Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2016-08-24 Planning Board Packet
�1 o� NJI Agenda Edmonds Planning Board "" Ixyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 AUGUST 24, 2016, 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approval of Planning Board Minutes: August 10, 2016 3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA 4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS 5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS A. Director Report B. Presentation of National Citizen Survey Results 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Preparing for Joint City Council / Planning Board Meeting 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA A. Review and discussion of Extended Agenda 10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS 11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS 12. ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Planning Board Agenda August 24, 2016 Page 1 2.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/24/2016 Approval of Planning Board Minutes: August 10, 2016 Staff Lead: N/A Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Approve the draft minutes Narrative Draft minutes are attached Attachments: PB160810d Packet Pg. 2 2.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES August 10, 2016 Chair Lovell called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5t'' Avenue North. U) BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Q Philip Lovell, Chair Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Carreen Rubenkonig, Vice Chair Jerry Bevington, Video Recorder CD Todd Cloutier Karin Noyes, Recorder c Alicia Crank Daniel Robles BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Matthew Cheung (excused) Nathan Monroe (excused) Valerie Stewart (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JULY 27, 2016 BE APPROVED AS CORRECTED. BOARD MEMBER ROBLES SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA r ti The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There was no one in the audience DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Lovell referred the Board to the written report that was provided by the Development Services Director. He asked if any Board Members attended the August 9th City Council. Board Member Crank reported that she watched the meeting on television. PRESENTATION ON SUSTAINABLE CITIES PARTNERSHIP Mr. Chave explained that the Sustainable Cities Partnership (SCP) is a yearlong partnership between Western Washington University's (WWU) Office of Sustainability, the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) and one partner city chosen through a competitive application process. He said this is a new program for the State of Washington, but similar programs have been successfully implemented elsewhere, such as in Oregon. The City Council approved a resolution in May Packet Pg. 3 2.A.a supporting the City's application, and after a competitive selection process, the City was selected for the 2016-2017 program year. He referred to Resolution 1359 (Attachment 2), the letter transmitting the City's application (Attachment 3), and the interlocal agreement and scope of work (Attachment 1). Mr. Chave said staff initially presented about 40 potential projects to the City Council, and the City Council added additional projects to the list. City staff then worked with WWU to narrow the list down to match the capabilities of the students and to focus on those that relate to environmental studies. The 11 projects included on the approved list (Attachment 1) tie into the Strategic Action Plan (SAP) and the Comprehensive Plan in some way. They will be supported by 17 classes of work and represent a range of projects that will provide real value to both WWU and the City. The City will obtain progress on projects that meet a variety of comprehensive and strategic planning goals, all targeting aspects of sustainability within the community, and the students will gain practical, hands-on experience and great learning opportunities in the classroom and field. T 0 N Mr. Chave explained that the project will run over the course of the next academic year, starting in September and finishing o next spring. The City will receive progress reports from the students at the end of each quarter, and it is anticipated there will N be an event at the end of the program to celebrate its success. The students will work closely with City staff who have expertise or are leading City resources on the projects. He summarized that the program is a cost-effective way for the City to move sustainability goals forward. As agreed, the City will pay for the program's expenses (travel and a half time Q employee to coordinate the project). A; Mr. Chave advised that he has been appointed to serve as the City's liaison with WWU, but each project has a champion or a few champions who will be the key people working with the students. He pointed out that many of the items (i.e. climate change and sea level rise) will be of particular interest to the Planning Board, and progress reports will be forwarded to them, as well. The good information that comes for the projects will help the Board in future planning efforts. Board Member Crank said she is excited about all of the projects on the list, and she is happy the City is working with the 5 students. The nature of her day job allows her to spend the majority of the summer on different college campuses across the c state, and she is impressed by the students' energy and desire to do projects of this type. She said she is particularly excited a about the Downtown Business/Tourism App. She noted that the Gig Harbor Chamber of Commerce has created a very c interactive app, and she likes the idea that Edmonds might have a similar opportunity. The Playful City Recreation Program - is also exciting, as is the Walkability Assessment, Sea -Level Rise Mitigation Planning and Green Business Program. All of o these projects will play into how the City experiences the growth that is happening now and will continue to happen. She Q. said she hopes the Board has an opportunity to be involved in the projects at some level. Mr. Chave emphasized that the C Walkability Assessment will be specifically targeted outside of the downtown, and the information obtained from the assessment should be very useful in future Board discussions. Board Member Crank said she is also excited about the 4"' ti Avenue Promotion Project. She explained that Main Street and 5"' Avenue in the downtown get the most attention, and merchants on the side streets often feel overlooked. This project will show the significance of highlighting the vendors on the side streets, as well. c Chair Lovell referred to Item 3 in the Scope of Work and Budget (Exhibit A), which would allow the total budget amount approved by the City Council to be increased to account for excess laboratory analytical costs. He asked if the increase would be limited to a certain dollar amount. Mr. Chave said the additional costs would be at the City's option and mainly related to work on the Stella's Landing Project. This project will require an environmental assessment, and extra costs may be incurred to cover laboratory fees. However, the City has the option to use a local laboratory, which might be more cost- effective than working through the university process. The additional expenses will only be as needed. Chair Lovell asked where Stella's Landing is located, and Mr. Chave said it is east of SR-104 and a few lots south of the Treatment Plant. There is a large multi -family residential development on the eastern end, and the City had previously expressed interest in acquiring the property. While that is no longer the intent, the City is interested in understanding how the residual wetlands on the property interact with adjacent properties. Chair Lovell commented that there is currently engineering work going on in this area to address drainage on SR-104, daylighting Willow Creek, and restoring the marsh. He asked if the Stella's Landing Project could overlap with work that is already in progress. Mr. Chave said there will be some limited overlap, but the Stella's Landing Project will be very project -specific and the marsh project is more extensive to address vegetation, stormwater control, berms, etc. in the disturbed buffer areas. Planning Board Minutes August 10, 2016 Page 2 Packet Pg. 4 2.A.a Chair Lovell asked if the intent of the Zero Waste Program is to develop a program that applies to both private and public properties. Mr. Chave said the extent of the program is still to be determined. The students will work with the City's recycling coordinator to identify the scope of the project. He reminded the Board that the City Council recently adopted a Zero Waste Resolution and is in full support of the project. Chair Lovell commented that the Downtown Business/Tourism Mobile App will be a wonderful benefit to the City. He asked if the project will also identify who will be responsible for maintaining and updating the app. Mr. Chave agreed that will need to be part of the consideration. Chair Lovell asked if the Playful City Recreation Program would primarily focus on the City's recreational programs. Specifically, he asked if there would be cross pollination between this type of program and sports activities. Mr. Chave said c it will primarily focus on parks and recreation programs, which can involve a number of partnerships for programs and N facilities. c Chair Lovell said he supports the WWU program, which will provide outside resources to help the City move projects forward. Mr. Chave said he has seen the positive results of similar programs in Oregon. The results are impressive relative Q to the range of projects and the outcome of the work. Chair Lovell asked if the work would involve citizen input at various points. Mr. Chave answered that the actual school work would not involve citizen input, but the results of the work will be presented to the public for comment. Even if the end result is not a finished product, it can be used to push the City's 3 initiatives forward. c Vice Chair Rubenkonig asked if the Edmonds Memorial Cemetery Project would become a building block for the physical layout of the Edmonds Memorial Cemetery. Mr. Chave said that, currently, there are paper maps of the cemetery layout, as well as geographically located points. The project would locate the points onto the map and create a real live map of the cemetery that will help identify those who are buried on each site and where the vacant sites are located. Vice Chair Rubenkonig said she hopes that this initial work would eventually allow more information to on the cemetery's website concerning individuals who are buried there and their background. Perhaps it will allow these documents to be linked to the information on the map. Mr. Chave agreed that the cemetery mapping project will be valuable. He recalled that the City initially considered hiring a firm to do the work at a cost of about $100,000. To the extent the work can be done in house with assistance from the students, saves the City a great deal of money. As a wish list item, Board Member Crank questioned if it would be possible for the Board Members to engage in C conversations with the students when they are visiting the City as part of their work. Mr. Chave said their visits will occur during the daytime hours, and it is not likely there will be opportunities for the Board Members to interact with them. Board ti Member Crank said it would also be exciting if university students from Edmonds could be part of the program. She asked how many college credits the students would earn by participating in the projects, and Mr. Chave referred to the course descriptions for this information. c Chair Lovell said it appears that some City Council Members and citizens are concerned that the work will become just another plan that is placed on the shelf. This concern may have resulted in hesitancy on the part of some City Council Members to support the program. Mr. Chave said there was some concern early on about whether or not the projects would align with the SAP and Comprehensive Plan, but staff provided enough information to clear up the concerns. In the end, the interlocal agreement with WWU and the AWC was unanimously approved by the City Council. Chair Lovell said he believes the program is a terrific opportunity to harness the energy and passion of the students and benefit the City at the same time. He said he imagines the results will be positive. Mr. Chave said one thing that attracted the City to the program is the large variety of projects that would be included and the wide range of student experience. Board Member Cloutier commented that a lot of time and energy will go into producing reports for the City. He asked if there is a plan in place to lay out the resources and a timeline for addressing the things that are identified as part of the project. He agreed that the City has a lot of reports that have been shelved. Mr. Chave said the projects on the list are part of the SAP and are currently underway or will be underway in the near future. Therefore, he would be surprised if the work ends up sitting on a shelf. He summarized that a few of the projects will generate thoughts about next steps. Although some might not be completed at the end of the time period, they will provide information about what the City can explore or do to Planning Board Minutes August 10, 2016 Page 3 Packet Pg. 5 2.A.a move goals and policies forward. For example, the Planning Board will need to do follow-up work relative to the walkability assessment and sea level rise. DISCUSSION ON HOUSING Chair Lovell announced that the Planning Board and City Council would meet in a joint work session on September 6" at 7:00 p.m. to discuss issues relative to growth and housing. He recalled that at their March retreat, they talked about growth in Edmonds and how housing is a significant part of the equation. There are number of components to the issue including buildability, the status of housing in Edmonds, single-family residential versus multi -family residential, different types of housing needs, affordable housing, homelessness, etc. He advised that he and Vice Chair Rubenkonig met with the Shane Hope, Development Services Director, to discuss the large list of subject matter. Ms. Hope agreed to prepare an introductory memorandum for the City Council and Planning Board to use as a catalyst to get the discussion going. The c intent is to tie the discussion back to the goals and policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. He encouraged the Board N Members to review the Housing Element contained in the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the report that was prepared in o 2014 by the Housing Affordability Alliance of Snohomish County. Both of the documents should be available to the Board N and City Council Members, as well as the public, on line. Chair Lovell referred the Board to the memorandum that he prepared with the help of Vice Chair Rubenkonig. He Q specifically referred to Item B of the memorandum, which provides a list of discussion items that have been identified in the past as potential ideas for accommodating more housing in Edmonds. Some of the items on the list, if successful, would 3 contribute to the City's ability to meet its growth targets, as outlined in the Growth Management Act (GMA). As the Board reviews the items on the list, he invited them to share their thoughts on if and how they would help the City implement the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan. He also invited the Board members to identify other potential topics of discussion. Vice Chair Rubenkonig pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies focus on the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs. The items in the memorandum were not sorted into categories, but it may be appropriate to do so to help focus the discussion. Board Member Robles suggested that the discussion should include all of the housing possibilities that exist (intentional Z living, tech -enhanced housing, Airbnb, opportunities for the people to age in place, etc.) and not just those that address o Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. Vice Chair Rubenkonig acknowledged that most of the items on the list, if pursued, Q. would go towards providing the housing units needed to meet the GMA requirements. However, some of the items would C also address homelessness and other citizen needs for housing options, which is separate from meeting the GMA. She asked the Board Members to provide direction as to whether the discussion should be dedicated to concepts that allow the City to ti meet the GMA goals or also include concepts that are of interest to citizens. Board Member Robles reminded the Board that its charter is to represent the citizens and what they need to fulfill their lifestyles. Vice Chair Rubenkonig reviewed that the Comprehensive Plan was put together to represent the needs of the citizenry. Therefore, the Board should look at the supply of affordable housing and address the diverse housing needs of the community's citizens. Board Member Crank suggested that the joint meeting discussion should focus on specific goals, and then the various concepts associated with the goals could be divided into those that are intended to meet the GMA requirements and those that address community needs. However, it is important to recognize that many of the concepts will overlap and serve both purposes. She reminded the Board of her earlier suggestion that the housing discussion must also consider post -retirement housing needs such as assisted living, senior housing, etc. Many aging citizens want to downsize from their single-family homes, but they still want to stay in the Edmonds community. In addition, new residents from out of state and out of the country are moving to Edmonds with their extended families, and the City must provide housing options to serve their needs, as well. Chair Lovell said that in the discussion with Ms. Hope, he noted that that there are things the City can do to enhance opportunities to create a wide range of and more housing capacity. There are also things the City can do to force this to happen. One approach is to make it happen and another is to create the conditions by which it is allowed to happen. He Planning Board Minutes August 10, 2016 Page 4 Packet Pg. 6 2.A.a expressed his belief that issues related to housing type, housing diversity and housing affordability arc distinctly different than the housing requirements associated with meeting the GMA growth targets. Board Member Cloutier recalled that when the Board last discussed the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, they talked about the need to create metrics by which success could be measured. Coming up with a lot of great ideas will not result in success. The City must clearly identify what they want to happen and create a mechanism for measuring success. For example, if one of the goals is to provide opportunities for people to age in place, then there should be a way to measure whether or the not the City's housing policies are having an impact. If they are looking to create new housing units, then the occupancy rate could be used as a measure of success. Rather than throwing out answers, they should identify the right goals first. Vice Chair Rubenkonig recalled that the last time the Board discussed housing, they were reminded that the GMA is looking c for 2,500 additional housing units in the City by a certain year. They were also told that the buildable land numbers are N promising for meeting that target number. Perhaps the discussion should focus on what the buildable land numbers does not o address: affordable and diverse housing needs. Board Member Cloutier agreed that the City currently has capacity to N provide for future housing needs. Rather than having policies and regulations in place that allow the growth to happen, the City must have policies and regulations in place to make it happen. The City already has zoning regulations that allow the Q housing to be built, but it is not being built. The question of why should be the focus of the discussion. The Board asked Mr. Chave to frame a set of questions based on the current regulations and what the City wants to accomplish. Board Member Cloutier agreed to compile a list of issues and possible metrics for measuring and monitoring to determine if the City's goals 3 are being met. The Board agreed to discuss the issue again at their August 24th meeting. