McConnell replied that they have their own set of facility charges.
Board Member Gladstone thought there was a potential policy conflict because the State Department of Health
has been working to get people to meter for the sake of water conservation. She wondered how or if that factors
in. Board Member Maxwell thought it wasn't something to worry about because these would be really small
condos. Board Member Gladstone also wondered about the loss of control with just one line for DADUs unless
there is a shutoff valve for the second unit so they can shut off their water. Also, she had concerns about what
would happen if one property owner doesn't pay the bill. Ms. McConnell replied that currently it would be
primary resident's responsibility to make those payments. If somebody failed to make a payment it would be
through a shared system and could result in a water shutoff that may affect more than one unit.
Ms. Haas continued to review responses to January 10 discussion topics. Regarding critical areas, Planning
Division recommends allowing ADUs on lots that contain critical areas or their associated buffers so long as
they can meet protection standards in ECDC Title 23 (Natural Resources). Regarding restrictive covenants,
Planning Division would like to remove owner -occupancy requirements and associated covenants and allow
nullification of all owner occupancy covenants on the date of code adoption ECDC 16.20.050(L). This is
currently under review with the city attorney and is subject to change. Regarding setback reduction incentives
if height of unit is limited to preserve views and protect privacy, Planning Division's recommendations are as
follows:
• Do not limit density to protect private view corridors.
• It is inequitable to allow a reduction in setbacks for height limited units. Only units in largest parcels
could take full advantage of this incentive. Small parcel owners may not be able to build an ADU
without reduced rear setbacks.
• Support housing that can accommodate families. Setback reduction incentive linked to height will limit
the size of unit allowed on most parcels.
• Policy does not align with Climate Action Plan and Tree Canopy Goal.
Vice Chair Golembiewski thought that they would actually be increasing the density if they are allowing
reduced setbacks for single stories in places where they don't have enough room to meet their setback
requirements that are already in the code. She clarified that her ideas on this weren't about protecting views at
all. It was an idea to incentivize the type of ADUs that she thinks Edmonds wants to see. Chair Mitchell didn't
think this was any different than the CG step back incentivized options. Board Member Maxwell thought this
didn't need to relate to views at all and noted it isn't a requirement. It just gives people an option to build into
their setback as long as they keep it to a single story. Board Member Gladstone agreed that the incentive was
not intended to preserve views but to respond to hearing people's reluctance about two-story buildings that may
not fit in. She commented that the RCWs allow for incentivizing whatever you want.
Ms. Haas referred to the transit stop buffers and parking requirements and reviewed that the Board had asked
to see areas where parking will not be required per 1337 in addition to other areas that we could limit parking.
No parking is required within a half -mile of a major transit stop, as defined in RCW 36.70A.696(8). She
reviewed maps showing one half -mile buffer from major transit stops, one-half mile from transit stops in single -
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
January 24, 2024 Page 4 of 6
Packet Pg. 7
2.A.a
family zones, and buffers from all transit stops. Staff is not recommending extending requirements beyond what
1337 is requiring. Board Member Nutsch commented that the intent of 1337 is to have more affordable housing,
and she wanted to make sure they are not moving away from all the major bus stops and going to all bus stops
because a lot of entry level jobs don't operate on standard commute schedule and require that people have cars
to get to work. Chair Mitchell asked if they had an inventory of the number of street parking spaces in the city.
Director McLaughlin explained they didn't have that level of detail. She added that on street parking should not
be considered as an option to accommodate private property needs because when they are doing multimodal
improvements such as transit or bike infrastructure or even pedestrian improvements, they may need to remove
that parking. Chair Mitchell said he would be interested in seeing the amount of available parking spaces as
they look at the DADU code and minimum parking requirement. Director McLaughlin commented that there
is an abundance of parking, and there is a good reason to not require parking as part of ADUs, namely the cost
it would add to the homeowner and the rental fees. Chair Mitchell recommended putting staff recommendation
for parking in the packet as part of the public hearing in order to get feedback on it.
Ms. Haas reviewed the tentative schedule and public outreach efforts. She stated she would be providing the
public comments to the Board prior to the public hearing. Board Member Gladstone recommended that staff
promote the online public comment opportunity now so people have the ability to be able to provide comments
on the draft code language before or in addition to the public hearing. There was consensus to continue the
discussion on the draft code to the date of the public hearing.
C. Draft CARA Memo
Chair Mitchell read the draft CARA memo. The Board expressed general support for the memo.
Board Member Maxwell noted an amendment in the background section, 4"' paragraph, second from the last
line. The word "code" needs to be added after CARA.
MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MAXWELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER
MARTINI, TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE MEMO AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY.
PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
Chair Mitchell spoke to the heavy workload this year and options available to the Board in order to cover
everything. There was some interest in having a longer meeting but starting earlier. Mr. Clugston indicated that
was an option but it would require it being a special meeting. Board Member Gladstone was supportive of
utilizing subgroups again or holding a separate special meeting rather than extending a regular meeting even
longer.
Mr. Clugston reviewed the extended agenda and explained that unfortunately he didn't have more detail about
the Comprehensive Plan updates. Public hearings for DADUs and Green Building Incentives are both being
planned for February 28. Mr. Clugston acknowledged it was not ideal and would be a challenge. He stated if
there is additional work to do, they can continue it to another meeting. The Board was opposed to having two
public hearings on one night. Mr. Clugston indicated he could try to change one of them. The Board was
supportive of pushing out the Green Building Incentives public hearing. There was consensus to hold the retreat
as a separate special meeting.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
January 24, 2024 Page 5 of 6
Packet Pg. 8
2.A.a
PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
None
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Nutsch expressed appreciation for the discussion tonight and everyone's willingness to be
creative with some of the things that don't have simple solutions.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:36 p.m.
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
January 24, 2024 Page 6 of 6
Packet Pg. 9
7.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 02/14/2024
Comprehensive Plan Update - Existing Conditions and Growth Alternatives
Staff Lead: Navyusha Pentakota
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Michael Clugston
Background/History
The City of Edmonds is updating its Comprehensive Plan to be consistent with the Growth Management
Act (GMA), Vision 2050 Growth Strategy, Snohomish County Countywide Planning Policies, and other
local plans and policies.
The city is committed to developing a comprehensive, consistent, and culturally relevant plan that will
guide the City's decision -making and development through 2044. The Plan update is titled Everyone's
Edmonds to reflect our commitment to inclusivity and to elevating voices of underrepresented members
and organizations within our community.
Since the city completed its last periodic update in 2015, Edmonds was designated as a high -capacity
transit (HCT) community in PSRC's Vision 2050 regional growth strategy, which shifted expectations on
future growth.
According to the growth targets adopted by Snohomish County in 2021, Edmonds will need to
accommodate an additional 13,000 residents, 9,000 housing units, and 3,000 jobs by 2044. While
previous planning indicated a surplus capacity for population and employment until 2035, the current
planning foresees a deficit of approximately 4,000 residents and 500 jobs by 2044 based on existing
zoning. The city must plan for this additional growth as a part of this periodic update while meeting the
affordability, income, and density requirements of House Bills 1220, 1110, and 1337, which the state
legislature adopted in 2021 and 2023.
Staff Recommendation
This is an informational briefing for the Planning Board on potential growth alternatives. No action is
required but staff requests feedback on the alternatives.
Narrative
The city is developing growth alternatives to identify areas suitable for accommodating anticipated
growth to comply with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requirements for The Comprehensive
Plan's environmental impact statement (EIS). These alternatives show different ways that the city could
meet its forecasted population and employment growth. The EIS identifies environmental conditions,
potential impacts of the different growth alternatives, infrastructure investment needs, and measures to
reduce or mitigate any significant, unavoidable adverse environmental effects.
Packet Pg. 10
7.A
SEPA regulations require a "no action" alternative and a minimum of two reasonable alternatives with
actions that can feasibly attain or approximate a proposal's objectives. The alternatives must include
sufficiently detailed analysis to enable a comparative evaluation. Two growth alternatives have been
developed based on community input and staff analysis, taking into account state and county -
recommended methodologies. All three alternatives assume consistent growth with the 2044 Initial
Population, Housing, and Employment Growth Targets, developed and adopted by the County in
alignment with PSRC's VISION 2050.
The attached Existing Conditions Memo (Attachment 1) is a foundation for analysis, decision -making,
and planning. The memo includes preliminary findings from the community outreach events held
between September and December 2023, along with demographic, economic, and spatial data analysis.
Additionally, it highlights ongoing or new City initiatives relevant to the comprehensive plan, laying the
groundwork for the proposed growth alternatives.
The Land Use Capacity Analysis Memo (Attachment 2) outlines proposed methods and assumptions for
the forthcoming City of Edmonds' Land Capacity Analysis within the Everyone's Edmonds
Comprehensive Plan Update. This method aligns with the GMA targets for new jobs and housing, while
ensuring compliance with recently adopted state legislation (1110, 1337 and 1220).
The slides in Attachment 3 identify the draft high level growth alternatives developed to date.
