2014-09-10 Planning Board PacketMEETING AGENDA
PLANNING BOARD
Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Avenue North
September 10, 2014
7:00 PM
1. Call to Order and Roll Call
2. Reading / Approval of Minutes: August 27, 2014
3. Announcement of Agenda
4. Audience Comments: (3 Minute Limit Per Person)*
*Regarding matters not listed on the Agenda as Closed Record Review or as Public Hearings
5. Development Services Director Report to Planning Board
6. Public Hearings: (Public participation is welcome)
7. Unfinished Business: (No public participation)
a. Continued Discussion of Comprehensive Plan Sustainability Element
8. New Business: (No public participation)
a. Discussion of Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Update
9• Administrative Reports: Review Extended Agenda
10. Planning Board Chair Comments:
11. Planning Board Member Comments:
12. Adjournment
PARKING AND MEETING ROOMS ARE ACCESSIBLE FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
(Contact the City Clerk at 771-0245 with 24 hours advance notice for special accommodations)
AI-7123
Planning Board Agenda
Meeting Date: 09/10/2014
Reading / Approval of Minutes: August 27, 2014
Department:
Initiated By:
Planning
Information
Subject/Purpose
Reading / Approval of Minutes: August 27, 2014
Staff Recommendation
It is recommended that the Planning Board review and approve the draft minutes.
Previous Board Action
N/A
Narrative
The draft minutes are attached.
Attachments
Draft PB minutes 8.27.14
2.
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
August 27, 2014
Chair Cloutier called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public
Safety Complex, 250 — 5t' Avenue North.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Todd Cloutier, Chair
Neil Tibbott, Vice Chair
Bill Ellis
Philip Lovell
Careen Rubenkonig
Valerie Stewart
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Daniel Robles (excused)
READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES
STAFF PRESENT
Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager
Shane Holt, Development Services Director
Karin Noyes, Recorder
BOARD MEMBER LOVELL MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 13, 2014 BE APPROVED AS
AMENDED. VICE CHAIR TIBBOTT SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
No one in the audience indicated a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR'S REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD
Ms. Hope referred the Board to her written report, which provides an update on implementation of the Strategic Action Plan,
Citizen's Tree Board open house, 2014 Comprehensive Plan amendments, Westgate Zoning Code amendment process, coal
and oil train issues, and the most recent meetings of the Citizen Economic Development Commission, Highway 99 Task
Force, and Historic Preservation Commission. The report also provides a calendar of upcoming community events.
Board Member Lovell said that, as a member of the Strategic Action Plan Advisory Committee, he was not aware that the
group met twice in September. Ms. Hope explained that a second meeting was held in August in lieu of a meeting in
September. The meeting was scheduled on short notice, and she apologized that Board Member Lovell was not notified.
Vice Chair Tibbott announced that the Artist Studio Tour is scheduled for September 20"' and 21". He said he and his wife
participated in the 2013 tour and found it to be one of the best events they have attended in Edmonds. Mr. Chave noted that
flyers have been posted around Edmonds, and there is also a website for the event, as well.
DISCUSSION ON PLANNING BOARD REPORT TO COUNCIL ON SEPTEMBER 16TH
There was some discussion about whether or not the date of the report could be changed. Mr. Chave said the report could be
changed to an alternate date, but the Board should keep in mind that the City Council's agenda is very full right now.
The Board had a brief discussion about who would write and present the report, as well as the content of the report. Chair
Cloutier suggested that the report could simply follow up on the priorities identified in the joint meeting with the City
Council. It could outline the Board's extended agenda and identify what has been accomplished and what the Board is
currently working on. Board Member Stewart observed that, although preparing the report can be time consuming, it is
helpful to the general public to highlight what the Board has accomplished over a series of months so they can better
understand the process and the outcome of the Board's work. Board Member Lovell added that, in addition to the public
benefits, the report also offers an opportunity for the Board to reemphasize the recommendations they have sent forward to
the City Council. This would be particularly important since the City Council does not seem to be acting responsibly or
thoroughly as yet on the Board's recommendations related to the Westgate Plan, zoning changes on Highway 99, and
amendments to the definition of "legal lot."
Vice Chair Tibbott said he would be available to present the report to the City Council on September 16, but he would like
some guidance as to the report's contents. The Board agreed that the report should provide an update of what the Board has
accomplished over the last six months, particularly noting the significant recommendations that have been forwarded to the
City Council. The report should also outline the Board's extended agenda for the next three months. Chair Cloutier agreed
to work with Vice Chair Tibbott to prepare the written report.
PRIORITIES FOR DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE
Ms. Hope reviewed that the Board has had a number of discussions about the Development Code update, including a retreat
where the topic was given special consideration. At the retreat, the Board concurred that an open public process would be
critical. They also agreed on seven key principles and seven key objectives to guide the Development Code update (See
Exhibit 1).
Principles
Consistency with current state laws
Consistency with Edmonds Comprehensive Plan
Predictability
Some flexibility
Recognition of property rights
Clear, user-friendly language and format
Enforceability
Key Objectives
Ensuring reasonable and clear processes for all actions
Providing expanded and up-to-date set of definitions
Encouraging appropriate development
Protecting of critical areas and shorelines
Recognizing diverse neighborhoods and their characteristics
Encouraging pedestrian -friendly and bicycle -friendly access
Encouraging low -impact stormwater management
Ms. Hope explained that because the Development Code is complex and consists of numerous chapters, the update cannot be
tackled at once. The purpose of tonight's meeting is to discuss and make recommendations about priorities for the update.
She provided the following prioritization option to start the Board's discussion:
1. Focus on any changes needed to be consistent with state laws.
2. Focus on existing sections or chapters that have been especially problematic due to unclear language or processes.
3. Focus on sections or chapters that can be improved or added to better fit the Comprehensive Plan's goals and objectives.
4. Focus on housekeeping issues —such as duplications or minor inconsistencies —and reorganize chapters in a logical
order.
Board Member Lovell said it is his understanding that the City will hire a temporary consultant to assist with the
Development Code update. Ms. Hope said a consultant would be hired, but the City must provide clear direction to guide
Planning Board Minutes
August 27, 2014 Page 2
his/her work. Board Member Lovell suggested that the best place to start would be to harness the staff s experience in
dealing with the code on a day-to-day basis. Ms. Hope agreed and said staff is currently working to prepare a list of potential
amendments.
Board Member Lovell reminded the Board that the Comprehensive Plan is the City's visioning tool, and the Development
Code should be one of the vehicles that implements the goals and objectives called out in the Comprehensive Plan. He
questioned if it would be more appropriate to complete the Comprehensive Plan update prior to commencing the
Development Code update. Ms. Hope answered that updating the Development Code has been identified as a high priority
for the City, and state law requires that the Comprehensive Plan be updated, as well. At this time, the City is proceeding with
both updates, recognizing that some of the work will overlap. If after the Comprehensive Plan is updated there are things that
further inform the Development Code update, they can address those issues, too.
Ms. Hope also reviewed a list of high priority topics that was created based on staff input, as well as recent Planning Board
discussions. She emphasized that these are not the only topics that will be covered, but they are the ones that stand out as
needing particular attention. She reviewed the list as follows:
Critical Areas
Tree Code
Variance Process
Non Conformance
Bond Requirements
Planned Residential Developments
Code Enforcement
Property Performance Standards
Noise Abatement
Subdivisions
Signs
Permit and Approval Process
Comp Plan Amendment Process
Zoning Code Amendment Process
Administrative Procedures
Board/Commission Procedures
Ms. Hope explained that the intent is to use a phased approach for updating the Development Code. She reviewed the phases
and their timeline as follows:
1. Attorney Review. (early 2014)
2. Review needs based on the new Development Services Director's observations. (September 2014)
3. Additional input on Code update issues. (September 2014)
4. Seek consultant help in drafting the code update for the priority topics. (Fall 2014)
5. Carry forward existing approved budget for code update into 2015. (Fall 2014)
6. Solicit public comments on initial and final draft code chapters. (Spring through Fall 2015)
7. Planning Board Recommendations. (Fall and Winter 2015)
8. City Council consideration and final action. (Fall and Winter 2015)
9. Consider other Development Code Updates. (2016)
Ms. Hope invited the Board Members to provide feedback, not only on the key principles and objectives, but the
prioritization criteria and list of high priority topics.
Chair Cloutier commented that breaking the Development Code update into smaller pieces helps the Board digest the tasks
better, and providing background work will help them stay on track. He expressed his belief that the process and priority
topics identified by staff capture all of the elements the Board has asked for and more.
Vice Chair Tibbott asked if the process would also include hyperlinks so that the Development Code becomes a moveable
digital document as opposed to a hard copy that is difficult to update. Ms. Hope advised that the current code is already
available in digital format, and hyperlinks are provided to other sections of the code. However, the update will allow the City
to provide more sophisticated technology. Mr. Chave explained that, until last year, the City's Development Code was
hosted by the Municipal Research and Services Center, but it is currently hosted by the Code Publishing Company. This
change resulted in immediate improvements. For example, it is easier to navigate the code and create PDF and other
printable documents. The City is just starting to take advantage of the on-line capabilities that are available but haven't been
used, and this will continue after the update is finished. It will be a key item that is not costly or time consuming. He said
that the City has recognized that, by and large, they no longer issue printed codes. Most people access the City's code on line
because it is the most up-to-date version. Rather than waiting for quarterly updates to the printed version, the on-line version
is updated as soon as an ordinance is adopted.
Planning Board Minutes
August 27, 2014 Page 3
Board Member Stewart said she supports the City's efforts to utilize digital technology, and she would love for the City to
eliminate paper copies altogether. She said it would also be helpful for staff to provide an electronic version of the code on
the screen during Planning Board meetings, and providing hyperlinks to other related sections of the code will save a
significant amount of time. Mr. Chave said that staff primarily uses the digital version of the code now.
Vice Chair Tibbott asked staff to share how having an up-to-date digital code that is available to the public on line will help
with code enforcement. Ms. Hope said she does not know if there is any evidence or case study to indicate improved
enforcement. However, a lot of people use the digital code. In addition to the digital code, another on-line feature the
Development Services Department utilizes a lot is the request line where people can email questions and staff responds
electronically. Mr. Chave added that since the City's website was updated, there have been a lot more internet-generated
questions. If people need more information, they can be routed to the appropriate department. Mr. Chave suggested that
improving code enforcement many not be the right way to think about the update. It is more about information flow. To the
extent people can better access the codes on line and they are easier to follow and understand, people will become less
frustrated. However, there will always be a cadre of people who resist permitting and that will not likely change.
Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that some of the proposed amendments could be presented to the Planning Board via a
consent agenda. If the Board wants more information, they could be pulled from the consent agenda for additional
discussion. Chair Cloutier said the Planning Board has not traditionally utilized a consent agenda. Amendments are typically
presented to the Board in groups. Some of the items will require extensive discussion, and some will not. However, the
Board will conduct a public hearing and make a recommendation on the entire package of amendments.
The Board indicated support for the list of priorities and the process outlined by staff.
]�/�1:3,�/I�►i.+l�l�[K�]uM�:7�l.l�l��y►�/��1I:\�[.YIb�III�I►/:�:3111YIM•/�M11�Iu1�1►Y1
Mr. Chave referred the Board to the existing Sustainability Element, which was attached to the Staff Report. He advised that
a recent analysis of the element by staff, using a checklist from the State, did not reveal the need to make any changes in
order to be consistent with the Growth Management Act (GMA) or other state laws. In addition, this element does not
contain any data that needs to be replaced with newer data. However, the Board could discuss minor adjustments to the
element, particularly adding a "performance measure" and one or more time -based "action items" as a special section to the
element. He cautioned that it will be important to be fairly choosey about the action items because they will inform the
agenda for the next few years, as some will require a significant amount of work.
Chair Cloutier recalled that over the past year, the Board has reviewed a number of proposals related to the shoreline (i.e.
Shoreline Master Program and Harbor Square Master Plan). This included land use discussions for properties that could
potentially be in a threatened zone. He suggested it would be appropriate to update the Sustainability Element to clarify
where the lines of concern should be related to sea level rise. Mr. Chave responded that some of this risk assessment could
be covered in the City's emergency plan, which does not currently address the evolving climate and issues related to rising
sea level. He said it might be appropriate to update the emergency plan to make sure that information related to storm events
and severity are adequately addressed.
Board Member Ellis pointed out that climate change and rising sea levels have statewide implications. He asked what the
State has done to identify and address these issues. Mr. Chave answered that a number of reports have been done at various
times. The issue is particularly difficult given that each location within the state has unique characteristics and a one -size -
fits -all approach will not adequately address all situations. A significant amount of data has come out over the past few
years. While it continues to evolve, it can provide a good idea of what could happen.
Board Member Ellis asked if a particular state agency has been tasked with addressing this issue on a statewide basis. Mr.
Chave answered that there have been a variety of projects sponsored by the University of Washington, the Washington State
Department of Ecology (DOE), etc. Each group issues its own report at different points in time, and information in one
report can become outdated by a later report. The efforts are beginning to coalesce, and the reports tend to focus on the two
most likely scenarios for comparison purposes. This allows the work to be fairly consistent to provide benchmarks that will
help local jurisdictions address the issue appropriately.
Planning Board Minutes
August 27, 2014 Page 4
Mr. Chave summarized that it is important to update the Sustainability Element to acknowledge what has been done to date,
such as adoption of the Strategic Action Plan. Although staff does not foresee any significant changes in the goals and
policies discussed in the element, it would be appropriate to identify at least one "performance measure," as well as specific
action items that will begin to set priorities.
Board Member Stewart suggested that the Mayors Climate Action Committee be invited to review and comment on the
Sustainability Element at their meeting in early September. She plans to attend the committee meeting and could report their
findings to the Board.
Board Member Stewart reported that she has participated in a series of courses, some of which relate to the topic of sea level
rise. There is data available specific to each segment of the shoreline, which reflects the range of potential sea level rise. It
boils down to an overlay that illustrates the buildings and lands that could be impacted by rising sea levels. Mr. Chave said
there is also an interactive website that provides similar information. Chair Cloutier summarized that the idea is to
implement a range of scenarios to build policy. It was noted that various groups are working on this effort.
Board Member Lovell said that although there are several inferences and/or references to the concept of economic
sustainability for the City in the Sustainability Element, he felt the language could be strengthened. He expressed concern
about the direction that has been taken over the past five or six year, both politically and in the public arena, regarding what it
takes to run a successful City. The City Council has struggled for a number of years to achieve a budget that recognizes what
everyone believes to be the stature of the City related to conditions, and there is an information and awareness gap between
the greater citizenry of the City about increased taxes. Sooner or later the City Council and citizens must recognize that taxes
will have to go up if they want the City to stay the way it is. Mr. Chave suggested that economic sustainability would be
better addressed in the Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan, which has not been updated for a
number of years. While updating the Economic Development Element has been identified as a City priority, he is not sure of
the timeline.
Board Member Stewart said she would like to propose some changes to the language in the Sustainability Element, most of
which relate to the "Environmental" and "Community Health" sections. In particularly, she would like to integrate language
from the National Physical Activity Plan related to transportation, land use and community design. In addition, she would
like to incorporate elements of the Washington State Nutrition and Physical Activity Plan. She said she will also propose
other changes that she felt would strengthen the goals called out in both the "Environmental" and "Community Health"
sections. Chair Cloutier encouraged Board Member Stewart to submit her proposed changes to staff so they could become
part of the Board's next discussion regarding the Sustainability Element.
Board Member Lovell pointed out that numerous statements in the Sustainability Element use the word "shall," which means
"should" or "maybe." Mr. Chave explained that the Comprehensive Plan is intended to be aspirational, and the Development
Code lays out all of the requirements. It is very difficult to put directive "shalls" in a planning document when there are
many different ways of implementing goals.
Board Member Lovell reminded the Board of staff's recommendation that at least one "performance measure" should be
identified for each element of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Chave indicated that staff would have some recommendations
for the Board to consider as part of their next discussion. Chair Cloutier referred to the Performance Measure Matrix the
Board previously prepared and reminded them that there is already a performance measure in place to track green house
gases. It is simple to do, and the Mayor's Climate Action Committee already started informally tracking citywide electricity,
natural gas, and water consumption.
:7�►�/I�►�.'L�J1��►:/1Y�►11]�17:Tli�CI17:1
Chair Cloutier reviewed that the Board's September 10"' agenda will include a discussion of the Housing Element and
continued discussion of the Sustainability Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The September 24th agenda will include a
presentation on the status of development projects and activities, continued discussion of the Housing Element, and a public
hearing on proposed updates to the Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Improvement Program Elements of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Planning Board Minutes
August 27, 2014 Page 5
Mr. Chave advised that Nick Echelbarger provided a very informative presentation on the Salish Crossing Project at the last
Citizens Economic Development Commission meeting. He also noted that the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services
Department is scheduled to provide a quarterly report on either October 8th or November 12th.
Board Member Lovell requested an update on the Five Corners planning effort. Mr. Chave advised that what the City
Council decides related to the Westgate Plan will have a good deal of influence on the Five Corners Plan. He reported that
the paving portion of the Five Corners Roundabout is scheduled to be completed during the seconded week in September,
and citizens will begin to see how the project will end up. Board Member Ellis noted that a timeline for the project is
available on the City's website.
191I1►I►I I► Iei:i17.1;71Z41I /1 I tX4113u I 10IeI I[:
Chair Cloutier did not provide any comments during this portion of the meeting.
PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
Board Member Lovell announced that Northwest Sustainable Energy for Economic Development (Northwest SEED) will
conduct another workshop on September 13th in the Brackett Room of City Hall regarding the Solarize South County
Program, which is designed to help single-family homeowners and small businesses purchase solar equipment via a
streamlined process and group discount. He briefly reviewed the benefits offered by the program and noted that
myedmondsnews.com recently published an article by Edmonds Citizen Darrell Haug, providing a personal testimonial about
the solar equipment that was recently installed on his home via the program.
Board Member Lovell thanked Board Members Rubenkonig and Robles for volunteering to fill in for him at the August 20th
Citizens Economic Development Commission (CEDC) Meeting, which he was unable to attend because he was attending the
last workshop sponsored by Northwest Sustainable Energy for Economic Development (Northwest SEED). He asked how he
could obtain a copy of the presentation that was made regarding the Salish Crossing Project. Mr. Chave suggested he contact
a member of the CEDC.
Vice Chair Tibbott said his recent visit to Highway 99 raised the following questions for the Board to consider as part of their
next discussion on potential code amendments related to Highway 99:
• Can the City do something about chain link fences along the sidewalks that front Highway 99?
• Can the City do something to improve signage and reduce clutter by limiting the type and amount allowed?
• Can the City do something to improve landscaping, particularly on the occupied properties that are being neglected?
Board Member Stewart shared her plans for a project she is doing for a class that is sponsored by the Puget Sound
Partnership (PSP) and funded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The project is titled "The Future of Salmon in
Edmonds and the Role of Policy and Regulation." The goal is to organize and empower a local high school Student
Leadership Team for Salmon Recovery in Edmonds. The project will last approximately one year, and the first thing she will
do is set up a tour with Keeley O'Connell of EarthCorps and Friends of the Edmonds Marsh. Members of the City Council,
Planning Board and Mayors Climate Action Committee will be invited to participate. The tour is intended to help decision
makers understand the importance of protecting and restoring the shoreline and near shore environment.