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA 0 m In addition to a continued discussion on August 24t' about the agenda for the joint City Council/Planning Board work session, the Board will also have a discussion about the Land Division Code Update. The September 14t' meeting agenda will include an introduction to the Land Use Procedures and Code Update, as the City Council recently approved a resolution c providing some direction to the Planning Board. cc a 4- 0 PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Lovell did not provide any additional comments. Q. a PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Q T ti Board Member Robles reported on his experience judging the sand castle contest at Marina Beach Park. He also announced that he had a paper published with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners titled, "Launching Technology in Insurance." c T oo CD Board Member Crank reminded the Board of the Taste of Edmonds Festival that will take place on August 12th through 141h. She noted that a few Board Members will work as volunteers at the event. m Board Member Crank advised that the consultant provided a presentation on the Civic Center Master Plan at the last City Council Meeting. Comments were made by City Council Members and members of the audience relative to the Taste of Edmonds being at the Civic Center in future years. She cautioned that there may be another round of 3 the Board engaging with the business community and neighborhood regarding this particular issue. Vice Chair Rubenkonig requested additional information about the City's Volunteer Picnic that is scheduled for September. Mr. Chave agreed to forward information to the Board Members. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:04 p.m. Planning Board Minutes August 10, 2016 Page 5 Packet Pg. 7 5.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/24/2016 Director Report Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Development Services Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and discuss Narrative Report is attached. Attachments: Director. Report.08.19.16 Packet Pg. 8 5.A.a -� OF EDVo+ V rf MEMORANDUM Date: August 19, 2016 To: Planning Board Members From: Shane Hope, Development Services Director Subject: Director Report The Planning Board meets next on August 24. The meeting's agenda will focus on the National Citizens Survey results and on preparation for the September 6 joint meeting with the City a Council. [Reminder: The September 6 meeting with the City Council is on a Tuesday.] L 0 REGIONAL NEWS L Oso Recovery Plan The Oso Recovery Plan has won a VISION 2040 award from the Puget Sound Regional Council. For more information, see: http://us5.campaign- m archivel.com/?u=c30caa9729e32lc33ldb4aO46&id=d8felee8ff&e=9e8a6ea234. a! LOCAL NEWS Sign Code Update Implementation has started for the sign code amendments recently adopted by the City Council (and recommended by the Planning Board). In particular, having the downtown businesses that want "pedestrian signs" (A -frames, etc.) to get a permit and meet all requirements for number, size and location will take some time. However, the Development Services Department has sent out a letter to more than 570 businesses that could be affected, letting them know about the code changes and offering information and assistance. Additional follow-up will occur. At least two City webpages have information about the sign code amendments: http://www.edmondswa.gov/development-services-department.html http://www.edmondswa.gov/2015-01-22-21-27-29.html National Citizen Survey Results Results are in from a citizen survey carried out by a national firm that specializes in getting local input on City services and community engagement. The results are compared with other cities across the country, as well as with other cities in our region. The good news: The vast majority of local residents think Edmonds is a great place to live! The Planning Board will have the opportunity to learn more at its August 24 meeting. You can also view a press release at: Packet Pg. 9 5.A.a http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Press Release/PDF/2016/16 08 17 City of Edmon ds Citizens Survey Response - press release.pdf. Architectural Design Board The August meeting of the Architectural Design Board meeting was canceled due to a lack of business items. Hearing Examiner The August Hearing Examiner meetings have been cancelled due to lack of items. Historic Preservation Commission The Historic Preservation Commission next meeting is September 8. The meeting will include discussion on the 2017 Historic Calendar and the historic residence located at 209 Caspers Street. City Council The City Council's August 18 meeting included: ❑ Homeless Outreach Presentation by Snohomish County Sheriff's Dept. ❑ National Citizen Survey Results Presentation (which indicates very positive feedback for Edmonds) ❑ Public hearing and adoption of Resolution 1368 to designate Westgate Mixed Use Zone District as a Residential Targeted Area (note: this is the second step in a series of actions that could result in a tax incentive program for multifamily development in this zone) ❑ Next Steps in responding to Ecology's SMP proposal --including some progress and other discussion to be continued The Council's August 23 meeting includes: ❑ Economic Development Commission presentation ❑ Edmonds School District Foundation presentation on youth homelessness ❑ Sunset Avenue Walkway design proposals ❑ Stormwater Management Code Update ❑ Bid award for downtown public restrooms COMMUNITY CALENDAR ❑ Through November 6: "Hook, Line & Sinker", Edmonds Historical Museum new exhibit details the life cycle of salmon, the story of Native fishing, and the evolution of today's commercial fishing. ❑ August 19: Edmonds Fishing Pier Partial Opening at 4pm ❑ August 20: Moonlight Beach Adventure at Marina Beach, 7:30 pm — 9:30 pm ❑ August 25: Mayor's Town Hall meeting at Faith Community Church —10220 238th St SW from 6:30 — 8:30 pm ❑ August 27: Edmonds "Down the Hill" Wine Walk, Downtown Edmonds from 5:00 pm — 8:00 pm. Wine Walk will feature luscious local Washington wineries at 12 of your favorite downtown Edmonds business locations ❑ Sept. 9 —11: Puget Sound Bird Fest, 7:00 pm 2 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 10 5.6 Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/24/2016 Presentation of National Citizen Survey Results Staff Lead: Patrick Doherty, Community Services Director Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Rob Chave Background/History Pursuant to City Council approval and allocation of corresponding funds, the National Citizen Survey was administered by the National Research Center (NRC) in Edmonds in June and July 2016. First, 2,200 households were randomly selected and mailed the survey instrument starting on 6/3/16, with a return date of 7/15/16. Second, an online version of the survey was made available to anyone in the community, which was publicized by the local media (including Everett Herald), City's website, and City's Facebook page. The online survey was open from 7/1/16 till 7/17/16. Responses to the randomized survey totaled 586, or 28%, which was well within the 20% to 40% range of normal response rate experienced by the NRC. With the addition of 320 online responses, total response to the survey was 906. Staff at the NRC analyzed and compared the survey results between the randomized survey and the online survey and found the closest match in responses between the two samples they had ever witnessed. For this reason, they recommended combining the two response samples for a higher confidence level of only 3% margin of error. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative Attached is a detailed Summary of the National Citizen Survey in Edmonds, Summer 2016 (Attachment 1). A presentation of this Summary will be made at the 8/24/16 Planning Board meeting. Final Summary Reports from the National Research Center are also included. Attachments: Attachment 1: National Citizen Survey Summary for Planning Board Attachment 2: The NCS Community Livability Report for Edmonds 2016 Attachment 3: The NCS Dashboard for Edmonds 2016 Attachment 4: The NCS Comparisons by Demographic Subgroups for Edmonds Packet Pg. 11 5.B.a SUMMARY OF FINDINGS National Citizen Survey in Edmonds Summer 2016 BACKGROUND The National Citizen Survey was administered by the National Research Center (NRC) in Edmonds in July 2016. First, 2,200 households were randomly selected and mailed the survey instrument starting on 6/3/16, with a return date of 7/15/16. Second, an online version of the survey was made available to anyone in the community, which was publicized by the local media (including Everett Herald), City's website, and City's Facebook page. The online survey was open from 7/1/16 till 7/17/16. Responses to the randomized survey totaled 586, or 28%, which was well within the 20% to 40% range of normal response rate experienced by the NRC. With the addition of 320 online responses, total response to the survey was 906. Staff at the NRC analyzed and compared the survey results between the randomized survey and the online survey and found the closest match in responses between the two samples they had ever witnessed. For this reason, they recommended combining the two response samples for a higher confidence level of only 3% margin of error. COMMUNITY LIVABILTY REPORT The NRC conducts a detailed analysis of the survey responses to draw qualitative conclusions from the quantitative data. They call this a "Community Livability Report" which has been provided by the NRC. This report organizes residents' responses within three pillars of community: • Community Characteristics • Governance • Participation and across eight central facets of the community: • Safety • Mobility • Natural Environment • Built Environment • Economy • Recreation and Wellness Packet Pg. 12 5.B.a National Citizen Survey Summary Page 2 of 12 • Education and Enrichment • Community Engagement In addition to simply analyzing and reporting back from the response data, NRC benchmarked the data against nationwide response data within its database. Moreover, Edmonds added two additional services: 1. Benchmarking against 25 other cities within the Pacific Northwest, with populations of 20,000 to 60,000, and 2. Comparing and contrasting responses across five demographic cohorts: • Length of residency in Edmonds • Annual household income • Rent or own dwelling unit • Age • Gender Summary of Findings Highlights from the "Community Livability Report" are provided below: Overall almost all residents rated the quality of life in Edmonds as excellent or good. They also rated Safety and Economy as the two highest priorities for the Edmonds community over the next two years. Ninety-six percent of respondents rated Edmonds as an excellent or good place to live, much higher than responses in nationwide surveys and those from throughout the Pacific Northwest. Communitv Characteristics Throughout this section, Edmonds responses were very positive and within the ranges seen nationwide. Those aspects that exceeded national averages were: • Ease of walking • Traffic flow • Overall natural environment • Cleanliness • Air quality • Public places • Vibrant downtown area • Place to visit • Mental health care • Preventive health services • Health care Packet Pg. 13 5.B.a National Citizen Survey Summary Page 3 of 12 • Cultural/arts/music activities • Adult education • Social events and activities Only one aspect ranked lower than national averages: • Affordable quality housing GovPrnAnrP Throughout this section, Edmonds responses were also quite positive and entirely within nationwide response ranges, with the exception of one aspect that far exceeded national averages: • Drinking water Participation Throughout this section, Edmonds responses were also positive and within national averages. While still within national averages, it is interesting to note, however, that the "Community Engagement" aspects related to involvement with civic events, contact with elected officials, etc., showed lower participation rates. Several aspects exceeded national averages: • Stocked supplies for an emergency • Walked or biked instead of driving • Recycled at home (98%!) • Did NOT observe a code violation • Attended a City -sponsored event (although it's not clear that respondents always know what may or may not be "City -sponsored") • Voted in local elections (91%!) Only two aspects saw lower -than -average responses: • Work in Edmonds (only 29% of respondents work in Edmonds) • Participated in religious or spiritual activities Special Topics In addition to the standard, nationally administered questions, Edmonds added five customized questions (shown here with favorable response totals ("strongly support" + "somewhat support"): Packet Pg. 14 5.B.a National Citizen Survey Summary Page 4 of 12 1. How likely or unlikely would you be to support increased local public funding for the following transportation -related services in Edmonds: • Repair/replacement of existing sidewalks — 86% favorable • Repair and/or maintenance of City streets — 88% favorable • Construction of new sidewalks — 84% favorable • Expansion of bicycle facilities — 59% favorable 2. How likely or unlikely would you be to support increased local public funding for the following parks and recreation -related services in Edmonds: • Acquisition of parkland, beachfront — 77% favorable • Capital projects such as Civic Field, Marina Beach Park, etc. — 83 favorable • Upgrading Frances Anderson Center — 79% favorable • Upgrading maintenance levels of existing parks — 85% favorable 3. Please indicate whether or not you currently experience discrimination in Edmonds based on your: • Sexual orientation or gender identity — 2% • Disability-3% • Religion — 3% • National origin — 3% • Race — 4% • Gender-3% • Age — 5% NOTE: While low absolute figures, it is important to recognize that for some of these categories (sexual orientation, disability, national origin, and race) the portion of the Edmonds population who fall within those cohorts is mostly under 10% making these response rates more significant within each cohort (e.g., 2% of the population stating they experience discrimination based on sexual orientation, when approximately 5-10% of the population may be a member of this cohort, meaning that 20% to 45% of that cohort may be experiencing discrimination). 4. How likely or unlikely would you be to support increased funding to enhance the following Edmonds Police -related services: • Domestic violence services — 89% favorable • Increased patrol presence for crime deterrence, detection and apprehension — 89% favorable • Crime prevention services — 89% favorable • Youth Services programs (High School Resource Officer, DARE, GREAT, etc.) — 74% favorable • Crime analysis — 82% favorable • Traffic enforcement-65% favorable Packet Pg. 15 5.B.a National Citizen Survey Summary Page S of 12 S. Rate how much the following are regular source of information for you about City functions, activities, programs and events through the following channels ("major source" responses cited below): • Word of mouth — 36% • Posters, banners or other signage — 32% • Online media — 46% • Printed media — 43% • City website or Facebook page — 26% Conclusions As reported in the Conclusions at the end of the NRC's "Community Livability Report": • Edmonds is a great place to live, with 9 in 10 residents positively rating overall image, overall appearance and Edmonds as a great place to raise children, among other attributes. • Safety is an asset and a priority, with 9 in 10 residents stating they feel safe in Edmonds and also identifying safety as a priority to focus on in coming years. • The economy is important to residents and highly rated in Edmonds. About 8 in 10 residents rated the City's economic health as positive, although it is recognized that more jobs in Edmonds for Edmonds residents would be desirable as only 3 in 10 work in the city. • The City supports a culture of diversity and opportunities for citizen engagement. At least three-quarters of residents gave excellent/good ratings to opportunities for cultural/arts/events engagement. Also up to 6 in 10 felt that the City has high levels of community engagement and is open to people of diverse backgrounds. COMPARISONS BY DEMOGRAPIC SUBGROUPS This report by the NRC includes interesting information about how different demographic cohorts responded to the questions. The summary found on page 1 of this Report is reprinted here: • Within the pillar of Community Characteristics, residents with an annual household income of more than $100,000 tended to give lower ratings to ease of travel by public transportation in Edmonds and opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities compared to residents with a lower annual household income. Residents who rented their homes were more likely than those who owned to positively rate various aspects of Mobility, including ease of public parking, travel by public transportation and by bicycle in Edmonds but tended to give lower ratings to the overall ease of travel in the community. Residents aged 18 to 34 were more likely to positively rate opportunities to volunteer and participate in community matters when compared Packet Pg. 16 5.B.a National Citizen Survey Summary Page 6 of 12 to their older counterparts while residents aged 55 or older were more likely to give positive ratings to the openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds. When differences emerged among the general aspects of Governance, residents who had lived in Edmonds for more than 20 years tended to give lower ratings to each item listed including the value of services for taxes paid and the overall direction that Edmonds is taking among others. When differences emerged by age, residents 18 to 34 tended to give higher ratings to general aspects of Governance. • Homeowners reported higher levels of Participation for many activities compared to those who rented their home, including contacting the City of Edmonds, making efforts to make their homes more energy efficient, being in excellent or very good health, participating in clubs and indicated that they were NOT under housing cost stress. Residents over the age of 55 were less likely to report that they felt the economy would have a positive impact on their income or that they worked in Edmonds. Edmonds residents whose income was less than $49,000 a year were much more likely to indicate that they were under housing cost stress, and much less likely to have attended a City - sponsored event. • Residents who had lived in Edmonds for 20 or more years, homeowners, people aged 55 or older, and men were less likely to support increased local public funding for the expansion of bicycle facilities compared to their counterparts. The same demographic, with the exception of older residents, were also