Attachments:
Attachment 2 - Land Capacity Analysis Methodology
Packet Pg. 11
7.A.a
PERKINS -
EASTMAN
MEMO
McLaughlin, Susan <susan.mclaughlin@edmondswa.gov> Perkins Eastman
Architects DPC
ate
Project Name
2/8/2024
Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Update
Subject
Draft Land Capacity Analysis Methodology
From
Perkins Eastman
s.malu@p@perkinseastman.com
To
Susan McLaughlin
City of Edmonds, Planning & Development Director
susan.mclaughlin@edmondswa.gov
cc: Jeff Levy, Navyusha Pentakota, Todd Tatum
Attachments: None
This memo outlines the consultant team's proposed method and assumptions that will be used to
develop the City of Edmonds' Land Capacity Analysis' (LCA) for the Everyone Edmonds 2050
Comprehensive Plan Update.
The method responds to the GMA targets for new jobs and housing and assumes minimum compliance
with recently adopted Washington State legislation addressing the region's acute housing shortage:
• House Bill 1110 (Increasing middle housing in areas traditionally dedicated to single-family
residential detached housing)
• House Bill 1337 (Expanding housing options by easing barriers to the construction and use of
accessory dwelling units)
• House Bill 1220 (Supporting emergency shelters and housing through local planning and
development regulations.) This bill updates the housing goals of the Growth Management Act
to include planning for and accommodating affordable housing. It requires jurisdictions to
address moderate, low, very low, and extremely low-income housing in the housing element of
the comprehensive plan. It also requires jurisdictions to address racially disparate impacts and
displacement in the housing element of the comprehensive plan
Sections 1 and 2 of this Memo describe housing requirements. Employment targets are discussed in
section 3.
1 Washington State defines the LCA as "a comparison between the collective effects of all development
regulations operating on development and the assumed densities established in the land use element." The
LCA is how the city measures the number of housing and jobs that would be accommodated by a growth
alternative.
Packet Pg. 12
7.A.a
PERKI NS
EASTMAV
The Memo is organized as follows:
1.0 Growth Management -Context ................................................................................................2
1.1 City of Edmonds Housing Targets..........................................................................................3
2.0 Housing Capacity Calculations - Closingthe Gap..............................................................6
2. 1 Lower Density Residential Areas............................................................................................7
2.2 Low -Rise and Mid -rise Multi -family Areas..............................................................................8
3.0 Jobs Capacity Overview..............................................................................................................9
3.1 Jobs Capacity and Land Use..................................................................................................10
3.2 Jobs Capacity and Remote and Hybrid Work.....................................................................10
1.0 Growth Management - Context
The Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70a) was created to contain urban growth and encourage
sustainable development patterns. The stature growth is accommodated within the designated urban
growth boundary; the State assigns population and job targets to counties, which are assigned to cities.
Cities must plan for adequate capacity to meet these targets.
The Puget Sound Region is growing rapidly, and housingsupply has not kept pace with demand. This has
led to a housing affordability crisis, displacement, homelessness, and hardship for many. Historic
patterns of racial exclusion and inequity have also aggravated the crisis.Z,3 To address this, the WA state
legislature passed a suite of bills that togetherreduce obstaclesto housing production — with a renewed
focus on enabling the types of housing that tend to be more affordable.' These bills both modify the
GMA and work in tandem with it. Each city must provide their fair share of housing and jobs capacity to
meet the region'sgoal. Municipal Governments are now workingto understand how to apply these bills
to their Comprehensive Plan updates. HB 1220 substantially amends the housing -related provisions of
the Growth Management Act (GMA). It strengthened the GMA housing goal from "Encourage the
availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population" to "Plan for and
accommodate housing affordable to all economic segments of the population of this state."
It is also important to frame the context for growth. The Comprehensive Plan process is an opportunity
to tailor how and where growth occurs to maximize community benefit, foster economic development
and to increase quality of life. Tailored growth is critical to achieving the vision for Everyone's Edmonds
and the actions outlined in the Edmonds' Climate Action Plan. Additional investment in housing choices
and mixed land uses can make healthy lifestyles more feasible by bringing supporting services and
2 https://www.psrc.org/about-us/media-hub/new-report-shows-housing-region-continues-cost-too-
much
3 https://mrsc.org/explore-topics/planning/housing/affordable-housing-background
4 https://mrsc.org/stay-informed/mrsc-insight/july-2023/major-changes-to-washington-housing-laws
Packet Pg. 13
7.A.a
PERKI NS
EASTMAV
amenities closer to home and funding street, sidewalk, and park improvements to allow for walking and
biking. Growth is also critical foreconomic development, supporting a thriving arts scene and increasing
the number and health of local businesses. Additional tax revenue and impact fees can allow for more
significant investments in city services. By increasing housing choice and affordability, growth can foster
a more diverse and inclusive community. The Comprehensive Plan Goal is to distribute employment and
housing equitably.