Board Member Rubenkonig reported that she and Board Member Robles attended the August 20"' CEDC Meeting on behalf
of Board Member Lovell. The City's former Economic Development Director, Stephen Clifton, was in attendance to hear
the presentation regarding the Salish Crossing Project, which is the culmination of two years of work with the City staff and
the property owner, Nick Echelbarger. It was very interesting to hear people's perspective of the project and how they see
Edmonds in the future. She reviewed a written report of the meeting that was prepared by Board Member Robles and
highlighted the following:
• Nick Echelbarger made a presentation on the Salish Crossing Redevelopment Project, which will transform the
existing development into a private museum featuring Pacific Northwest art from the early 1900's to 1962. The
Planning Board Minutes
August 27, 2014 Page 6
project will also include a restaurant, distillery and specialty shops. There was broad support for the project, and
Board Members were encouraged to obtain a copy of the presentation and review the major points of the project.
• The Commission discussed a project to maximize tourism. While it is an interesting concept, they are having a
difficult time defining "tourism." It was noted that "tourism," as counted by City tax revenues, currently contributes
about $250,000 while automobile dealers contribute $1 million. The Board should follow this subject, as it speaks
to the issue of identifying performance measures. It is argued that the benefits run deeper and are worth more than
what is being measured.
• The Development Services Director discussed the 2015 Comprehensive Plan update. She emphasized the need to
stick to business and not get caught up in wordsmithing, and she also stressed the importance of looking beyond 20
years from now.
• The Economic Development Director provided an update on the Strategic Action Plan implementation, noting that
the Strategic Action Plan Advisory Committee is currently discussing ways of getting community input.
• The Commission received an update from the Highway 99 Task Force, which is proposing a planned action study to
put a more specific plan in place to specify streetscape and perform environmental reviews. The Task force is also
working to coordinate with Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood and Shoreline.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:27 p.m.
Planning Board Minutes
August 27, 2014 Page 7
AI-7133
Planning Board Agenda
Meeting Date: 09/10/2014
Development Services Director Report to Planning Board
Staff Lead/Author: Shane Hope
Department: Planning
Initiated By:
Information
Subject/Purpose
Development Services Director Report to Planning Board
Staff Recommendation
Please review attached report
Previous Board Action
N/A
Narrative
Report is attached.
Attachments
Director Report 9.10.14
5.
DIRECTOR REPORT
September 10, 2014
To: Planning Board
From: Shane Hope, Development Services Director and
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Subject: Director/Planning Manager Report
Shoreline Master Program
Updating the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) has been a project that has spanned
at least two years. Last year, the Planning Board made its recommendation on a
draft SMP to the City Council. Subsequently, the City Council considered the Board's
recommendation, along with other information, and asked for certain changes to the
draft. A revised draft, reflecting the Council's requested changes, was prepared and
then presented at the City Council's September 2 meeting. A public hearing on the
draft SMP and potential action by the City Council is scheduled for September 16.
After the City Council approves the SMP, it will be sent to the state Department of
Ecology. Ecology may approve, deny, or request changes to the SMP. Once
approved, it goes back to the City for final action —which would include the City
Council adopting the SMP by reference, along with an ordinance to implement the
regulatory portions of the SMP.
Highway 99 Area Zoning Amendment
The City Council's September 16 meeting will include a public hearing and possible
action on the proposed zoning amendment that was recommended by the Planning
Board for the Highway 99 area.
Legal Lot Zoning Amendment
A proposal to amend the zoning code to define "lot of record" and describe the
criteria for determining an "innocent purchaser" —as recommended by the Planning
Board —will be considered at a City Council public hearing on September 16.
Sunset Avenue Walkway
Before deciding on more permanent design and construction, an initial layout of a
new walkway area will be painted along Sunset Avenue where people currently
walk and sit to view the water and shoreline. Some changes to the parking space
configuration will be included. The temporary design (approximately, for two
years) will allow Public Works staff to get a better handle on the design issues and
report to the City Council on how well it works or what changes should be
considered.
5 Corners Roundabout
The round -about at "5 Corners" has been completed for functional purposes. It
seems to be working well! Artwork and lighting will be added in the near future,
per the approved design.
2015 Comprehensive Plan Update
For the 2015 Comprehensive Plan update, the City Council will be reviewing the
draft update of each element after it has been reviewed by the Planning Board.
Then the full set up updates will be considered by the Planning Board and the City
Council and will include a public hearing process. The first update to be considered
by the City Council will be on September 23 for the Sustainability Element. Each
element update must be considered on a fairly fast track in order to be completed by
mid-2015, the state deadline.
Westgate Zoning Code Proposal
The Westgate zoning code proposal, consistent with the Planning Board's
recommendation, remains under the City Council's consideration. The next Council
discussion of this topic is at the September 23 meeting.
City Council Meeting Format
The City Council voted on September 2 to change its meeting format to include
alternating study sessions and business meetings. Thus, one Tuesday would be a
study session (where voting is generally not needed) and the next a business
meeting (where voting may occur). All meetings would be open to the public. With
this format, committee meetings do not appear needed. Rather, the whole Council
can hear information on issues at the same time.
Community Calendar
Upcoming community events include:
❑ Sept. 11: Mayor's Highway 99 Town Hall Meeting @ Community Health
Center (23320 Hwy 99), 6:30 to 8:30 pm (see http://www.edmondswa.go
❑ Sept. 18: (and every third Thursday): Art Walk in downtown Edmonds, 5:00
to 8:00 pm
❑ Oct. 1 - 15 (Registration): Edmonds Museum second annual Scarecrow
Festival (see: http://www.historicedmonds.org/
❑ Oct. 25: Edmonds Street Scramble: For families, friends, runners, cyclists and
walking enthusiasts! With a special map as your guide, find as many
checkpoints as you can before time runs out! Registrations now open! (see
https://secure.getmeregistered.com/get information.php?event id=11685
AI-7124
Planning Board Agenda
Meeting Date: 09/10/2014
Continued Discussion of Comprehensive Plan Sustainability Element
Staff Lead/Author: Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Department:
Initiated By:
Planning
City Staff
Information
Subject/Purpose
Continued Discussion of Comprehensive Plan Sustainability Element
Staff Recommendation
Provide direction to staff for completion of the draft element.
Previous Board Action
Discussion on this item occurred during the two previous Board meetings in August.
Narrative
Attached is a draft updated version of the Sustainability Element.
7. a.
Staff has inserted a new section at the end of the element (page 34) which incorporates an action and performance
measure. Note that this is not an exclusive list; the City can decide to take other actions or track other performance
measures in addition to these.
Also included in the draft are a number of edits from Valerie Stewart, with some staff suggestions on how these
could be integrated.
Attachments
Attachment 1: Draft Updated Sustainability Element for discussion
Community Sustainability Element
Background: Climate Change, Community Health,
and Environmental Quality
Introduction. A relatively recent term, "sustainability" has many definitions. A commonly cited
definition is one put forward by the Brundtland Commission' in a report of the World Commission
on Environment and Development (December 11, 1987). The Commission defined sustainable
development as development that "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their own needs." Not focused solely on environmental sustainability,
the Commission's report emphasized the inter -related nature of environmental, economic, and social
factors in sustainability. One of the keys to success in sustainability is recognizing that decision -
making must be based on an integration of economic with environmental and social factors.
The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan contains a number of different elements, some mandated
by the Growth Management Act, and others included because they are important to the Edmonds
community. A requirement of the Growth Management Act is that the various comprehensive plan
elements be consistent with one another. This Community Sustainability Element is intended to
provide a framework tying the other plan elements together, illustrating how the overall plan
direction supports sustainability within the Edmonds community. A key aspect of this approach is
also to provide more direct linkages between long term planning and shorter -term strategic planning
and policy review which guide the use of city resources and programs, especially budgeting. For
example, a new emphasis on life cycle efficiency may take precedence over simple least -cost
analytical methods.
The City of Edmonds is gifted with unique environmental assets, such as the shoreline on Puget
Sound, urban forests, diverse streams and wetlands, Lake Ballinger and a range of parks and open
spaces. In addition, the city has the benefit of an established, walkable downtown served by transit, a
framework of neighborhood commercial centers providing local access to business services, and the
potential to see significant economic development in the Highway 99 activity center. Recently, the
City has also experienced the beginnings of new economic initiatives, such as a new fiber-optic
infrastructure and locally -based businesses and organizations supporting local sustainability and
greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction approaches. Combined with local government initiatives, such as
the Mayor's Citizens Committee on U.S. Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement and a series of
resolutions adopted by the Edmonds City Council, there is a growing recognition and harnessing of
the power of citizen knowledge to encourage and support changes in City policies and operations
which are making the City a leader in environmental stewardship.
Given this combination of assets and knowledge, the City of Edmonds has a compelling
responsibility to utilize these capabilities to address the challenges of climate change, community
health and environmental quality.
18 Community Sustainability
Sustainability Framework
This section describes the general goals and principles underlying the City's approach to community
sustainability. Three important guiding principles central to a successful approach are:
• Flexible — In an environment where what we understand and can predict is still developing
and will be uncertain for some time to come, providing ways to monitor, assess, adapt, and to
be flexible in our responses will be critical. Climate change is but one example; the
uncertainties acknowledged in that subject area should be instructive in helping us
understand that a flexible approach is necessary when addressing all areas of sustainability.
Holistic — The components of sustainability — in terms of both its inputs and outputs —are
complex and synergistic. No single action will result in a sustainable result, and sustainable
initiatives taken in one area don't necessarily lead to sustainability in another. For example,
sustainable land use practices don't necessarily result in a sustainable transportation or health
system. A holistic approach is required that includes all levels of governance and
encompasses planning, funding, evaluation, monitoring, and implementation.
• Long-term — Focusing on short-term, expedient solutions will only make actions necessary
to support sustainability more difficult to take in the future. For example, in the areas of
environmental issues and climate change, deferred action now will only make the cumulative
effects more difficult to resolve in the future. The familiar GMA-based 20-year planning
timeframe will not be sufficient — planning for sustainability must take an even longer view.
Sustainability Goal A. Develop land use policies, programs, and regulations designed to support
and promote sustainability. Encourage a mix and location of land uses designed to increase
accessibility of Edmonds residents to services, recreation, jobs, and housing.
A.1 Adopt a system of codes, standards and incentives to promote development that
achieves growth management goals while maintaining Edmonds' community
character and charm in a sustainable way. Holistic solutions should be developed
that employ such techniques as Low Impact Development (LID), transit -oriented
development, "complete streets" that support multiple modes of travel, and other
techniques to assure that future development and redevelopment enhances
Edmonds' character and charm for future generations to enjoy.
A.2 Include urban form and design as critical components of sustainable land use
planning. New tools, such as form -based zoning and context -sensitive design
standards should be used to support a flexible land use system which seeks to
provide accessible, compatible and synergistic land use patterns which encourage
economic and social interaction while retaining privacy and a unique community
character.
A.3 Integrate land use plans and implementation tools with transportation, housing,
cultural and recreational, and economic development planning so as to form a
cohesive and mutually -supporting whole.
Community Sustainability 19
A.4 Use both long-term and strategic planning tools to tie short term actions and land
use decisions to long-term sustainability goals. City land use policies and decision
criteria should reflect and support sustainability goals and priorities.
Sustainability Goal B. Develop transportation policies, programs, and regulations designed to
support and promote sustainability. Take actions to reduce the use of fuel and energy in
transportation, and encourage various modes of transportation that reduce reliance on
automobiles and are supported by transportation facilities and accessibility throughout the
community.
B.1 Undertake a multi -modal approach to transportation planning that promotes an
integrated system of auto, transit, biking, walking and other forms of transportation
designed to effectively support mobility and access.
B.2 Actively work with transit providers to maximize and promote transit opportunities
within the Edmonds community while providing links to other communities both
within and outside the region.
B.3 Explore and support the use of alternative fuels and transportation operations that
reduce GHG emissions.
BA When undertaking transportation planning and service decisions, evaluate and
encourage land use patterns and policies that support a sustainable transportation
system.
B.5 Strategically plan and budget for transportation priorities that balances ongoing
facility and service needs with long-term improvements that support a sustainable,
multi -modal transportation system.
B.6 Strategically design transportation options — including bike routes, pedestrian trails
and other non -motorized solutions — to support and anticipate land use and
economic development priorities.
Sustainability Goal C. Promote seamless transportation linkages between the Edmonds
community and the rest of the Puget Sound region.
C.1 Take an active role in supporting and advocating regional solutions to
transportation and land use challenges.
C.2 Local transportation options should be designed to be coordinated with and
support inter -city and regional transportation programs and solutions.
C.3 Advocate for local priorities and connections and the promotion of system -wide
flexibility and ease of use in regional transportation decisions.
Sustainability Goal D. Develop utility policies, programs, and maintenance measures designed
to support and promote sustainability. Maintain existing utility systems while seeking to expand
the use of alternative energy and sustainable maintenance and building practices in city facilities.
20 Community Sustainability
DA Balance and prioritize strategic and short-term priorities for maintenance and
ongoing infrastructure needs with long-term economic development and
sustainability goals.
D.2 Strategically program utility and infrastructure improvements to support and
anticipate land use and economic development priorities.
D.3 Explore and employ alternative systems and techniques, such as life -cycle cost
analysis, designed to maximize investments, minimize waste, and/or reduce
ongoing maintenance and facilities costs.
DA Include sustainability considerations, such as environmental impact green
infrastructure (emphasizing natural systems and processes), and GHG reduction, in
the design and maintenance of facilities and infrastructure.
Sustainability Goal E. Develop economic development policies and programs designed to
support and promote sustainability. Encourage the co -location of jobs with housing in the
community, seeking to expand residents' ability to work in close proximity to their homes.
Encourage and support infrastructure initiatives and land use policies that encourage and support
home -based work and business activities that supplement traditional business and employment
concentrations.
E.1 Economic development should support and encourage the expansion of locally -
based business and employment opportunities.
E.2 Land use policies and implementation tools should be designed to provide for
mixed use development and local access to jobs, housing, and services.
E.3 Regulatory and economic initiatives should emphasize flexibility and the ability to
anticipate and meet evolving employment, technological, and economic patterns.
EA Land use and regulatory schemes should be designed to encourage and support the
ability of local residents to work, shop, and obtain services locally.
E.5 Land use and economic development programs should provide for appropriate
scale and design integration of economic activities with neighborhoods while
promoting patterns that provide accessibility and efficient transportation options.
Sustainability Goal F. Develop cultural and recreational programs designed to support and
promote sustainability. Networks of parks, walkways, public art and cultural facilities and events
should be woven into the community's fabric to encourage sense of place and the overall health
and well being of the community.
F.1 Cultural and arts programs should be supported and nourished as an essential part
of the City's social, economic, and health infrastructure.
F.2 Recreational opportunities and programming should be integrated holistically into
the City's infrastructure and planning process.
Community Sustainability 21
F.3 Cultural, arts, and recreational programming should be an integral part of City
design and facilities standards, and should be integrated into all planning,
promotion, and economic development initiatives.
Sustainability Goal G. Develop housing policies, programs, and regulations designed to support
and promote sustainability. Support and encourage a mix of housing types and styles which
provide people with affordable housing choices geared to changes in life style. Seek to form
public and private partnerships to retain and promote affordable housing options.
G.1 Land use and housing programs should be designed to provide for existing housing
needs while providing flexibility to adapt to evolving housing needs and choices.
G.2 Housing should be viewed as a community resource, providing opportunities for
residents to choose to stay in the community as their needs and resources evolve
and change over time.
G.3 Support the development of housing tools, such as inclusionary zoning incentives
and affordable housing programs, that promote a variety of housing types and
affordability levels into all developments.
Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future, U.N. General
Assembly Plenary Meeting, December 11, 1987.
22 Community Sustainability
Climate Change
Introduction. The quality of the environment we live in is a critical part of what people often
describe as the "character" of Edmonds. Even if it is not something we overtly think about, it is an
intrinsic part of our everyday experience, whether at work, at rest or at play. Until relatively recently,
environmental quality has often been thought of in terms of obvious, easily observable characteristics
— such as the visible landscape, the quality of the air, the presence and variety of wildlife, or the
availability and character of water in its various forms. However, recent evidence on climate change
points to the potential fragility of our assumptions about the environment and the need to integrate
and heighten the awareness of environmental issues as they are inter -related with all community
policies and activities.
Recognizing the importance of addressing the issues surrounding the environment and climate
change, in September 2006, the City of Edmonds formally expressed support for the Kyoto Protocol'
and adopted the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement4 by Resolution No. 1129, and joined the
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI)5 by Resolution No. 1130.
Scientific evidence and consensus continues to strengthen the idea that climate change is an urgent
threat to the environmental and economic health of our communities. Many cities, in this country and
abroad, already have strong local policies and programs in place to reduce global warming pollution,
but more action is needed at the local, state, and federal levels to meet the challenge. On February 16,
2005 the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement to address climate change, became law for the
141 countries that have ratified it to date. On that day, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels launched an
initiative to advance the goals of the Kyoto Protocol through leadership and action by at least 141
American cities.
The State of Washington has also been taking steps to address the issues surrounding climate change.
For example, in March, 2008, the state legislature passed ESSHB 2815, which included monitoring
and reporting mandates for state agencies along with the following emission reduction targets:
Sec. 3. (1)(a) The state shall limit emissions of greenhouse gases to achieve the
following emission reductions for Washington state:
(i) By 2020, reduce overall emissions of greenhouse gases in the state to 1990
levels;
(ii) By 2035, reduce overall emissions of greenhouse gases in the state to twenty-
five percent below 1990 levels;
(iii) By 2050, the state will do its part to reach global climate stabilization levels
by reducing overall emissions to fifty percent below 1990 levels, or seventy
percent below the state's expected emissions that year.
The City of Edmonds has formally approved the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement which
was endorsed by the 73rd Annual U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting, Chicago, 2005. Under the
Agreement, participating cities committed to take three sets of actions:
Community Sustainability 23
1. Urge the federal government and state governments to enact policies and programs to meet or
beat the target of reducing global warming pollution levels to 7 percent below 1990 levels by
2012, including efforts to: reduce the United States' dependence on fossil fuels and
accelerate the development of clean, economical energy resources and fuel -efficient
technologies such as conservation, methane recovery for energy generation, waste to energy,
wind and solar energy, fuel cells, efficient motor vehicles, and biofuels.
2. Urge the U.S. Congress to pass bipartisan greenhouse gas reduction legislation that 1)
includes clear timetables and emissions limits and 2) a flexible, market -based system of
tradable allowances among emitting industries
3. Strive to meet or exceed Kyoto Protocol targets for reducing global warming pollution by
taking actions in our own operations and community.
Given this background, the City of Edmonds recognizes that global climate change brings significant
risks to our community as a shoreline city. At the same time, the City understands that we have a
responsibility to play a leadership role both within our own community as well as the larger Puget
Sound region. To that end, the City establishes the following goals and policies addressing climate
change.
Climate Change Goal A. Inventory and monitor community greenhouse gas emissions,
establishing carbon footprint baselines and monitoring programs to measure future progress and
program needs.