less likely to support increased public funding for acquisition of parkland, beachfront. • Residents whose annual household income was under $49,000 tended to report greater rates of discrimination based on disability. Younger residents (aged 18 to 34) were more likely to report discrimination based on age. Selected Highlights from the Standardized Questions Selected highlights and/or interesting observations from the detailed report include the following: Edmonds as place to retire 95% of those residing here less than 5 years and 100% of those aged 18-34 rated this highly, with somewhat lower numbers from those residing here over 20 years (82%) and those over 55 (86%). Packet Pg. 17 5.B.a National Citizen Survey Summary Page 7 of 12 Ease of public parking 61% of those residing here less than 5 years and 68% of those aged 18-34 rated this highly, while 38% of those residing here over 20 years and 41% of those over 55 did so. Ease of travel by public transportation 56% of those earning less than $49,999 rated this highly, while those earning $100,000 or more rated this at 24%. Variety of housing options Overall respondents indicated a positive view of the variety of housing options in Edmonds. Those earning less and/or renting rated this lower than other cohorts. Those earning less than $49,999 rated this at 48%, while renters rated this at 36%, compared with 62% for those earning more than $100,000 and 56% for home -owners. Overall quality of business and service establishments in Edmonds 73% of those aged 35-54 rated this favorably, while those younger rated it at 88% and those older at 81%. Recreational opportunities 65% of those under 35 rated this highly, while the two older cohorts rated this at 74% and 79% Opportunities to volunteer Those in the younger age cohort and older age cohort rated this particularly highly at at 94% and 84%, respectively, while those in the middle age cohort, 35-54, rated this at 76%. Opportunities to participate in community matters Similar to the category above, those in the younger age cohort and older age cohort rated this highly at at 83% and 76%, respectively, while those in the middle age cohort, 35-54, rated this at 67%. Governance While every category related to Edmonds municipal services scored high marks by all respondents no matter how long their Edmonds residency, two very interesting trends emerged: those residing here 5 years or less gave very high ratings (e.g., 91% to the "City of Edmonds" and 92% to "overall customer service by Edmonds employees"), while those residing here over 20 years gave lower ratings in each of these categories, with a low of 49% for overall Packet Pg. 18 5.B.a National Citizen Survey Summary Page 8 of 12 confidence in Edmonds government. Conversely, that long-term resident cohort gave the highest rating to the Federal government at 40% compared with 37% and 35% for the two cohorts residing less time in Edmonds. Emergency preparedness Interestingly, younger residents and renters rated the City's emergency preparedness substantially higher than other cohorts. Mobility The rankings for services such as street repair, sidewalk maintenance, traffic enforcement, etc., also showed quite positive marks from those residing less time in Edmonds, while the long-term residents consistently rated these services somewhat lower. The greatest discrepancy was seen between the 71% of newer residents rating this positively contrasted with 36% of long-term Edmonds residents doing so. Preservation of natural areas and Edmonds open space These two questions again received high ratings from the newer residents compared with long- term residents. Code enforcement While half the residents rated this highly (well within national norms), the biggest disparity in responses here was between the younger and older age cohorts. 80% of those under 35 rated this favorably, while only 41% of those over 55 did so. Economic development As with other categories, those residing here under 5 years have the most positive view of the Edmonds economy, rating this at 67%, while 53% of those residents over 20 years did so. Public information services The age cohorts again showed the greatest disparity in rating the City's dissemination of public information, with 54% of those under 35 rating this favorably, while residents over 55 rated this even more highly at a rate of 76%. Sense of community While three-quarters of Edmonds residents rated the sense of community as excellent or good, the disparities here were interesting. Among households of different income brackets, those Packet Pg. 19 5.B.a National Citizen Survey Summary Page 9 of 12 rating it lower (71%) were the wealthiest households, while among age cohorts those rating sense of community lowest (66%) were the youngest. Remain in Edmonds for the next five years The overall response to this question was overwhelmingly positive, at 91%. However, a somewhat lower number, 76%, of the younger age cohort responded positively to this question. Contacted Edmonds for help or information While just under half of the population contacted City employees for help or information, it is interesting to note the disparity between renters (24%) and homeowners (47%). Similarly, those under 35 came in at 24%, compared with 38% and 46% for the two older cohorts. Was NOT the victim of crime, and did NOT report a crime While both of these questions had high positive responses overall (87% and 76%, respectively), those under 35 had the lowest positive responses at 80% and 64%, respectively. Used bus, rail, subway or other public transportation The younger age cohort, renters and those residing in Edmonds less than 5 years showed the highest ratings for this issue. Housing stress 70% of those making less than $49,999 were under some level of housing stress, compared with only 33% overall. Purchase goods or services from Edmonds businesses A good -news story all around: an overall 98% of residents responded positively to this question Used Edmonds recreation centers or their services While the overall positive response rate was 61%, those earning less than $49,999 reported a lower positive response at 51%. Visited a neighborhood or City park As with the above question, with an overall positive response rate of 88%, those earning less than $49,999 reported a 72% positive response. Packet Pg. 20 5.B.a National Citizen Survey Summary Page 10 of 12 Reported being in "very good" or "excellent" health The lower economic cohort showed the lowest positive response rate here, at 49%, compared with an overall positive response of 71% Contacted Edmonds electeds to express opinions While only 18% of residents claimed having done this (within national averages), the lowest rating came from those under 35, at only 5%. Volunteered in Edmonds Longer -term residents had the highest positive response rate here, at 45%, compared with the overall rate of 36%. Those residents of less than 5 years (22%) and renters (27%) exhibited the lowest volunteer rates. Areas the Community Should Focus on over the Next Two Years This section derives from questions asked about where the City or community should focus efforts over the next two years. The topics overlap with those mentioned earlier but are prospective, not reactions to current conditions. Overall quality of natural environment While overall 83% of respondents believed the community should continue to focus on this topic, a lower number, 71%, of those under 35 shared this opinion. Overall quality of the "built" environment Similarly with the last topic, while overall 79% of respondents believed the community should continue to focus on this topic, a lower number, 66%, of those under 35 shared this opinion. Health and wellness opportunities While overall 65% of respondents believed this was an important issue to focus on in the next two years, two interesting disparities were observed. 75% of renters felt this way, while 61% of home -owners; and 57% of those earning more than $100,000 shared this feeling, contrasted with 76% of those earning less than $49,999. Packet Pg. 21 5.B.a National Citizen Survey Summary Page 11 of 12 Sense of community Here, contrasted with the overall high positive view (76%) among Edmonds residents of the existing sense of community, 84% of residents still view this as a key topic to focus on over the next two years, with the highest response rate coming from renters, at 94%. Responses to Customized Questions by Demographic Subgroups How likely or unlikely would you be to support increased local public funding for transportation - related services in Edmonds As mentioned earlier, overall the responses were overwhelmingly positive to this question and its components. And, while most responses to this question were similar across demographic cohorts, the greatest disparities were seen among 20-year+ residents who showed lower support, especially for bicycle facilities (48% compared with 60% and 68% from the two shorter -term resident cohorts), and homeowners showing 55% support of bicycle facilities compared with renters, at 68%. How likely or unlikely would you be to support increased local public funding for parks and recreation -related services in Edmonds Again, overall responses were consistently positive to the various components of this question Again, approximately the same disparities arose in these responses as with the previous question, residents under 20 years showing the strongest support. This is borne out by a positive response rate of 77% and 89% from the two under-20-year resident cohorts, with 20- year+ residents supportive at a rate of 66%. Renters exhibited even greater support for acquisition of parkland/beachfront at 84%, compared with 75% from homeowners. Discrimination Interestingly, the highest characteristic identified as a source of discrimination about Edmonds residents was age, at 5%. Twenty-year+ residents showed twice the propensity for age discrimination as 5-year residents; lower income households showed twice the propensity for age discrimination than both higher income brackets; renters showed twice the propensity for the same; and perhaps most interestingly, 11% of those under 35 experienced the highest incidence of age -related discrimination, versus 1% for 35-54 year -olds, and 5% for those over 55. Those experiencing discrimination due to disability were substantially more prevalent in lower income households (10% versus 2% and 0% in the other two income brackets), while three - times as common among renters than homeowners (6% vs. 2%). Packet Pg. 22 5.B.a National Citizen Survey Summary Page 12 of 12 How likely or unlikely would you be to support increased funding to enhance Edmonds Police - related services Overall responses to these questions were consistently positive and quite uniform among demographic cohorts. The chief disparities among demographic cohorts related to support for additional funding for traffic enforcement which saw 71% of lower -income households in support, contrasted with 57% of the top income bracket. There was positive support for 24- hour coverage at the Police Department, with a lower percentage of support among long-time residents, mirrored by less a lower level of support among homeowners than renters. How much various media are regular source of information about City functions, activities, programs and events through the following channels Among media identified as major sources, print media were far less likely to be a major source for residents less than 5 years, renters and the younger age cohort. The City website or Facebook page was much more likely a major source for the middle -age cohort. Online media was much less likely to be a major source for 20-year+ residents and those over 55, yet quite high among those with households incomes above $100,000. And renters showed the highest response to posters and banners as a source of information. Packet Pg. 23 Edmonds, WA Community Livability Report FINAL 2016 NRC National Research Center Inc 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 Boulder, Colorado 80301 n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 ICE MA Leaderrs at the Core of Better Communities 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 Washington, DC 20002 icma.org • 800-745-8780 Packet Pg. 24 Contents About..............................................................................................1 Quality of Life in Edmonds................................................................2 Community Characteristics...............................................................3 Governance..................................................................................... 5 Participation....................................................................................7 SpecialTopics..................................................................................9 Conclusions...................................................................................12 Charter Members The National Citizen SurveyTM A^ j7& © 2001-2016 National Research Center, Inc. nan$aarencv The NCSTM is presented by NRC in collaboration with ICMA. Initiative NRC is a charter member of the AAPOR Transparency Initiative, providing AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH clear disclosure of our sound and ethical survey research practices. Packet Pg. 25 About The National Citizen Survey" (The NCS) report is about the "livability" of Edmonds. The phrase "livable community" is used here to evoke a place that is not simply habitable, but that is desirable. It is not only where people do live, but where they want to live. Great communities are partnerships of the government, private sector, community -based organizations and residents, all geographically connected. The NCS captures residents' opinions within the three pillars of a community (Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation) across eight central facets of community (Safety, Mobility, Natural Environment, Built Environment, Economy, Recreation and Wellness, Education and Enrichment and Community Engagement). Benchmark comparisons are evaluations of the most recent survey completed in each community (in this case, the City of Edmonds) compared to other communities across the nation in which a similar question was asked. Edmonds' results are statistically compared to the ratings given to other communities and are evaluated to be "similar" to or different than the benchmark (ratings that are "higher" or "lower" are at least io points higher or lower than ratings in the benchmark and ratings that are "much higher" or "much lower" are at least 20 points higher or lower than the benchmark). The Community Livability Report provides the opinions of a representative sample of 906 residents of the City of Edmonds. The margin of error around any reported percentage is 3% for the entire sample. The full description of methods used to garner these opinions can be found in the Technical Appendices provided under separate cover. Packet Pg. 26 Quality of Life in Edmonds Almost all residents rated the quality of life in Edmonds as excellent or good. This rating was higher than those seen in comparison communities across the nation (see Appendix B of the Technical Appendices provided under separate cover). Shown below are the eight facets of community. The color of each community facet summarizes how residents rated it across the three sections of the survey that represent the pillars of a community — Poor Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation. When most 0% ratings across the three pillars were higher than the benchmark, the color for that facet is the darkest shade; when most ratings were lower than the benchmark, the color is the lightest shade. A mix of ratings (higher and lower than the benchmark) results in a color between the extremes. Overall Quality of Life Excellent 5% Good 46% In addition to a summary of ratings, the image below includes one or more stars to indicate which community facets were the most important focus areas for the community. Residents identified Safety and Economy as priorities for the Edmonds community in the coming two years. It is noteworthy that Edmonds residents gave favorable ratings to both of these facets of community; ratings for all facets were positive and similar to other communities. This overview of the key aspects of community quality provides a quick summary of where residents see exceptionally strong performance and where performance offers the greatest opportunity for improvement. Linking quality to importance offers community members and leaders a view into the characteristics of the community that matter most and that seem to be working best. Details that support these findings are contained in the remainder of this Livability Report, starting with the ratings for Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation and ending with results for Edmonds' unique questions. Legend Higher than national benchmark Similar to national benchmark Lower than national benchmark Most important Packet Pg. 27 5.B.b The National Citizen SurveyTM Community Characteristics What makes a community livable, attractive and a place where people want to be? Overall quality of community life represents the natural ambience, services and amenities that make for an attractive community. How residents rate their overall quality of life is an indicator of the overall health of a community. In the case of Edmonds, 96% rated the City as an excellent or good place to live. Respondents' ratings of Edmonds as a place to live were higher than ratings in other communities across the nation and in Pacific Northwest communities with populations 20,000 to 6o,000. In addition to rating the City as a place to live, respondents rated several aspects of community quality including Edmonds as a place to raise children and to retire, their neighborhood as a place to live, the overall image or reputation of Edmonds and its overall appearance. More than 8 in io respondents gave excellent or good ratings to each of these aspects of livability in Edmonds. Ratings for overall image and appearance, as well as Edmonds as a place to retire and raise children, were higher than the national and Pacific Northwest benchmark comparisons. Delving deeper into Community Characteristics, survey respondents rated over 40 features of the community within the eight facets of Community Livability. When benchmark comparisons were available, Edmonds' ratings tended to be similar to or higher than other communities across the U.S. Roughly 9 in io residents rated all aspects of Safety and Natural Environment positively, and ratings for all aspects of Natural Environment were higher than the benchmark comparisons. Ratings within the facet of Mobility tended to vary: more than 8 in io residents favorably rated overall ease of travel and ease of walking, while about 4 in io positively rated ease of travel by public transportation. Ratings for ease of walking and traffic flow were higher than those seen across the country. Within Built Environment, about 9 in io residents positively rated public places where people want to spend time (a rating which was higher than the national benchmark), but only about one -quarter of residents positively rated the availability of affordable quality housing (which was lower than the benchmark). Aspects of Economy, such as Edmonds' vibrant downtown area and the City as a Place to Live place to visit, were favorably rated by at least 8 in io residents and Excellent were rated higher than the national benchmark comparisons. All 62% aspects of Recreation and Wellness, Education and Enrichment and Community Engagement received positive ratings from at least 6 in to residents. Aspects rated higher than the benchmarks included the availability of affordable quality health care and mental health care, the availability of preventive health services, opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities, adult educational opportunities and Poorer opportunities to participate in social events and activities. 