Loading...
2018-06-13 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES June 13, 2018 Chair Monroe called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5" Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Nathan Monroe, Chair Matthew Cheung, Vice Chair Alicia Crank Phil Lovell (arrived at 7:05 p.m.) Daniel Robles Mike Rosen Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Todd Cloutier (excused) Megan Livingston, Student Representative READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager Brad Shipley, Planner Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder Karin Noyes, Recorder BOARD MEMBER CRANK MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF MAY 23, 2018 BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. BOARD MEMBER ROSEN SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS No one in the audience indicated a desire to comment during this portion of the meeting. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Monroe referred the Board to the Development Services Director Report, but there were no comments. PUBLIC HEARING ON DRAFT HOUSING STRATEGY Mr. Shipley reviewed that the City's Comprehensive Plan calls for developing a housing strategy by 2019 to increase the supply of housing affordable to a range of incomes and to meet special housing needs. He commented that the Puget Sound region is growing at a rapid pace. Housing prices are becoming unaffordable for many due to a combination of the City's close proximity to Seattle, its location at the north end of a strip of land that is sandwiched between two large bodies of water (Puget Sound and Lake Washington), state regulations that protect natural resources by concentrating growth and reducing sprawl, and a lack of new land to build upon. In addition to the above -mentioned factors, much of the Puget Sound area remains zoned for low- density single-family development. In Edmonds, approximately 77% of the land area is zoned for single-family housing compared to only 7.5% that is zoned for multi -family housing, 7.3% for commercial mixed use, and 5.7% for parks. The remainder is open space or lands covered by water. He understands this is a desirable way to live for many because he is also fortunate enough to own a single-family home in Edmonds. He is also fortunate, as many others in attendance area, to enjoy federally -subsidized housing in the form of a mortgage interest tax deduction. Mr. Shipley acknowledged that there are no easy answers, and the City cannot escape these regional issues by building a wall around it. The draft Housing Strategy represents a multi -faceted approach to address housing needs now and into the future so that everyone —from the fixed -income retiree, to the disabled vet, to the local barista, to our hair stylists, teachers, kids and grandkids—can all find ways to call Edmonds their home. Mr. Shipley explained that the purpose of the hearing is to hear from the public and have an opportunity to address questions and concerns. Staff is not asking the Board to make a decision at this time. The strategies outlined in the document could be adopted either in whole, in part, or modified to incorporate the input developed through the review process. He introduced Kevin Ramsey, with Berk Consulting, who would present the draft Housing Strategy. Kevin Ramsey, Berk Consulting, advised that Mayor Earling appointed a Housing Strategy Task Force in July of 2017. This task force met several times over the past year to work with the consultant and staff to identify the strategies that make the most sense for Edmonds. Their work culminated in an open house on May 21', at which time the draft Housing Strategy was introduced and the public was invited to comment. The draft plan was also presented to the Planning Board on May 23'. The comments received at the open house, as well as those received from the Planning Board, were incorporated into the revised draft Housing Strategy that is the subject of the hearing. Mr. Ramsey briefly explained why housing prices are on the rise in Edmonds and across the Puget Sound Region. Along with population and job growth comes more and more competition for a limited number of housing units. Despite the fact that the region has been building housing at a substantial rate in recent years, it has not been keeping up with job and population growth in the area. The result is increased housing costs for both rental and owner markets. That means people have to look further away from employment centers to find housing they can afford, and this creates more traffic and pollution and higher transportation costs. One solution is to increase housing production but focus on a greater variety of housing options so people can find the type of housing that best meets their needs without having to pay for housing that is too large. However, housing production is not completely sufficient to deal with affordability issues. Particularly for people on the lowest ends of the income spectrum, it is not possible to build enough housing so that people earning less than 30% of the Area Median Income (AMI) will be able to find affordable housing in the market. That is why the strategy also considers other options for providing more subsidized and income -restricted housing. Mr. Ramsey shared findings specific to housing needs in Edmonds, specifically noting the following: There are nearly 6,000 households in Edmonds that are cost -burdened, which means a household that spends more than 30% of its income on housing costs. Over 4,000 of these households are low-income, which is defined as 80% or less of AMI. AMI for families in Snohomish County is about $96,000 a