A.1 Establish baselines for greenhouse gas emissions and carbon footprint for both
Edmonds city government and the broader Edmonds community.
A.2 Establish a monitoring program for consistently updating estimates on City and
community greenhouse gas emissions. The monitoring program should be designed
so as to enable a comparison between measurement periods.
A.3 The monitoring program should include assessment measures which (1) measure
progress toward greenhouse gas reduction goals and (2) evaluate the effectiveness
of or need for programs to work toward these goals.
Climate Change Goal B. Establish targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting
sustainability for both city government and the Edmonds community. Regularly assess progress
and program needs, identifying opportunities and obstacles for meeting greenhouse gas emission
targets and sustainability.
B.1 City government should take the lead in developing and promoting GHG emissions
reduction for the Edmonds community.
B.2 Establish and evaluate targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions for both
Edmonds city government and the broader Edmonds community. Targets should
be set for both short- and long-range evaluation.
B.2.a. By 2020, reduce overall emissions of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels;
24 Community Sustainability
B.2.b. By 2035, reduce overall emissions of greenhouse gases to twenty-five
percent below 1990 levels;
B.2.c. By 2050, Edmonds will do its part to reach global climate stabilization
levels by reducing overall emissions to fifty percent below 1990 levels, or
seventy percent below the expected emissions that year.
B.3 Establish measures for evaluating the degree of sustainability of Edmonds city
government and the broader Edmonds community.
BA Annually assess the status and progress toward emissions reduction goals.
Climate Change Goal C. Assess the risks and potential impacts on both city government
operations and on the larger Edmonds community due to climate change. The assessment of risk
and potential responses — both in terms of mitigation and adaptation — should evaluate the full
range of issues, paying particular attention to those arising from the city's location on Puget
Sound.
C.1 Develop a climate change risk assessment and impact analysis for city government
facilities and operations.
C.2 Develop a climate change risk assessment and impact analysis for the Edmonds
community which considers the potential long-term impacts to economic, land use,
and other community patterns as well as the risks associated with periodic weather
or climate events.
Climate Change Goal D. Work with public and private partners to develop strategies and
programs to prepare for and mitigate the potential impacts of climate change, both on city
government operations and on the general Edmonds community.
D.1 Develop a strategic plan that will help guide and focus City resources and program
initiatives to (1) reduce greenhouse gas production and the carbon footprint of City
government and the Edmonds community, and, (2) reduce and minimize the
potential risks of climate change. The strategic plan should be coordinated with
and leverage state and regional goals and initiatives, but Edmonds should look for
and take the lead where we see opportunities unique to the Edmonds community.
D.2 Build on and expand the strategic action plan to include programs that can involve
both public and private partners.
D.3 Undertake a policy review of City comprehensive, strategic and specific plans to
assure that City policies are appropriately targeted to prepare for and mitigate
potential impacts of climate change. These reviews may be done to correspond
with scheduled plan updates, or accelerated where either a higher priority is
identified or the next update is not specifically scheduled.
Community Sustainability 25
Climate Change Goal E. Develop mitigation strategies that can be used by both the public and
private sectors to help mitigate the potential impacts of new and ongoing development and
operations. Develop programs and strategies that will encourage the retrofitting of existing
development and infrastructure to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change.
E.l Develop policies and strategies for land use and development that result in reduced
greenhouse gas emissions for new development as well as redevelopment
activities.
E.2 Develop mitigation programs and incentives that both public and private
development entities can use to reduce or offset potential greenhouse gas
emissions associated with both new development and redevelopment.
E.3 Develop programs and incentives that encourage existing land use, buildings, and
infrastructure to reduce their carbon footprint. Demonstration programs and other
cost-efficient efforts that do not rely on long-term government subsidies are
preferred, unless dedicated funding sources can be found to sustain these efforts
over time.
2 For example, see the Fourth Assessment Report; Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, February 2007.
3 The Kyoto Protocol was adopted at the third Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Kyoto, Japan, on 11, December 1997, and established
potentially binding targets and timetables for cutting the greenhouse -gas emissions of industrialized countries.
The Kyoto Protocol has not been ratified by the U.S. government.
4 The U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement is as amended by the 73rd Annual U.S. Conference of Mayors
meeting in Chicago in 2005.
5 ICLEI was founded in 1990 as the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives following the World
Congress of Local Governments for a Sustainable Future, held at the United Nations in New York.
26 Community Sustainability
Community Health
Introduction. Community health as it is used here means the overall aspects of public facilities and
actions that can have an effect on the health and welfare of the community's citizens. The focus here
is on the public realm, understanding that public actions and policies can have an impact on the well-
being of Edmonds citizens. The idea is that whenever possible, government should be an enabler,
supporting the expansion of opportunities for people so that they can be as self-sustaining as
possible, thereby reducing the potential need for intervention from government, community -based or
privately -derived services — services which are becoming increasingly costly and difficult to provide.
Community health is closely linked to land use, transportation, public service delivery, and
environmental quality. Clean water and clean air are a basic necessity when seeking to keep people
healthy. In addition, there are certain land use and other actions that Edmonds can take to help foster
healthy lifestyles throughout the community. Government also has a role in providing basic services,
such as police and fire protection, while encouraging access to affordable housing and opportunities
to live, work, and shop close to home.
A current concern in the area of community health is obesity. The percentage of , o�uriipeople who
are overweight has more than doubled in the last twentyyears, and childhood abesity is a potential
precursor to abesity in adults [<or> The likelihood of obesity increases when children become
adults?1. Edmonds can combat these trends by providing active community environments and
promoting the availability of healthy foods and beverages. Transportation systems, development
patterns, community design, and planning decisions can have profound effects on health and
wellbeing. All citizens should be able to live, work, and play in environments that facilitate physical
activity and offer healthy choices.
Community Health Goal A. Develop a reporting and monitoring system of indicators designed
to assess Edmonds' progress toward sustainable community health.
A.1 Develop community indicators designed to measure the City's progress toward a
sustainable community.
A.2 Use these community indicators to inform long-term, mid-term (strategic), and
budgetary decision -making.
Community Health Goal B. Develop and maintain ongoing City programs and infrastructure
designed to support sustainable community health.
B.1 Promote a healthy community by encouraging and supporting diversity in culture
and the arts.
B.2 Promote a healthy community by encouraging and supporting access to recreation
and physical activity.
Community Sustainability 27
B.3 Integrate land -use. transportation. communitv design. and economic development
planning wgith public health planning to increase opportunities for recreation,
physical activi , and exposure to the natural environment. Promote a healthy
connnunity b One example is planning for and implementing a connected
system of walkways and bikeways which will provide alternative forms of
transportation while also encouraging recreation,— and physical activity -and
exposure to the nattffal envir-onmen.
B.4 Promote a healthy community by seeking to protect and enhance the natural
environment through a balanced program of education, regulation, and incentives.
Environmental programs in Edmonds should be tailored to and reflect the unique
opportunities and challenges embodied in a mature, sea -side community with a
history of environmental protection and awareness.
B.5 Develop and encourage volunteer opportunities in community projects that
promote community health. Examples of such programs include beach clean-ups,
walk -to -school groups, and helpers for the elderly or disabled.
B.6 Increase access to health -promoting foods and beverages in the community. Form
partnerships with organizations or worksites, such as health care facilities and
schools, to encourage healthy foods and beverages.
Community Health Goal C. Promote a healthy community by encouraging and supporting a
diverse and creative education system, providing educational opportunities for people of all ages
and all stages of personal development, including those with special needs or disabilities.
C.1 City regulatory and planning activities should be supported by education programs
which seek to explain and encourage progress toward desired outcomes rather then
relying solely on rules and penalties.
C.2 The City should partner with educational and governmental organizations to
encourage community access to information and education. Examples include the
Edmonds School District, Edmonds Community College, Sno-Isle Library, the
State of Washington (including the Departments of Ecology and Fish and
Wildlife), and the various private and public educational programs available to the
Edmonds community.
C.3 Encourage and support broad and flexible educational opportunities, including
both traditional and new or emerging initiatives, such as technology -based
solutions. Education should be flexible in both content and delivery.
Community Health Goal D. Promote a healthy community through supporting and encouraging
the development of economic opportunities for all Edmonds' citizens.
D.1 Sustainable economic health should be based on encouraging a broad range of
economic activity, with an emphasis on locally -based businesses and economic
initiatives which provide family -supporting wages and incomes.
28 Community Sustainability
D.2 Encourage the provision of a variety of types and styles of housing that will
support and accommodate different citizens' needs and life styles. The diversity of
people living in Edmonds should be supported by a diversity of housing so that all
citizens can find suitable housing now and as they progress through changes in
their households and life stages.
D.3 Encourage the development and preservation of affordable housing.
DA Develop programs and activities that promote and support a diverse population and
culture, encouraging a mix of ages and backgrounds.
Community Health Goal E. Support a healthy community by providing a full range of public
services, infrastructure, and support systems.
E.1 Recognize the importance of City services to local community character and
sustainability by planning for and integrating public safety and health services into
both short- and long-term planning and budgeting. Strategic planning should be a
regular part of the decision -making process underlying the provision of these
services to the community.
E.2 Reduce energy consumption and maximize energy efficiency by promoting
programs and educational initiatives aimed at a goal to "reduce, re -use, and
recycle" at an individual and community -wide level. Reduce material
consumption, waste generation, and resource depletion.
E.3 Future planning and budgeting should be based on full life -cycle cost analysis and
facility maintenance needs, as well as standards of service that best fit clearly
articulated and supported community needs.
Community Health Goal F. Support a healthy community by providing for community health
care and disaster preparedness.
F.1 Plan for and prepare disaster preparedness plans which can be implemented as
necessary to respond effectively to the impacts of natural or man -induced disasters
on Edmonds residents.
F.2 Prepare and implement hazard mitigation plans to reduce and minimize, to
extent feasible-, the exposure of Edmonds citizens to future disasters or hazards.
F.3 Promote food security and public health by encouraging locally -based food
production, distribution, and choice through the support of home and community
gardens, farmers or public markets, and other small-scale, collaborative initiatives.
FA Support food assistance programs and promote economic security for low income
families and individuals.
F.5 Promote and support community health by supporting national, state and local
health programs and the local provision of health services.
Community Sustainability 29
Environmental Quality
Introduction. The environmental quality and beauty of the City of Edmonds is largely reflected
through its natural resources, and especially its location on the shores of Puget Sound. The city's
watersheds — including Lake Ballinger, a well-known landmark — and streams that flow into the
Sound provide a rich and diverse water resource. The beaches, wetlands, and streams provide habitat
for diverse wildlife including many species of migrating and resident birds which adds to the
aesthetic and pleasing quality of the environment.
As Edmonds has grown and developed, what were once abundant native forest and wetland habitats
have now become increasingly scarce. Nonetheless, our parks, open spaces, and the landscaped areas
of our neighborhoods integrate pleasing vistas and differentiation necessary to provide relief in a
highly developed landscape. Throughout the city, woodlands, streams, wetlands and marine areas
contain native vegetation that provide food and cover for a diverse population of fish and wildlife.
Preserving and restoring these natural resources through environmental stewardship remains a high
priority for the Edmonds community. Healthy ecosystems are the source of many less tangible
benefits that humans derive from a relationship with nature such as providing a sense of well-being
and sites for nature trails and other educational and recreational opportunities. Some ecological
services that native plants and trees provide are stabilizing slopes and reducing erosion, replenishing
the soil with nutrients and water, providing barriers to wind and sound, filtering pollutants from the
air and soil, and generating oxygen and absorbing carbon dioxide. Our city beaches and the near -
shore environment also represent unique habitats for marine organisms.
So interconnected are the benefits of a functioning ecosystem, that non -sustainable approaches to
land development and management practices can have effects that ripple throughout the system. The
combination of marine, estuarine, and upland environments should be seen as an integrated and inter-
dependent ecosystem supporting a variety of wildlife valuable to the entire Edmonds community.
Environmental Quality Goal A. Protect environmental quality within the Edmonds community
through the enforcement of community -based environmental regulations that reinforce and are
integrated with relevant regional, state and national environmental standards.
A.1 Ensure that the city's natural vegetation associated with its urban forests, wetlands,
and other wildlife habitat areas are protected and enhanced for future generations.
A.2 City regulations and incentives should be designed to support and require
sustainable land use and development practices, including the retention of urban
forest land, native vegetation, and wildlife habitat areas. Techniques such as tree
retention and low impact development methods should be integrated into land use
and development codes.
A.3 Provide for clean air and water quality through the support of state and regional
initiatives and regulations.
AA Coordinate land use and transportation plans and implementation actions to
support clean air an water.
30 Community Sustainability
Environmental Quality Goal B. Promote the improvement of environmental quality within the
Edmonds community by designing and implementing programs based on a system of incentives
and public education.
B.1 The City should promote and increase public awareness and pride in its natural
areas and wildlife heritage. Special emphasis should be directed toward preserving
natural areas and habitats (forests, wetlands, streams and beaches) that support a
diversity of wildlife.
B.2 Education and recreation programs should be designed and made available for all
ages.
B.3 Environmental education should be coordinated and integrated with other cultural,
arts, and tourism programs.
B.4 To encourage adherence to community values and goals, education programs
should be designed to help promote understanding and explain the reasons behind
environmental programs and regulations.
Environmental Quality Goal C. Develop, monitor, and enforce critical areas regulations
designed to enhance and protect environmentally sensitive areas within the city consistent with
the best available science.
C.1 Critical areas will be designated and protected using the best available science
pursuant to RCW 36.70A.172.
C.2 In addition to regulations, provide incentives that encourage environmental
stewardship, resource conservation, and environmental enhancement during
development activities.
Environmental Quality Goal D. Develop, implement, and monitor a shoreline master program,
consistent with state law, to enhance and protect the quality of the shoreline environment
consistent with the best available science.
D.1 Adopt a Shoreline Master Program that meets the requirements of state law and is
consistent with community goals while being based on the best available science
Community Sustainability 31
Implementing Sustainability
Introduction. One of the reasons for adopting this Community Sustainability Element as part of the
City's Comprehensive Plan is to provide a positive conceptual framework for coordinating and
assessing the community's progress toward sustainability. For that to happen, there must be a tie
between long-range comprehensive planning, mid -range strategic planning, and short-term
implementation decisions embodied in budgeting and operations.
There are a number of important principles to keep in mind when linking these sets of plans and
actions.
• Engage and educate. Connect with the community and provide ways to access and share
information and ideas.
• Integrate. Be holistic in approach, recognizing linkages and seeking to expand problem -
solving and solutions beyond traditional or institutional boundaries.
• Innovate. Go beyond conventional approaches; be experimental.
• Be adaptive. Be flexible, discarding or modifying approaches that don't work and shifting
resources where or when needed. Rigid rules will not always work or result in the most
effective solution.
• Be strategic. Target and prioritize actions to be effective and gain community support and
momentum. Acknowledge limitations, but be creative and persistent in seeking solutions.
• Be a leader. Lead by example, and by forming partnerships that effect decision -making
while providing ways to address differing views and perspectives.
• Measure and assess. Set benchmarks to monitor progress and provide feedback to policy
development and decision -making.
A key to being successful in applying these principles to sustainability will be the need to apply an
adaptive management approach to planning and resource allocation. A passive approach can
emphasize predictive modeling and feedback, with program adjustments made as more information is
learned. A more active approach will emphasize experimentation — actively trying different ideas or
strategies and evaluating which produces the best results. Important for both approaches is (a) basing
plans and programs on multi -scenario uncertainty and feedback, and (b) integrating risk into the
analysis. Either of these approaches can be used, as appropriate in the situation or problem being
addressed.
Implementation Goal A. Develop benchmarks and indicators that will provide for measurement
of progress toward established sustainability goals.
A.1 Benchmarks and indicators should be both understandable and obtainable so that
they can be easily explained and used.
32 Community Sustainability
A.2 Establish both short- and long-term benchmarks and indicators to tie long-term
success to interim actions and decisions.
A.3 Develop a reporting mechanism and assessment process so that information can be
gathered and made available to the relevant decision process at the appropriate
time.
Implementation Goal B. Provide mechanisms to link long-range, strategic, and short-term
planning and decision -making in making progress toward community sustainability.
B.1 Schedule planning and budgeting decision processes to form a logical and linked
progression so that each process builds on and informs related decisions.
B.2 Long-range, strategic, and short-term planning should acknowledge the other time
frames, decisions, and resources involved. For example, short-term budgetary and
regulatory decisions should be designed to effect strategic and long-term goals.
Figure 7: Example of Process Coordination
Annual Plan Coordination Schedule
JANfl FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG 5EP I DCT NOV DEC
City Council Retreat 000.1-0
Strategic Plan
■ •
Budget �-------►; �---
CIP-------►� •
TBU ------►i �-
Capital Facilities
Plan --- �_/; • ■
• r
•
Comprehensive ■ to
Plan • �"'°" ■
Preliminary Final Approval 01011101. Prep Development Inputl Feedback
Community Sustainability 33
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.
Performance measures are specific, meaningful, and easily obtainable items that can be reported
on an annual basis. These are intended to help assess progress toward achieving the goals and
policy direction of this element. The actions and measures identified here are specifically called
out as being important, but are not intended to be the only actions or measures that may be used
by the City.
Action 1: By 2017, update the City's Hazard Mitigation Plan to reference emergingrisks
isks
and hazards related to climate change.
Performance Measure 1: Annuallyport on energy usage within the City, both by City
government and by the larger Edmonds community.
34 Community Sustainability
AI-7122
Planning Board Agenda
Meeting Date: 09/10/2014
Discussion of Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Update
Staff Lead/Author: Shane Hope
Department: Development Services
Initiated By:
Information
Subject/Purpose
Discussion of Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Update
Staff Recommendation
Review and ask questions about the housing information in this packet. No action is needed now.
w•
NOTE: More details on the housing data --and perhaps a draft updated Comprehensive Housing Element --will be
available for discussion at a later Planning Board meeting --September 24.
Previous Board Action
N/A
Narrative
A major review and update of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan is due to the state by mid-2015. Previously, the
City conducted an analysis, based on state guidance, and found that the City's existing Comprehensive Plan was
mostly in compliance with Growth Management requirements. The biggest need is to substitute current data for the
old data (some of which is 10-15 years old). Because of the short timeline, the Planning Board and City Council
have concurred that the update can be basic in nature, focusing primarily on: (a) refreshing the data and supporting
materials; (b) considering modest changes to reflect new information and state guidance; and (c) adding
performance measures and, as appropriate, action steps --generally one of each for each major Plan element.
(Note: The new information will need to include updated population and job forecasts through the year 2035.)
Each major element is being considered for updating on a schedule previously reviewed by the Planning Board and
City Council. While preliminary direction can be provided by the Board and Council after reviewing each draft
element, a final decision on the entire Comprehensive Plan update is expected in mid-2015. Public hearings and
other public information will be part of the process.
"Housing" comprises a major element of the Comprehensive Plan. (See attached Housing Element, as excerpted
from the existing Comprehensive Plan —Exhibit 1). The Housing Element features data from the 2000 Census and
makes some comparisons to 1990. It also includes goals and policies. The Planning Board's September 10
discussion on the Housing Element will focus on any questions about the existing Housing Element and the status
of new data for the update. Then at the September 24 meeting, a draft Housing Element update can be reviewed
and discussed.