0 �0 Fair Good 4% 34% Indicators of Quality of Life Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Comparison to national benchmark ■ Higher ■ Similar Lower Overall image Neighborhood Place to raise children Place to retire Overall appearance Packet Pg. 28 The National Citizen SurveyTM 5.B.b Figure 1: Aspects of Community Characteristics Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) Comparison to national benchmark ■ Higher Similar Lower SAFETY Overall feeling of safety Safe in neighborhood Safe downtown area MOBILITY Overall ease of travel Paths and walking trails Ease of walking Travel by bicycle Travel by public transportation Travel by car Public parking Traffic flow NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Overall natural environment Cleanliness Air quality BUILT ENVIRONMENT Overall built environment New development in Edmonds Affordable quality housing Housing options Public places ECONOMY Overall economic health Vibrant downtown area Business and services Cost of living Shopping opportunities Employment opportunities Place to visit Place to work RECREATION AND WELLNESS Health and wellness Mental health care Preventive health services Health care Food Recreational opportunities Fitness opportunities EDUCATION AND ENRICHMENT Education and enrichment opportunities Religious or spiritual events and activities Cultural/arts/music activities Adult education K-12 education Child care/preschool COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Social events and activities Neighborliness Openness and acceptance Opportunities to participate in community matters Opportunities to volunteer 4 Packet Pg. 29 Governance How well does the government of Edmonds meet the needs and expectations of its residents? The overall quality of the services provided by Edmonds as well as the manner in which these services are provided are a key component of how residents rate their quality of life. The overall quality of services provided by the City of Edmonds received excellent or good ratings from 8 in io residents, while the services provided by the Federal Government received positive ratings from about one-third of respondents. Both of these ratings were similar to ratings given in other communities nationwide and in Pacific Northwest communities with populations 20,000 to 6o,000. Survey respondents also rated various aspects of Edmonds' leadership and governance. More than 8 in io residents gave favorable ratings to the overall customer service provided by Edmonds employees. About 6 in io respondents or more positively rated the remaining aspects of government performance, including the value of services for taxes paid, the overall direction of the City, the job Edmonds government does at welcoming citizen involvement, overall confidence in City government, government acting in the best interest of Edmonds, being honest and treating all residents fairly. All of these ratings were similar to national and Pacific Northwest benchmark comparisons. Respondents evaluated over 30 individual services and amenities available in Edmonds. Among the highest -rated services were police, fire and ambulance/EMS services, drinking water, sewer services, City parks and public libraries, with around 9 in io residents giving high marks to each of these aspects. Ratings for drinking water were higher than those seen in other communities across the nation. Only about Overall quality of City services half of respondents gave positive marks to street repair, sidewalk maintenance, bus or transit services, land use, planning and zoning, code Excellent enforcement and cable television, but all of these ratings were similar to the 20% national benchmark comparisons. All of the remaining services were positively rated by about 6 in io or more residents and were similar to those Poor seen in comparison communities nationwide; however, the rating for City- 3% - sponsored special events, at 84% positive, was higher than the Pacific Good Fair) Northwest benchmark comparison. / 63% 14% Indicators of Government Performance Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Comparison to national benchmark ■ Higher Similar Lower Value of Overall Welcoming Confidence Acting in the Being honest Treating all Customer Services services for direction citizen in City best interest residents service provided by taxes paid involvement government of Edmonds fairly the Federal Government Packet Pg. 30 The National Citizen SurveyT"' 5.B.b Figure 2: Aspects of Governance Percent rating positively SAFETY (e.g., excellent/good) Police Fire Ambulance/EMS Comparison to national Crime prevention benchmark Fire prevention ■Higher Animal control Emergency preparedness ■Similar MOBILITY Traffic enforcement ■ Lower Street repair Street cleaning Street lighting Snow removal Sidewalk maintenance Traffic signal timing Bus or transit services NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Garbage collection Recycling Yard waste pick-up Drinking water Natural areas preservation Open space BUILT ENVIRONMENT Storm drainage Sewer services Power utility Utility billing Land use, planning and zoning Code enforcement Cable television ECONOMY Economic development RECREATION AND WELLNESS City parks Recreation programs Recreation centers Health services EDUCATION AND ENRICHMENT Public libraries Special events COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Public information 6 Packet Pg. 31 Participation Are the residents of Edmonds connected to the community and each other? An engaged community harnesses its most valuable resource, its residents. The connections and trust among residents, government, businesses and other organizations help to create a sense of community, a shared sense of membership, belonging and history. About three-quarters of respondents rated the sense of community in Edmonds as excellent or good, and nearly all residents would recommend living in Edmonds to someone who asks (95% somewhat or very likely). About 9 in io residents reported they were somewhat or very likely to remain in the City for the next five years. Around 4 in 10 residents reported contacting an Edmonds employee within the last 12 months. All of these ratings were similar to other communities across the nation. The survey included over 3o activities and behaviors for which respondents indicated how often they participated in or performed each, if at all. Overall, the extent to which respondents participated in these activities varied, but tended to be similar to participation levels of residents in other communities across the nation. Compared to residents in other communities across the country, more Edmonds residents reported stocking supplies for an emergency, walking or biking instead of driving, recycling at home, attending a City -sponsored event and voting in local elections, and fewer residents reported that they had observed a code violation. Participation in Economy -related activities was mixed; nearly all respondents had purchased goods or services in Edmonds while about 3 in 10 reported working in Edmonds, a rate lower than the national and Pacific Northwest benchmark comparisons. A similar proportion (36%) indicated that they had participated in religious or spiritual activities, which was lower than the national benchmark but similar to other Sense of Community Pacific Northwest communities with populations similar to Edmonds. Participation in Community Engagement activities was also mixed. For Excellent, example, most respondents had read or watched the local news and talked to 28 or visited with neighbors, but fewer than 2 in 10 had contacted Edmonds elected officials. These rates, however, were all similar to those seen in other Poocommunities nationwide and regionally. 5% W AA Good 48% LU'70 Indicators of Community Participation Percent rating positively Comparison to national (e.g., very/somewhat likely, benchmark yes) ■Higher ■Similar ■Lower 95% 91 % j!!41 Recommend Remain in Edmonds Contacted Edmonds Edmonds employees 7 Packet Pg. 32 5.B.b The National Citizen SurveyTM Figure 3: Aspects of Participation Percent rating positively SAFETY (e.g., yes, more than Stocked supplies for an emergency once a month, always/sometimes) Did NOT report a crime Was NOT the victim of a crime Comparison to national MOBILITY benchmark Used public transportation instead of driving ■ Higher Carpooled instead of driving alone Similar Walked or biked instead of driving NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Lower Conserved water Made home more energy efficient Recycled at home BUILT ENVIRONMENT Did NOT observe a code violation NOT under housing cost stress ECONOMY Purchased goods or services in Edmonds Economy will have positive impact on income Work in Edmonds RECREATION AND WELLNESS Used Edmonds recreation centers Visited a City park Ate 5 portions of fruits and vegetables Participated in moderate or vigorous physical activity In very good to excellent health EDUCATION AND ENRICHMENT Used Edmonds public libraries Participated in religious or spiritual activities Attended a City -sponsored event COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Campaigned for an issue, cause or candidate Contacted Edmonds elected officials Volunteered Participated in a club Talked to or visited with neighbors Done a favor for a neighbor Attended a local public meeting Watched a local public meeting Read or watched local news Voted in local elections 8 Packet Pg. 33 Special Topics The City of Edmonds included five questions of special interest on The NCS. When asked for their opinion on increased local public funding for transportation -related services, more than 8 in 10 residents indicated that they strongly or somewhat support increased funding for the repair and replacement of existing sidewalks, repair and/or maintenance of City streets and the construction of new sidewalks. Fewer residents (about 6 in 1o) indicated their support for increased funding for the expansion of bicycle facilities. Figure 4: Funding for Transportation How likely or unlikely would you be to support increased local public funding for the following transportation - related services in Edmonds: ■ Strongly support ■ Somewhat support ■ Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Repair/replacement of existing sidewalks Repair and/or maintenance of City streets Construction of new sidewalks Expansion of bicycle facilities When asked about their potential support for increased local public funding for parks and recreation -related services, around 8 in 10 residents indicated that they strongly or somewhat support increased public funding for capital projects such as Civic Field and Marina Beach Park, as well as upgrading maintenance levels of existing parks. About three-quarters of respondents supported funding for the acquisition of parkland and beachfront and upgrading the Frances Anderson Center. Figure 5: Funding for Parks and Recreation How likely or unlikely would you be to support increased local public funding for the following parks and recreation -related services in Edmonds: Acquisition of parkland, beachfront Capital projects such as Civic Field, Marina Beach Park, etc. Upgrading Frances Anderson Center Upgrading maintenance levels of existing parks ■ Strongly support ■ Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose 14% 9% 11% 6% 13% 8% 11% 4% Packet Pg. 34 5.B.b The National Citizen SurveyT"' The third question asked Edmonds' residents whether or not they had experienced discrimination in the City based on a number of demographic factors. For each demographic, more than 9 in io residents indicated that they had not experienced discrimination. More residents, however, tended to experience discrimination based on age and race. Figure 6: Discrimination in Edmonds Please indicate whether or not you currently experience discrimination in Edmonds based on your: Sexual orientation or gender identity Disability Religion National origin Race Gender Age percent "no" When asked about their support for increased funding for police -related services, more than 8 in io residents strongly or somewhat supported increased funding for domestic violence services, increased patrol presence for crime deterrence, detection and apprehension and crime prevention services. Increased funding for all services were at least somewhat supported by a majority of residents. Figure 7: Funding for Police How likely or unlikely would you be to support increased funding to enhance the following Edmonds Police -related services: Domestic Violence Services Increased patrol presence for crime deterrence, detection and apprehension Crime prevention services Youth Services programs (High School Resource Officer,DARE, GREAT, etc.) 24-hour coverage at Police Department front counter Crime analysis Traffic enforcement ■ Strongly support ■ Somewhat support ■ Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose 10 Packet Pg. 35 The National Citizen SurveyT"' 5.B.b The final question asked residents about their sources of information about the City of Edmonds. More than 8 in io residents considered word of mouth and posters, banners or other signage a major or minor source of information. About three-quarters of residents indicated that online media and printed media were also sources. Figure 8: Sources of Information Rate how much the following are regular sources of information for you about City functions, activities, programs and events through the following channels: Word of mouth Posters, banners or other signage Online media Printed media (newspaper, magazine, etc.) City website or Facebook page ■ Major source Minor source 85% 85% 320J 78% 33% 76% 36% 62% 11 Packet Pg. 36 Conclusions Edmonds is a great place to live. Almost all residents gave positive ratings for the overall quality of life in Edmonds and Edmonds as a place to live; these ratings were higher than those seen in comparison communities across the nation and in Pacific Northwest communities with similar populations. About 9 in io residents positively rated the overall image and overall appearance of Edmonds as well as the City as a place to raise children, ratings which were also higher than in comparison communities nationwide and regionally. Similar proportions would recommend Edmonds to someone who asked and plan to remain in the City for the next five years. Safety is an asset and top priority. Safety was identified as an important area of focus in the coming years and nearly all aspects of Safety were rated positively by a majority of residents. Almost all residents reported feeling safe in their neighborhoods and in Edmonds' downtown area, and about 9 in 10 gave excellent or good ratings to the overall feeling of safety in Edmonds. Further, almost all respondents gave high ratings to police, fire and ambulance/EMS services. When asked about their support for funding increases for various police -related services, at least of half of residents somewhat or strongly supported all of the various proposed services. All aspects of Safety received ratings similar to those given in other communities nationwide and in the Pacific Northwest with the exception of the proportion of respondents who had stocked supplies for an emergency (47%), which was higher than the national comparison. Economy is important to residents and highly rated in Edmonds. Residents also identified Economy as a top priority of the Edmonds community. Ratings for Edmonds' vibrant downtown area and the City as a place to visit were higher than those seen in the national and Pacific Northwest comparisons. Around 8 in io residents positively rated the City's overall economic health as well as the variety of the City's business and service establishments. While only about 3 in io residents indicated that they work in Edmonds, more than two-thirds of respondents rated the City as an excellent or good place to work. The City supports a culture of diversity and opportunities for citizen engagement. At least three-quarters of residents gave excellent or good ratings to opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities, opportunities to participate in social events and activities and adult educational opportunities, and about two-thirds had attended a City -sponsored event in the past year. These ratings were generally higher than seen elsewhere. Furthermore, at least 6 in 10 survey participants gave favorable ratings to opportunities to participate in community matters and the openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds. When asked whether they currently experience discrimination in Edmonds based on a variety of factors such as age, gender and race, virtually all residents reported that they had not been discriminated against. 12 Packet Pg. 37 Edmonds, WA Dashboard Summary of Findings FINAL 2016 NRC National Research Center Inc: 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 Boulder, Colorado 80301 n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 Leaders at the Core of Better Communities 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 Washington, DC 20002 icma.org • 800-745-8780 Packet Pg. 38 Summary The National Citizen Survey" (The NCS") is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality research methods and directly comparable results across The NCS communities. The NCS captures residents' opinions within the three pillars of a community (Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation) across eight central facets of community (Safety, Mobility, Natural Environment, Built Environment, Economy, Recreation and Wellness, Education and Enrichment and Community Engagement). This report summarizes Edmonds's performance in the eight facets of community livability with the "General" rating as a summary of results from the overarching questions not shown within any of the eight facets. The "Overall" represents the community pillar in its entirety (the eight facets and general). By summarizing resident ratings across the eight facets and three pillars of a livable community, a picture of Edmonds's community livability emerges. Below, the color of each community facet summarizes how residents rated each of the pillars that support it — Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation. When most ratings were higher than the benchmark, the color is the darkest shade; when most ratings were lower than the benchmark, the color is the lightest shade. A mix of ratings (higher and lower than the benchmark) results in a color between the extremes. Overall, ratings of the dimensions of community livability tended to be strong and similar to other communities across the nation. Ratings for facets within Community Characteristics related to general aspects and Natural Environment tended to be higher than the national benchmark. Within the pillar of Participation, aspects of Built Environment also saw exceptionally high ratings. This information can be helpful in identifying the areas that merit more attention. re 1: Dashboard Summ Mobility Natural Environment Built Environment Economy Recreation and Wellness Education and Enrichment Community Engagement Le end Higher Similar Lower Characteristics Governance Partici ation Similar Lower Hiaher Similar Lower Hiaher Similar I Lower 0 0�0 �_ 31 0 7 'r 0 1 'r 2 0 8 0 1 2 1 5 0 1 2 0 7 0 0� 0 1 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 5 0 2 0 1 1 0 8 0 1 10 Packet Pg. 39 5.B.c The National Citizen SurveyTI Figure 2: Detailed Dashboard FT Community Characteristics Benchmark Percent Governance Benchmark Percent Participation Benchmark Percent positive positive positive Overall appearance ? 