In Edmonds, the City must consider applying this change to its ongoing assumptions about its existing
capacity and the affordability level of its housing types — particularly in its single-family residential land
use areas.
1.1 City of Edmonds Housing Targets
Snohomish County's HO-5 Report (adopted May 2023)5 relates to the City of Edmonds' housing targets
Edmonds has 19,000 housing units and a future land supply established in 2021 of 5,148 (see Figure 1).1
Future Land Supply
Status
Buildable
Acres
Single-
Family
Townhouses
Multi-
Family
Senior
Apartments
Total
Pending
17
49
15
561
0
625
Vacant
44
115
7
422
31
575
Partially Used
21
62
0
0
0
62
Redevelopable
231
-24
63
3,508
340
3,887
City
313
201
84
4,491
3711 5148
Figure 1. Source: The Housing Characteristics and Needs in
Snohomish County report 2023 (HO 5 Report)
In this planning cycle, to accommodate population growth, the City must increase its unit capacity by
3,921 for 9,069 housing units. These 9,069 units must be distributed according to the requirements and
affordability levels designated in HB 1220 (see Figure 2).
For each Snohomish County City, the HO-5 report provides a similar graph. Seven classifications are
expressed as a percentage of the median income a household would have to make for housing to be
affordable. Housing is considered "Affordable" when a family spends less than 30% of their income on
rent or a mortgage. The units of housing that Edmonds must plan at each classification's affordability
level are designated atthe top of the column. For more information, reference the HO-5 report, Section
4.
a Housing Characteristics and Needs in Snohomish County Report prepared pursuant to Countywide
Planning Policy HO-5 by The Planning Advisory Committee of Snohomish County Tomorrow May 2023
https://snohomishcountywa.gov/6039/Housing-Characteristics-and-Needs-Report
6 Snohomish County Buildable Lands Report (2021) see p. 9
httos://snohomishcountvwa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/84919/Letter-to-Dept-of-Commerce--Snohomish-
County-Buildable-Lands-Report?bid Id=
Packet Pg. 14
7.A.a
PERKI NS
EASTMAV
The Department of Commerce translates these housing classification levels into building types. The
Department of Commerce guidance also considers how these building types are impacted by the
underlying cost of land with separate tables for "moderate cost communities" and "higher cost
communities," helping to address disparities at the regional scale. The City of Edmonds falls into the
"higher cost community" category due to the high average sale price for a "Moderate Density unit"
(townhomes, duplex, triplex, quad) unit at> 120% AMI. Fifty of the most recent "Moderate Density" unit
sales in Edmonds average an estimated $720,000, with no sales below $590,000.7 According to the
Department of Commerce recommended Fannie Mae calculator, these sale prices would need to be
below $400,000 to correspond to a rent or mortgage payment considered affordable at <120% AMI.
Figure 3 describes housing types applicable to each income classification. The column titled "Zone
Category" definesthe housing type or categories. In contrast, the column titled "Assumed Affordability
Level for Capacity Analysis" describes the assumed affordability level of that housingtype to be used in a
City's capacity assessment. Note that two rows do not currently apply to Edmonds. Per HB 1110,
"Detached Single Family Homes;" in Edmonds are too populous to plan for this density level as a
maximum within its residential areas. The second is High-Rise/Tower because Edmonds highest building
height is 75' along Highway 99 (corresponding to Mid -Rise Multi -family).
Method C: 2020-2044 Housing Allocations by Income,
City of Edmonds (Apr-13-2023 PAC)
3 000
2.500
2000
1,500
1479
1000
500
142
126
0
0-30% Non-PSH
0-30% PSH
>30-50%
>So-so%
>80-100%
>100-120%
>120%
Percent Distribution:
21%
12%
1 27%
1 16%
22%
1 2% 1
1%
(of2010-2044 Change)
32%
Percent Distribution:
2%
1 0%
1 8%
1 18%
13%
1 20%
40%
(of 2020 Housing Stock)
2%
Figure 2. 2023 Housing Characteristics and Needs ReportAppendix G breaks down Edmonds' total
housing capacity requirement 9,069 by affordability classification. See:
7 Costs are sourced from townhomes sold in Edmonds between March 2022 and January 2024, Redfin
and realtors based in Edmonds with 47 data points. Metric is based on Department of Commerce
guidance to reference the rents orsale prices of newly developed homes. Although these costs relative
to area median income may decrease overthe 20-year horizon, this is considered by the Department of
Commerce to be outside the scope of a Land Capacity Analysis. Vouchers and other ways to subsidize
housing, although effectively increasing housing affordability, are also outside the scope of the Land
Capacity Analysis.