On August 26, the Executive Director of the Housing Coalition of Snohomish County and Everett made a
presentation to the City Council about countywide housing needs, especially related to affordability and our
region's growing population. (See the attached slide presentation —Exhibit 2.) This includes important countywide
data related to the need for affordable housing.
Our city is also partnering with other cities and Snohomish County in the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA), a
group formed from Snohomish County Tomorrow. Through AHA, work is being wrapped up on an" affordable
housing profile" for each participating jurisdiction.. A DRAFT Edmonds Affordable Housing Profile is attached as
Exhibit 3. (The final Profile should be very similar and ready for the September 24 Planning Board meeting.) The
Profile has extensive data on housing in Edmonds. (NOTE: The Profile looks at housing affordability mostly from
the perspective of theentire metropolitan region, which includes Seattle, while the information in Exhibit 2 from the
Housing Coalition looks at housing affordability based just on the Snohomish County area --not including Seattle.)
The key take -away from both reports is that Edmonds --like other cities in our region --needs more housing units
over the next 20 years AND more affordable housing that will serve a broad spectrum of future needs.
Attachments
Exhibit 1: Current Housing Element
Exhibit 2: Housing Coalition Presentation
Exhibit 3: Draft Affordable Housing Profile
Housing Element
A. General Background
Housing Stock and Type
According to the Office of Financial Management (OFM), there were an estimated 13,054 housing
units within the City of Edmonds in 1994. This represents an increase of less than one percent in the
city's housing stock since 1990, when there were 12,945 dwelling units (1990 US Census). In
comparison, over the period 1980-1990, the city's housing stock grew 21 percent, or approximately
1.9 percent per year. Housing stock declined (less than 1%) between 1990 and 1992, but grew
(approximately 1%) between 1992 and 1994. Table 9 summarizes recent growth trends and forecasts
for the City of Edmonds.
Of the total stock of housing in 1994, 8,675 (66 percent) were single family units, 4,229 (32 percent)
were multi -family units, and 150 (2 percent) were mobile homes or trailers. Compared with
Snohomish County as a whole, Edmonds has a higher percentage of single-family homes and a lower
proportion of multi -family and mobile homes/trailers.
Between 1990 and 1994, the City annexed three parcels of land totaling approximately .059 square
miles. The parcels included 64 housing units and 146 residents. These units accounted for most of
the growth (57%) in the city's housing stock since 1990.
Household Characteristics
In 2000, there were 17,508 housing units in Edmonds. This was an increase of over 35% in the
number of housing units in the city compared to 1990 (12,945). As noted earlier, this increase can
largely be explained by annexations. Over the same period, the average number of persons per
housing unit declined from 2.59 persons in 1980 to 2.37 persons in 1990, with a further decline to
2.26 persons in 2000 (US Census). The average household size showed a similar trend, falling to 2.32
persons per household by 2000. Compared with Snohomish County as a whole, Edmonds had fewer
people per household in 1990 (2.37 vs. 2.68, respectively) and in 2000 (2.32 vs. 2.65). Average
Table 8
City of Edmonds Housing Growth
Housing Increase
Percentage
Average
Units
Increase
Annual
Increase
Census: 1980 10,702
1990 12,945 2,243
21.0%
1.9%
2000 17,508 4,563
35.2%
3.1 %
Growth Target: 2025 20,587 3,079
17.6%
0.7%
Source: US Census; OFM, Snohomish County Tomorrow.
166 Housing
household size within the city is expected to decrease to approximately 2.26 people by 2025 (City of
Edmonds, 2004).
Based on Census data, residents of Edmonds are older than those of Snohomish County, taken as a
whole. In 1990, the median age of Edmonds residents was 38.3 years, compared with 32.2 years
countywide. By 2000, the median age in Edmonds had increased to 42.0 years. Within the city, a
large percentage of retired and elderly persons 62-years old and over reside in the downtown area
(census tracts 504 and 505).
Household Income: In general, residents of Edmonds earn relatively more income than residents of
Snohomish County as a whole. Median 1990 household income in Edmonds was $40,515, nearly 10
percent higher than the county's median level of $36,847 for the same period (1990 US Census). By
the 2000 census, Edmonds' median household income had increased to $53,552, but this was nearly
equivalent to the County median of $53,060 (Edmonds was less than 1% higher). This is in contrast
to per capita income, which is substantially higher in Edmonds compared to Snohomish County
($30,076 vs. $23,417, respectively). These figures reflect Edmonds' relatively smaller household
sizes.
Housing Ownership: According to the 1990 Census, 65.3 percent of the housing units within the city
were owner -occupied and 32.1 percent were renter -occupied. This represented a decline in owner -
occupancy from the 67.1 percent reported in the 1980 Census. By 2000, this trend had reversed, with
68.1 percent of the City's housing 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 higher in 1990, at 66 percent. Within Edmonds, ownership patterns vary significantly
between neighborhoods; between 85 and 92 percent of homes along the waterfront were owner -
occupied in 1990, compared with just over 50 percent east of Highway 99.
Housing Values: According to the 1990 Census, housing values are considerably higher in the City
of Edmonds than in Snohomish County as a whole. In 1990, the median value of owner -occupied
units in Edmonds was $160,100, approximately 26 percent higher than the countywide median of
$127,200. By 2000, the median value of owner -occupied housing had increased to $238,200 in
Edmonds and $196,500 in Snohomish County, with Edmonds approximately 21 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: State Housing Policy Act — In 1993, Washington State enacted a Housing
Policy Act (SB 5584) which is directed toward developing an adequate and affordable supply of
housing for all economic segments of the population. The Act establishes an affordable housing
advisory board that, together with the State Department of Community Trade and Economic
Development (DCTED), is required to prepare a five-year housing advisory plan. The plan must
document the need for affordable housing in the state; identify the extent to which the needs are being
met through public and private programs; facilitate development of plans to meet affordable housing
needs; and develop strategies and programs for affordable housing. DCTED is directed to provide
technical assistance and information to local governments to assist in the identification and removal
of regulatory barriers to the development of affordable housing. The Act also requires that by
December 31, 1994, all local governments of communities with populations over 20,000 must adopt
regulations that permit accessory units in residential zones. The Act also requires that communities
treat special needs populations in the same manner as other households living in single family units.
Edmonds has updated its development regulations to comply with both of these requirements.
Housing 167
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy — Jurisdictions receiving financial assistance from the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are required to prepare a Consolidated
Housing and Community Development Plan. The plan must identify the community's housing, social
service and community development needs for the next five years. The plan describes how HUD
funds will be used to address the identified needs. In addition, the plan must be updated annually to
include the most recent spending program and demonstrate that funding decisions respond to the
strategies and objectives cited in the five-year plan. The Snohomish County Consortium, which
includes Edmonds and 18 other cities and towns along with unincorporated Snohomish County, is
responsible for the plan, and through Snohomish County's Department of Housing and Community
Development, also prepares a yearly report called the Consolidated Annual Performance Evaluation
Report (CAPER). This catalogs and analyzes the status of Consolidated Plan goals and is published
for public review on a yearly basis. Key goals of the consolidated housing plan include:
1) Provide decent housing, including
• assisting homeless persons to obtain affordable housing;
• retaining affordable housing stock;
• increasing the availability of permanent housing that is affordable and available
without discrimination; and
• increasing supportive housing that includes structural features and services to enable
persons with special needs to live in dignity.
2) Provide a suitable living environment, including
• improving the safety and livability of neighborhoods;
• increasing access to quality facilities and services;
• reducing the isolation of income groups within areas by deconcentrating housing
opportunities and revitalizing deteriorating neighborhoods;
• restoring and preserving natural and physical features of special value for historic,
architectural, or aesthetic reasons; and
• conserving energy resources.
3) Expand economic opportunities, including
• creating jobs for low income persons;
• providing access to credit for community development that promotes long-term
economic an social viability; and
• assisting residents of federally assisted and public housing achieve self-sufficiency.
168 Housing
The main purpose of the Consolidated Plan is to develop strategies to meet the identified housing
needs. These strategies are implemented through funding decisions which distribute HUD funds to
local housing programs. Strategies to achieve the goals and needs identified in the Consolidated Plan
include:
• Increase the number of subsidized rental apartments affordable to households with
incomes of up to 50% of area median income through (1) new construction, (2)
acquisition and/or rehabilitation of existing units, (3) provision of rent subsidies, and
(4) preservation of HUD Section 8 or similar subsidized housing in non-profit
ownership where there is the risk of converting these units to market -rate housing.
• Provide support for operation of existing homeless shelters and construction of
needed shelters in under -served areas and for under -served populations. Increase the
inventory of transitional housing for households needing assistance to move from
homelessness to self-sufficiency.
• Provide support for the operation and development of transitional and permanent
housing and service programs for people with special needs.
• Help low-income people to stay in their homes and maintain current housing stock
through home repair, rehabilitation, and weatherization services.
• Increase the incidence of home ownership using self-help construction, manufactured
housing, homebuyer education, and mortgage assistance programs.
• Improve the processes for utilizing grant funds allocated to the county.
• Enhance the resources that can be used for housing production.
• Utilized the expertise of housing providers who will create a stable and well -
maintained low-income housing stock to expand the subsidized housing inventory in
the community.
• Address the unmet public facility needs of low-income households and
neighborhoods.
• Address the unmet basic infrastructure needs of low-income households and
neighborhoods.
• Support programs that provide for the well-being of youth by providing services such
as case management, life -skills training, health care and recreation.
• Support programs that assist low-income elderly citizens, where appropriate and cost-
effective, to remain in their homes by providing housing repairs and reasonable
modifications to accommodate disabilities and by supporting provision of supportive
services.
• Support services which address the most urgent needs of low-income and moderate -
income populations and neighborhoods.
Housing 169
• Support eligible local planning and administration costs incident to operation of
HUD grant programs.
Housing Needs: Snohomish County calculates housing needs based on households earning less than
95 percent of the county median income and paying more than 30 percent of their incomes for gross
housing costs. Gross housing costs include rent and utility costs for renters and principal, interest,
taxes, insurance, and any homeowner -fees for owners. Countywide, in 1990, 36,888 households
countywide met the criteria for households in need; by 2000, this had increased to 55,361 households.
There are expected to be an additional 28,557 low- and moderate -income households with housing
needs by 2025 throughout the County. There were 2,601 households with need in Edmonds in 1990,
and this had increased to 3,951 by 2000. It is anticipated that this will increase to 4,395 by 2025.
The following chart shows how segments of the household population — and the relative cost burden
of housing — are changing over time. Low- and moderate -income households have increased in
number, and are a slightly higher proportion of Edmonds' households compared to 1990. The
implication is that affordable housing will continue to be an important issue throughout the planning
horizon.
Edmonds
25,000
20,000
1.371
El Fair Share Differential
4,395
❑ LowtMod U nmet Need
75,000
3,951
(Unadjusted}
a
❑LowlMod Needs Met
4,252
2,647
3,737
❑Middle & Upper Income
7G,000
40
2,T74
O
2
5,000
9.248
7 G,387
Tr290
0
1990
2000
2025 (Projected)
Source: 2004 Supplement to Technical Report Fair Share Housing Allocation, Snohomish County Tomorrow
Snohomish County and its cities, through countywide planning policies, has used an allocation model
to elaborate on the indicated level of need for affordable housing in the county. The county applies
two factors to the number of households in need to give areas credit for their existing stock of low-
cost housing and assign them responsibility to house a portion of low -wage employees in the
170 Housing
jurisdiction. The purpose of these factors is to provide indicators of the relative housing need for
jurisdictions based on the model's assumptions. In 2000, Edmonds' adjusted number of households in
need was 5,322 households; this is projected to increase to 5,885 by 2025 — an increase of 564
households. Therefore, Edmonds has a continuing need to provide affordable, low-cost housing
within the city.
Assisted Housing Availability: In 1995 there were two HUD -assisted developments providing a total
of 87 units for low-income, elderly 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 insure 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 elderly, 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).
B. Strategies to Promote Affordable Housing.
Housing 171
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 has 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 from single family to multi family
zoning in designated corridor areas to provide more housing units at reduced cost to
consumers.
• 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 now 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.
• Conversion/Adaptive Reuse. The City has established a new 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 updated 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.
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 some 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
172 Housing
review times, tailored to the type and complexity of the project. For example, the mean
processing time for processing land use permits in 2003 was 39 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,
potentially 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. Street standards are reviewed and updated on a consistent
basis, taking advantage of new technologies whenever possible.
• 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 multi family development. The City
also simplified and streamlined its parking requirements for the downtown mixed use
area, thereby encouraging housing downtown.
• Sanitary Sewer, Water, and Stormwater systems. Innovative techniques are explored and
utilized in both new systems and in the maintenance of existing infrastructure.
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.
Cottage housing developments. The City is exploring this option, although it would be
expected to have limited application.
Housing 173
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 are being prepared for application 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.
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.
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.
There will be difficulty meeting affordability goals or significantly reducing the current affordable
housing deficit. The city is nearly fully developed and has limited powers and resources to produce
subsidized housing. However, participation in joint funding projects (such as non-profit
organizations funded by the cities of Kirkland, Redmond and Bellevue) would help to mitigate these
impacts.
C. Goal - Housing I - Discrimination and Fair Housing - Goal 1. There should be adequate
housing opportunities for all families and individuals in the community regardless of
their race, age, sex, religion, disability or economic circumstances.
174 Housing
D. Goal - Housing I - Discrimination and Fair Housing - Goal 2. Insure that past attitudes do
not establish a precedent for future decisions pertaining to public accommodation and fair
housing in accordance with the following policy:
E. Goal - Housing II - Low Income, Elderly and Disabled Housing. A decent home in a
suitable living environment for each household in accordance with the following policies:
E.1. Encourage the utilization of the housing resources of the federal government to
assist in providing adequate housing opportunities for the low income, elderly
and disabled citizens.
E.2. The City should work with the Washington Housing Service and other agencies
to:
E.2.a. Provide current information on housing resources;
E.2. b. Determine the programs which will work best for the community.
E.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.
F. Goal - Housing III - Housing Rehabilitation. Preserve and rehabilitate the stock of older
housing in the community in order to maintain a valuable housing resource in accordance
with the following policies:
F.1. Program should be developed which offers free or low cost minor home
maintenance service to low income, elderly or handicapped persons.
F.2. Building code enforcement should be utilized to conserve healthy neighborhoods
and encourage rehabilitation of those that show signs of deterioration.
F.3. Ensure that an adequate supply of housing exists to accommodate all households
that are displaced as a result of any community action.
FA Evaluate City ordinances and programs to determine if they prevent rehabilitation
of older buildings.
G. Goal. Provide affordable (subsidized housing, if need be) for elderly, disadvantaged,
disabled and low income in proportion to the population of Edmonds in accordance with
the following policies:
G.1. The City should aggressively pursue funds to construct housing for elderly,
disabled and low income. Units should blend into the neighborhood and be
designed to be an asset to area and pride for inhabitants. [Ord. 2527 §3, 1985.1
Housing 175
G.2. City zoning regulations should expand, not limit, housing opportunities for all
special needs populations.
H. Goal: Provide a variety of housing for all segments of the city that is consistent and
compatible with the established character of the community.
H.1. Expand and promote a variety of housing opportunities by establishing land use
patterns that provide a mixture of housing types and densities.
H. I.a. 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.
H.2. Encourage infill development consistent with the character of the surrounding
neighborhood.
H.2.a. Within single family neighborhoods, encourage infill development by
considering innovative single family development patterns such as
Planned Residential Developments (PRDs).
H.2. b. Provide for accessory housing in single family neighborhoods that
addresses the needs of extended families and encourages housing
affordability.
H.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.
I. Goal: Provide housing opportunities within Activity Centers consistent with the land use,
transportation, and economic goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
I.1. Promote development within Activity Centers supports the centers' economic
activities and transit service.
I.I.a. Provide for mixed use development within Activity Centers.
11.b. Plan for housing that is located with easy access to transit and economic
activities that provide jobs and shopping opportunities.
11.c. Consider adjusting parking standards for housing within Activity
Centers to provide incentives for lower -cost housing when justified by
available transit service.
J. Goal: Government should review and monitor its permitting processes and regulatory
structures to assure that they promote housing opportunities and avoid, to the extent
possible, adding to the cost of housing.
J.1. Provide the maximum amount of certainty and predictability in government
permitting processes.
176 Housing
J.I.a. Consider a wide variety of measures to achieve this objective, 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.
J.2. Establish monitoring programs for permitting and regulatory processes.
J.2.a. Monitoring programs should be established to review the types and
effectiveness ofgovernment regulations and incentives, in order to assess
whether they are meeting their intended purpose or need to be adjusted
to meet new challenges.
K. Goal: Opportunities for increasing the affordability of housing have the best chance for
success if they are coordinated with programs that seek to achieve other community goals
as well. Housing affordability should be researched and programs developed that address
multiple Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives.
K.1. Develop housing programs to encourage housing opportunities that build on
linkages between housing and other, complementary Comprehensive Plan goals.
K.I.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.
L. Goal: 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.
L.1. Provide design guidelines that encourage flexibility in housing types while
ensuring compatibility of housing with the surrounding neighborhood.
L.I.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.
L. Lb. Design guidelines for housing should be developed to ensure
compatibility of housing with adjacent land uses.
Housing 177
22.1000 by 2035
Affordable Housing in Snohomish
County
Presentation to Edmonds City Council
August 26, 2014
What is "Affordable"
No more that 30% of income goes to the cost of
housing, including utilities.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING: In general, housing for which the occupant(s)
is/are paying no more than 30 percent of his or her income for gross
housing costs, including utilities. Please note that some jurisdictions
may define affordable housing based on other, locally determined
criteria, and that this definition is intended solely as an approximate
guideline or general rule of thumb.'
lhttp://www.huduser.org/portal/glossary/glossary_a.htmI
Calculations for Affordable Housing
Snohomish County Area Median Income for all households = $67,777 (2011)1
Affordable housing for households at 100 percent AMI
$67,777 x 100 percent = $67,777 / 12 months = $5648/mo. x 30 percent =
$1694/mo. max. housing cost
Affordable housing for households at 80 percent AMI
$67,777 x 80 percent = $54,221 / 12 months = $4518/mo. x 30 percent =
$1356/mo. max. housing cost
Affordable Housing for households at 50 percent AMI:
$67,777 x 50 percent = $33,888 / 12 months = $2824/mo. x 30 percent =
$847/mo. max. housing cost
Affordable Housing for households at 30 percent AMI:
$67,777 x 30 percent = $20,333 / 12 months = $1694/mo. x 30 percent =
$508/mo. max. housing cost
1 Source: American Communities Survey, 2011 5-year estimate
Income in Snohomish County
Snohomish County Household Area Median Income (AMI) _ $67,777
30% and below AMI (extremely low income) $20,333 and less 11%
30-50% of AMI (very low income)
50-80% of AMI (low income)
$20,334 - $33,888
$33,889 - $54,221
Subject
Edmonds, Washington
Estimate
Percent
INCOME AND BENEFITS (IN 2012 INFLATION -ADJUSTED
DOLLARS)
Total households
17,396
100.00%
Less than $10,000
671
3.90%
$10,000 to $14,999
488
2.80%
$15,000 to $24,999
1,326
7.60%
$25,000 to $34,999
1,4191
8.20%
Total
3,904
22.50%
1 Source: ACS, 2011 5-year estimates
zSource: ACS, 2012 5-year estimates
11%
17%
221000 by 2035
Housing needed by 2035 to accommodate
projected population growth
Sno Col 971128 101684 101684
161512
Edmonds' 21790 307 307 474
'Source: 2013 Housing Characteristics & Needs in Snohomish County Report, p59
22.0000 by 2035
How Do We Get There?