96% Customer service 83% Recommend Edmonds 95% Overall quality of life ? 95% Services provided by Edmonds 83% Remain in Edmonds 91% Place to retire ? 87% Services provided by the Federal Government 37% Contacted Edmonds employees 41% Place to raise children T 92% Place to live T 96% Neighborhood H 86% Overall image T 93% Overall feeling of safety 91% Police 89% Was NOT the victim of a crime 87% Safe in neighborhood 92% Crime prevention 72% Did NOT report a crime 76% Safe downtown/commercial area 97% Fire 96% Stocked supplies for an emergency i 47% Fire prevention H 81% Ambulance/EMS 94% Emergency preparedness 60% Traffic flow Animal control 73% T 70% Traffic enforcement 70% Carpooled instead of driving alone 51% Travel by car 77% Street repair 50% Walked or biked instead of driving i 69% 2� Travel by bicycle t 51% Street cleaning 72% Used public transportation instead of driving f 34% Ease of walking ? 83% Street lighting 74% Travel by public transportation 41% Snow removal 59% Overall ease of travel 85% Sidewalk maintenance 51% Public parking 48% Traffic signal timing 59% Paths and walking trails t 65% Bus or transit services t 54% Overall natural environment ? 91% Garbage collection 85% Recycled at home i 98% _ v Air quality T 94% Recycling 80% Conserved water 86% c Cleanliness T 94% Yard waste pick-up 80% Made home more energy efficient 73% m ° z Drinking water ? 90% C LU Open space H 68% Natural areas preservation 66% v New development in Edmonds 60% Sewer services 89% NOT experiencing housing cost stress 67% c Affordable quality housing 1 24% Storm drainage 74% Did NOT observe a code violation i 63% ° Housing options 50% Power utility 81% w Overall built environment t 72% Utility billing 71% — Public places T 89% Land use, planning and zoning 49% m Code enforcement 49% Cable television H 51% Legend TT Much higher T Higher Similar Lower 11 Much lower Not available 2 �a c 0 R Z 4- 0 C 0 r R C d to d 11 M ti 0 N to C 0 E W I.- 0 4— L O O t N R U Z O t H M r-+ C d E t v R Q C d E t v O r Y Q Packet Pg. 40 The National Citizen SurveyTI Community Characteristics Benchmark Percent Governance Benchmark Percent Participation Benchmark Percent positive positive positive Overall economic health 79% Economic development 58% Economy will have positive impact 34% on income Shopping opportunities H 68% Purchased goods or services in F 98% >. Edmonds o Employment opportunities 35% Work in Edmonds 1 29% u Place to visit TT 91% LU Cost of living H 36% Vibrant downtown/commercial area TT 81% Place to work 69% Business and services t 79% N Fitness opportunities H 73% City parks H 91% In very good to excellent health F 71% Recreational opportunities 74% Recreation centers 83% Used Edmonds recreation centers 61% Health care T 80% Recreation programs 87% Visited a City ark 88% a Food H 78% Health services H 84% Ate 5 portions of fruits and H 87% m vegetables o Mental health care T 63% Participated in moderate or vigorous 90% physical activity Health and wellness 84% Preventive health services T 79% K-12 education 86% Public libraries 90% Used Edmonds public libraries 680 o Cultural/arts/music activities TT 87% Special events 84% Participated in religious or spiritual 1 36% m activities o r Child care/preschool 64% Attended a City -sponsored event T 67% Religious or spiritual events and H 87% w activities "' Adult education T 78% Overall education and enrichment — 81% Opportunities to participate in — 73% Public information 74% Sense of community 76% community matters Opportunities to volunteer H 82% Overall direction H 69% Voted in local elections T 91% Openness and acceptance 62% Value of services for taxes 64% Talked to or visited with neighbors 95% £ paid mSocial events and activities T 77% Welcomingcitizen involvement 61% Attended a local public meeting20% m Neighborliness 67% Confidence in City government 59% Watched a local public meeting 23% L Acting in the best interest of H 64% Volunteered F 36% Edmonds Being honest H 68% Participated in a club H 25% o Treating all residents fairly 63% Campaigned for an issue, cause or 25% c� candidate Contacted Edmonds elected officials 18% Read or watched local news 87% Done a favor for a neighbor F 85% Legend TT Much higher T Higher Similar Lower 11 Much lower Not available 3 Packet Pg. 41 Edmonds, WA Comparisons by Demographic Subgroups FINAL 2016 NRC National Research Center Inc 2955 Valmont Road Suite 300 Boulder, Colorado 80301 n-r-c.com • 303-444-7863 ICE MA Leaderrs at the Core of Better Communities 777 North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 Washington, DC 20002 icma.org • 800-745-8780 Packet Pg. 42 Summary The National Citizen Survey" (The NCSTM) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality research methods and directly comparable results across The NCS communities. This report discusses differences in opinion of survey respondents by length of residency in Edmonds, annual household income, housing tenure (rent or own), age and sex. Responses in the following tables show only the proportion of respondents giving a certain answer; for example, the percent of respondents who rated the quality of life as "excellent" or "good," or the percent of respondents who attended a public meeting more than once a month. ANOVA and chi-square tests of significance were applied to these comparisons of survey questions. A "p-value" of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5% probability that differences observed between subgroups are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95% probability that the differences observed are "real." Where differences were statistically significant, they have been shaded grey. The margin of error for this report is generally no greater than plus or minus three percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample (906 completed surveys). For subgroups of responses, the margin of error increases because the sample size for the subgroup is smaller. For subgroups of approximately ioo respondents, the margin of error is plus or minus io percentage points. Notable differences between demographic subgroups included the following: Within the pillar of Community Characteristics, residents with an annual household income of more than $1oo,000 tended to give lower ratings to ease of travel by public transportation in Edmonds and opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities compared to residents with a lower annual household income. Residents who rented their homes were more likely than those who owned to positively rate various aspects of Mobility, including ease of public parking, travel by public transportation and by bicycle in Edmonds but tended to give lower ratings to the overall ease of travel in the community. Residents aged 18 to 34 were more likely to positively rate opportunities to volunteer and participate in community matters when compared to their older counterparts while residents aged 55 or older were more likely to give positive ratings to the openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds. When differences emerged among the general aspects of Governance, residents who had lived in Edmonds for more than 20 years tended to give lower ratings to each item listed including the value of services for taxes paid and the overall direction that Edmonds is taking among others. When differences emerged by age, residents 18 to 34 tended to give higher ratings to general aspects of Governance. Homeowners reported higher levels of Participation for many activities compared to those who rented their home, including contacting the City of Edmonds, making efforts to make their homes more energy efficient, being in excellent or very good health, participating in clubs and indicated that they were NOT under housing cost stress. Residents over the age of 55 were less likely to report that they felt the economy would have a positive impact on their income or that they worked in Edmonds. Edmonds residents whose income was less than $49,00o a year were much more likely to indicate that they were under housing cost stress, and much less likely to have attended a City -sponsored event. Residents who had lived in Edmonds for 20 or more years, homeowners, people aged 55 or older, and men were less likely to support increased local public funding for the expansion of bicycle facilities compared to their counterparts. The same demographic, with the exception of older residents, were also less likely to support increased public funding for acquisition of parkland, beachfront. Residents whose annual household income was under $49,000 tended to report greater rates of discrimination based on disability. Younger residents (aged 18 to 34) were more likely to report discrimination based on age. Packet Pg. 43 5.B.d The National Citizen SurveyTM Table 1: Community Characteristics - General Length of residency in Edmonds Annual household income Rent or own Age Sex Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Less than $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Rent Own 18-34 35- 54 55+ Female Male Overall The overall quality of life in Edmonds 97% 95% 93% 96% 95% 96% 94% 95% 97% 94% 95% 95% 94% 95% Overall image or reputation of Edmonds 98% 93% '0698% 90% 90% 96% 92% 94% 93% 99% 94% 92% 95% 92% 93% Edmonds as a place to live 96% 96% 93% 98% 97% 95% 97% 97% 96% 97% 97% 96% 96% Your neighborhood as a place to live 86% 86% 85% 81% 1% 91% 79% 82% 9100 87% 84% 86% Edmonds as a place to raise children 1 93% 1 92% 1 91% 1 92% 91% 94% 89% 92 0 87% 93% 1 93% 1 93% 1 90% 92% Edmonds as a place to retire 88% 82% 90% 86% 93% 88% 87% 100% 86% 1 86% 1 93% 1 83 0 87% Overall appearance of 1 1 Edmonds 96% 930% 950% 970% 980% 97% 95% 100% 95% 95% 97% 95% 96% Table 2: Community Characteristics - Safety Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) Length of residency in Edmonds Annual household income Rent or own Age Sex Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 More than years 20 years Less than $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Rent Own 18-34 35- 54 55+ Female Male Overall feeling of safety in Edmonds 92% 91% 92% 90% 91% 95% 92% 91% 94% 88% 93% 92% 91% 91% In your neighborhood during the day 93% 94% 91% 90% 93% 95% 89% 94% 94% 90% 95% 93% 92% 92% In Edmonds's downtown area during the day 94% 97% 96% 100% 96% 98% 100% 96% 97% 98% 97% 97% Table 3: Community Characteristics - Mobility Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) Length of residency in Edmonds Annual household income Rent or own Age Sex Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Less than $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Rent Own 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 84% 87% 84% 81% 88% 86% 85% 86% 85% 85% 85% 85% Traffic flow on major streets 78% 68% 68% 65% 76% 70% 71% 71% 75% 72% 70% 70% 73% 70% Ease of public parking 61% 47% 38% 53% 48% 48% 61% 43% 68% 48% 41% 46% 52% 48% Ease of travel by car in Edmonds 89% 75% 71% 74% 80% 79% 80% 77% 94% 75% 74° 79 0 77% 77% Ease of travel by public transportation in Edmonds 48% 41% 35% 56% 42% 24% 56% 35% 33% 1 41% 44% 41% 41% 1 41% Ease of travel by bicycle in Edmonds 46% 60% 46% 60% 52% 43% 62% 46% 53% 46% 54% 51% 50% 51% Ease of walking in Edmonds 82% 81% 87% 83% 85% 83% 88% 81% 84% 80% 86% 1 85% 81% 83% Availability of paths and walking trails 61% 67% 68% 68% 67% 61% 68% 65% 63% 61% 71% 59% 65% 70% Q 2 Packet Pg. 44 5.B.d The National Citizen SurveyTM Table 4: Community Characteristics - Natural Environment Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) Length of residency in Edmonds Annual household income Rent or own Age Sex Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Less than $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Rent Own 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male Quality of overall natural environment in Edmonds 91% 92% 89% 91% 90% 95% 92% 1 90% 93% 90% 1 91% 93% M 91% Air quality 95% 94% 93% 90% 96% 95% 95% 1 94% 97% 94% 1 94% 94% 95% 1 94% Cleanliness of Edmonds 94% 95% 92% 95% 95% 1 93% 91% 1 95% 97% 929/b 1954,67 95% 93% 1 94% Table S- Cnmmunity Characteristics - Ruilt Fnvirnnment Length of residency in Edmonds Annual household income Rent or own Age Sex More Percent rating positively (e.g., 5 years 6 to 20 than 20 Less than $50,000 to $100,000 18- 35- excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) or less years years $49,999 $99,999 or more Rent Own 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall Overall "built environment" of Edmonds (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 74% 74% 70% 71% 75% 72% 71% 73% 77% 71% 73% 73% 72% 72% Public places where people want to spend time 95% % 92% 91% 89% 87% 90% 95% 88% 89% 89% Variety of housing options 51% 54% 46% 48% 46% 62% 36% 56% 53% 50% 49% 51% 49% 50% Availability of affordable quality housing 28% 27% 19% 31% 24% 21% 26% 24% 28% 24% 22% 25% 24% 24% Overall quality of new development in Edmonds 70% 60% 54% 59% 62% 60% 62% 60% 67% 64% 57% 63% 59% 60% Table 6: Community Characteristics - Economv Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) Length of residency in Edmonds Annual household income Rent or own Age Sex Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Less than $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Rent Own 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male Overall economic health of Edmonds 89% 79% 73% 80% 81% 77% 80% 79% 94% 77% 78% 83% 76% 79% Edmonds as a place to work 65% 71% 70% 76% 68% 67% 71% 67% 56% 67% 76% 77% 60% 69% Edmonds as a place to visit 94% 92% 89% 94% 92% 90% 87% 93% 93% 88% 93% 94% 89% 91% Employment opportunities 31% 42% 31% 42% 34% 34% 38% 1 34% 32% 38% 34% 1 37% 33% 1 35% Shopping opportunities 70% 69% 64% 70% 67% 67% 68% 68% 64% 67% 70% 75% 60% 68% Cost of living in Edmonds 38% 41% 31% 30% 38% 43% A 33% 38% 37% 37% 37% 41% 32% 36% Overall quality of business and service establishments in Edmonds 84% 77% 77% 79% 81% 78% 79% 80% 88% 73% 81% 83% 75% 79% Vibrant downtown area 87% 85% 73% 87% 82% 81% 88% 79% 90% 80% 81% 88% 75% 81% 3 Packet Pg. 45 M r c 0 E LU 6- 0 L 3 v t L 0 E 0 c 0 �L �a a E 0 U U) U Z a� t I— r c m E t r Q c a� E t v Q 5.B.d The National Citizen SurveyTM Table 7: Community Characteristics - Recreation and Wellness Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) Length of residency in Edmonds Annual household income Rent or own Age Sex Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Less than $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Rent Own 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male Health and wellness opportunities in Edmonds 88% 80% 85% 86% 85% 82% 85% 84% 86% 82% 85% 85% 84% 1 84% Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 72% 74% 75% 74% 72% 77% 65% 77% 637 71% 80% 77% 70% 73% Recreational opportunities 77% 72% 76% 72% 74% 84% 69% 77% 65% 74% 79% 78% 71% 74% Availability of affordable quality food 79% 76% 82% 73% 82% 78% 76% 80% 82% 72% 83% 81% 77% 78% Availability of affordable quality health care 83% 81% 78% 76% 83% 82% 80% 81% 81% 81% 80% 81% 80% 80% Availability of preventive health services 84% 76% 1 78% % 77% 80% 86% 77% 79 o 77% 82% 79% Availability of affordable quality 1 mental health Care 82% 62% 53% 62% 62% 68% 68% 61% 86% 63% 5307% 60% 1 67% 63% Table 8: Community Characteristics - Education and Enrichment Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) Length of residency in Edmonds Annual household income Rent or own Rent Own Age 18- 35- 34 54 55+ Sex Fernalej Male Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than Less than 20 years $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 85% 83% 77% 84% 82% 78% 81% 82% 83% 80% 83% 85% 78M 81% Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool 69% 61% 60% 63% 65% 65% 63% 63% 72% 61% 61% 62% 64% 64% K-12 education 88% 88% 85% 93% 88% 82% 93% 84% 89% 89% 84% 88% 85% 86% Adult educational opportunities 82% 74% 80% 86% 78% 72% 79% 78% 84% 71% 82% 83% 74% 78% Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 90% 84% 87% 1 87% 90% 83% 83% 89% 94% 81% 89% 92% 82% 87% Opportunities to participate in religious or spiritual events and activities 86% 91% 85% 90% 84% 89% 86% 86% 89% 92% 83% 87% Table 9: Community Characteristics - Community Enaaaement Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) Length of residency in Edmonds Annual household income Rent or own Age Sex Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Less than $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Rent Own 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male Opportunities to participate in social in events and activities 85% 73% 76% 78% 81% 74% 77% 78% 83% 1 75% 79% 82% 9M 77% Opportunities to volunteer 87% 76% 84% 81% 85% 81% 84% 82% 94% 76% 84% 85% 81% 82% Opportunities to participate in community matters 72% 73% 75% 76% 76% 69% 74% 73% 83% 67% 76% 76% 72% 1 73% 4 Packet Pg. 46 M r c O E LU L N Q 3 O L. v t L O E d c O 2 E O U U) U Z a� t H c m E t r Q c a� E t v Q 5.B.d The National Citizen SurveyTM Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) Length of residency in Edmonds Annual household income Rent or own Age Sex Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Less than $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Rent Own 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 62% 63% 62% 55% 64% 62% 60% 56% 68% 60% 64% 62% 68% 53% Neighborliness of residents in Edmonds 66% 69% 67% 65% 68% 69% 63% 69% 64% 65% 70% 1 70% 64% 67% Tahle 10: Governance - General Length of residency in Edmonds Annual household income Rent or own Age Sex 6 to 20 More than Less than $50,000 to $100,000 or 18- 35- Percent rating positively (e.g., 5 years excellent/good) or less years 20 years $49,999 $99,999 more Rent Own 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall 83% 77% 88% The City of Edmonds 91% 83% 84% 87% 82% 82% 86% 84% 86% 82% 83% The value of services for the taxes paid to Edmonds 75% 64% 56% 1 63% 69% 62% 68% 64% 81% 63% 61% 67% 64% 64% The overall direction that Edmonds is taking 79% 73% 56% 71% 70% 69% 73% 67% 80% 72% 64% 69% 69% 69% The job Edmonds government does at welcoming citizen involvement 67% 64% 55% 64% 62% 63% 64% 61% 56% 68% 61% 1 62% 63% 61% Overall confidence in Edmonds government 75% 58% 49% 61% 63% 56% 63% 1 59% 70% 60% 57% 62% 58% 1 59% Generally acting in the best interest of the community 79% 65% 50% 63% 65% 66% 62% 64% 70% 65% 62% 66% 62% 64% Being honest 84% 70% 55% 73% 69% 68% 5% 66% 86% 68% 63% 67% 70% 68% Treating all residents fairly 71% 66% 55% 62% 66% 64% 59% 65% 80% 59% 62% 64% 64% 63% Overall customer service by Edmonds employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 92% 81% 79% 88% 84% 81% 85% 83% 87% 82% 85% 86 0 81% 83% The Federal Government 35% 37% 40% 44% 38% 31% 34% 39% 41% 30% 42% 36% 39% 37% Tahle It- Governance - Safety Length of residency in Edmonds Annual household income Rent or own Age Sex More Percent rating positively (e.g., 5 years 6 to 20 than 20 Less than $50,000 to $100,000 35- excellent/good) or less years years $49,999 $99,999 or more Rent Own 18-34 54 55+ Female Male Overall Police/Sheriff services 90% 85% 91% 90% 89% 92% 83% 1 91% 93% 1 83% 92% 1 92% 86% 1 89% Fire services 95% 96% 96% 96% 97% 94% 95% 96% 100% 94% 97% 97% 95% 96% Ambulance or emergency medical services 92% 95% 96% 93% 96% 93% 92% 96% 94% 91% 97% 96% 94% 94% Crime prevention 70% 73% 72% 73% 72% 71% 67% 74% 75% 60% 80% 74% 69% 72% Fire prevention and education 79% 81% 82% 80% 80% 84% 77% 83% 81% 75% 86% 86% 77% 81% Animal control 88% 69% 69% 71% 76% 71% 76% 72% 87% 74% 68% 75% 72% 73% 5 Packet Pg. 47 5.B.d The National Citizen SurveyT"' Length of residency in Edmonds Annual household income Rent or own Age Sex More Percent rating positively (e.g., 5 years 6 to 20 than 20 Less