Packet Pg. 15
7.A.a
PERKI NS
EASTMAV
https.11snohomishcountywo. goy/DocumentCenter/View/108870/HO-5-Report--Combin ed-Appendices
page G-6.
Low Density
Detached single family homes
Higher income Not feasible at
Higher income (>120%
(>120%AMI) scale
AMI)
Moderate Density
Townhomes, duplex, triplex,
Higher income Not typically feasible
Higher income (>120 %
quadplex
(>120 % AMI) at scale*
AMI)
Low -Rise Multifamily
Walk-up apartments, condominiums
Moderate Extremely low, Very
income (>80- low, and Low-income
Low income (0-80%
(2-3-floors)
120 % AMI) (0-80 % AMI)
AMI) and PSH
Moderate Extremely low, Very
Low income (0-80%
Mid -Rise Multifamily
Apartments, condominiums
income (>80- low, and Low-income
AMI) and PSH
120%AMI) (0-80%AMI)
High-Rise/Tower
Apartments, condominiums
Higher income Moderate income
Moderate income
(>120%AMI) (>80-120%AMI)
(>80-120%AMI)
ADUs (all zones)
ADUs on developed residential lots
Moderate
income (>80- N/A
Moderate income
(>80-120 % AMI)
120% AMI)
Figure3. Department of Commerce Guidebook for Applying HB 1220 - Translating housing type to
affordability level (for high cost communities) see: https.11www.commerce.wa.gov/serving-
communitieslgrowth-mcinagementlgrowth-mancig men t-topics/planning-for-housing/upd atin q-gma-
housing-elements/
Edmonds' designation as a "high -cost community" impacts the required allocation for types of housing
units.
When matched to income brackets shown in Figure 2, the housing capacity Edmonds must plan for is:
• 6,814 units at the Low 0-80% AMI Income level - Low -Rise or Mid -Rise Multi -family, e.g. walk-up
apartment buildings — this is the largest category of need in Edmonds.
• 2,129 units at the Moderate <80-120%AMI Income level — these may be ADUs.
• 126 units at the High -Income level - these may be Moderate Density (duplex, quad, triplex)
Edmonds current supply comprises 5,148 units, of which 201 units are single-family detached, 84 units
are Moderate Density (e.g., duplex, triplex, quad), and 4,862 units are Low-rise or Mid -Rise Multi -family
(walk-up apartments), Note that ADUs were not assessed by the BLR.$
During the 2024 update cycle, the City of Edmonds must provide a net capacity change of the following
as shown in Figure 4:
• A net increase of at least 1,952 units in the low- or Mid -rise multi -family apartment category.
• A net increase of at least 2,129 ADUs, or that are in the Low-rise or Mid -rise multi -family
apartment category.
8 Buildable Lands Studies have not assessed the feasibility of ADUs, making this capacity that is
effectively unaccounted for. As the City'sgrowth targets reference and build from the County's BLS, the
Consultant team proposes to count all ADU capacity created through implementing HB 1337 legislation
toward the ADU target.
Packet Pg. 16
7.A.a
PERKI NS
EASTMAV
A net increase of at least 42 units that are Moderate density, ADUs, or in the Low-rise or Mid -
rise multi -family apartment category.
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
Low -Mid Rise Apmts,
Condos
■ Required Units
2129
126
ADUs
Existing Capacity (BLR)
Figure 4 Net capacity change by Housing type
2.0 Housing Capacity Calculations — Closing the Gap
Townhornes, Duplex,
Triplex, Quadplex
Units To be added*
There are two categories of land for which a net change in capacity will be calculated. The first is
Edmonds' single-family/low-density Residential land use areas making up much of the City's land area,
and the second is its denser multi -family and mixed -use land use areas.
Under HB 1110 and 1337, single-family residential/low-density Residential land use area capacity
assumptions must shift. Effectively, the State no longer allows one -family detached zoning. As such,
Edmonds' single-family residential/low-density residential land use areas may be assumed to have the
ability to (re)develop to any one of the following density scenarios:
• two additional ADUs in attached or detached configurations
• two units in any configuration
• four units in any configuration if one unit is affordable, i.e., rented or purchase price restricted
and limited to lower income tenants or purchasers
These (re)development scenarios are not additive (i.e., a parcel need not have a minimum entitlement
of two units in any configuration plus two ADUs). Rather, we assume each parcel has the potential to
(re)develop to the minimum provisions of each Bill, but at a "realistic level" of participation by applying
a) feasibility/market factors and b) a process that designates and screens out parcels unlikely to have
redevelopment potential. A reduction factor has been included to account for potential "double
counting" resulting from the interaction between the two calculation methods.