Reduce Poverty
• Better Education Outcomes for More Students
• Job Training
• Address Income Inequality
221000 by 2035
How Do We Get There
Create More Affordable Housing (New/Acquisition & Rehab)
• 2015 Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Updates
- Strategies, goals & policies to meet housing need at
30% AM I, 30-50% AM I & 50-80% AM I
• Incentivize Affordable Housing
- Density bonuses, multi -family tax exemption, fee
waivers, reduced parking requirements, etc
• Support Policies that Increase Public Funding
- WA State Housing Trust Fund
- Local Housing Levy
221000 by 2035
Why?
• Quality of Life in Our Communities
- Our communities and neighborhoods are better when our people are
housed
- Higher density, attractive and affordable housing promotes community
• Economic Advantages
- Each dollar of public funds invested in affordable housing generally
attracts/leverages an additional S dollars of private equity
- People who are in housing they can afford have more disposable
income to spend in the community
- Safe, stable, affordable housing for special needs populations
significantly reduces contact with and cost to cities public safety
services and emergency medical services
• Common Humanity
I
4ttentfon to Desig
S. I _ � tom. {.� - �•-71. -•r•';
F.T
I1 k J •. � �
_'• I L
t-
r
• r r _ .
• r-
}r•
JI .1
• � � Z F1
~ Y I1
1 �yr 1f.1 Y
-1 I •LI
I
L—�JL
5
— �1 •� .I — r ".
--NOW
Pay Attention to Des-ig
4
Pay Attention to Design
King County Housing Authority, Greenbridge Apts, Seattle
Artspace Everett Lofts, Everett, WA
Resources
• Alliance for Housing Affordability Kristina Gallant, kgallant@hasco.org, 425-293-
0601
• Municipal Research Services Council,
http://www.mrsc.org/subiects/planning/housing/ords.aspx#waivers
• Housing Characteristics and Needs in Snohomish County Report,
http://snohomishcountywa.gov/1585/Housing-Characteristics-Needs-Report
• Snohomish County Demographic Trends & Initial Growth Targets,
http://www.co.snohomish.wa.us/documents/Departments/PDS/Planning Commis
ion/DemogTrends PIng ommission Feb-25-2014.pdf
• Housing Consortium of Everett & Snohomish County
Mark Smith, Executive Director
425-339-1015
HOUSING
mark@ housingsnohomish.org CONSORTIUM
Of EVERETT AND
SNOHOMISH COUNTY
91 D I
Ik4wi�
Housing Profile: City of Edmonds
Prepared for the City of Edmonds by the Alliance for Housing
Affordability
September 2014
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to all those who helped prepare this profile.
City Staff
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Alliance for Housing Affordability
Kristina Gallant, Analyst
Will Hallett, Intern
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to all those who helped prepare this profile.
City Staff
Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Alliance for Housing Affordability
Kristina Gallant, Analyst
Will Hallett, Intern
Table of Contents
ExecutiveSummary........................................................ iv
Maps, Figures, & Tables ................................................. vi
Introduction............................................................................. 1
Population and Community............................................3
HouseholdProfiles.................................................................................................................. 8
Existing Housing Stock.................................................10
Subsidized Housing Units: Permanent and Transitional.............................................12
MarketRate Rental Units....................................................................................................13
SharedRental Housing........................................................................................................19
Current Challenges and Opportunities ..........................20
Maps........................................................................................ 22
Appendices.................................................................... 40
Appendix A: Multifamily Rent Comparables by Property, City of Edmonds .......... A 1
Appendix B: Assisted Units by Property, City of Edmonds ........................................... B 1
Appendix C. Single Family Home Sales, 2008-2012......................................................CI
Appendix D: Affordable Housing Glossary.................................................................... D 1
AppendixE. Methodology..................................................................................................... 1
Executive Summary
The City of Edmonds, currently home to 39,950 people, is projected to accommodate nearly
6,000 new residents by 2035, a dramatic change over the stable population levels the City has
seen over the past 20 years. Housing in Edmonds is currently mostly comprised of single family
homes, though most growth will have to be accommodated in multifamily development.The
City's median income is relatively high compared to other cities in the region, and home values
are generally higher as well. Homes are diverse in age, with a significant concentration of units
built between 1950 and 1969 compared to the County overall.
Currently 38% of Edmonds households are estimated to be cost burdened, meaning they
spend more than 30% of their monthly income on rent or home ownership costs. Cost burden
is most challenging for those with low incomes, who may have to sacrifice other essential
needs in order to afford housing. Other summary statistics are provided below.
A Summary of Edmonds by the Numbers
Population 39,9501
Total Households 17,3962
Family Households with Minor Children 4,054
Cost -Burdened Households 6,672
Households Earning Less than 50%AMI1 5,322
2012 Median Household Income $73,072
Minimum Income to Afford 2012 Median Home $75,796
Total Homes 17,396
Single Family Homes, Detached or Attached 12,047
Multifamily Homes 6,471
Manufactured Homes 126
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers 195
Other Dedicated Subsidized Housing 125
Transitional Units 16
Workforce Housing 201
Total Renter -Occupied Housing Units 5,000
Total Owner -Occupied Housing Units 12,396
Total Vacant Housing Units 1,248
According to 2013 Dupre and Scott data, Edmonds'rental housing market is generally
affordable to households earning at least 80% AMI. Households earning between 50 and
80% AMI will find the majority of homes smaller than five bedrooms affordable as well. A
limited supply of small units is affordable to those earning between 30 and 50% AMI (Area
Median Income for the Seattle -Bellevue metropolitan area). Market rents are not affordable to
iv
extremely low income households, though this is expected in almost all communities, due to the costs
of construction and maintenance in today's market. Shared rental housing is a market rate option for
these households, though it will not work for all households, particularly families.
A lack of affordable rental housing for extremely low and very low income households is very
common, as, in order to operate a property and keep rents low enough in today's housing market,
some kind of financial assistance is typically required. Assistance can be ongoing, to make up the
difference between 30% of tenants' income and market rents (such units are considered'subsidized'
in this report), or be provided as capital funding, reducing overall project costs and making it possible
to keep rent levels down (con sidered'workforce' units). Edmonds currently has 320 units of subsidized
housing and 201 units of workforce housing. In addition, the City has 16 units of transitional housing.
However, with 5,322 households earning less than 50% AMI, there is still a need to increase this supply.
The City is pursuing a number of strategies to address this challenge.
In 2012, the median sale price for a single family home in Edmonds was $339,975. The estimated
monthly payment for this home would be $1,895, including debt service, insurance, taxes, and utilities.
For a family to afford this payment without being cost burdened, they would require an annual income
of at least $75,796, which is just above the City's median income.' Affordability for 2013 cannot be
calculated at this time, but average assessed values suggest that home prices are rising as the housing
market continues to recover following the recession, and affordability is retreating. Edmonds has the
third highest average assessed 2014 home value in Snohomish County behind Woodway and Mukilteo
respectively, at $351,100, which represented a 10.7% increase over 2013.2
Snohomish County Assessor, 2014
Snohomish County Assessor, "Snohomish County Assessor's Annual Report for 2014Taxes , 2014.
V
Maps, Figures, & Tables
Figure 1.1. Total Population, City of Edmonds, 1990-2013.................................................................................3
Figure 1.2. Population Share by Housing Tenure, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County....................4
Table I.I. Cost Burden by Income and Housing Tenure, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County .......
5
Figure 1.3. Household Share by Income Level, City of Edmonds and Snohomish County....................5
Figure 1.4. Estimated Housing &Transportation Costs as a Share of Income, City of Edmonds &
SnohomishCounty....................................................................................................................................................................6
Figure 1.5. Population Pyramid, 2000-2010, City of Edmonds..........................................................................7
Figure 2.1. Age Distribution of Housing Stock, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County......................10
Figure 2.2. Units in Structure by Housing Tenure, City of Edmonds............................................................10
Figure 2.3. Net Newly -Permitted Units, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County.....................................11
Figure 2.4. Newly Permitted Units by Type, City of Edmonds........................................................................11
Table 2.1. Assisted Units by Income Level Served, City of Edmonds...........................................................12
Table 2.2. Permanent Subsidized Units by Funding Source, City of Edmonds........................................12
Table 2.3. Workforce Units by Funding Source, City of Edmonds.................................................................13
Table 2.4. Renter -Occupied Units by Rent and Unit Size, City of Edmonds (Without Utilities) ..........
14
Table 2.5. Average Rent and Affordability by Size, City of Edmonds (Including Utilities)....................14
Table 2.6. Distribution of Rent Affordability by Size, City of Edmonds.......................................................15
Table 2.7. Average Rents by Size, Single- and Multifamily, City of Edmonds...........................................15
Table 2.8. Affordable Home Sales by Size, City of Edmonds, 2012...............................................................16
Figure 2.5. Home Sale Affordability Gap, 2012, City of Edmonds.................................................................17
Figure 2.6. Home Sale Affordability, 2008-2012, City of Edmonds...............................................................17
Table 2.9.2012 Affordable Home Sales by Type, City of Edmonds
Table 2.10. Size of Homes Sold by Type, 2012, City of Edmonds...................................................................19
Figure 3.1. Income allocation of projected new housing units, City of Edmonds ..................................
20
Map 1.1.Total Population (Block Groups).............................................................................................................
23
Map 1.2. Average Family Size (Block Groups)......................................................................................................
24
Map 1.3. Average Household Size (Block Groups)..............................................................................................
25
Map 1.4. Renter -Occupied Housing Units.............................................................................................................
26
Map 1.5. Vacant Housing Units (Block Groups)...................................................................................................
27
Map1.6. Homeowners with Mortgages................................................................................................................
28
Map 1.7. Very Low -Income Households.................................................................................................................
29
Map1.8. Cost -Burdened Renters..............................................................................................................................
30
Map1.9. Cost -Burdened Owners..............................................................................................................................
31
Map 1.10. Housing &Transportation, Percent of Low HH Income...............................................................32
Map 2.1. Voucher Location and Transit Access....................................................................................................
33
Map2.2. Age of Housing Stock.................................................................................................................................
34
Map 2.3. Condition of Housing Stock.....................................................................................................................
35
Map2.4. Housing Density...........................................................................................................................................
36
Map 2.7. New Single Family Permits by Census Tract, 2011...........................................................................
37
Map 2.8. New Multifamily Permits by Census Tract, 2011...............................................................................
38
Map 2.9. Average Renter Household Size..............................................................................................................
39
Table E.I. Maximum Monthly Housing Expense by Household Size, Seattle -Bellevue HMFA 2012...1
Vi
Introduction
In Snohomish County's Countywide Planning Policies, Housing Goal 5 states that"the cities
and the county shall collaborate to report housing characteristics and needs in a timely
manner for jurisdictions to conduct major comprehensive plan updates and to assess
progress toward achieving CPPs on housing" Building on the County's efforts in preparing
the countywide HO-5 Report, this profile furthers this goal by providing detailed, local
information on existing conditions for housing in Edmonds so the City can plan more
effectively to promote affordable housing and collaborate with neighboring jurisdictions. This
profile will present the full spectrum of its subsidized and market rate housing stock.
Permanent settlement in present day Edmonds dates back to 1890, making Edmonds the
oldest incorporated city in Snohomish County. Edmonds was born out of homesteading and
logging operations in the late 1800's and, through the years, built economic foundations on
a host of platforms including milling, shingle splitting, and manufacturing, among others.
Today, Edmonds has almost 40,000 residents and over 17,000 households. Edmonds' growth
has been modest in recent years (less than 1 % annually), and this trend is expected to
continue.The majority of the City's neighborhoods are composed of single family homes,
though future growth is likely to follow recent trends emphasizing more multifamily
development. Existing multifamily residential developments are focused on major arterials,
downtown, and near Highway 99.The Downtown/Waterfront and Highway 99 corridor areas
are considered the primary commercial centers of Edmonds, with one smaller but significant
center at Westgate (located at the intersection of Edmonds Way and 100th Avenue West).
Smaller neighborhood commercial centers are located in several neighborhoods, such as Five
Corners, Firdale, and Perrinville.
Several affordable housing -specific terms and concepts will be used throughout the profile.
Income levels will be defined by their share of"Area Median Income, or AMI. For this report,
median income for the Seattle -Bellevue HUD Metro Fair Market Rent Area (HMFA) will be used
for AMI because it is the measure HUD uses to administer its programs. Housing agencies
typically define income levels as they relate to AMI. These are:
• Extremely Low Income - up to 30% AMI
• Very Low Income - up to 50% AMI
• Low Income - up to 80% AMI
• Moderate Income - up to 95% AMI
• Middle Income - up to 120% AMI
When a household spends more than 30% of their income on housing, it is considered to be
"cost burdened", and, if lower income, will likely have to sacrifice spending on other essentials
like food and medical care. "Costvburden" is used as a benchmark to evaluate housing
affordability.
Population and Community
In 2013, Edmonds was home to an estimated 39,950 people, only slightly higher than its 2000
population of 39,544.3The City's population has been stable since the mid-1990s, when there
were several large jumps due to annexations in south and southwest Edmonds. The City is
projected to grow at a modest rate moving forward, accommodating an estimated 5,841
additional residents by 2035.This increase would require 2,790 additional housing units,
which is near its estimated capacity of 2,646 additional units. Of the current capacity, the vast
majority is in multifamily properties, with a high portion through redevelopment 4
Figure 1.1. Total Population, City of Edmonds, 1990-2013
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
O N M '�t Ln �O r� W ON O N M � Ln %O r` O Ch O � N M
ON d\ M ON M ON ON M ON ON O O O O O O O O O O
ON d> O CDO O O O CD CD CD CDO O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N
Source: Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2013
The 20121 population includes 17,396 households with an average household size of 2.3
people, compared to 2.6 for the County. Of these, 10,997, or 63%, are family' households.
Overall, 23.3% of households have children. In Snohomish County overall, 68% of households
are families, and 32.5% of households have children.The average family size in Edmonds is 2.8,
compared to 3.12 for the county. The average Edmonds renter household is smaller than the
average owner household — 2 people per renter household versus 2.4 per owner household.'
The share of foreign born residents in Edmonds is similar to the County overall - 13.9%
3 Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2013
4 Snohomish Cou nty Tomorrow Planning Advisory Committee,"Housing Characteristics and Needs in
Snohomish County", 2014
5 2012 data is used as, at time of writing, it is the most recent ACS 5-year data available
6 Based on the US Census Bureau's definition of family, which "consists of two or more people (one of whom
is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption residing in the same housing unit"
7 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
R1
versus 14.1 % for the County. The population of foreign born residents who are not U.S. citizens
is lower in Edmonds than the County - 44% of foreign born residents versus 51 % of foreign born
County residents. Residents born in Asia constitute 47% of the foreign born Edmonds population
while European residents make up 20% of foreign born residents. 16% of Edmonds residents speak a
language other than English in the home and 6% of residents speak English "less than very well", both
proportions are lower than the County's numbers.'
The share of the population living in rented homes is similar to the share Countywide. 31 % of
Edmonds residents and 33% of Snohomish County residents currently live in rented homes. As shown
in Figure 1.2, the proportion of homeowners remained relatively constant between 2000 and 2010,
increasing slightly from 68% to about 69%.1 36% of Edmonds' population lives in multifamily homes,
compared to 31 % across the County (renters and owners combined). The City's vacancy rate is 6.7%
compared to 6.4% for the County as a whole.10
Figure 1.2. Population Share by Housing Tenure, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Edmonds Snohomish County
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2000 2010
2000 2010
■ Owners Renters Owners Renters
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000,• US Census Bureau, 2010
The 2012 HMFA AMI for Seattle -Bellevue, which is referenced in this report as a standard for AMI, is
$88,000, higher than the County's overall 2012 median income of $68,338. Edmonds 2012 median
income is higher than the County AMI at $73,072. However, some economic segments of the City's
population could be at risk of being housing burdened. Compared to HUD HMFA AMI and based on
2012 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates:
• 2,638 households, or 15%of Edmonds'total, are considered to be extremely low income, earning
less than 30% of area median income (AMI),
• 2,684, or 15%, are considered very low income, earning between 30 and 50% of AMI,
• 2,604, or 15%, are considered low income, earning between 50 and 80% of AMI, and
• 1,773, or 10%, are considered moderate income, earning between 80 and 90% of AMI
8 Ibid.
9 US Census Bureau, 2000; US Census Bureau, 2010
10 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
4
A comparison of income distribution in the City and County is presented graphically in Figure 1.3. As
shown, Edmonds has a higher percentage of very low income households and households earning
higher than middle income than the County as a whole, but lower percentages of every other
income group. The combined percentage of extremely low, very low, and low income households is
approximately 46%, compared to about 21 % moderate and middle income and 33% above middle
income. Note that these percentages are not adjusted for household size due to data constraints. Here,
a household consisting of two adults with an income level equal to another household consisting
of two adults and three children would
both be placed at the same percentage of
AMI, even though the larger family would
likely be more constrained financially.
HUD's AMI calculations include ranges for
households sized 1-8 people, and, in this
report, sensitivity for household size is used
wherever possible, as detailed in Appendix
E.
Maps 1.8 and 1.9 show the percentages
of renter and owner households in each
census tract that are cost burdened,
meaning that they spend more than 30%
of their income on housing. Overall, 38% of
households in Edmonds are cost burdened,
renters and owners combined.
Table 1.1 shows the percentage of each
income group that is cost burdened in
Edmonds and Snohomish County by
Figure 1.3. Household Share by Income Level, City of
Edmonds and Snohomish County
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Extremely Very Low Low Moderate Middle Above
Low Middle
■ Edmonds ■ Snohomish County
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008-2012
housing tenure. According to this data,
the City's renters are all less likely to be cost burdened compared to renters Countywide, except
low income renters. While owners earning less than 50% AMI in the City are more likely to be cost
burdened, this relationship reverses above that income level. For both renters and owners, there is
a significant drop in cost burden above 50% AMI. This table does not address differences in degrees
of cost burden — for example, a household that spends 31 % of its income on housing would be
considered cost burdened along with a household that spends 80% of its income on housing."
Table 1.1. Cost Burden by Income and Housing Tenure, City of Edmonds & Snohomish County
Renters
owners
All
Income
Snohomish
Snohomish
Snohomish
Level
Edmonds
Edmonds
Edmonds
County
County
County
Extremely
79%
80%
82%
73%
82%
78%
Low
Very Low
81%
85%
86%
80%
63%
64%
Low
29%
28%
46%
72%
47%
65%
Moderate
13%
18%
43%
48%
38%
40%
11 Ibid
�i
Middle 7% 1 5% 1 26% 1 32% 22% 25%
Source: US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012
HUD's Location Affordability Index uses a number of variables to estimate the affordability of a
location including both housing and transportation costs. According to the index, a "regional typical
household '2"could expect to spend 49% of its income on housing and transportation if renting or
owning in Edmonds. 45% is proposed as a targeted maximum percentage of income to be spent on
housing and transportation combined to be affordable according to HUD standards. A low income
household,13 however, could expend to spend 71 % of their income on housing and transportation.