year. He provided a chart to illustrate the demand/need for housing based on different income levels: extremely low income (<30% AMI), very low income (30-50% AMI), low income (50-80% AMI), moderate income (80-100% AMI) and above median income (>100% AMI). The chart also identifies the percentage of cost -burdened households in each category. He particularly noted the severe lack of subsidized housing to meet the needs of the low and very -low income households. One reason the need is so large is that wages in Edmonds are not matched well to local housing costs. Nearly 11,000 people work in Edmonds, and about 60% of these jobs pay less than $40,000 per year (about 40% of AMI). He provided a chart showing the average rental costs in Edmonds, noting that people earning $50,000 per year or less cannot afford the average rents. • Currently, a substantial number of workers are commuting very long distances to get to their jobs in Edmonds. Most commute from more affordable communities. While the chart illustrates the situation for very -low and low wage workers, the problem also exists for the moderate wage workers. It is estimated that about 2,400 low and very -low wage workers Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2018 Page 2 are commuting more than 10 miles to work in Edmonds, and more than 1,000 of them commute more than 25 miles. This creates traffic, pollution, and high transportation costs. • A study of the existing housing stock in Edmonds compared to the current housing needs found a shortage of smaller housing types. Over 70% of households have only 1 or 2 members, but only 11% of the housing units have one or less bedrooms. There is a significant mismatch between the size of the units and the size of households. Having a more diverse housing stock would provide more opportunities for people to live in Edmonds. Next, Mr. Ramsey reviewed each of the six objectives included in the draft Housing Strategy as follows: 1. Increase the supply of market -rate multifamily housing. There is currently a high level of need for low and moderate - income workforce housing for those who live in Edmonds as well as those who have to commute long distances to get to Edmonds for work. When there is limited land area in a community, apartments and condominiums can efficiently provide a lot of new housing. Actions associated with this strategy include: encouraging transit -oriented development by leveraging transit corridors and focusing higher -density development in those areas to take advantage of the transit service; allowing for greater flexibility in multifamily zones, such as reduced parking and unit size requirements and greater height limits; and providing for a fast, predictable, and user-friendly permitting process. Currently, the permitting process in Edmonds is more time-consuming and there is a bit more uncertainty in it when compared to other communities, and this creates a disincentive to doing more housing development in Edmonds. Developers who participated on the task force suggested that the permit process could be streamlined without lowering design and safety standards. City staff is already looking for these opportunities. Example: The City of Portland, Oregon, has goals of encouraging more infill development in traditionally single-family areas and allowing for a greater diversity of housing options. The intent is to ensure that the design of new development is consistent with neighborhood character without putting up permitting barriers. They brought together community members and stakeholders to develop several housing prototypes that meet the regulations and design standards. If a developer uses one of the prototypes, a project can get through the permitting process more efficiently. The program has been successful and is currently being expanded. 2. Expand housing diversity. Currently, there are few housing options other than single-family (63%) and larger multifamily (30%) units. There is very little in the "other" category of duplexes, townhouse, etc. That means there are not a lot of opportunities for moderate and middle -income people who want to get into the ownership market. Potential actions for this goal include identifying single-family areas in Edmonds that might be appropriate for infill development such as townhomes and duplexes and encouraging Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) or backyard cottages. ADUs allow for more affordable housing options in existing single-family areas with minimal impacts on community character. They can provide a source of income to homeowners who are struggling to afford rising housing costs or an opportunity for moderate and middle -income households to enter into the ownership market. Example: The City of Mountlake Terrace encourages ADUs via more flexible requirements and providing guidance materials and outreach for homeowners. The intent is to make the process more transparent and get the word out about the benefits of ADUs. 3. Support the needs of an aging population. About 20% of the population in Edmonds is over 65, and a significant amount of the population falls within the 50 to 65 range. In the next 10 years, these individuals will be reaching the senior status of 65 plus and will have unique housing needs and a wide spectrum of incomes. Potential actions to address this goal include playing a more active role in partnerships that support aging in place, examining how property tax and utility rate relief programs can be expanded and reducing the barriers to the development of more group homes and other housing solutions for seniors so that people can stay within the community when their housing needs change. Many communities look at ADUs as a strategy to address this issue. 