Packet Pg. 17
7.A.a
PERKI NS
EASTMAV
Findings' related to local land value, recent real estate transactions, and likelihood/thresholds for
(re)developmentguide assumptions aboutwhich and how many of each of the above (re)development
scenarios are applicable and can contribute to assumed capacity. The Comprehensive Plan Action
Alternatives and Draft Housing Element, now in process, will further modify these assumptions and the
City's policy approach to promote particular types of housing growth. A policy framework that identifies
and removes barriers to realizing the Land Capacity Analysis is also required per HB 1220.
HB 1110 also provides that four units in any configuration are allowable by right in a low -density
residential zone within a 1/4 mile of a defined "major transit stop." The City of Edmonds has two SWIFT
BRT Stops on Hwy 99 and a Sounder Rail Station that qualify. Edmonds Sounder Rail Station area
contains no parcels that would be affected, and the Hwy 99 stop area includes 70 parcels that would be
affected.
2. 1 Lower Density Residential Areas
Method and Assumptions for calculating a new capacity — ADUs:
1. Identify all single-family residential land use designated parcels.
2. Conduct Screening based on the Buildable Land Report (BLR) and Department of Commerce
Guidance:
o Remove environmentally critical areas (as designated in 2021 Snohomish County BLR).
o Remove publicly owned and tax-exempt parcels (as identified in BLR, such as schools,
parks, and churches).
3. Conduct high-level feasibility screening; remove parcels with less than 6,000 SF11 of buildable
area remaining after deducting environmentally critical areas.
4. Apply capacity of two (2) ADUs on remaining parcels (minimum allowed per HB 1337).
5. Reduce the capacity of resultant ADUs by 90% by applying the 10% maximum "participation
rate." The Department of Commerce has set this rate and accounts for feasibility considerations
not already captured by this method, as well as a reasonable upper limit of the ratio of property
owners who would be interested in redevelopment.
Method and Assumptions for calculating a new capacity assumption - Moderate Density (duplex,
triplex, quad) capacity:
1. Identify Single Family land use areas.
2. Conduct Screening based on BLR and Department of Commerce Guidance:
o Remove environmentally critical areas (as designated in 2021 Snohomish County BLR)
o Remove publicly owned and tax-exempt parcels (as identified in BLR, such as schools,
parks, and churches)
3. Conduct feasibility screening: Remove parcels with less than 4,000 SF of buildable area
9 Forum Placemaking (consultant) market research
10 Assumed effective lot area needed to add two ADUs to a parcel with an existing principal structure,
retaining reasonable lot coverage and tree retention restrictions. Lot area needed to add one ADU is
assumed to be within the margin of the participation rate, and how specific development regulations
would affect feasibility.
Packet Pg. 18
7.A.a
PERKI NS
EASTMAV
remaining"
4. Remove parcels with an existing land value exceeding $450,000.12
5. Apply capacity of two (2) units for each remaining parcel (e.g. duplex).
6. Subtract existing units.13
7. Reduce capacity by 5%14. This factor accounts for any unique interactions between site
conditions, market, and development regulations that hinder site feasibility.
2.2 Low -Rise and Mid-rise15 Multi -family Areas
The following outlines the method to calculate a net capacity change within existing Multi -family and
Mixed -Use areas. The method distinguishes between areas that are proposed for change in Action
Alternatives and Low-rise and Mid -Rise multi -family areas that will not be affected by Action
Alternatives.
The methodology follows these general steps:
• For parcels without change in a proposed land use alternative, apply capacity assumptions in the
BLR.
For parcels where a change is proposed, and there is already current capacity assumed in the
BLR, identify net capacity changes by removing existing capacity and adding "ideal proposed
capacity" building from market research related to the new land use designation (see tables 2
and 3 following). A "net capacity" change will count toward closing the capacity gap.
For parcels where a change is proposed and no current capacity is assumed in the BLR, confirm if
the change would make redevelopment feasible. If so, assume an "ideal proposed capacity." If
not, use the current BLR assumption of zero capacity.
Edmonds' Market Studies have been conducted to provide the following development feasibility
thresholds and yields associated with Low-rise and Mid -rise multi -family development. Figure 5 below
shows the assumed density yield associated with multi -family (re)development by building height.