A regional moderate family may have to devote up to 57% of their income on housing and
transportation.14
Housing and transportation affordability estimates for a number of different household types are
presented in Figure 1.4. In general, estimates for Edmonds residents are very close to those for the
Figure 1.4. Estimated Housing & Transportation Costs as a Share of Income, City of Edmonds &
Snohomish County
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
All Households I Renters i Owners
Source: US Dept. of Housing & Urban Development, • Location Affordability Portal, 2013
Median
Income HH
Moderate
Income HH
■ Very Low
Income HH
■ Median
Income
Individual
County overall. In either case, it is estimated that owners will generally spend more on housing and
transportation than renters, regardless of jurisdiction or household type.
The 2012 unemployment rate was 4.2% in Edmonds, compared to 5.9% for the County. For employed
Edmonds residents, the mean commute time is 27 minutes, compared with 29 for the County. 71 %
of City residents drive to work alone compared with 74% of all County workers. The most common
occupations for Edmonds residents are in management, business, science and arts occupations, at
12 Defined as a household with average household size, median income, and average number of commuters in
Seattle -Bellevue HUD HMFA
13 Defined as a household with 3 individuals, one commuter, and income equal to 50% AMI
14 US Department of Housing & Urban Development; Location Affordability Portal, 2013
M
49% of the employed population, followed by sales and office occupations, with 25% of the employed
population. The two most dominant industry groups employing City residents are educational
services, healthcare and assistance industries with 23% of workers, and the professional, scientific,
management, administrative and waste industries, with 13% of workers.15
According to the Puget Sound Regional Council, Edmonds is home to 12,449 jobs. The majority of
these jobs are in the services sector, with 8,540jobs. 4,918 of those jobs are in healthcare and social
assistance and 1,369 jobs are in the accommodation and food service fields.16
Edmonds has 0.7 jobs for every occupied home compared to 1.2 employed people per home. Even
assuming all of these people only have one job and only local people are employed locally, this means
that a significant portion of the population must commute to work. In actuality, 80% of employed
Edmonds residents work outside the City. More than half of these commuters work outside Snohomish
County, most likely in King County. Across Snohomish County, there are only .9jobs per occupied
home compared to 1.3 employed people per home."
The shape of the City's population pyramid, shown in Figure 1.5, offers additional insight into its
housing needs and how they may be changing. As shown, between 2000 and 2010 the population of
older residents grew and the population of younger residents shrank. As the baby boomer generation
continues to retire, every community will see an increase in the share of elderly people, but in
Edmonds the effects may be particularly strong - the City's 2012 median age was 46, compared to
Figure 1.5. Population Pyramid, 2000-2010, City of Edmonds
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
LI'IJ
2,000 1,500 1,000 500
500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
Source: US Census Bureau, 2000; US Census Bureau, 2010
■ 2010
2000
15 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
16 Puget Sound Regional Council; Covered Employment Estimates, 2012
17 US Census; American Community Survey, 2008-2012; Puget Sound Regional Council; Covered Employment
Estimates, 2012
7
37 across the County. Out of all age groups, the greatest increases from 2000-2010 was in residents
between the ages of 55 and 65, while the greatest decrease was in residents between 35 and 40. The
number of young children is also decreasing.
Household Profiles
These are the stories of several actual Edmonds households who receive some kind of housing
assistance from the Housing Authority of Snohomish County. All names and many nonessential details
have been changed to respect their privacy.
Beth
Beth lives in a two bedroom apartment in Edmonds with her two children. She works full time at a
grocery store and makes a total annual income of $21,079, or about $1,757 per month. This translates
to an hourly wage just under $11 per hour.
With Assistance
With her voucher administered through the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO), Beth
pays $462 in rent and $163 in utilities for her two bedroom apartment. After rent and utilities are paid,
Beth has $1,132 left over per month to support her family.
Without Assistance
Without a voucher, Beth's monthly rent obligation would be $1,088, including utilities, more than
60% of her total monthly income. The average rent for a two bedroom unit in Edmonds is $1,066, so
finding a significantly more affordable unit could be challenging. Beth could look for a shared living
arrangement as a cheaper alternative, however, it would be difficult to find a living situation that
would accommodate her and her children. Having two children, downsizing from a two bedroom unit
is not a feasible option either. In order to afford her current apartment, Beth would need to find a job
that pays more than double her current income —about $43,520 a year, or $21 per hour.
Jamie
Jamie is an elderly disabled woman living in a one bedroom apartment in Edmonds. Jamie's sole
source of income is Social Security payments that provide $8,672 a year, or about $723 a month.
With Assistance
Jamie receives a voucher through HASCO for $550 toward her monthly rent. The market rent for
her one bedroom apartment is $705 per month plus $62 in utilities. After her voucher is applied to
her rent, Jamie pays $155 plus $62 in utilities per month. This leaves Jamie with $506 per month to
support herself.
Without Assistance
The market rent for Jamie's home is $767 including utilities, more than her monthly income. If
Jamie had to look for an apartment she could afford without a voucher, the most affordable studio
apartment she could expect to find would rent for around $550, including utilities, which would still
be 76% of her income. Without the means to acquire a job or family or friends who could help, Jamie
would have few options without a housing voucher.
Dave
8
Dave and his wife live in a two bedroom apartment in Edmonds. Dave works in a local warehouse
and his wife receives income from Social Security payments due to a disability. Together, they receive
employment and Social Security income totaling $18,044 per year, or $1,504 per month.
With Assistance
With his voucher, Dave and his wife pay $581 in rent plus $193 in utilities per month. This leaves Dave
and his wife with $730 left over for the month.
Without Assistance
If Dave did not receive a Section 8 Voucher, he would have to pay $1,068 per month for rent and
utiIities.This would leave the couple with only $436 per month to spend on food and other essentials.
At this rate, Dave would be spending about 70% of his family's income on rent alone. The average rent
for a two bedroom unit in Edmonds is $1,097, so finding a market rate apartment of the same size but
at a cheaper price than his current apartment could be challenging. At the time of this report, two
bedroom apartments for rent in the area range from $777 to $1,916 per month. If Dave were able to
rent the cheapest two bedroom apartment in Edmonds, without a voucher he and his wife would still
be paying 52% of their monthly income on rent, making them significantly cost burdened. As the most
they could afford with their current income would be $450, there are not even any studio units that
would be affordable.
n
Existing Housing Stock
The City of Edmonds is located in southwest Snohomish County, bounded to the west by the
Puget Sound, east by the cities of Mountlake Terrace and Lynnwood, south by King County, and
north by Mukilteo. Edmonds' primary commercial centers are the Highway 99 corridor and the
Downtown/Waterfront area.The southern portion of the Waterfront area houses a concentration
of businesses as well as the Port of Edmonds, where the Washington State Ferry provides service
to the Kitsap Peninsula. The City's neighborhoods are mostly composed of single family homes,
which make up 66% of the total housing stock. Multifamily residential developments are
located just south and north of the downtown area. As shown in Figure 2.1, the City has a high
concentration of homes constructed between 1950 and 1969 compared to the County, and
fewer constructed after 1990.11 The number of units projected to accommodate population
growth over the next 20 years isjust overthe City's current capacity.The majority of this potential
will be in multifamily properties, and nearly half of all potential is in redevelopable parcels.19
Figure 2.2 shows the distribution of renters and owners among different types of housing,
with owners in the inner ring and renters in the outer ring. As shown, 85% of homeowners
live in single family homes. While 24% of renters also live in single family homes, the
next largest group of renters, 22% of the total, live in properties with 20 to 49 units 20
Figures 2.3 and 2.4 provide information on newly permitted units in the City in recent years.
Figure 2.3 shows the total number of net newly permitted residential units per year from 2001
to 2012 for both the City and County, with the City on the left axis and the County on the right.
Figure 2.4 shows the share of the City's new units composed of single- and multifamily units.
Figure 2.1. Age Distribution of Housing Stock, Figure 2.2. Units in Structure by
City of Edmonds & Snohomish County Housing Tenure, City of Edmonds
50%
40%
30%
20%
100/
0% • ,
Before 1949 1950-1969 1970-1989 1990 or
Later
■ Edmonds ■ Snohomish County
■ 1 ■ 2
■3or4 ■5to9
■ 10 to 19 ■ 20 to 49
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey Source: US Census Bureau, American
2008-2012 Community Survey 2008-2012
18 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
19 Snohomish County Tomorrow Planning Advisory Committee,"Housing Characteristics and Needs in
Snohomish County", 2014
20 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
10
Figure 2.3. Net Newly -Permitted Units, City of Figure 2.4. Newly Permitted Units by Type, City
Edmonds & Snohomish County of Edmonds
250
200
150
100
50
Edmonds Snohomish County
7,000 250
6,000 200
5,000
150
4,000
3,000 100
2,000 50
1,000 0
0
-50
Single Family Multi -family
Source: Puget Sound Regional Council Source: Puget Sound Regional Council, 2012
As shown, newly permitted units peaked in 2004
in the City, just before the County did, and crashed during the recession. While newly -permitted units
began to recover across the County in 2010, as of 2012 Edmonds had not yet begun to recover at
the same pace. As shown in Figure 2.4, newly permitted units in Edmonds since 2001 have primarily
consisted of multifamily units.21
For the purposes of this report, Edmonds'housing stock is divided into subsidized rental units, workforce
rental units, market rate rental units (both single- and multi -family), and home ownership.
Subsidized rental units are targeted toward households with the lowest incomes, typically less than
30% AMI. Populations targeted for subsidized rental units often include the disabled, elderly, and other
populations living on fixed incomes with special needs. A subsidized property is one that receives
funding, perhaps rental assistance or an operating subsidy, to insure that its residents pay rents that
are affordable for their income level. Some properties only apply their subsidy to select units. It is also
common for subsidized units to be restricted to certain groups like families, the elderly, or homeless.
A subsidized property may have also benefited from workforce -type housing subsidies, and it is also
common for just a portion of a property's units to receive an ongoing subsidy.
Workforce rental units are targeted to working households that still cannot afford market rents.
Workforce rental units and subsidized rental units are both considered "assisted', but differ in several
areas.The key difference between subsidized and workforce units is that workforce units have a subsidy
"built in"through the use of special financing methods and othertools, allowing (and typically requiring)
the landlord to charge less for rent. An example of this would be when a private investor benefits from
low income housing tax credits when building a new residential development. In exchange for the tax
credit savings, the property owner would have to restrict a certain number of units to a certain income
level for a certain period of time. When the owner is a for -profit entity, this often means that rents on
restricted units will become market rate units when the period of restriction has ended. While nonprofit
owners may also utilize workforce tools for capital funding, they are more likely to preserve restrictions
21 Puget Sound Regional Council, Residential Building Permit Summaries 2012
11
on units longer than required. The distribution of Edmonds'assisted units by income level served, both
subsidized and workforce, is presented in Table 2.1.
Market rate rental units are the stock of all housing units
available for rent in the open market. These are units that are
privately owned and whose rents are determined by market
supply and demand pressures. A market rate rental unit can
also be a subsidized rental unit, as is the case with the Federal
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program. Section 8
vouchers can be used to rent any unit, as detailed below.
Table 2.1. Assisted Units by Income
Level Served, City of Edmonds
Extremely Low
233
Very Low
79
Low
194
Moderate
2
Total
508
Homeownership units include all single family homes for sale Sources: HASCO, 2014, EHA, 2014
— detached and attached single family homes, condominiums,
and manufactured homes.
Subsidized Housing Units: Permanent and Transitional
Edmonds has 303 units of subsidized housing with a range of rental assistance sources including
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs), HUD Supportive Housing Program, Section 8 Project -
Based Vouchers, and the Sound Families Initiative. As of July 2014, there were 195 HCVs in use in
Edmonds administered by the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) and the Everett
Housing Authority (EHA).12 All assisted units and buildings are listed in Appendix B.Table 2.2 shows the
distribution of permanent subsidized units by funding source.
Families making up to 50% of AMI are eligible for Section Table 2.2. Permanent Subsidized Units
8 housing vouchers; however, 75% of these vouchers are by Funding Source, City of Edmonds
limited to those making no more than 30% of AMI. Public
Housing Authorities (PHAs) receive federal funds from
the US Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) to administer the HCV program. HUD sets Fair Market
Rents (FMRs) annually and PHAs determine their individual
payment standards (a percentage of FMR) by unit bedroom
size. The tenant identifies a unit, then the PHA inspects the
unit to make sure it meets federal Housing Quality Standards
Section 8 Housing Choice
Voucher
195
Section 8 Project -Based
98
Voucher
HUD Supportive Housing
10
Program
Sound Families Initiative
12
and determines if the asked rent is reasonable. If the unit Source: HASCO, 2014
is approved, the tenant pays rent equal to 30-40% of their
income, and the PHA pays the difference directly to the
landlord. While the voucher amount is set up so that a family does not need to spend more than 30%
of their income on housing, including an allowance for utilities, a family may choose to spend up to
40% of their income on housing. This happens most often when the family chooses a home that is
larger than the size approved for their voucher. The two PHAs that administer the HCV program in
Snohomish County are HASCO and the Everett Housing Authority (EHA). Vouchers issued by both
PHAs can be used in Edmonds.
Because the number of vouchers a PHA can distribute is limited by the amount of federal funding
they receive, the wait for a new applicant to receive an HCV can be extremely long and is usually
22 Housing Authority of Snohomish County, 2014; Everett Housing Authority, 2014
12
dependent on existing voucher holders leaving the program. Until recently, the wait to receive an HCV
from HASCO had been about 6 years. Federal funding for the HCV program was frozen during the 2013
budget sequester, at which time HASCO had to close its waitlist.
Workforce Housing
Edmonds is home to 201 units of workforce housing distributed across 3 properties, all listed in
Appendix B. Assisted workforce housing units are defined by the fact that they received some form of
one-time subsidy in exchange for rent restrictions. Workforce funding types do not involve ongoing
rental assistance, and rents are not tailored to individual household incomes. These subsidies can
include:
Capital Financing - Low -interest -rate mortgages,
mortgage insurance, tax-exempt bond financing,
loan guarantees, and pre -development cost
reduction financing.
Table 2.3. Workforce Units by Funding
Source, City of Edmonds
Tax Credit
92
Bond
200
Housing Trust Fund
1
Low -Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) —Tax credits iState and Co
provided to developers that can be sold for the Source: HASCO, 2014
purposes of up front debt reduction.
Federal, State, and County Grant Programs — Grants provided to local governments from the
federal government for construction or renovation of below -market -rate units. Community
Development Block Grants and HOME grants are two popular examples
Workforce housing in Edmonds has been funded through a variety of sources, including low-income
housing tax credits (LIHTC), tax-exempt bonds, and State and County Housing Trust Fund dollars. While
the name may suggest otherwise, it is common for developers to use workforce funding sources to
funding housing for populations like seniors. Table 2.3 shows the number of workforce units funded
per major source in Edmonds, with full information provided in Appendix B. Table 2.3 only includes
units that do not have additional rental assistance (Considered'subsidized' in this report), which often
also use workforce subsidies as part of their financing. As most workforce properties use more than
one funding source, there are units counted multiple times in the different funding categories listed
in Table 2.3. Financing for any affordable housing project is often very complicated and can involve an
array of public, nonprofit, and private entities.
While not currently the case in Edmonds'workforce properties, many workforce housing properties
only dedicate a portion of their units for lower income tenants. This is typical of properties developed
or rehabilitated by private entities using tax credits or tax-exempt bond financing in exchange for
income restrictions on the properties. In those cases, affordable housing requirements are limited to a
certain period of time, typically 20 to 30 years, after which time the property owners can increase rents
to market rates. Some properties feature both subsidized and workforce units.
Market Rate Rental Units
There are an estimated 5,000 rental units in Edmonds of every type, from single family homes to large
13
apartment buildings. According to American Community Survey estimates, 3,739 out of 5,000 renter -
occupied housing units are in multifamily properties. This compares to 1,904 multifamily units out of
12,396 owner -occupied homes.23
Table 2.4 summarizes ACS data on the number of units available at certain rent levels by bedroom
size in Edmonds. No evidence was found of any market rents below $500, despite ACS data to the
contrary.This could be because the ACS Sample may include subsidized units and less formal rent
arrangements, such as renting rooms or mother-in-law suites in single family homes or renting from
family members that could be more affordable. ACS rent data also does not include utility allowances.
Table 2.4. Renter -Occupied Units by Rent and Unit Size, City of Edmonds (Without Utilities)
No Bedrooms
i Bedroom
Units
2 Bedroom
Units
3+ Bedroom
Less than $zoo
0
18
0
$200 to $299
0
52
10
$300 to $499
0
104
0
27
$500 to $749
101
237
110
$750 to $999
103
786
652
$1,000 or more
o
186
1486
Source: US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
To provide a better idea of what a household looking for a home today could expect to pay in rent and
utilities in Edmonds, rent data was obtained from Dupre and Scott. This data, which includes both
multifamily and single family rental units, is summarized in Table 2.5 and presented in full in Appendix
A. Table 2.5 lists the minimum full time wage to afford each average rent in hourly and annual terms as
well as the number of hours one would have to work per week earning Washington State's minimum
wage to afford the unit.
Table 2.5. Average Rent and Affordability by Size, City of Edmonds (Including Utilities)
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
$
4,347
5 Bedroom
$
2,844
$
54.69
$113,760
$
2,276
$
3,771
Source: Dupre & Scott 2013, National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2014
Table 2.6, on the following page, shows the affordability distribution of average rents in Edmonds by
size. In this table, "Yes" means that the average rent is affordable to a household at that income level,
adjusting for household 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 shown, the
City's rental housing is generally affordable to households earning at least 80% AMI — the moderate
23 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
14
Table 2.6. Distribution of Rent Affordability by Size, City of Edmonds
Number of Bedrooms
Income Level
Studio
i
z T
1 3
4+
Extremely 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
Source: Dupre and Scott 2013
income level and above. Average units two bedrooms or less in size are also affordable to low income
renters, with a limited supply affordable to very low income renters.There is also a limited supply of
three bedroom units affordable to this group.
The difference in minimum required income by size between single- and multifamily units is shown in
Table 2.7. As shown, multifamily units tend to be more affordable than single family homes. As
multifamily units also tend to be smaller than single family homes, there is a lack of larger affordable
units.
Table 2.7. Average Rents by Size, SIngle- and Multifamily, City of Edmonds
Multifamily Ave.
Rent
0 Minimum
Income
Single Family
Ave. Rent
Minimum
Income
Studio
$833
Low
n/a
n/a
1 Bedroom
$887
Low
$1,521
Moderate
2 Bedroom
$1,070
Low
$1,548
Moderate
3 Bedroom
$1,336
Low
$1,992
Moderate
4 Bedroom
n/a
n/a
$2,545
Middle
5 Bedroom
n/a
n/a
$2,844
Middle
Source: Dupre and Scott, 2013
Even after accounting for the fact that utility allowances are not included in ACS data, the range of
rents available in the conventional market is generally higher than that reported in the ACS. Again, this
could be explained by the ACS sample including subsidized units and informal rent arrangements.