4. Increase the supply of income -restricted housing. Many workers and families in Edmonds cannot afford market -rate rents. Even if the supply and diversity of housing is expanded, this group would still not be able to afford to live in Edmonds. The current supply of income -restricted housing is extremely modest compared to the level of need, and this strategy is aimed at what can be done to provide more opportunities. Potential actions include contributing City dollars to Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2018 Page 3 support income -restricted housing projects for 30% AMI or below. When a non-profit housing developer is seeking to pull together grant funding and other sources to make an affordable project work, having some investment from the City helps with grant competition and making projects pencil out. Other potential actions include expanding developer incentives or making it mandatory that developers include income -restricted units in market -rate developments and reducing or eliminating fees for income -restricted housing projects. For example, the City's current multifamily exemption program could be expanded to become more effective at incentivizing the production of income -restricted housing in return for abatement from property taxes. Example: The Highpoint is a 1,600-unit master planned development in West Seattle. About half of the units are income - restricted for low-income households, and the other half are market -rate housing. The project was developed via a mix of private and public funding and offers a diversity of housing types for a mixture of incomes. This is a successful example of a level of density that might be appropriate for Edmonds. 5. Participate in South Snohomish County strategies to reduce homelessness. Homelessness is a growing problem in Snohomish County and is not something that Edmonds can tackle on its own. However, the City can play a more proactive role in addressing barriers to the development of housing for the homeless. Data indicates there are 260 students attending schools located in Edmonds who are homeless or housing insecure. Potential actions include exploring partnerships with current service providers and county health and youth services and looking at ways to reduce barriers (code restrictions) to the development of permanent supportive housing. Example: Othello Village in Seattle is a city -authorized homeless encampment with 28 tiny homes on city -owned property that was not being used. The village includes shared kitchen and shower facilities and is intended to be a short-term housing solution for up to 100 people. This village is operated by a local non-profit housing organization and appears to work well. A local church in Edmonds has expressed interest in this type of project, as well. 6. Provide protection for low-income tenants. As housing costs rise, renters are at the most risk of displacement. The City can take more actions to help ensure that laws around fair treatment of low-income tenants are abided by and that tenants have full information about what their rights are. Potential actions include creating requirements to provide fair housing information and creating anti -discrimination requirements for tenants. Mr. Ramsey summarized that the next step is to incorporate Board and public feedback into the draft Housing Strategy. The Housing Strategy Task Force will meet on June 14t' to review the draft and provide final thoughts and recommendations, as well. The document will come back to the Board for additional discussion and potential recommendation to the City Council on June 27" Chair Monroe reviewed the rules and procedures for the public hearing and then opened the public hearing. Terry Reule, Edmonds, voiced support for the draft Housing Strategy. Although the recent focus in much of the Puget Sound has been on the homeless crisis, and the draft Housing Strategy includes some ideas, she was encouraged by the additional focus on the incentives for developers and landlords to provide options for middle, low and very -low income families who are currently living in the City. There are a significant number of citizens living in various areas of the City who have been paying their rents, contributing to City sales tax and sending their children to Edmonds schools who are in the process of losing their current homes due to the recent high increases in rental and utility costs. As landlords face higher property taxes, they are forced to increase the rental costs per unit. Many of these families are living paycheck -to -paycheck, and a mere incident of a flat tire can set in motion a process that ends in eviction. It is not just the cost of fixing the tire, it is the cost of lost wages during the time it takes to repair the tire and the hit to the already strained budget when it is not possible to save for an emergency fund. Ms. Reule pointed out that the planned revitalization along the Highway 99 Corridor is welcome for increasing aesthetics and safety, but it also puts additional pressure on these same families to find an affordable housing situation. The draft Housing Strategy includes incentivizing developers to create new, very -affordable homes along the corridor that could allow for these families to have a small emergency fund. It also would allow incentives for building smaller homes for sale in the area that would be affordable to middle -income families. She said it is encouraging that Edmonds is realistically approaching a future Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2018 Page 4 that foresees a