than $50,000 to $100,000 35- excellent/good) or less years years $49,999 $99,999 or more Rent Own 18-34 54 55+ Female Male Overall Emergency preparedness (services that 7 prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 63% 62% 56% 63% 62% 58% 55% 76% 56% 59% 58% 62% 60% Table 12: Governance - Mobility Length of residency in Edmonds Annual household income Rent or own Age Sex Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Less than $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Rent Own 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male Overall Traffic enforcement 77% 62% 72% 76% 67% 73% 72% 69% 76% 68% 70% 73% 67% 70% Street repair 71% 46% 36% 53% 52% 50% 60% 47% 73% 46% 47% 49% 53% 50% Street cleaning 88% 67% 63% 0 75% 74% 73% 78% 71% 94% 67% 69% 74% 72% 72% Street lighting 78% 69% 76% 75% 79% 65% 78% 73% 77% 70% 77% 76% 73% 74% Snow removal 77% 59% 53% 57% 63% 51% 68% 55% 72% 59% 57% 62% 57% 59% Sidewalk maintenance 59% 51% 43% 55% 54% 43% 58% 48% 61% 4 A ° ° 52% 50% 51% Traffic signal timing 71% 56% 51% 63% 62% 50% 69% 55% 67% 58% 57% 62% 56% 59% Bus or transit services 57% 57% 50% 59% 56% 46% 60% 52% 60% 46% 59% 50% 59% 54% Table 13: Governance - Natural Environment Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Length of residency in Edmonds Annual household income Rent or own Rent Own Age 18- 35- 34 54 55+ Sex Female Lmale Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Less than $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Garbage collection 83% 85% 87% 81% 87% 87% 82% 86% 80% 81% 90% 88% 82% 85% Recycling 76% 84% 81% 73% 83% 84% 69% 85% 75% 74% 88% 83% 78% 80% Yard waste pick-up 70% 86% 83% 74% 81% 84% 74% 81% 71% 76% 87% 82% 78% 80% Drinking water 89% 89% 91% 86% 90% 93% 85% 91% 91% 88% 90% 88% 91% 90% Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts , 72% 70% 57% 58% 68% 71% 64% 67% 76% 64% 64% 68% 64% 66% Edmonds open space 78% 71% 57% 69% 69% 72% 70% 68% 80% 67% 65% 68% 69% 68% Tahle 14: Governance - Built Fnvimnment Length of residency in Edmonds Annual household income Rent or own Age Sex Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Less than $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Rent Own 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male Overall Storm drainage 84% 1 73% 67% 78% 75% 71% 80% 72% 1 85% 71% 1 74% 75% 74% 74% Sewer services 92% 86% 88% 88% 89% 89% 91% 88% 94% 86% 88% 88% 89% 89% Power (electric and/or gas) utility 79% 80% 85% 75% 84% 82% 80% 82% 80% 77% 86% 81% 82% 81% Utilitv billing 65% 75% 71% 63% 71% 79% 60% 74% 68% 65% 78% 71% 71% 71% 6 Packet Pg. 48 5.B.d The National Citizen SurveyTM Length of residency in Edmonds Annual household income Rent or own Age Sex Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Less than $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Rent Own 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male Overall Land use, planning and zoning 60% 52% 40% 49% 52% 45% 52% 49% 59% 48% 48% 46% 53% 49% Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 67% 49% 38% 52% 49% 53% 64% 45% 80% 48% 41 0 50% 49% 49% Cable television 59% 49% 46% 57% 49% 51% 57% 48% 52% 53% 48% 48% 53% 51% Table IS: Governance - Economv Length of residency in Edmonds Annual household income Rent or own Age Sex Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Less than $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Rent Own 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male Overall Economic development 67% 57% 53% 59% 62% 52% 65% 56% 67% 1 59% 1 56% 62% 1 56% 58% Table 16: Governance - Recreation and Wellness Length of residency in Edmonds Annual household income Rent or own Age Sex Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Less than $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Rent Own 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male Overall City parks 94% 91% 89% 91% 93% 91% 93% 91% 96% 89% 92% 92% 91% 91% Recreation programs or classes 91% 89% 82% 90% 89% 82% 92% 85% 95% 84% 87% 89% 86% 87% Recreation centers or facilities 85% 85% 80% 88% 84% 79% 86% 82% 89% 83% 82% 86% 81% 83% Health services 89% 84% 82% 82% 86% 90% 87% 83% 86% 84% 86% 84% 86% 1 84% Table 17: Governance - Education and Enrichment Length of residency in Edmonds Annual household income Rent or own Age Sex Percent rating positively (e.g., 5 years or 6 to 20 More than Less than $50,000 to $100,000 or 18 35- excellent/good) less years 20 years $49,999 $99,999 more Rent Own 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall Public library services 87% 95% 88% 92% 91% 88% 92% 89% 75% 94% 93% 91% 89% 90% City -sponsored special events 91% 83% 79% 83% 87% 84% 85% 84% 93% 81% 84% 88% 81% 84% Table IS: Governance - Community Enaaaement Length of residency in Edmonds Annual household income Rent or own Age Sex Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Less than $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Rent Own 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male Overall Public information services 1 73% 1 78% 1 71% 1 78% 1 75% 1 70% 1 75% 1 73% 1 54% 1 81% 1 76% 1 76% 1 73% 1 74% 7 Packet Pg. 49 5.B.d The National Citizen SurveyTM Table 19: Particination General Length of residency in Edmonds Annual household income Rent or own Age Sex More Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a 5 years 6 to 20 than 20 Less than $50,000 to $100,000 or 18- 35- month, yes) or less years years $49,999 76% 83% $99,999 more Rent Own 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall Sense of community 77% 75% 78% 71% 79% 75% 66% 78% 80% 79% 74% 76% Recommend living in Edmonds to someone who asks 980% 95%191% 97% 94% 96% 93% 95% 96% 94% 96% 96% 95% 95% Remain in Edmonds for the next five years 89% 93%90% 92% 94% 87% 93% 76% 97% 94% 94% 89% 910 Contacted the City of Edmonds (in - person, phone, email or web) for help or information 31% 46%31% 42% 42% 24% 47% 28% 38% 46% 34% 47% 41% Table 20: Particination - Safety Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) Length of residency in Edmonds Annual household income Rent or own Age Sex Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Less than $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Rent Own 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male Was NOT the victim of a crime 92% 82% 89% 88% 86% 90% 84% 89% 80% 87% 91% 89% 86% 87% Did NOT report a crime 77% 75% 76% 74% 74% 81% 72% 78% 64% 75% 82% 78% 74% 76% Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency 45% 49% 49% 45% 48% 47% 51% 46% 41% 51% 47% 48% 46% 1 47% Table 21: Particinatinn - Mnhility Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) of residency in Edmonds Annual household income Rent or own Age Sex Overall t5e 6 to 20 More than years 20 years Less than $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $500,000 or more Rent Own 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male Walked or biked instead of driving 74% 70% 63% 62% 70% 75% 1 69% 1 69% 67% 78% 63% 1 67% 72% 69% Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone 54% t34-%/o 48% 42% 53% 55% 47% 52% 57% 59% 40% 54% 45% 51% Used bus, rail, subway or other public EL transportation instead of driving 47% 38% 36% 280/ Table 22: Particination - Natural Environment Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) Length of residency in Edmonds Annual household income Rent or own Age Sex Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Less than $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Rent Own 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male Recycle at home 99% 1 97% 98% 97% 99% 99% 99% 98% 97% 1 99% 1 99% 1 99% 98% 98% Made efforts to make your home more energy efficient 73% 74% 71% 65% 74% 77% 630/ 69% 74% 73% 75% 70% 73% Made efforts to conserve water 87% 85% 88% 85% 88% 81% 89% 85% 81% 85% 900/c88% 84% 1 86% 8 Packet Pg. 50 M r c O E w L N Q 3 O L Cn 3 L O E am c O �L �a E O U U) U Z a� t H c m E t r Q c a� E t v Q 5.B.d The National Citizen SurveyTM Table 23: Particination - Built Environment Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) Length of residency in Edmonds Annual household income Rent or own Age Sex Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Less than $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Rent Own 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male NOT under housing cost stress 63% 68% 71% 30% 68% 100% 56% 72% 71% 70% 65% 67% 68% 167% Did NOT observe a code violation 73% 66% 52% 70% 61% 66% 71% 61% 72% 62% 62% 60% 68% 1 63% Table 24: Particination - Economv Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) Length of residency in Edmonds Annual household income Rent or own Age Sex Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Less than $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Rent Own 18-34 35- 54 55+ Female Male Purchase goods or services from a business located in Edmonds 99% 97% 98% 96% 99% 98% 98% 98% 100% 98% 98% 98% 99% 98% Economy will have positive impact on income 41% 31% 29% 30% 31% 47% 41% 31°0 38% 42% 26% 31% 37% 34% Work in Edmonds 35% 32% 21% 23% 33% 31% 33% 28% 1 34% 38% 20% 31% 27% 29% Table 25: Particination - Recreation and Wellness Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) Length of residency in Edmonds Annual household income Rent or own Age Sex Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Less than $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Rent Own 18- 34 35- 54 55+ FemaleT Male Used Edmonds recreation centers or their services 61% 63% 58% 51% 67% 59% 60% 62% 66% 64% 57% 58% 65% 61% Visited a neighborhood park or City park 92% 87% 86% 72% 93% 90% 85% 90% % 95% 81% 86% 91% 88% Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day 88% 87% 86% 84% 87% 89% 86% 87% 88% 86% 87% 90% 82% 87% Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity 91% 88% 90% 86% 91% 93% 89% 91% 979% 91% 87% 90% 89% 90% Reported being in "very good" or "excellent" health 76% 72% 67% WI 82% 63% 5% 87% 72% 65% 72% 71% 71% Table 26: Particination - Education and Enrichment Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) Length of residency in Edmonds Annual household income Rent or own Age Sex Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Less than $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Rent Own 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male Used Edmonds public libraries or their � 1 services 70% 74% 63% 62% 72% 70% 74% 67% 68% 75% 1 650/ 69% 68% 1 68% Participated in religious or spiritual activities in Edmonds 24% 40% 42% 38% 35% 32% 32% 36% 30% 34% 38% 33% 37% 36% Attended a Citv-sponsored event 66% 69% 67% 55% 68% 77% 68% 67% 5% 77% 60% 69% 65% 67% 9 Packet Pg. 51 M r c 0 E LU L N CL 3 0 L 3 v t 0 L 0 E 0 c 0 �L �a E 0 U U) U Z a� t v r c m E t v r Q c a� E t v Q 5.B.d The National Citizen SurveyTM Table 27: Participation - Community Engagement Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) Length of residency in Edmonds Annual household income Rent or own Age Sex Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Less than $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Rent Own 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male Campaigned or advocated for an issue, cause or candidate 21% 23% 29% 25% 27% 16% 25% 24% 28% 23% 25% 25% 18% 21% Contacted Edmonds elected officials (in - person, phone, email or web) to express your opinion 13% 21% 19% 12% 19% 17% 12% 19% 5% 16% 23% 15% 18% 20% Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Edmonds 22% 38% 450/ 35% 33% 38% 27% 38% 22% 38% 37% 37% 33% 36% Participated in a club Talked to or visited with your immediate neighbors Done a favor for a neighbor Attended a local public meeting 13% 31% 279/ 24% 1 24% 1 24% 15% 27% 20% 19% 28% 23% 25% 25% 93% 94% 99% 88% 98% 95% 93% 96% 96% 94% 95% 75% 86% 93% 85% 83% 85% 75% 88% 76% 81% 91% 83% 87% 85% 15% 24% 200/ 21% 19% 19% 11% 24% 11% 16% 26% 18% 23% 20% Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 18% 22% 29% 26% 22% 16% 18% 24% 18% 17% 28% 1 22% 22% 23% Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) 78% 87% 94% 88% 86% 89% 84% 87% 77% 82% 930o 87% 86% 87% Vote in local elections 83% 90% 98% 86% 92% 93% 84% 93% 83% 87% 96% 92% 89% 91% Table 28: Importance of Community Focus Areas Percent rating essential/very important Length of residency in Edmonds Annual household income Rent or own Age Sex Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Less than $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Rent Own 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male Overall feeling of safety in Edmonds 89% 87% 92% 95% 87% 88% 92% 89% 85% 90% 92% 92% 86% 90% Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 80% 75% 79% 86% 77 ° 74% 83% 76% 75% 76% 83% 83% 73% 78% Quality of overall natural environment in Edmonds 86% 80% 83% 80% 83% 84% 85% 82% 71% 88% 83% 86% 79% 83% Overall "built environment" of Edmonds (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 77% 80% 81% 83% 76% 84% 77% 80% 66% 80% 84% 78% 81% 79% Health and wellness opportunities in Edmonds 75% 61% 60% 61% 72% 69% 61% 65% Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 68% 67% 69% 75% 68% 63% 7% 64% 66% 64% 74% 73% 63% 68% Overall economic health of Edmonds 86% 87% 90% 89% 87% 89% 92% 86% 81% 88% 91% 91% 84% 88% Sense of community 87% 84% 82% 86% 84% 830% 94% 81% 83% 86% 85% 88% 81% 84% 10 Packet Pg. 52 M r 5.B.d The National Citizen SurveyTM Table 29: Question 14 How likely or unlikely would you be to support increased local public funding for the following transportation -related services in Edmonds: (Percent rating as "strongly support" or "somewhat support") Length of residency in Edmonds Annual household income Rent or own Age Sex Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Less than $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Rent Own 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male Repair and/or maintenance of City streets 87% 92% 85% 89% 89% 86% 89% 88% 85% 89% 89% 90% 86% 88% Construction of new sidewalks 89% 85% 79% 84% 85% 87% 87% 83% 88% 87% 82% 85% 84% 84% Repair/replacement of existing sidewalks 88% 87% 85% 90% 86% 88% 88% 86% 85% 87% 87% 87% 86% 86% Expansion of bicycle facilities 68% 60% 48% 60% 62% 55% 1 68% 55% 66% 63% 53% 63% 55% 1 58% Table 30: Question 15 How likely or unlikely would you be to support Length of residency in increased local public funding for the following Edmonds Annual household income Rent or own Age Sex 5 6 to More $50,000 parks and recreation -related services in Edmonds: (Percent rating as "strongly support" or "somewhat years 20 than 20 Less than to $100,000 18- 35- support") or less years years $49,999 $99,999 or more Rent Own 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall Upgrading maintenance levels of existing parks 90% 84% 81% 85% 85% 88% 92% 82% 92% 85% 84% 85% 86% 85% Upgrading Frances Anderson Center 87% 77% 75% 81% 82% 76% 82% 78% 88% 78% 78% 82% 77% 79% Capital projects such as Civic Field, Marina Beach Park, etc. 93% 83% 74% 85% 86% 82% 86% 82% 94% 83% 80% 84% 83% 83% Acquisition of parkland, beachfront 89% 77% 66% 79% 80% 72% 84% 75% 92% 75% 75% 81% 73% 77% Table 31: Question 16 Please indicate whether or not you currently experience discrimination in Edmonds based on your: (Percent rating 'yes") Length of residency in Edmonds Annual household income Less than $50,000 to $100,000 $49,999 $99,999 or more Rent or own Age Sex Overall 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Rent Own 18- 34 35- 54 55+ Female Male Age 3% 6% 6% 8% 3% 4% 8% 4% 11% 1% 5% 6% 3% 5% Gender 2% 4% 4% 4% 3% 1% 6% 29/. 4 6% 3% 2% 5% 1% 3% Race 3% 6% 3% 5% 4% 4% 6% 3% 3% 5% 4% 3% 5% 4% National origin 3% 5% 2% 5% 3% 2% 6% 3% 2% 5% 3% 3% 4% 3% Religion 1% 3% 4% 4% 1% 1% 3% 3% 1% 4% 2% 2% 3% 3% Disability 2% 4% 4% 10% 2% 0% 6% 2% 0% 5% 3% 4% 2% 3% Sexual orientation or gender identity 1% 2% 2% 3% 1% 1% 3% 1% 0% 3% 1% 2% 1% 2% 11 Packet Pg. 53 M ti 5.B.d The National Citizen SurveyTM Table 32: Ouestion 17 M Length of residency in How likely or unlikely would you be to support Edmonds Annual household income Rent or own Age Sex 6 to More $50,000 increased funding to enhance the following Edmonds Police -related services: (Percent rating 5 years 20 than 20 Less than to $100,000 18- 35- as "strongly support" or "somewhat support") or less years years $49,999 $99,999 or more Rent Own 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall Increased patrol presence for crime deterrence, detection and apprehension 88% 89% 88% 89% 88% 92% 93% 87% 87% 89% 90% 90% 88% 89% Traffic enforcement 61% 68% 650, 66% 57% 67% 63% 53% 59% 75% 65% 65% 65% Crime prevention services 90% 90% 1 87% 89% 89% 92% 94% 87% 91% 87% 90% 91% 87% 89% 24-hour coverage at Police Department front counter 84% 0 79% 73% 72% 80% 71% 88% 66% 75% 77% 71% 74% Youth Services programs (High School Resource IF Officer, DARE, GREAT, etc.) 86% 81% 76% 83% 80% 82% 82% 79% 89% 76% 81% 82% 79% 81% Crime analysis 85% 82% 77% 86% 81% 80% 87% 79% 88% 81% 80% 81% 81% 81% Domestic Violence Services 92% 87% 87% 90% 89% 90% 93% 87% 89% 91% 88% 92% 85% 89% Table 33: Ouestion 18 Rate how much the following are regular sources Length of residency in of information for you about City functions, Edmonds Annual household income Rent or own Age Sex 5 6 to More $50,000 activities, programs and events through the following channels: (Percent rating as "major years 20 than 20 Less than to $100,000 18- 35- source" or "minor source") or less years years $49,999 $99,999 or more Rent Own 34 54 55+ Female Male Overall Printed media (newspaper, magazine, etc.) 64% 74% 89% 72% 78% 72% 66% 79% 53% 72% 88% 75% 77% 76% City website or Facebook page 69% 60% 58% 58% 63% 67% 58% 64% 61% 73% 550% 61% 64% 62% Online media 86% 78% 70% 70% 80% 84% 81% 77% 79% 87% 71% 77% 79% 78% Posters, banners or other signage 86% 86% 82% 78% 88% 86% 91% 83% 85% 89% 82% 86% 83% 85% Word of mouth 83% 84% 87% 88% 85% 83% 86% 85% 85% 86% 84% 869% 830K 85% 12 Packet Pg. 54 7.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/24/2016 Preparing for Joint City Council / Planning Board Meeting Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Rob Chave Background/History The Planning Board and City Council periodically have joint meetings to discuss issues and for the Council to provide direction. The next such joint meeting is scheduled to be on September 6. It will focus primarily on housing, but other topics may be discussed too. In preparation for the joint meeting, the Planning Board had some discussion at its August 10 meeting. (See Attachment 1 for the menu of issues, developed by the Board's Chair and Vice Chair, which was discussed on August 10.) Preparation for the joint meeting will continue at the Planning Board's August 24 meeting. Staff Recommendation Discuss preparing for the September 6 joint meeting, especially: 1. Developing a Housing Strategy, with data and a policy basis, for consider housing ideas 2. Getting City Council direction on any other topics Narrative A. Housing Housing, especially affordable housing for different income levels, is a big issue in our region. Edmonds cannot solve it alone. But we do have a role. For example, Edmonds partners with organizations, such as Alliance for Housing Affordability, to help identify and meet affordable housing needs. The Alliance prepared a Housing Profile for Edmonds, which contains extensive housing data. It is on the City website at: <http://www.edmondswa.gov/images/COE/Government/Departments/Development Services/Planning Division/Data/AHA Profile Edmonds 2015.pdf>. Edmonds is also a member of larger organizations, such as Puget Sound Regional Council and Snohomish County Tomorrow, which provide coordination and guidance on housing issues. Edmonds' share of additional housing is projected at about 2200 more units by 2035. While existing zoning may be able to accommodate the additional units, other issues -such as affordability, location, sustainability, and diversity -are important too. The City's Comprehensive Plan has a Housing Element (attached as Attachment 2), which includes: Background information Goals and Policies Implementation Action and Performance Measure Packet Pg. 55 7.A The Housing goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan are broad -based, for example, calling for our regulatory systems to avoid adding to the cost of housing and for decent housing in a suitable environment to be provided for "special needs" populations. The implementation and monitoring part of the Housing Element gets more specific: Implementation Action: Develop a strategy by 2019 for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs. Performance Measure: Report the number of residential units permitted each year with a goal of reaching 21,168 units by 2035, or approximately 112 additional units annually. Proposed key questions for discussion with the City Council on September 6 include: 1. Should the Planning Board be involved with the Housing Strategy that is promised in the Comprehensive Plan? If so, should the Strategy start getting developed sooner than 2019? 