While ACS data is important as it shows what Edmonds renters are actually paying, it does not give an
accurate indication of what a typical renter searching for a market rate unit can expect to pay.
Home Ownership
Between 2008 and 2012,61 % of single family homes sold in Edmonds were three bedrooms in size.
24% of homes sold were four bedrooms in size, meaning that three and four bedroom homes together
represented 85% of sales. 9% were two bedrooms and 6% were five bedrooms or larger. This includes
freestanding single family homes, common wall single family homes (townhouses), manufactured
homes, and condominiums24.
24 Snohomish County property use codes 111, 112, 116, 117, 118, 119, 141, 142, 143
15
In 2012, the median sale price for a single family home in Edmonds was $339,975. Assuming a 20%
down payment and using average rates of interest, property 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 afford this payment without being cost burdened, they would require an annual
income of at least $75,796, which is just above the City's median income.25
Appendix C provides statistics on sales of single family homes from 2008-2012, as well the minimum
income necessary to afford the median sale home by year. During that time period, median home
sales prices declined by 17%. In 2012 dollars this translates to a difference of more than $33,000 in
minimum income required to afford the median home .26The housing market across the region has
since begun to recover from the recession. While home sale affordability for 2013 cannot be calculated
at this time, Edmonds currently has the County's third highest average assessed residential value. The
2014 average assessed value of $351,100 represented a 10.7% increase over 2013.27
Table 2.8 lists the percentage of 2012 sales of homes of different sizes that are affordable to each
income level by home size."Not affordable" means that the minimum income required is higher than
the middle income upper cutoff. All of the percentages specify the portion of homes of that size that
someone in the particular income group could afford, adjusting for household size as detailed in
Appendix E. As shown, there is decreasing affordability as size increases, though moderate and middle
income households could theoretically afford the monthly cost of most of the homes sold in 2012.
Moderate income is recommended as the minimum ideal household income for home ownership to
be a reasonable option.
Table 2.8. Affordable Home Sales by Size, City of Edmonds, 2012
Low
ery ow
ow
oderate
iddle
Not
Affordable
Total
Sales
71-2
12%
17%
57%
73%
85%
15%
60
0%
7%
46%
74%
87%
13%
405
3
0%
4%
21%
54%
78%
22%
165
5+
0%
3%
23%
49%
69%
31%
35
Source: Snohomish County Assessor, 2014
The"affordability gap" describes situations where there are more households at a given income level
than there are housing options affordable to those households. Figure 2.5 displays the percentage
of households in Edmonds at each income level compared with the percentage of all home sales in
2012 that each income level could afford. As Figure 2.5 compares the overall income distribution of
the City with the affordability distribution of one year, this is a rough approximation, and other factors
should be considered in examining home ownership affordability. As shown, there were plenty of
sales theoretically affordable for households earning at least 80% AMI in 2012, which is the minimum
income required for home ownership. (Moderate income and above) This analysis does not consider
25 Snohomish County Assessor, 2014
26 Ibid
27 Snohomish County Assessor, "Snohomish County Assessor's Annual Report for 2014Taxes , 2014
16
Figure 2.5. Home Sale Affordability Gap, 2012, City of Edmonds
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Extremely Very Low Law Moderate Middle
Low
❑ Households
■ Sales
Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2008-2012,
whether or not these income
groups are able to access
financing, including a down
payment, or other barriers
to home ownership. There is
also sufficient supply for the
City's low income households,
though home ownership
may only be a good choice
for certain households in this
group. Further, this does not
include competition from
households above middle
income, which comprise 33% of
the City's total.
Figure 2.6 shows how the
percentage of sales affordable
to each income level has changed from 2008 to 2012. As shown, affordability
improved dramatically
for moderate income households during this period, and all other income groups as well. As the
housing market continues
Figure 2.6. Home Sale Affordability, 2008-2012, City of Edmonds
to improve following the
recession, affordability for this
100%
group may retreat again. While
909%
there are affordable options
809%
for low income households,
70g°
and ownership may be a good
60%
■ 2008
option for certain low income
50%
02009
households (those earning
403%
■ 2010
between 50 and 80% AMI), these
30O°
❑ 2011
households are considered the
2�,
exception rather than the rule.
10go
❑ 2012
0% 4- Many of the most affordable
Extremely Very Low Low Moderate Middle
Low sales were likely only so
affordable because they were
Source: Snohomish County Assessor, 2014 foreclosed homes sold by banks.
517 Paradise Lane, for example,
is a three bedroom home that Wells Fargo Bank sold for $240,000 in 2012. At that price, a household
with a minimum income of $46,216 could afford the monthly debt service of around $1,155.This same
home sold for $378,000 in 2004, which is well out of reach to the household with the minimum income
necessary to afford it in 2012. While low priced foreclosed homes can put home ownership within
reach for more households, this is accomplished at the expense of previously displaced homeowners.
Additionally, these sales contribute to ongoing uncertainty about market home values. Low income
home buyers could also become cost burdened by higher property taxes on these"bargain" homes.
Figure 2.7, on the following page, shows how sales have been divided between single family homes,
condominiums, and manufactured homes between 2008 and 2012. In Edmonds, condominiums
17
Figure 2.7. Home Sales by Type, 2008-2012, City of Edmonds
1000/0 MENEEMENEV-
9WO
96❑/❑
94%
9 2❑/❑
90❑/❑
88%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
■ Condo
■ Mfg. Home
■ Single Family
Source: Snohomish County Assessor, 2014
represent a larger portion of the market than in other cities in Snohomish County.
Table 2.9 shows how many sales of each of these three types were affordable to each income
level in 2012. Manufactured homes were most likely to be affordable to lower income
households, with a dramatically lower median sale price, though there was still a significant
number of single family and condominium sales affordable to very low and low income
households. The median home sale prices for single family homes and condominiums were also
very close to each other in 2012. Table 2.10 shows how many homes were sold in 2012 by type
and number of bedrooms.
Table 2.9. 2012 Affordable Home Sales by Type, City of Edmonds
Single
Manufactured
Condo
Family
Home
Extremely
Low
1
6
0
Very Low
37
0
2
Low
208
0
9
Moderate
171
0
17
Middle
104
0
3
Not
108
0
0
Affordable
Median Sale
$ 339,975 $8,150 $341,705
Price
Source: Snohomish County Assessor, 2014
18
Table 2.10. Size of Homes Sold by Type, 2012, City of Edmonds
Bedrooms
Single
Family
Mobile
Home
Condo
Source: Snohomish County Assessor, 2014
Shared Rental Housing
A popular market rate affordable housing option is to split housing costs with other roommates. These
arrangements include renting a room, suite, or accessory dwelling unit (ADU) from a homeowner
living on site. For 8 shared rooms advertised on Craigslist in the City, the monthly cost ranged from
$500 to $650, including utilities. While they were more rooms advertised, they did not include an
address or cross streets, so it could not be verified that they were actually located within the City. Their
rents were generally not outside this range, however.
Rents in this range are easily within reach for very low income single individuals, and possibly even
extremely low income couples. Individuals seeking roommates are able to discriminate in who they
choose to share their housing, however, and often stipulate a preferred gender or bar couples from
sharing a room. It may be difficult for families with children and households with disabilities or other
special needs to find a suitable shared housing situation. In these cases, a household's ability to find
shared housing will likely depend on whether or not they have local connections to help them find
understanding roommates.
19
Current Challenges and Opportunities
The City of Edmonds is faced with the challenge of accommodating greater growth
over the next 20 years than it has seen in the past, requiring an additional 2,790
additional housing units, when the current capacity is only 2,646 additional units. Of
the current capacity, the vast majority is in multifamily properties, with a high portion
to come through redevelopment.28 In general, the City will see a shift toward more
multifamily housing if growth continues as predicted.
Edmonds enjoys a higher median income compared to other areas in the County. All
the same, assuming that the City's income mix stays constant, it is estimated that 1,257
units, or 55% of the total projected increase, will serve households at or below 50%
AMI. The share of projected units by income level is shown in Figure 3.1.
According to 2013 Dupre and
Scott data, Edmonds'rental
housing market is generally
affordable to households
earning at least 80% AMI.
Households earning between
50 and 80% AMI will find the
majority of homes smaller than
five bedrooms affordable as
well.There is a limited supply
of small units affordable to
those earning between 30 and
50% AMI. Market rents are not
affordable to extremely low
income households, though
this is expected in almost all
communities, due to the costs of
construction and maintenance in
today's market. Cost burden data
Figure 3.1. Income allocation of projected new housing
units, City of Edmonds
1,535 or
2,000 55%
1,500
1,000 41 %
� rr
419 or 15%
Projected New Homes
Moderate +
Above AM I
■ Low AMI
■ Very Low AMI
■ Extremely Low
AMI
55%, or 1,257 u nits,
at or below 80%AMI
supports these conclusions, with
a significant reduction in cost burden for both renters and owners at income levels
above 50% AMI. Overall, 38% of Edmonds households are cost burdened. Renters
and owners earning less than middle income are all less likely to be cost burdened in
Edmonds when compared to the County, with the exception of homeowners below
50% AMI who are more likely to be cost burdened.29
In 2012, the median sale price for a single family home in Edmonds was $339,975. The
estimated monthly payment for this home would be $1,895, including debt service,
insurance, taxes, and utilities. For a family to afford this payment without being cost
burdened, they would require an annual income of at least $75,796, which is just
28 Snohomish County Tomorrow Planning Advisory Committee,"Housing Characteristics and
Needs in Snohomish County, 2014
29 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
m
above the City's median income.30 Affordability for 2013 cannot be calculated at this time, but average
assessed values suggest that home prices are rising and affordability is retreating. At $351,100,
Edmonds has the third highest average assessed 2014 home value in Snohomish County after
Woodway and Mukilteo, and it represented a 10.7% increase over 2013.31
The age of units in Edmonds is a possible contributing factor to affordability, as the City features a
significant stock of homes constructed between 1950 and 1969. As properties are redeveloped to
build the denser housing the City needs to accommodate growth, it is likely that a portion of these
naturally affordable older units will be replaced with higher priced new units. While preservation of
older housing is an effective strategy for affordability, preservation must be balanced with the need to
accommodate growth. In addition, the higher priced new units of today will be the quality affordable
older units of tomorrow.
Edmonds has one of the highest percentages of elderly residents among all Snohomish County cities.
According to the ACS estimates, almost 25% of households in Edmonds have individuals 65 years or
older.32 In addition to having generally lower incomes, seniors will require different types of housing
and services if they desire to age in place. Additionally, as the "baby boomer" generation continues to
move into retirement, there will be an increase in the number of people with disabilities as well.
To respond to the continuing need to provide affordable housing for the community, the City has
undertaken a series of measures and strategies to promote affordable housing including:
• Land Use Strategies: upzoning from single family to multifamily zoning, offering density bonuses
for low income and senior housing provision, clustering subdivisions, planned residential
developments to protect the environment, encouraging infill developments, and promoting
conversion/adaptive reuse programs.
• Administrative Procedures: streamlined approval processes, updated use -by -right policies, and
updated impact mitigation payment deferral.
• Development Standards: installed front and side yard setback requirements, zero lot line
development, improved street design and construction, off-street parking requirements, and
innovative sanitary, sewer, water and storm water systems.
• Low -Cost Housing Types: encourage the use of accessory dwellings, cottage houses, mixed -use
developments and mobile/manufactured housing.
In addition to promoting, adjusting, and providing incentives for these policies where appropriate,
the City should continue to monitor their use and evaluate policies to make sure there are not
unnecessary regulatory barriers to affordable housing. Additionally, the City could consider adopting a
multifamily tax abatement program for certain locations and, when opportunities arise, the City could
partner with nonprofit organizations developing housing for households earning below 30% AMI, the
income group generally not served by the traditional housing market.
30 Snohomish County Assessor, 2014
31 Snohomish County Assessor, "Snohomish County Assessor's Annual Report for 2014Taxes , 2014
32 US Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2008-2012
21
Maps
22
Map 1.1. Total Population (Block Groups)
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008-2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
I
j
I
/
j
I
/
I
I
Z
�-
GJ
/
<
196thStS
J
IN
196th St SW 196th St SW
i'
i
i
Main
Street
j
>
_
41
Qmi
r--------------i
-
I
�
cj
I
I
Population (Block Groups)
-
r: MUGA
City Limits j
10s,
I
0-464
465 - 958
j
959 - 1284 I
1285-1553
------v-------
1554-2040
-
0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles
Map 1.2. Average Family Size (Block Groups)
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008-2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
'uget Drive
Street
Family Size
0.00
0.01 - 2.15
2.16 - 2.95
2.96 - 3.34
3.35 - 4.12
- I-J City Limits
MUGA
I
I S§th St SW
i
i
i
i
i
i
Z�
I
I
r--j
Lry
I
I-_
i
196th St SW
0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles
Map 1.3. Average Household Size (Block Groups)
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008-2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
.r-
I•
I
I I
I
% I
i"
� I
i'
1 I
j 96thstSbv 194th St SW 196th St SW
/ I
� I
i Main Street i
a %
i, a
L------------
Qm :/
I i
I
I--- I
Household Size
0.00 - 1.70
I d I
1.71 - 2.30
I I._
2.31 - 2.77 I
i
2.78 - 3.42
_ I
r City Limits
--f-------L ---
--- - — - — - — - — - — - —
r MUGA — --
25
i I I I i I I i
0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles
Map 1.4. Renter -Occupied Housing Units
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008-2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
r�
Main Street
Renter -Occupied Homes
(By Block Group)
0% - 7%
8% - 17%
18% - 27%
28%-41%
_
42% - 72%
L r•
City Limits
r
MUGA
196t6StSIV 196th St SW
196th St SW
0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles
Map 1.5. Vacant Housing Units (Block Groups)
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008-2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
I I
I I
I I
j I
� I
I"-
7
i"
i I
i " 1
i � Z •1
.19 i
sthStsW 19�th St SW 196th St SW
i
i
i" Main Street I
L"
CA "
�1
I
Vacant Homes j
(By Block Group)
Fq,
0% - 2% F i
3% - 7% I s
1
8% - 10% I j
11%- 19%
20% - 25% j 1
r ' City Limits I \
r MUGA - -------------------
0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles
Map 1.6. Homeowners with Mortgages
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2073
19¢th St SW
Mortgaged Homes
0%
1%-64%
65% - 73%
74% - 79%
80% - 95%
City Limits
-_t MUGA
196th St SW
0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles
Map 1.7. Very Low -Income Households
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
Households
<50%AMI
0% - 12%
13% - 20%
21%-33%
34% - 46%
47% - 68%
City Limits
MUGA
196th St SW 196th St SW
r--
i
i
main greet
�
v
Q
I
I
I
I
d
I
I
I
�
0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles
Map 1.8. Cost -Burdened Renters
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2073
P
Cost -Burdened
Renters
0%
1%- 35%
36% - 52%
53% - 78%
_
79% - 100%
r_r
City Limits
r
MUGA
I
I j
I j
/ I
-----------/
I
I
I
�1
I
1721Pth St SW 196th St SW
4
I
I
I
I
Q�/
0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles
Map 1.9. Cost -Burdened Owners
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
I--
�
i z 1
/ > I
i 796th S
i tsIV IP-6th St SW 196th St SW
i
Main Street I
L�
Q
I
I
Cost -Burdened I i
Owners — -I —
- — 'co
I-Q
0% - 10%
11%-28%
29% - 36% I I
37% - 48% j
1
49% - 65%
-r_!- City Limits
— �.�_------------- MUGA
31
0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles
Map 1.10. Housing & Transportation, Percent of Low HH Income
Sources: US Housing & Urban Development, 2073; Snohomish County Information Services, 2072
Percent of Income
51% - 58%
59% - 65%
66% - 73%
74% -81%
82% - 100%
City Limits
MUGA
0 0.375
0.75
1.5 Miles
I �
I I
j I
j I '
I
I
i
i
I
196th St SW 196th St SW
r-'
1
I
Map 2.1. Voucher Location and Transit Access
Sources: HASCO 2014; Snohomish County Community Transit, 2014; Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
nge
I k)
•
•
0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles
Map 2.2. Age of Housing Stock
Sources: Snohomish County Assessor, 2012, Snohomish County Information Services, 2012
n
196th St SW
Year Built
1872 -
1904
1905 -
1918
1919-1934
1935 -
1948
1949 -
1957
1958 -
1964
1965 -
1972
1973 -
1983
1984 -
1997
1998 -
2013
i;r City Limits
MUGA
0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles
Map 2.3. Condition of Housing Stock
Sources: Snohomish County Assessor, 2014, Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
_..LLM
I
11L� \�
A/
ti
IN,
..
IN
IN- i
IN
IN
.. �• ,". .I - - ,
t
.A IN :
%41Nt I -ti • ► ..
-s
% eira r '
j' _+e E 196jth St SW 196th St SW
A IN
NN
'.v - -tip ■ �.,�� - �• -� �ti_r I'�.I•I
.�` :4 I -----
' �-
• ilk
' r.ILIj
Condition (For Age)
' "•
-�
_ Excellent
IN
- '• " - � 1
_ Very Good,'
- IN —'� ■ I
� _ xc.
��
r--r
Above Normal
r �� :P
L
Normal
V-
_ r' `� o
4
'
Below Normal
�' I' d
or
Poor
Ir
_ Very Poor
�
�.,
•u
•' �'�
�Jr City Limits
j _ _
_ ,
r MUGA
.