diverse and welcoming City. While she does not expect that Edmonds is going to solve the homeless crisis or even the affordability crisis, having a strategy that provides various options is a step in the right direction. Gerald Bernstein, Edmonds, said he strongly opposes the draft Housing Strategy for several reasons. First, the high -density, low-cost, subsidized housing would drastically diminish the quality of life in Edmonds and is a bad idea. It would increase the population and density, as well as traffic and congestion. Cars would be parked everywhere because there would be no parking restrictions on the amount of parking space available to accommodate the number of apartments. Neighborhoods would deteriorate. While the plan emphasizes that the high -density projects would be located primarily on Highway 99, it is likely to expand. He referred to the example provided by the consultant of a 1,600-unit master planned development in Seattle (The Highpoint) and said he is against this type of development in Edmonds and felt it would raise taxes further. Mr. Bernstein suggested that the data provided by the consultant is not totally correct. For example, how many of those with incomes less than $11,000 are students working during the summer, people working part time, and people who have others in the household with more substantial incomes. He pointed out that landlords have to raise their rents when taxes and utility rates increase. He asked if the statistics on the number of people who have to travel to Edmonds for work includes gardeners, contractors, and others who work in Edmonds and elsewhere. He summarized his belief that, if the draft Housing Strategy is adopted, the City will degenerate, property values will go down, and taxes will increase. Mr. Bernstein said it is not clear what the statistic that indicates there are 260 school children who are homeless really means. He read it to mean that homelessness includes unstable households, and many of these children are living in a sheltered place with relatives, friends or other types of foster homes. They are typically out of their homes because of other issues such as violence, abuse, etc. He agreed that these people need help, but it should be provided on an individual basis. Mr. Bernstein commented that homelessness has become a catastrophe, and the problem has only increased in cities where there is homelessness. Increased homelessness brings drugs, alcoholism, mental illness, etc. and no one seems to have a solution. He noted that the plan suggests "safe parking" as a potential strategy, which means that people will be living in their vehicles. A judge in Seattle recently determined that a vehicle could be considered a "home," which means they can be parked anywhere and city residents must deal with the garbage and filth. When someone comes up with a solution that actually works, he will support it. He emphasized that the City Council works for the residents of Edmonds, and they are not doing their job if they allow the quality of the City to deteriorate by bringing in tents, vans, narcotics, crime, drug dealing, etc. into the City. This will not result in a safe situation for the residents of the City, particularly the children, and he is opposed to it. George Keefe, Edmonds, urged the Board to recommend adoption of the draft Housing Strategy to address the housing affordability crisis in Edmonds. He pointed out that the statewide homeless student count by district for the 2016-17 school year reports that there were 638 homeless students in the Edmonds School District. Two-thirds of these students were "doubled up" in shared housing due to the loss of housing or economic hardship. More than 100 were in shelters, 50 were in hotels/motels, and 29 were unsheltered. These statistics about children are shameful. It is difficult to do homework in the back seat of a car or in a tent city. He expressed his belief that all children deserve a home in which to study, learn and thrive. Carolynne Harris, Edmonds, said that when she grew up in Edmonds, it was considered the country. Edmonds was the kind of city where people took care of each other. They weren't rich, but they weren't poor, either. They were rich in spirit. To her, "an Edmonds kind of day" isn't the kind of day when you don't think and care for "the least among you." She does not want the City to become like that. She recently inherited her mothers home on 98`E', which is acreage with an old home and a barn. The property is connected by woods to the property owned by the Edmonds Presbyterian Church where drug deals currently take place in the parking lot. She described the recent vandalism and burglary that took place on her property. There are many problems in Edmonds, and it is not just the poor and homeless. The opioid problem exists amongst the rich, too. Keeping out homeless children will not make a better world and will not help the world heal. She said she supports the draft Housing Strategy and is proud of all those involved in its creation. The City needs to do something now by thinking about others. Brian Goodnight, Edmonds, said he has been a developer for 35 years, and the idea of "affordable housing" is ridiculous. What they are really talking about is subsidized housing. While he does not think this is a bad idea, it must be done right and put in the right locations. He referred to a large project in Mountlake Terrace that was well done. He stressed that there is no way for the City to build its way out of the housing crisis. Subsidized housing will have to be done at a larger scale to make it Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2018 Page 5 more