Height limit can be used to approximate density yield on a D/U basis. Figure 6 shows assumed
thresholds forthe maximum parcel purchase price that could be feasibly re -developed to the associated
height.
Figure 5 — Assumed DU/Acre by
Height _
Floors DU/Ac.
"Assumed minimum area to achieve a redevelopment of the principal structure to duplex, accounting
for reasonable lot coverage and tree retention restrictions.
12 Parcels over $450,000 are screened from the capacity calculation. These parcels are assumed to be
beyond the threshold forfeasibility, e.g. land cost is too expensive to allow for redevelopment to duplex
per consultant economic research.
13 This step assumesthe ability to create a duplex by either removing an existing single-family home and
building a duplex or expanding or dividing an existing single-family home.
14 Consultant's professional judgment
15 Low-rise and Mid -rise classification for the Apartments and condos is an intensity classification, not
construction type.
Packet Pg. 19
7.A.a
PERKI NS
EASTMAV
3
36
4
70
5
109
6
140
(Source: Consultant Market Economic Research, Forum Placemaking).
Figure 6— Feasibility Threshold
Floors
$/SF
3
<$34
4
<$57
5
<$80
6
<$103
(Source: Consultant Market Economic Research, Forum Placemaking)
Low-rise and Mid -rise Multi -family Method and Assumptions:
1. Identify Eligible Land Use Areas:
o Currently, multi -family or mixed -use properties are being redesignated in away to
impact future capacity significantly.
o Land use area not currently designated multi-family/mixed-use, redesignated to an
eligible multi -family and mixed -use type.
2. Subtract capacity associated with proposed land use designation changes may reduce
development capacity from what is assumed by the BLR.
3. Conduct screening:
o Remove environmentally critical areas (as designated in 2021 Snohomish County BLR).
o Remove publicly owned and tax-exempt parcels (identified in BLR, not countable toward
capacity per BLR and Department of Commerce guidance).
4. For areas with development potential identified per the BLR, apply density yield assumptions
corresponding to the proposed height limit (Figure 5).
5. For areas designated as not re -developable per the BLR, apply a threshold test to confirm if the
parcel may become re -developable under the new designation (Figure 6). If it becomes re -
developable, apply density yield assumptions (Figure 5).
3.0 Jobs Capacity Overview
Edmonds must provide a total capacity of 3,058jobs. The Snohomish County Tomorrow steering
committee set the growth target and now exists in the Snohomish County Code. The city must provide
capacity to meet this target to comply with state growth management statutes. Per the Snohomish
County Buildable Lands Study, Edmonds has an existing capacity for 2,548jobs. Therefore, Edmonds
must show a net addition in capacity for 510 jobs for the 2024-2044 planning period.
A combination of two factors will meet this net new capacity. The first is calculating the change in
capacity associated with proposed land use changes. This is discussed in section 3.1. The second is
calculating the difference in capacity not associated with land use — that is, adequate capacity associated
with workingfrom home. This is discussed in section 3.2. Due to the large job capacity created this way,
land use policy decisions regarding employment (includingthe future land use map from which zoning
Packet Pg. 20
7.A.a
PERKI NS
EASTMAV
will be derived) will be driven by the city's economic development goals rather than meeting capacity
requirements.
The actual capacity change of a proposed future land use alternative will be calculated by combining the
net capacity change from future land use changes described in section 3.1 and the remote and hybrid
work strategy described in section 3.2.
3.1 Jobs Capacity and Land Use
The method for calculating job capacity, much like the method for calculating housing capacity, starts
with assumed capacity per the Buildable Lands Report (BLR). Then, for parcels where a change in future
land use is identified, a change in net jobs capacity is calculated for those parcels if they are considered
(re)developable. For more information on how a parcel is considered (re)developable and therefore
countable toward capacity, please see section 2.2 of this memo. Ground floor retail is assumed to
accommodate 10jobs per acre for capacity associated with low-rise and mid -rise re -development. This
figure is based on the yield of recent local mixed -use developments.
3.2 Jobs Capacity and Remote and Hybrid Work
Supporting work from home is a critical part of Edmonds' growth strategy, accomplishing multiple
objectives, including encouraging sustainable transportation, supporting local businesses, and growing
vibrant neighborhood centers. As local amenities and quality of life increase, a segment of Edmonds
residents will continue to choose hybrid and remote work in the coming decades.
There are twofactors that contribute to employment capacity created through remote work. The first is
employment capacity effectively created — and filled - by remote workers as new residents move to
Edmonds. The second is current work from home capacity that has not yet been accounted for in growth
planning.