2. Should the Housing Strategy provide a framework that includes both data and recommendations for addressing housing issues? 3. While the Housing Strategy is to focus on "increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs", should it prioritize particular issues or population groups (for example, seniors)? B. Other Topics The City Council may have input for the Planning Board on other topics, too. Here is a partial list, as developed by the Board: 1. Highway 99 area redevelopment 2. 5 Corners redevelopment 3. Edmonds Marsh progress 4. Railroad crossing alternative 5. Civic Field master planning Whether these topics -or other topics -get discussed at the joint meeting on September 6 will depend on the available time, as well as the choices of Council and Board members. Attachments Exhibit 1: Planning Board menu of joint topics Exhibit 2: Housing Element of Comprehensive Plan Attachments: Attachment 1: Discussion from Phil Lovell Attachment 2: Housing Element from the Comprehensive Plan Packet Pg. 56 7.A.a Aug 1, 2016 Rev. 8/6/16 PBL RE: Joint PB/Council work meeting scheduled for Sept. 6, 2016 Strategy menu for increasing housing units within Edmonds. Ideas/concepts/procedures generated and/or discussed over several recent years and during PB 2016 Retreat [3/9/16] in the interests of increasing available housing units within the City of Edmonds. The below list is 'neutral' with respect to tax revenues generated by housing ownership within the City, nor does the order of listing represent any priorities associated. A. Refer to Seattle Sunday Times of 7/31/16 for Op. Ed.: "Growth Management Act can't keep up with housing demand". [Some smaller cities have already been advised by PSRC to 'up' their projections based on current trending regarding population growth in the area.] Current PSRC target for Edmonds is +/- 5200 housing units B. Housing 'expansion' in Edmonds • Adjust residential zoning criteria to allow smaller platting towards accommodating increased housing units and PRD's. [current Code Revisions in progress] • Look at RM vs. RS zoning changes ['nibble at the edges' of current RS/RM areas within the city with goal of rezoning given areas to RM from RS]. • Rezone to lower requirement for mixed use retail/commercial to 15t floor of buildings. —particularly 5- Corners and Hwy. 99. [done already on Hwy 99] • Study codes with goal of allowing/encouraging more ADU's on given RS properties. • 'Apodments' on given parcels (ala ADU's). 'Additions' to RS homes to enable double units —either horizontally or vertically [study height criteria for each situation and proceed accordingly/appropriately- be aware of Esperance conditions] • Incentivize developers/property owners, builders to incorporate affordable housing within their new/redevelopments. • If appropriate/available, create public -private partnership(s) with developer(s) in order to generate/create/develop more RM housing within the city • Residential Target Area [Tax exemption -deferral program] —currently being looked at for Westgate area • Encourage mix of condos vs. rental units which address market demands. • Impacts/trending of Air B&B towards more 'room rentals' or'in-law apt living'? • Look at'subdividing'/retrofitting existing RS homes to RM configurations —conditions allowing/enabling same within RS zones. • Esperance? C. Other potential areas for discussion/exploration/future undertakings [2016 vs. 2017]: • Hwy 99 redevelopment Low entry housing (homeless challenge) Trailer parks Low rent motels • 5 Corners redevelopment • Edmonds Marsh progress • RR crossing alternatives • Civic Field Packet Pg. 57 7.A.b Housing Element Introduction. This section looks at the character and diversity of housing in the City of Edmonds. Part of this process includes looking at housing types and affordability. The goal of this section is to provide the necessary information to anticipate housing needs. General Background According to the Office of Financial Management (OFM), there were an estimated 18,378 housing units within the City of Edmonds in 2010. This represents an increase of 5 percent in the city's housing stock since 2000, when there were 17,508 housing units. In comparison, over the period 1990-2000, the city's housing stock grew 35.2 percent, or approximately 3.5 percent per year. This increase is largely explained by annexations that occured during the 1990s in the south and southwest portions of the city. Figure 22 summarizes recent growth trends and forecasts for the City of Edmonds. Of the total stock of housing in 2010, 11,685 (63.5 percent) were single family units, 6,664 (36.3 percent) were multi -family units, and 29 (0.2 percent) were mobile homes or trailers. Compared with Snohomish County as a whole, Edmonds has a lower percentage of single-family homes (63.6 percent vs. 66.9 percent, respectively) and mobile homes (0.2 percent vs. 6.8 percent, respectively) and a higher proportion of multi -family homes (36.3 percent vs. 26.4 percent, respectively). Much of the existing housing stock was built between 1950 and 1969 (see Figure 23) as Edmonds annexed lands east on Main Street, through Five Corners, and over to the western side of Lake Ballinger. As part of the greater Seattle metropolitan area, Edmonds experienced growth earlier than most in Snohomish County. Housing Units Increase Percent Increase Avg. Annual Increase Census: 1980 10,702 1990 12,245 1,543 21.0% 1.9% 2000 17,508 5,263 35.2% 3.1% 2010 18,378 870 5.0% 0.5% Growth Target: 2035 21,168 2,790 15.2% 0.6% Figure 22: City of Edmonds Housing Growth Source: US Census; Snohomish County Tomorrow Housing 83 Packet Pg. 58 7.A.b 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1949 or earlier 1950 to 1969 1970 to 1989 1990 to 1999 2000 or later ❑ Edmonds ❑ King County ■ Snohomish County Figure 23: Age Distribution of Housing Stock, City of Edmonds and Snohomish County Source: American Community Survey Household Characteristics At the time of the 2010 Census, Edmonds Housing stock was approximately 94.6 percent occupied. The average household size has declined since 1990, when it was 2.37 persons, to 2.26 persons in 2010. The average household size within the city is expected to decrease to approximately 2.2 persons by 2035 (Snohomish County Tomorrow, 2013). Understanding how the City's population is changing offers insight for planning housing types that will be in demand. Based on Census data, residents of Edmonds are older than those of Snohomish County, taken as a whole. In 2000, the median age of Edmonds residents was 42.0 years, compared with 34.7 years countywide. By 2010, the median age in Edmonds had increased to 46.3 years, compared to 37.1 years countywide. During the same period, the population of Edmonds residents, 14 years of age and younger, shrank in each age category (Figure 25). A natural increase in population is likely to decline as the female population ages beyond childbearing age. These trends are consistent with national trends. Housing 84 Packet Pg. 59 7.A.b 90 + 85 - 89 80 - 84 75 - 79 70 - 74 65 - 69 60 - 64 55 - 59 50 - 54 45 - 49 40 - 44 35 - 39 30 - 34 25 - 29 20 - 24 15-19 10 - 14 5-9 0-4 2,C a ie 00 s i Female 1,500 1,000 500 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 ■ 2050 2000 Figure 24: Edmonds Population Pyramid Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 4 F 0/ 10% 5% 0% -5% -10% -15% -GU 70 Age Groups 0 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 ❑ Edmonds ■ Snohomish ■ Washington State Figure 25: Population Growth of Children 14 years of Age and Younger, 2000 to 2010 Source: US Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010 Housing 85 Packet Pg. 60 7.A.b Household Income: In general, residents of Edmonds earn relatively more income than residents of Snohomish County as a whole. The Edmonds' median household income was $67,228 according to the 2011-2013 American Community Survey 3-year data, similar to the County median of $67,192. This is in contrast to per capita income, which is substantially higher in Edmonds compared to Snohomish County ($40,892 vs. $31,049, respectively). These figures reflect Edmonds' relatively smaller household sizes. Housing Ownership: According to the 2000 Census, 68.1 percent of the housing units within the city were owner -occupied and 31.9 percent were renter -occupied. This represented an increase in owner - occupancy from the 65.3 percent reported in the 1990 Census. The trend continued into 2010, with 69 percent of the City's housing being occupied by owners. The direction of the trend in housing occupancy is similar for Snohomish County as a whole, although ownership rates countywide were slightly lower in 2010, at 67 percent. Housing Values: According to the 2011-2013 ACS 3-year data, the median value of owner -occupied units had increased to $371,700 in Edmonds and $276,800 in Snohomish County, with Edmonds approximately 34.3 percent higher than the countywide median. Within Edmonds, median housing values vary considerably between neighborhoods; the highest valued homes are found along the waterfront, while the lowest values are found within interior neighborhoods and east of Highway 99. Housing Affordability: For the purposes of calculating the housing affordability in Edmonds, this document uses the median income for the Seattle -Bellevue HUD Fair Market Rent Area (HMFA) instead of the Snohomish County Area Median Income (AMI). The Seattle -Bellevue AMI is used as Edmonds is considered a suburb of Seattle, not Everett. The 2013 HMFA AMI for Seattle -Bellevue is $86,700, which is the same as Snohomish County's AMI at $86,700. The 2013 median household income for Edmonds is $67,192. AMI is an important calculation used by many agencies to measure housing affordability. Standard income levels are as follows: • Extremely low income: <30 percent AMI • Very Low Income: between 30 and 50 percent AMI • Low Income: between 50 and 80 percent AMI • Moderate income: between 80 and 95 percent AMI • Middle Income: between 95 and 120 percent AMI Using rental data obtained from Dupre and Scott by the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA), Figure 26 provides a clearer view of what a household looking for a home in Edmonds would expect to pay for rent and utilities. The data includes both single family and multifamily rental units. Housing sizes and the corresponding minimum income required for a full time worker to afford the home are listed. For example, a family of four searching for a 3 bedroom unit could expect to pay on average $1,679 per month for rent and utilities. In order to afford housing, the family would need an annual income of $67,160. Housing 86 Packet Pg. 61 7.A.b Average Rent (w/ Utilities) Minimum Income Required Lowest Rent Highest Rent Per Hour Annual Studio $ 833 $ 16.02 $ 33,320 $ 546 $ 1,187 1 Bedroom $ 887 $ 17.06 $ 35,480 $ 662 $ 1,521 2 Bedroom $ 1,097 $ 21.10 $ 43,880 $ 777 $ 1,916 3 Bedroom $ 1,679 $ 32.29 $ 67,160 $ 1,094 $ 4,215 4 Bedroom $ 2,545 $ 48.94 $ 101,800 $ 1,947 $ 41347 5 Bedroom $ 2,844 $ 54.69 $ 113,760 $ 2,276 $ 3,771 Figure 26: Average Rent and Affordability (housing plus utilities) by Size Source: Dupree and Scott, 2013; National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2014 Figure 27 shows the distribution of rent affordability at different income levels using the Seattle - Bellevue AMI. "Yes" means that the average rent is affordable to a household at that income level, adjusting for size, "Limited" means that the average rent is not affordable but there are lower end affordable units, and "No" means that the entire rent range is not affordable. As seen below, a four bedroom home is not affordable for persons with a household income at 80 percent or below of the HFMA AMI. Income Level Number of Bedrooms Studio 1 2 3 4+ Extrememly Low No No No No No Very Low Limited limited Limited Limited No Low Yes Yes Yes Limited No Moderate Yes Yes Yes Yes Limited Middle Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Figure 27. Distribution of Rent Affordability by Size Source: Dupree and Scott, 2013 Between 2008 and 2012, 85 percent of home sales in Edmonds were three or four bedrooms in size according to County records. According to tax assessor data, the 2012 median sales price for a single family home in Edmonds was $339,975. Assuming a 20 percent down payment and using average rates of interest, taxes, utilities, and insurance as determined by the Federal Housing Funding Board, the monthly payment for this home would be $1,895. For a family to not be cost burdened, they would require an annual income of at least $75,796, which is above the City's median income. Figure 28 shows that the percentage of home sales affordable to each income level has changed between 2008 and 2012. Housing 87 Packet Pg. 62 7.A.b 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Extremely Very Low Low Moderate Middle Low Figure 28: Home Sales Affordability, 2008-2012 Source: Dupree and Scott, 2013 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Housing Needs: Edmonds is targeted to grow from a 2013 population of 40,381 to 45,550 by 2035. This translates to an estimated need of 2,790 housing units in the city to accommodate the targeted growth. The Buildable Lands Report for Snohomish County indicates that the majority of this increase will be in redevelopment occurring on multifamily properties, including mixed use projects. Because the City of Edmonds does not construct housing itself, the housing targets are helpful in assessing needs and providing a sense of the policy challenges that exist. Future housing needs will be met by a combination of the housing market, housing authorities, and governmental housing agencies. However, the City of Edmonds can do things to assist in accommodating projected housing needs, such as adjusting zoning and land use regulations. The City may also be able to assist in supporting the quality of housing through progressive building codes and programs for healthy living. Forecasting future housing needs for specific populations and income ranges is difficult. One method to arrive at an initial estimate of housing needs is to take the Edmonds' housing target (2,790) and apply the countywide breakdown for each income group. Data shown in Figure 29 is based on household income from the 5-year American Community Survey in 2007-2011. The City of Edmonds will take into account local population and housing characteristics when determining housing targets. Housing Total Projected Under 30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI Jurisdiction Housing Unit Housing Need Housing Need Housing Need Growth Need (11%of Total) (11%of Total) (17%of Total) Edmonds 2,790 307 307 474 Figure 29: Projected Housing Need Source: Snohomish County Tomorrow, "Housing Characteristics and Needs in Snohomish County," 2014 88 Packet Pg. 63 7.A.b As previously mentioned, the median age of Edmonds residents is the highest in Snohomish County at 48.1 years compared to 37.5 years countywide (2011-2013 American Community Survey) and second highest of Washington state cities with a population of 25,000 or more. In 2011, the first persons of the Baby Boom generation turned 65 years of age and represent, what demographers project, the fastest growing age group over the next 20 years. An older population will require specific needs if they are to "age in place." In Edmonds, the effects may be particularly strong. Developing healthy, walkable communities with nearby retail and transit options will help an aging population retain their independence. Assisted Housing Availability: In 1995 there were two HUD -assisted developments providing a total of 87 units for low-income, senior residents within the City of Edmonds. This was more than doubled by a new development approved in 2004 for an additional 94 units. Since 1995, 167 assisted care living units have been built in the downtown area, specifically targeting senior housing needs. Although the Housing Authority of Snohomish County did not operate any public housing units within Edmonds prior to 1995, it purchased an existing housing complex totaling 131 units in 2002. The Housing Authority continues to administer 124 Section 8 rent supplement certificates and vouchers within the city. In addition, there are currently 36 adult family homes providing shelter for 187 residents. This is a substantial increase from the 13 adult family homes providing shelter for 66 residents in 1995. Growth Management goals and policies contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan encourage availability of resources to ensure basic community services and ample provisions made for necessary open space, parks and other recreation facilities; preservation of light (including direct sunlight), privacy, views, open spaces, shorelines and other natural features, and freedom from air, water, noise and visual pollution; and a balanced mixture of income and age groups. Land Use policies encourage strategic planning for development and redevelopment that achieve a balanced and coordinated approach to economic development, housing and cultural goals; and encourage a more active and vital setting for new businesses supported by nearby residents, downtown commercial activity and visitors throughout the area. Policies encourage identification and maintenance of significant public and private social areas, cultural facilities, and scenic areas; and maintenance and preservation of historical sites. Commercial Land Use policies encourage identification and reservation of sufficient sites suited for a variety of commercial uses. Housing goals are directed toward providing housing opportunities for all segments of the city's households; supporting existing neighborhoods and preserving/rehabilitating the housing stock; maintaining high quality residential environments; and providing assistance to developing housing for special needs populations, such as senior, disabled and low-income households. These goals are supported by policies which include review of regulatory impediments to control of housing costs and affirmative measures to support construction of housing for protected groups; encouraging expansion of the types of housing available, including accessory dwelling units, mixed use, and multi -family housing; flexible development standards; and review and revision of development regulations, including assessing the feasibility of establishing time limits for permitting; consolidating permitting; implementing administrative permitting procedures and instituting preapplication hearings. Other measures to mitigate potential