affordable, but it is not likely that single-family residential properties in Edmonds will be rezoned to higher densities to provide the space needed for these projects. Building subsidized housing is extremely expensive. People with very large incomes are moving from South Lake Union in Seattle to the suburbs, and this is pushing housing prices up. Seattle has tried to build its way out of the problem, but the new units are extremely expensive to rent and/or purchase. The only way to help the low-income people is to build subsidized housing, which is costly. Eric Thuesen, Edmonds, said he is happy with the draft Housing Strategy, which provides some solutions to the housing problems. He especially likes strategies such as ADU's that provide more housing on existing lots. This strategy has been utilized by other jurisdiction for a long time. While ADUs will not completely solve the problem, it is a start and will probably help. He suggested that transportation is very important when addressing housing issues. More people are moving into Edmonds to have a place to raise their families, but they also want the transportation that is available with the Sounder Train. Rather than finding places to park more cars, he suggested the City should consider ways to get people living in the outlying areas to the train. Mr. Thuesen said is shameful that 260 students who attend schools in Edmonds are homeless, and something must be done about it. As a good example, he referred to the "Cocoon Project" in Everett, which focuses on young people at risk. These people do not necessarily have drug problems, and they are trying to get their lives together. Programs of this type are constructive, and he would recommend the City start with a project where they can have success. Once success has been achieved, it is likely that more community people will offer support. Mr. Thuesen said it is important to allow more flexibility in multi -family zones. He has been talking with City staff for over 10 years about potential changes to the regulations to allow this greater flexibility. Recently, the City Council adopted an ordinance that changed the 0-lot-line provisions to be more flexible, and this made a great difference in the affordability of townhome development. He commented that these changes are important, and he would like them to happen quickly. He agreed that undeveloped land is scarce in Edmonds, and it would be helpful for the City to provide a map to identify undeveloped lands or lots that could be redeveloped. This information would help the City come up with the right solutions. He summarized that now is the time for the City make sacrifices for the betterment of the community. Eric Soll, Edmonds, observed that there has been no acknowledgement anywhere that government actions on all levels have been a substantial cause of the housing problems. The increase of home ownership costs for most Edmonds residents will increase once again by implementing more government programs. The efforts to minimize the homeless situation can be best summed up by the Seattle disaster, where over $1 billion has been spent by Seattle/King County but the problem is worse than ever. When he arrived in Seattle 49 years ago, it was a pristine City; now it is a lawless pigsty. He suggested that Edmonds would go down that same path if it imports homelessness from elsewhere. The active homeless community the programs outlined in the strategy will attract will add a whole new meaning to the expression "have an Edmonds kind of day." As in the field of dreams, "If you build it, they will come," but it will be a field of nightmares. He suggested that a regional or national approach to homelessness, is needed, or it will be a waste of money. Mr. Soll voiced concern about the theory that allowing more density in single-family neighborhoods would make housing more affordable. Most of the single-family neighborhoods do not want apartments, tiny houses, row houses, duplexes, triplexes or ADUs. Single-family homeowners have sacrificed and become residentially cost burdened to live in Edmonds, and they should not have their expectations destroyed. It was recently suggested that a more intensive development could answer all of the demand from out-of-town businesses that want to relocate to downtown Edmonds. However, the City Council rejected to even study the concept, in part, to protect the "charm" of Edmonds. Another Councilmember stated that the downtown is "perfect" the way it is. Homeowners in single-family neighborhoods should also be given the opportunity to reject increased density if their neighborhoods are deemed to be "charming" and "perfect" by them. Mr. Soll stated that any increase in taxes to pay for "affordable housing" will result in greater economic distress and out migration of Edmonds by residents who can no longer afford the taxes or the rent. Edmonds is 1 % of the population of Puget Sound. Not everyone can afford to live in the Edmonds, just as not everyone can afford to live in Woodway. He would never expect Woodway to subsidize his Sound view residential fantasy any more than he should have to pay for other people to reside in Edmonds. There are less expensive cities surrounding Edmonds for low-income residents, just as Edmonds is less expensive for those who cannot afford Woodway. The draft Housing Strategy indicates that a large percentage of commuters make less than $40,000 a year, but nothing in the report talks about income from spouses or partners or other assets and income. If the Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2018 Page 6 City is really worried about the commuters, it should do a survey