----3---1---i -
0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles
35
Map 2.4. Housing Density
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012; Snohomish County Information Services, 2073
Areet
Housing
Units/Acre (By
Block Group)
0.0 - 1.4
1.5 - 3.0
3.1 - 4.3
4.4 - 6.6
6.7 - 11.7
r City Limits
-_f
r MUGA
-_f
— i Cn
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
196th St SW
I
l
�l
I
196th St SW
r--
i
196th St SW
0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles
Map 2.7. New Single Family Permits by Census Tract, 2011
Sources: Snohomish County Information Services, 2012; PSRC, 2011
o,
Street
I96tb St SW
I
I
19�th St SW
I
I
I
I
I
/
si
Qm/
196th St SW
0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles
Map 2.8. New Multifamily Permits by Census Tract, 2011
Sources: Snohomish County Information Services, 2012; PSRC, 2011
I j
I j
I I
� I
IN L---------- 7
% I
� I
--i i
% s Ih StS
r
W 196th St SW
g6 196th St SW
/ I
i Main Street I
/ L_ r;
----------------� v i
o�
I I
Net Newly- j I
Permitted Units by--� j
F �-
Tract
-4 q� /
d
-3-0 I j
I �
2-8
J City Limits
MUGA
0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles
Map 2.9. Average Renter Household Size
Sources: American Community Survey, 2008 - 2012, Snohomish County Information Services, 2013
I I
I I
I I
j I
i----------�
i� � I
/ � I
�
% � Z •1
i' Q Igs
r
hstsW 19th St SW 196th St SW
� I
� I
i Main Street I
L•
i a' 3A.i'
I Cn mac,
k
I
Average H H Size - I
Renters --
O
0.00 - 1.65 I r
I a j
1.66 - 2.18
f
2.19 - 2.68 I I
2.69 - 3.73
3.74 - 7.42 I 1
r City Limits I \
_-_ --'
r M__—_
UGA 39
0 0.375 0.75 1.5 Miles
Appendices
40
Appendix A: Multifamily Rent Comparables by Property, City of Edmonds
Units in Minimum Units in Minimum Units in Minimum Units in Minimum Units in Minimum Units in Minimum Units in Minimum Units in Minimum
Aqe Studio Rent Utilities Total _ Aqe 1Bd-Rent Utilities Total _ Aqe 2/1-Rent Utilities Total _ Aqe 2/2-Rent Utilities Total _ Aqe 3/1-Rent Utilities Total _ _ .. Aqe 3/2-Rent Utilities Total _ _ _
Aqe 4Be -Rent Utilities Total qe 6 - ent Utilities Total
4:20+
2010
$1,035
$ 152 $1,187
Low
420+
1975
$682
$ 152
$834
Low
4:20+
1975
$690
$ 152
$842
Low
4:20+
1975
$685
$ 152
$837
Low
420+
1965
5425
S 152
5577
Very Low
4:20+
1985
$793
$ 152
$945
Low
3:4-19
1975
S850
S 46
S896
Low
Iim
19fi5 $fi89 $
965 $850 $
1965 $785 S
1945 $810 $
1965 5775 $
1945 :650 $
945 619 $
1965 $670 $
1985 5800 $
1985 5725 $
975 $760 $
2010 $1,207 $
1985 $710 $
985 $825 S
1975 5744 $
965 $695 $
975 $78fi $
975 $700 $
1975715 $
19755 $705 $
1975 5735 $
965 $710 $
1985 $860 $
1900 $1,350 $
1975 $755 $
945 $750 $
1965 $710 $
1945 $800 $
1945 $631 $
$860 Low
5912 Low
$956 Low
$981 Low
S837 Low
$712 Very Low
$681 Very Low
$732 Very Low
$971 Low
$787 Very Low
$931 Low
$1,378 Moderate
5881 Low
$887 Low
$915 Low
$757 Very Low
5957 Low
$871 Low
$886 Low
$876 ow
$797 Very Low
$881 Low
$1,031 Low
$1,521 Moderate
$817 Very Low
5812 Very Low
$772 Very Low
$862 Low
S693 Very Low
4:20+ 196S $770
420+ 1965 $950
4:20+ 196 $1,050
4:20+ 1945 $795
420+ 1945 5725
4:20+ 1945 $845
3:4-19 1975 $810
4:20+ 1985 $955
3:419 1975 $925
4:20+ 1975 $820
420+ 2010 $1,325
4:20+ 1985 $770
420+ 1975 $932
4:20+ 1975 $891
4.20+ 1975 $750
420+ 1975 5795
4:20+ 1975 $885
420+ 1965 $795
4:20+ 1985 $957
1:SF 1945 $1,150
3:4-19 1945 $850
3:419 1965 $840
3:4-19 1945 $985
3:4-19 1945 $900
3:419 1945 $839
2:2-3 1945 5925
191 $961
Very Low
4:20+
196S
$870
$191
$1,061
Low
4:20+
196S
$985
77 $1,027
Low
420+
1965
5875
$77
$952
Very Low
420+
1965
51,050
191 $1,241
Low
3:4-19
1985
$1,015
$77
$1,092
Low
4:20+
1945
$1,000
191 $98fi
Very Low
4:20+
19fi5
$925
$77
$1,002
Low
4:20+
1975
$976
77 $802
Very Low
4:20+
1965
$1,025
$191
$1,216
Low
420+
1965
$875
77 $922
Very Low
4:20+
2010
$1,431
$191
$1,622
Moderate
1:SF
1945
$1,400
77 $887
Very Low
3:4-19
196
$895
$77
$972
Very Low
1:SF
1945
$1,895
191 $1,146
Low
420+
1985
$1,050
$191
$1,241
Low
1:SF
1945
$1,595
77 $1,002
Low
420+
1985
5925
577
$1,002
Low
1:SF
1945
51,650
191 $1,011
Low
4:20+
1985
5875
577
$952
Very Low
1:SF
1965
$1,375
191 $1,516
Moderate
420+
1975
$950
$77
$1,027
Low
1:SF
1945
$1,250
191 $961
Very Low
420+
1965
$880
$77
$957
Very Low
1:SF
1945
$1,395
191 $1,123
Low
4:20+
1975
5992
$191
$1,183
Low
1:SF
1945
$1,250
191 $1,082
Low
4:20+
1975
$975
$191
$1,166
Low
3:4-19
1945
$1,400
191 5941
Very Low
4:20+
1975
$840
$191
$1,031
Low
3:4-19
1945
$1,100
191 $986
Very Low
4:20+
1975
$850
$77
$927
Very Low
77 $962
Very Low
4:20+
19.
$1,028
$191
51,219
Low
191 $986
Very Low
1:SF
1945
$1,725
$191
$1,916
Middle
191 $1,148
Low
3:419
1975
$700
$77
$777
Very Low
191 $1,341
Low
1:SF
1900
$1,195
$191
$1,386
Low
77 $927
Very Low
3:4-19
1975
$850
$77
$927
Very Low
77 $917
Very Low
2:2-3
1965
51,475
$77
51,552
Moderate
77 $1,062
Low
2:2-3
1945
$1,495
$191
$1,686
Moderate
77 5977
Very Low
2:2-3
1945
$1,200
5191
$1,391
Low
77 $916 Very Low
77 St.002 Low
220 $1,205 Low
94 $1,144 Low
94 51,094 Very Low
220 $1,196 Low
220 $1,095 Very Low
220 $1,620 Low
220 52,115 Moderate
220 $1,815 Moderate
220 $1,870 Moderate
220 $1,595 Low
220 $1,470 Low
220 $1,615 Low
220 S1A 0 Low
94 51,494 Low
94 S1,194 Low
4:20+
19fi5
$1,06fi
$ 220 $1,286 Low
420+
1965
$1,050
$ 94 $1,144 Low
4:20+
1985
$1,200
$ 220 51,420 Low
3:4-19
1985
$1,100
$ 94 $1,194 Low
4:20+
1965
$910
5 220 $1,130 Very Low
4:20+
1985
$1,293
$ 220 51,513 Low
1:SF
1945
$2,200
$ 220 $2,420 Middle
1:SF
1965
$1,695
5 220 51,915 Moderate
1:SF
1965
$1,800
5 220 52,020 Moderate
1:SF
1945
$3,995
$ 220 $4,215 Not Affordable
1:SF
1945
$1,495
$ 220 $1,715 Moderate
1:5F
1945
$1,395
$ 2' 51,615 Low
1:SF
1945
51,595
$ 220 51,815 Moderate
1:5F
1945
52,400
$ 220 $2,620 Middle
1:5F
1945
$1,395
$ 220 $1,615 Low
3:4-19
1975
51,000
$ 94 $1,094 Very Low
3:4-19
1975
$2, 195
5 94 $2,289 Middle
3:419
1965
51,200
$ 94 51,294 Low
2.2-3
2000
$1,425
$ 220 $1,645 Low
2:2-3
2000
$1,425
$ 220 $1,645 Low
2:2-3
1945
$1,295
$ 94 $1,389 Low
1:SF
2000
$2,250
5 220 $2,470 Middle
1:SF
1975
$1,675
$ 220 51,895 Moderate
1:SF
1975
$1,975
$ 220 $2, 195 Middle
1:SF
1975
$1,995
$ 220 $2,215 Middle
1:SF
1985
$1,400
5 220 $1,620 Low
1:SF 1945
$2,200
$ 247 $2,447 Middle
1:SF 1965
$1,700
$ 247 $1,947 Moderate
1:SF 2000
$2,100
$ 247 $2,347 Moderate
1:SF 1975
$1,995
$ 247 $2,242 Moderate
1:SF 1975
$2,295
$ 247 $2,542 Middle
1:SF 1975
$2,000
$ 247 $2,247 Moderate
1:SF 1990
$1,895
5 247 $2,142 Moderate
1:SF 2000
$4,100
$ 247 $4,347 Not Affordable
1:SF 1945 $2,000 $ 276 $2,276 Moderate
1:SF 2000 53,-5 5 276 $3,771 Not Affordable
1:5F 1975 $2,395 $ 276 $Z671 Middle
Al
Appendix B: Assisted Units by Property,
City of Edmonds
PROPERTY NAME ADDRESS EutLeoWely Very Low Low
Moderate SUBSIDIZED UNITS WORKFORCE UNITS POPULATION 5ER RIDING SOURCFJ
=5TREET
Section 8 Housing Choice Various Various 122 33 21
2 178 Public (HASCO) Vaious HUD Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
Vouchers (HASCO)
Section 8 Housing Choice
Various
Various
14
2
1
17
Public (EHA)
Various
HUD Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
Vouchers (EHA)
Aurora House
20903 70th Ave W
27042000302700
16
16
Public (HASCO)
Mentally III
Bond
Ballinger Court Apts.
22707 76th Ave. W
27042900308400
28
64
92
Private Nonprofit (SHAG)
Seniors
Tax Credit, Bond
Edmonds Highlands
23326 Edmonds Way
00555300100300
108
12
108
Public (HASCO)
Family
Section 8 Project -Based Vouchers, Bond, Sound
Families
McKinney House
19515 73rd Ave W
27041700303300
5
5
Private Nonprofit (Compass
Mentally III
HUD Supportive Housing Program
Health)
Section 8 Project -Based Voucher, Tax Credit,
Olympic View Apartments
303 Howell Way
27032600100300
43
43
Public (HASCO)
Seniors
Bond, County Housing Trust Fund, State Housing
Trust Fund
Section 8 Project -Based Voucher, Tax Credit,
Sound View Apartments
417Third Ave S
27032600100500
43
43
Public (HASCO)
Seniors
Bond, County Housing Trust Fund, State Housing
Trust Fund
Tri-level House
8629196th St SW
27041800309900
5
5
Private Nonprofit (Compass
Mentally III
HUD Supportive Housing Program
Health)
Zeigen House
20208 73rd Ave W
00400600001400
1
1
Private Nonprofit (Compass
Mentally III
State Housing Trust Fund, County Housing Trust
Health)
I
Fund
B1
Appendix C: Single Family Home Sales, 2008-2012
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Number of Sales
416
517
577
586
666
Average Sale Price
$ 465,736 $
409,870 $
404,634 $
359,465 $
383,157
Median Sale Price
$ 411,000 $
355,000 $
346,500 $
315,000 $
339,975
Median Sale Price Home Affordability
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Mortgage Amount
$ 328,800 $
284,000 $
277,200 $
252,000 $
271,980
Interest Rate
6.09%
5.06%
4.83%
4.58%
3.66%
Monthly PITI
Principal + Interest
$
1,990
$ 1,535
$ 1,459
$ 1,289
$
1,246
Property Taxes
$
343
$ 296
$ 289
$ 263
$
283
Insurance
$
130
$ 112
$ 110
$ 100
$
108
Utilities
$
269
$ 269
$ 276
$ 281
$
258
TOTAL
$
2,463
$ 1,943
$ 1,858
$ 1,651
$
1,637
Minimum Annual Income
$
98,522
$ 77,730
$ 74,315
$ 66,044
$
65,468
in 2012 Dollars
$
105,061
$ 83,186
$ 78,247
$ 67,411
First Quartile Sale Price Home Affordability
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Mortgage Amount
$
264,000
$ 240,000
$ 218,305
$ 192,000
$
200,000
Interest Rate
6.09%
5.06%
4.83%
4.58%
3.66%
Monthly PITI
Principal + Interest
$
1,598
$
1,297
$
1,149
$
982
$
916
Property Taxes
$
275
$
250
$
227
$
200
$
208
Insurance
$
105
$
95
$
86
$
76
$
79
Utilities
$
269
$
269
$
276
$
281
$
258
TOTAL
$
2,247
$
1,911
$
1,739
$
1,539
$
1,462
Minimum Annual Income
$
89,867
$
76,444
$
69,566
$
61,557
$
58,470
in 2012 Dollars
$
95,832
$
81,810
$
73,247
$
62,831
C1
Appendix D: Affordable Housing Glossary
Affordable Housing: For housing to be considered affordable, a household should not pay
more than 30 percent of its annual income on housing.This includes all costs related to housing
- rent, mortgage payments, utilities, etc.
AMI: Area Median Income. The measure of median income used in this report is that of the
Seattle -Bellevue HMFA.This measure is used in administering the Section 8 voucher program in
Snohomish County.
Cost -Burdened: Households that spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing.
Extremely Low Income: Households that make up to 30 percent of AMI.
Fair Market Rent: HUD determines what a reasonable rent level should be for a geographic
area, and sets this as the area's fair market rent. Section 8 voucher holders are limited to selecting
units that do not rent for more than fair market rent.
HMFA: HUD Metro FMR Area
Low Income: Households that make up to 80 percent of AMI.
Median Income: The median income for a community is the annual income at which half the
households earn less and half earn more.
Middle Income: Households that make up to 120 percent of AMI.
Moderate Income: Households that make up to 95 percent of AMI.
PHA: Public Housing Agency
Section 8: HUD's Section 8 Housing Choice voucher program. Qualifying households can take
their voucher to any housing unit which meets HUD safety and market rent standards. HUD
funds are administered by PHAs.
Severely Cost -Burdened: Households that spend more than 50 percent of their income on
housing.
Subsidized Rental Unit: A unit which benefits from a direct, monthly rent subsidy.This subsidy
will vary to ensure that a household does not spend more than 30% of their income on housing.
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers are an example of a direct rent subsidy.
Very Low Income: Households that make up to 50 percent of AMI.
Workforce Rental Housing: Workforce rental units have rents which are set in order to be
affordable to households at certain income levels. While a household may need to have income
below a certain level to apply for a workforce rental unit, the rent level does not adjust to their
actual income. A property may feature units with rents affordable to households with 50% AMI,
D1
but a household earning 30% AMI would still have to pay the same rent
F07,
Appendix E: Methodology
Affordability - Adjustment for Household Size
Where it is indicated that housing cost affordability is assessed adjusting for household size,
several factors are considered. First, using HUD standards, the appropriate size range that
could inhabit the housing unit in question is determined. For example, the appropriate range
for a 2 bedroom unit would be 2-4 people. Next, the cutoff income levels are averaged across
the household size range, and this average is used for comparison.
To assess whether or not a 2 bedroom unit is affordable to extremely low income households
using this method, one would first average the extremely low cutoff levels for 2-, 3-, and 4-person
households. For 2012, these levels were $21,150, $23,800, and $26,400.Their average is $23,783.
A household with this income can afford to spend no more than $595 per month on housing.
If the unit in question rents for less than this amount, then one can say that, on average, it is
affordable to extremely low income households, adjusting for household size.
Table E.1, below, shows the maximum a household at each income level can afford to
spend on housing per month by household size.
Table E.1. Maximum Monthly Housing Expense by Household Size, Seattle -Bellevue HMFA 2012
HMFA Overall
Extremely
Low
$455
$520
$585
s650
$703
$755
s8o6
$859
$650
Very Low
$759
s868
$976
si,o84
$1,171
$1,258
$1,345
$1,431
si,o84
Low
$1,128
$1,289
$1,450
s1,610
$1,740
s1,869
s1,998
$2,126
$1,734
Moderate
$1,442
s1,648
s1,855
$2,059
$2,225
$2,389
$2,556
$2,719
$2,059
Moddle
$i,821
$2,082
$2,343
$2,601
$2,811
$3,018
$3,228
$3,435
$2,601
Source: US Department of Housing & Urban Development, 2012
Home ownership affordability
Home ownership affordability was calculated using similar techniques to the California
Association of Realtor's Housing Affordability Index. First, property sale data was acquired from
the Snohomish County Assessor, and single family home sales in Everett were separated. Next,
the monthly payment for these homes was calculated using several assumptions:
• Assuming a 20% down payment, the loan amount is then 80% of the total sale price
• Mortgage term is 30 years
• Interest rate is the national average effective composite rate for previously occupied
homes as reported by the Federal Housing Finance Board
• Monthly property taxes are assumed to be 1 % of the sale price divided by 12
• Monthly insurance payments are assumed to be 0.38% of the sale price divided by 12
Using all of these ass umptions,the monthlypayment isthe sum of principal and interest; taxes; and
insurance.
Household Income Levels
Area Median Income, or AMI, is an important part of many housing affordability calculations. In
Snohomish County, HUD uses the Seattle -Bellevue HMFA median income as AMI. This is recalculated
every year, both as an overall average and by household size up to 8 individuals. Standard income
levels are as follows:
• Extremely low income: <30% AMI
• Very low income: between 30 and 50% AMI
• Low income: between 50 and 80% AMI
• Moderate income: between 80 and 95% AMI
• Middle income: between 95 and 120% AMI
Household Profiles
Information on households was gathered from Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher data from both the
Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) and Everett Housing Authority (EHA). All names
have been changed as well as many other nonessential details to protect privacy.
rel
AI-7125
9.
Planning Board Agenda
Meeting Date: 09/10/2014
Review Extended Agenda
Department: Planning
Initiated By:
Information
Subject/Purpose
Administrative Reports: Review Extended Agenda
Staff Recommendation
It is recommended the Planning Board review the extended agenda.
Previous Board Action
N/A
Narrative
Extended agenda is attached
Attachments
PB Extended A -ems
°F PLANNING BOARD
Extended Agenda
September 10, 2014
Meeting Item
wept. cui4
Sept. 10 1. Continued Discussion of Comprehensive Plan Sustainability Element
2. Discussion of Comprehensive Plan Housing Element
Sept. 24 1. Presentation of Development Projects / Activities
2. Continued Discussion of Comprehensive Plan Housing Element
3. Public Hearing on Capital Facilities Plan Element update for 2015-2020 to
City's Comprehensive Plan and the Capital Improvement Program for 2015-
2020. The proposal updates the city's capital facilities plan to include
improvements, additions, upgrades or extensions of City infrastructure such
as transportation, parks, and stormwater along with other public facilities
necessary to implement the City's Comprehensive Plan. (File No.
AMD20140006)
Oct. 2014
Oct. 8 1. Discussion of Comprehensive Plan General Introduction Section & Land Use
Element
2. Parks & Rec Quarterly Report (Tentative)
Oct. 22 1. Continued Discussion of Comprehensive Plan & Land Use Element
Nov. 2014
Nov. 12 1. Parks & Rec Quarterly Report (Tentative)
Nov.26 CANCELLED
Dec. 2014
Dec. 10 1. Discussion of Streetscape & Street Plan
Dec.24 CANCELLED
Pending 1 . Comprehensive Plan
2014 2. Community Development Code Re -Organization
3. Neighborhood Center Plans and zoning implementation, including:
✓ Five Corners
4. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including:
✓ Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented
design/development strategies
5. Update to Economic Development Plan
6. Exploration of incentives for sustainable development
Current Priorities
1. Comprehensive Plan.
2. ECDC re -organization.
3. Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation.
4. Highway 99 Implementation.
Recurring 1. Annual Adult Entertainment Report (January -February as necessary)
Topics 2. Election of Officers (1st meeting in December)
3. Parks & Recreation Department Quarterly Report (January, April, July,
October)
4. Quarterly report on wireless facilities code updates (as necessary)