housing impacts include determining whether any public land is available which could be used to help meet affordable housing targets; development of a strategy plan, including target number of units and development timeline; technical assistance programs or information to encourage housing rehabilitation and development of accessory units; and a strong monitoring program with mid -course correction features (see the discussion below). Housing 89 Packet Pg. 64 7.A.b Strategies to Promote Affordable Housing. In order to respond to the continuing need to provide affordable housing for the community, the City has undertaken a series of reasonable measures to accomplish this goal, consistent with the policy direction indicated by Snohomish County Tomorrow and the Countywide Planning Policies. These reasonable measures or strategies to promote affordable housing include: Land Use Strategies • Upzoning. The City upzoned a substantial area of previously large lot (12,000+ square foot lots) zoning to ensure that densities can be obtained of at least 4.0 dwelling units per acre. The City has also approved changes to its zoning codes to encourage more multifamily development in mixed use areas, especially in corridors served by transit (e.g. Highway 99 along the Swift high capacity transit corridor). • Density Bonus. A targeted density bonus is offered for the provision of low income senior housing in the City. Parking requirements are also reduced for this housing type, making the density obtainable at lower site development cost. • Cluster Subdivisions. This is accomplished in the city through the use of PRDs. In Edmonds, a PRD is defined as an alternate form of subdivision, thereby encouraging its use as a normal form of development. In addition, PRDs follow essentially the same approval process as that of a subdivision. • Planned Residential Development (PRD). The City has refined and broadened the applicability of its PRD regulations. PRDs can still be used to encourage the protection of environmentally sensitive lands; however, PRDs can also be used to encourage infill development and flexible housing types. • Infill Development. The City's principal policy direction is aimed at encouraging infill development consistent with its neighborhoods and community character. This overall plan direction has been termed "designed infill" and can be seen in the City's emphasis and continued work on streamlining permitting, revising codes to provide more flexible standards, and improving its design guidelines. The City is also continuing the process of developing new codes supporting mixed use development in key locations supported by transit and linked to nearby neighborhoods. Conversion/Adaptive Reuse. The City has established a historic preservation program intended to support the preservation and adaptive reuse of existing buildings, especially in the historic downtown center. Part of the direction of the plans and regulations for the Downtown/Waterfront area is to provide more flexible standards that can help businesses move into older buildings and adapt old homes to commercial or mixed use spaces. An example is the ability of buildings on the Edmonds Register of Historic Places to get an exception for parking for projects that retain the historic character of the site. Housing 90 Packet Pg. 65 7.A.b Administrative Procedures Streamlined approval processing. The City generally uses either a Hearing Examiner or staff to review and issue discretionary land use decisions, thereby reducing permitting timelines and providing an increased degree of certainty to the process. The City continues to provide and improve on an extensive array of information forms and handouts explaining its permitting processes and standards. The City has also established standards for permit review times, tailored to the type and complexity of the project. For example, the mean processing time for processing land use permits in 2011 was 36 days, less than one-third of the 120-day standard encouraged by the State's Regulatory Reform act. • Use -by -Right. The City has been actively reviewing its schedule of uses and how they are divided between uses that are permitted outright vs. permitted by some form of conditional use. The City has expanded this effort to include providing clearer standards, allowing more approvals to be referred to staff instead of the Hearing Examiner hearing process. Impact mitigation payment deferral. The City's traffic mitigation impact fees are assessed at the time of development permit application, but are not collected until just prior to occupancy. This provides predictability while also minimizing "carrying costs" of financing. Development Standards • Front yard or side yard setback requirements. Some of the City's zones have no front or side yard setback requirements, such as in the downtown mixed use zones. In single family zones, average front setbacks can be used to reduce otherwise required front yard setbacks. • Zero lot line. This type of development pattern can be achieved using the City's PRD process, which is implemented as an alternative form of subdivision. • Street design and construction. Edmonds has adopted a `complete streets' policy. Street standards are reviewed and updated periodically, taking advantage of new technologies whenever possible. A comprehensive review and update of the city's codes is underway. • Alleys. The City has an extensive system of alleys in the downtown area and makes use of these in both mixed use and residential developments. • Off-street parking requirements. The City has substantially revised its off-street parking standards, reducing the parking ratios required for multifamily development and in some mixed use areas, thereby reducing housing costs and encouraging more housing in areas that are walkable or served by transit. • Sanitary Sewer, Water, and Stormwater systems. Innovative techniques are explored and utilized in both new systems and in the maintenance of existing infrastructure. Housing 91 Packet Pg. 66 7.A.b Low -Cost Housing Types • Accessory dwellings. The City substantially revised its accessory dwelling regulations, providing clearer standards and streamlining their approval as a standard option for any single family lot. Mixed -use development. The City has strengthened and expanded its mixed use development approach. Downtown mixed use development no longer has a density cap, and this — combined other regulatory changes — has resulted in residential floor space drawing even with commercial floor space in new developments in the downtown area. Mixed use zoning was applied in the Westgate Corridor, and revised mixed use development regulations have been updated and intensified in the Hospital/Highway 99 Activity Center as well as along Highway 99. • Mobile/manufactured housing. The City's regulation of manufactured homes has been revised to more broadly permit this type of housing in single family zones. Housing Production & Preservation Programs • Housing preservation. The City provides strict enforcement of its building codes, intended to protect the quality and safety of housing. The City has also instituted a historic preservation program intended to provide incentives to rehabilitate and restore commercial, mixed use, and residential buildings in the community. • Public housing authority / Public and nonprofit housing developers. The City supports the Housing Authority of Snohomish County, as evidenced by its approval of the conversion of housing units to Housing Authority ownership. Edmonds is also a participant in the Alliance for Housing Affordability (AHA) in Snohomish County, which is a consortium of cities pooling resources to collectively address housing needs in the county. For -profit housing builders and developers. Many of the strategies outlined above are aimed at the for -profit building market. The City's budget restrictions limit its ability to directly participate in the construction or provision of affordable housing, so it has chosen instead to affect the cost of housing by reducing government regulation, providing flexible development standards, and otherwise minimize housing costs that can be passed on to prospective owners or renters. However, as noted above, the City is also a participant in the Alliance for Housing Affordability in Snohomish County, which is intended to collaborate on housing strategies countywide. Housing Financing Strategies • State / Federal resources. The City supports the use of State and Federal resources to promote affordable housing through its participation in the Snohomish County Consortium and the Community Development Block Grant program. These are important inter jurisdictional efforts to address countywide needs. Housing 92 Packet Pg. 67 7.A.b Jurisdictions face challenges in meeting affordability goals or significantly reducing the current affordable housing deficit. Edmonds is a mature community with limited opportunities for new development and has limited powers and resources to produce subsidized housing on its own. However, it is hoped that Edmonds' participation in joint planning and coordination initiatives, such as the Alliance for Affordable Housing will point the way to new housing initiatives in the future. Housing Goals & Policies Each key goal in this element (or section) is identified by an alphabet letter (for example, "D"). Goals are typically followed by associated policies and these are identified by the letter of the goal and a sequential number (for example, "D.2") Housing Goal A. Encourage adequate housing opportunities for all families and individuals in the community regardless of their race, age, sex, religion, disability or economic circumstances A.1 Consider opportunities for short-term housing that can meet local needs in case of an emergency or disaster. Housing Goal B. Ensure that past attitudes do not establish a precedent for future decisions pertaining to public accommodation and fair housing. Housing Goal C. Provide for special needs populations — such as low income, disabled, or senior residents — to have a decent home in a healthy and suitable living environment, including through the following policies: C.1. Encourage the utilization of the housing resources of the state or federal government to assist in providing adequate housing opportunities for special needs populations, such as low income, disabled, or senior residents. C.2. Work with the Alliance for Housing Affordability and other agencies to: C.2.a. Provide current information on housing resources; C.2.b. Determine the programs which will work best for the community. C.2.c. Conduct periodic assessments of the housing requirements of special needs populations to ensure that reasonable opportunities exist for all forms of individual and group housing within the community. Housing Goal D. Maintain a valuable housing resource by encouraging preservation and rehabilitation of the older housing stock in the community through the following policies: D.1. Support programs that offer assistance to households in need, such as units with low income or senior householders. Housing 93 Packet Pg. 68 7.A.b D.2. Enforce building codes, as appropriate, to conserve healthy neighborhoods and encourage rehabilitation of housing that shows signs of deterioration. D.3. Ensure that an adequate supply of housing exists to accommodate all households that are displaced as a result of any community action. DA. Evaluate City ordinances and programs to determine if they prevent rehabilitation of older buildings. Housing Goal E. Provide opportunities for affordable housing (subsidized, if need be) for special needs populations, such as disadvantaged, disabled, low income, and senior residents through the following policies: E.1. Aggressively support efforts to fund the construction of housing for seniors, low income, and other special needs populations, while recognizing that units should blend into the neighborhood and/or be designed to be an asset to the area and create pride for inhabitants. E.2. Aim for city zoning regulations to expand, not limit, housing opportunities for all special needs populations. Housing Goal F. Provide for a variety of housing that respects the established character of the community. F.I. Expand and promote a variety of housing opportunities by establishing land use patterns that provide a mixture of housing types and densities. F. La. Provide for mixed use, multifamily and single family housing that is targeted and located according to the land use patterns established in the land use element. F.2. Encourage infill development that is consistent with or enhances the character of the surrounding neighborhood. F.2.a. Within single family neighborhoods, encourage infill development by considering innovative single family development patterns such as Planned Residential Developments (PRDs). F.2.b. Provide for accessory housing in single family neighborhoods to address the needs of extended families and encourages housing affordability. F.2.c. Provide flexible development standards for infill development, such as non- conforming lots, when development in these situations will be consistent with the character of the neighborhood and with the goal to provide affordable single family housing. Housing Goal G. Provide housing opportunities within Activity Centers consistent with the land use, transportation, and economic goals of the Comprehensive Plan. G.1. Promote development within Activity Centers that supports the centers' economic activities and transit service. Housing 94 Packet Pg. 69 7.A.b G.l.a. Provide for mixed use development within Activity Centers. G. Lb. Plan for housing that is located with easy access to transit and economic activities that provide jobs and shopping opportunities. G.l.c. Consider adjusting parking standards for housing within Activity Centers to provide incentives for lower -cost housing when justified by available transit service. Housing Goal H. Review and monitor permitting processes and regulatory systems to assure that they promote housing opportunities and avoid, to the extent possible, adding to the cost of housing. H.1. Provide the maximum amount of efficiency and predictability in government permitting processes. H. La. Consider a wide variety of measures to achieve predictability and efficiency, including such ideas as: ... establishing time limits for permitting processes; ... developing consolidated permitting and appeals processes; ... implementing administrative permitting procedures; ...using pre -application processes to highlight problems early. H.2. Establish monitoring programs for permitting and regulatory processes. H.2.a. Monitoring programs should review the types and effectiveness of government regulations and incentives, in order to assess whether they are meeting their intended purpose or need to be adjusted to meet new challenges. Housing Goal I. Increase affordable housing opportunities with programs that seek to achieve other community goals as well. I.1. Research housing affordability and program options that address Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives. I.2. Develop housing programs to encourage housing opportunities that build on linkages between housing and other complementary Comprehensive Plan goals. I.2.a. New programs that address housing affordability should be coordinated with programs that address development of the arts, encourage historic preservation, promote the continued development of Activity Centers and transit -friendly development, and that encourage economic development. Housing Goal J. Recognize that in addition to traditional height and bulk standards, design is an important aspect of housing and determines, in many cases, whether or not it is compatible with its surroundings. Design guidelines for housing should be integrated, as appropriate, into the policies and regulations governing the location and design of housing. J.1. Provide design guidelines that encourage flexibility in housing types while ensuring compatibility of housing with the surrounding neighborhood. Housing 95 Packet Pg. 70 7.A.b J.1.a. Incentives and programs for historic preservation and neighborhood conservation should be researched and established to continue the character of Edmonds' residential and mixed use neighborhoods. J. Lb. Design guidelines for housing should be developed to ensure compatibility of housing with adjacent land uses. Implementation Actions and Performance Measures Implementation actions are steps that are intended to be taken within a specified timeframe to address high priority sustainability goals. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan contains a small number performance measures (no more than one per element) that can be used to monitor and annually report on the implementation and effectiveness of the Comprehensive Plan. Performance measures, as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, are specific, meaningful, and easily obtainable items that relate to sustainability and can be reported on an annual basis. They are intended to help assess progress toward achieving the goals and policy direction of each major Comprehensive Plan element. {Note: The measure identified below is specifically called out as matching the above criteria and being important to housing goals and will be reported annually, along with performance measures for other Comprehensive Plan elements. It is not intended to be the only measure that the City may use for housing purposes. Implementation Action: Develop a strategy by 2019 for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse housing needs. Performance Measure: Report the number of residential units permitted each year with a goal of reaching 21,168 units by 2035, or approximately 112 additional dwelling units annually from 2011 to 2035. Housing 96 Packet Pg. 71 9.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/24/2016 Review and discussion of Extended Agenda Staff Lead: N/A Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Diane Cunningham Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative Extended agenda is attached. Attachments: 08-24-2016 PB Extended Agenda Packet Pg. 72 9.A.a Items and Dates are subject to change k Alt Extended Agenda August 24, 2016 Meeting Item AUGUST 2016 Aug. 24 1. Presentation of National Citizen Survey Results 2. Discussion on joint meeting with the City Council (Sept 6) SEPTEMBER 2016 Sept. 6 Joint meeting with the City Council Sept. 14 1. Discussion on Civic Center Master Plan 2. Land Division Code Update Sept. 28 1. Highway 99 Subarea Plan 2. CIP/CFP Presentation OCTOBER 2016 Oct. 12 1. CIP/CFP Public Hearing & Recommendation 2. Land Use Procedures Code Update Oct. 26 1. NOVEMBER 2016 Nov. 9 1. Discussion on Civic Center Master Plan Nov. 23 1. DECEMBER 2016 Dec. 14 1. Dec. 28 1. ca c m a� Q m c x w N c m Q m c m .r x w m a co 0 N N 00 0 c 0) E t U ns r Q Packet Pg. 73 items ana I)ates are 9.A.a to change Pending 1. Community Development Code Re -Organization 2016 2. Neighborhood Center Plans and zoning implementation, including: ✓ Five Corners 3. Further Highway 99 Implementation, including: ✓ Potential for "urban center" or transit -oriented design/development strategies ✓ Parking standards 4. Exploration of incentive zoning and incentives for sustainable development Current Priorities 1. Neighborhood Center Plans & implementation. 2. Highway 99 Implementation. Recurring Topics 1. Annual Adult Entertainment Report (January -February as necessary) 2. Election of Officers (1" meeting in December) 3. Parks & Recreation Department Quarterly Report (January, April, July, October) 4. Quarterly report on wireless facilities code updates (as necessary) ca c m a� Q 0) C r X W N C 0) Q C X W m d t0 O N 1* N 00 O C 0) E t V R a+ a+ Q Packet Pg. 74