of where they live and get those jurisdictions to provide free public transportation as Portland/Columbus, Ohio has done for their employees. He commented that the cost of subsidized housing is greater than just building the housing. More services are needed for the tenants. You will need a bureaucracy to administer the program, and there will be fraud and abuse. In addition, these programs are a disincentive to improve one's economic circumstances. Mr. Soll concluded by suggesting that if the City wants more affordable housing for everyone, it should: 1) Work to end or repeal the Growth Management Act and Washington State Condominium Law; 2) Stop raising property taxes on all levels; 3) Stop financing every program on the backs of real estate; 4) Educate the populace that property tax initiatives increase the cost of housing for owners and renters; 5) Reduce the cost of building market -rate housing by eliminating needless regulations and streamlining the process for building housing for those in needs; 6) Keep the government on all levels limited; and 7) Eliminate wasteful government programs. Teresa Holland, Edmonds, said she and her husband moved to Edmonds from Seattle a year ago for the quality of life, the beautiful town, the lovely people, etc. She was shocked that the City Council was even considering allowing any type of tiny homes in Edmonds. She can attest from real -life experience that the homeless situation has destroyed Seattle, with people shooting up on the street and discarded needles everywhere. She did not think this is what Edmonds residents want. The homeless situation needs to be addressed, starting with the children and their families, followed by outreach to individuals who want to get off the street. There are people who are on the street through no fault of their own, but the majority of people in the homeless encampments are mentally ill, drug addicted, or alcoholics. They want to continue living this lifestyle because they can do whatever they want. Edmonds needs to enforce its current laws and clean out homeless encampments every week, if necessary. She believes that ADUs are a good idea for people who want to subsidize their income, but they should not be used as a strategy to address homelessness. Mike O'Malley, Edmonds, asked if the City has collected statistics on how the crime rate would increase if the strategies in the proposed plan for addressing homelessness and low-income housing are implemented. He suggested that the police and fire officials should be asked to respond relative to the likely increase in the demand for services. The City should also research how other jurisdictions have been impacted. While the draft Housing Strategy contains a lot of positive solutions, it does not address any of the potential negative impacts. Dennis O'Malley, Edmonds, pointed out that the draft Housing Strategy does not address the potential impacts to roads and other City infrastructure or the likely increase in crime. He anticipates that implementation of the plan will increase traffic and the crime rate will skyrocket. Crime is already moving into Edmonds from Everett. His truck was recently stolen from downtown Edmonds, and it was found near a low-income housing development in Everett, full of crack cocaine and stolen tools. He questioned why the Board would want to bring these problems to Edmonds. John Reid, Edmonds, said he is a 41-year resident of the City and sat on the Planning Board for 8 years. He voiced concern that the process has been going on for almost a year, but there has only been one opportunity for public input on May 215t. He expressed his belief that more public input is needed in the process. He noted that about 75 people attended the public open house and about 100 people are in attendance at the hearing to learn more about the plan because there has not been a lot of opportunity for public input. He said he is concerned that, as per the proposed schedule, the Planning Board would have a discussion on June 27" and then make a recommendation to the City Council. The report is very directive and does not indicate there are options or that items will be removed. He is afraid it will end up being a document that will be waived in front of the citizens as something they agreed to. He encouraged the Board to spend more time discussing the document and reviewing each of the strategies individually. They should make suggestions as opposed to directives so that when the document is done, there is still a lot of flexibility as it goes through the rest of the process. He reminded the Board that the Comprehensive Plan requires that a Housing Strategy be developed by 2019, and there is more time to give the public an opportunity for input. Michelle Goodman, Edmonds, said she does not believe the data provided by the consultant portrays what is actually going on in Edmonds. She is also not convinced that more housing would result in cheaper rent. She said that, as a Nurse Practitioner, she talks to homeless people and elderly people on a weekly basis. Elderly people want to live in their own homes and maintain independence. On the other hand, some homeless people like the flexibility. She agreed that students need to have a home, and shared housing is one strategy for addressing this concern. Students in shared housing should not necessarily be classified as homeless, and some of them may be emancipated children. She agreed that infrastructure improvements must be part of the Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2018 Page 7 equation. The recent multi -family development on 212' Street has significantly increased traffic. Perhaps other