The population of Edmonds is expected to grow by more than 13,000 between 2020 and 2044. Edmonds
labor participation rate is assumed to be 60%, similar to the current statewide average of 65% (It is
assumed to be lower due to the relatively large proportion of retirees). This implies that the number of
employed Edmonds residents is expected to grow by more than 7,800 over the next two decades.
Considering the current trends, many new residents will work from home.
Figure 8: Employment growth by demographic trends
Population growth, 2020-2044
13,113
Labor Participation Rate
60%
Growth in the number of employed Edmonds Residents, 2020-
2044
7,868
Source: Labor Participation Rate: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis,
https.Ilfred.stlouisfed. orq/seriesILBSNSA53
Packet Pg. 21
7.A.a
Work from home rates vary widely
across the country. Large metro
areas with high employment rates in
professional and technology fields,
such as Puget Sound, Portland, and
the San Francisco Bay Area, have
high rates of remote work. In
contrast, smaller cities and rural
areas have low rates of remote work.
Figure 9: Share of workers age 16-
Source: Economic Innovation Grou
- U.S. Census Bureau; https.Ileig.(
< 6.9%
>- 29.8%
PERKI NS
EASTMAV
6.9%-9.9% N 9.9%-13.2% N 13.2%-17.1% 0 17.1%-21.9% N 21.9%-28.8%
Snohomish County
(Southwest) --Edmonds,
Lynnwood & Mountlake
Terrace Cities PUMA;
Washington
L
C
In 2022, data from the American Community Survey (ACS) / U.S. Census Bureau indicated that 25.3% of
workers in the Edmonds area were working from home or working remotely. Assuming contingencies
and changes in trends, we assume that work from home rates in the future (2044) will be about 20%,
down from 25% today. According to the Economic Innovation Group, "[ACS] data shows remote work is
stable over the last year [2021 to 20221, and if anything, has increased slightly. There is no sign that
return -to -office is gaining steam on a national scale."
Packet Pg. 22
10.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 02/14/2024
Extended Agenda
Staff Lead: Michael Clugston
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Michael Clugston
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Discuss the attached extended agenda.
Narrative
Of note, based on discussions on the January 24 meeting, March 6 is tentatively scheduled for a special
meeting for the Planning Board retreat.
Attachments:
February 14 Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 23
10.A.a
Planning Board Extended Agenda - February 14, 2024
cn
Ql
vOi
I�
U
O
ci
U
O
Lfl
[V
>
O
z
I
00
O
Z
N
N
O
Z
Ql
N
Q)
0
M
.--I
Q)
0
I,
N
C
O
r-I
C
l0
.--I
C
-4
N
-4
.--I
00
rV
L
110
(o
M
.—I
(o
N
Q
.--I
Q
N
>
00
to
N
[V
C
N
.—I
C
lD
[V
O
.—I
-�t
N
�
.--I
Comprehensive Plan
Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement
D/R
D/R
Joint Discussion w/EDC on Comp Plan existing conditions
D/R
High Level Alternatives
D/R
Status Update
B
Joint Discussion w/EDC on Draft 3 Alternatives
I
I
I
I
D/R*
Status Update
B
B
B
Draft Preferred Plan and Policy
D/R
Status Update
B
B
B
B
Final Plan and Policy
D/R
Code Updates
Critical Aquifer Recharge
D/R
PH
D/R
Tree Code Update
D/R
Prop
D/R
Prop
Discuss
Subcommittee
Work
D/R
Detached Accessory Dwelling Units (HB 1337 - mid 2025)
1
D/R
D/R
PH
M
Green Building Incentives
I
D/R
PH
M
Climate Legislative Package
I
Land use permit timelines (SB 5290 - end 2024)
1
Design standards and processes (HB 1293 - mid 2025)
Middle Housing (HB 1110 - mid 2025)
Long Range
Capital Improvement Program/Capital Facilties Plan
I
PH
D/R
Tree Canopy Policy
I
D/R
Highway 99 Landmark Site
I
D/R
Administrative
Election of Officers
D/R
Annual Retreat
I
Special
Planning Board report to City Council
D/R
B
Parks, Recreation & Human Services Report
B^
B
KEY
I- Introduction & Discussion
PH- Public Hearing
D/R- Discussion/Recommendation (*Joint meeting w/EDC)
B- Briefing/Q&A
M - Recommendation Memo
R- Report with no briefing/presentation
Future Items
Neighborhood Center Plans
Code Modernization Projects:
1. Unified Development Code (late 2025)
Comp Plan Implementation
Highway 99 Community Renewal Program
Packet Pg. 24