strategies besides tax increases should be considered, such as incentives to builders. Housing affordability is an important issue, but she does not necessarily agree with the assumptions that were made in the strategy based on the data. Dave Cooper, Edmonds, voiced concern that the presentation made by the consultant has never worked anywhere. It hasn't worked in Seattle or San Francisco, and it won't work in Edmonds. Bringing people who are homeless into Edmonds and providing subsidized food, medical care and housing will not help to reduce the level of homelessness. This approach will turn Edmonds into another Seattle. If the citizens want to stop it, they must vote against the people running the City Council and make their voices heard. He noted that the consultant who made the presentation, as well as the head of the Low -Income Housing Institute, are not interested in reducing homelessness. They are making money off of it and the citizens are going to pay. He said he worked hard as a developer for 30 years, and he never felt he had a right to live in Edmonds. He and his wife are retired and pay $1,000 per month in property tax to live in Edmonds. He is in favor of building affordable housing, which means they must increase the density along Highway 99 to accommodate multi -family development. He said he does not want Edmonds to go down the same path as San Francisco and Seattle, yet that seems to be where it is headed. Chair Monroe closed the public portion of the hearing. Board Member Crank said that, as someone who spent 16 years in the Bay area, she lived through what Edmonds residents are starting to experience now. She knows what did and did not work, as well as the mentalities that would need to be helped. She hopes her experiences can help form some good strategies for addressing the City's housing issues. She emphasized that Edmonds cannot be and should not be Seattle. Not everyone can live in Edmonds, and that shouldn't be something the City strives for. Edmonds does not have a lot of available land for new housing development, so it is important to make good decisions. Board Member Crank said she is concerned with the mindset that they are trying to bring homeless people into the City. In reality, they are already here. We are talking about our neighbors and people who have lived in the City for a long time who are finding themselves in situations where they may have to leave the community that they know. For her, part of the housing strategy is to keep her neighbors here. It is not about bringing in an element that is going to be harmful to the community. The Housing Strategy is about figuring out how to help the 260 students and their families who are displaced, as well as community leaders, teachers and others who may have to move away because they can no longer afford to live in Edmonds. Board Member Crank said she comes from a background of banking and investment, and it helps her to compare the Housing Strategy to an Investment Strategy. An investment strategy is not a plan; it is a selection of different strategies a financial advisor can use to figure out what will work for the person he/she is doing the investment for. The Housing Strategy is not intended to be a plan that is set in stone and can never be changed. It's a list of options or strategies to figure out what will fit where. Not every strategy will work in every community in every neighborhood. A thoughtful approach is needed to figure out what makes sense and where. Density along transit corridors absolutely makes sense. Board Member Crank said she thought she was earning a decent salary as a single person in the Bay Area. However, based on the income level scale for the area, she was considered low income. When people think of low income, she encouraged them not to think of poverty or ne'er do well people who cannot hold down a decent job. There were people making $55,000 to $60,000 a year who, on the scale of affordability in a high -income area, are rated lower on the scale than you would think. When making certain assumptions, she encouraged people to look through a broader lens. Subsidized housing does not mean "the projects." Her hope is that if the Housing Strategy is implemented, it is done with the thought of how to help their current neighbors who have invested in the community. These people include our teachers, our favorite baristas, hostesses at restaurants and others who now find they have to move an hour outside of the community to find housing. Board Member Crank commented that there have been success stories in other communities, as well as cautionary tales. She shared an example of a community where the in -lieu fees became so predominant that the City collected almost $30 million and didn't do anything with it around affordability or housing in the community until much later. There must be oversight around the strategies that are used to incentivize development to provide a check and balance. Finally, Board Member Crank said crime is everywhere. When reading the My Edmonds News Crime Blotter, she is sometimes surprised at the level and types of crimes that occur in Edmonds. These crimes are not done primarily by people of "no means." Crimes are also Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2018 Page 8 committed by people you would not expect. She cautioned against pigeonholing the people they are trying to help with the Housing Strategy to something that is inherently negative. Board Member Crank agreed with Mr. Thuesen's suggestion that it would be helpful to have a map that identifies available lands for development or redevelopment that could be considered as a location to implement a strategy of mixed -use housing. This would help guide the City to make better informed decisions. She referred to the Kenmore Town Square Project as a good example and noted that news was just recently released about a potential housing project on the Edmonds Lutheran Church property. Implementing the strategies should be done on a case -by -case basis. Mr. Shipley explained that the Housing Strategy is intended to be a guide, and staff is not proposing any rezones at this point. Implementation of any of the strategies would require a separate process. Although he cannot provide a map at this point, he Housing Strategy has broadly defined large multi -family housing projects as being adjacent to transit corridors, which are primarily Highway 99 and SR-104. He reminded the Board that light rail is scheduled to come on line adjacent to the Lake Ballinger area in 2024. These are potential places for development, but they are not at the level where they can actually start to draw lines around certain areas. That being said, a lot of effort was taken with the Highway 99 Subarea Plan to make it economical for developers to build, but also putting in place design standards to improve the streetscape and make it a safer place for everyone. Although not part of the Housing Strategy, another concept the City could consider is providing more spaces for active transit, such as protected bicycle lanes, to help reduce transportation costs. Board Member Robles said he is fairly proud of the report. He felt that the staff and consultant listened to input from the Board. The intent of the Housing Strategy is to get at a place where the citizens and developers have equal opportunities. If the City makes rules that give developers incentives, these same incentives need to be offered to citizens. The ADU concept came about as a way to create a better balance. ADUs would not only be for individuals seeking to increase their income; the concept could also help people qualify to purchase homes in Edmonds with the additional income that would be provided by an ADU. ADUs are not intended to just address homelessness. They could be used by children who return to live with their families, aging parents coming to live with the children, divorced couples who both want to live close to their children. ADUs would also offer housing options for teachers, baristas and others who want to serve the community but cannot afford to live in Edmonds. It is not the City's intent to import the homeless. There was a disruption from some members of the audience. Chair Monroe reminded everyone of the need to be respectful. He summarized that the public has had an opportunity to speak, and it was the Board's turn to make comments and try to answer some of the questions that were raised. He noted that the public would have an opportunity to speak again at the Board's next meeting as part of general public comments or when the Housing Strategy is presented to the City Council. hi addition, members of the public can submit written comments via the City's website. Board Member Robles commented that, as a foster parent, he is surprised at why people become homeless. He challenged that many of these events could happen to anyone in the room without warning, and this may cause them to see things differently. He emphasized that the Housing Strategy is not intended to solve the problem of homelessness. The intent is to create resiliency in the community so that citizens have the same economic advantage as developers. ADUs would have to meet specific requirements to ensure they are well -constructed and safe. A lot of work will go into this future discussion, and the Board Members have expertise in engineering, social science, etc. The Board is working to balance all of the issues as best it can in proposing a set of strategies to the City Council. It will be up to the City Council to decide which strategies, if any, will be implemented. Board Member Lovell commented that the Planning Board has been briefed at least twice on the draft Housing Strategy. At the outset of the project, staff aptly pointed out that this was a task force study undertaken by the Council and represents only a menu of possible ideas for addressing various housing challenges. It should not be considered a plan to address any of the strategies that are set forth. This important process could potentially impact every resident in the City, and there needs to be a lot of study, public input and discussion to hone in on what can realistically be done. The purpose of the study was to provide a menu of ideas. The study will go on to the City Council, and there will be a lot more opportunities for public input. If the City Council decides they want to move forward with a plan to implement some of the strategies identified in the document, they will provide further direction to the Board and staff and a separate public process will follow. Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2018 Page 9 Board Member Rubenkonig asked how many households there are in Edmonds. Mr. Shipley answered that there are approximately 18,500 households in Edmonds. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that this number should be added to the graph provided in the presentation to help people better understand the significance of the facts. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if the $40,000 per year figure that was provided in the presentation represents the combined household income or individual income. Mr. Ramsey said the figure was intended to represent individual incomes, but they were summarized by household. Mr. Shipley clarified that the figures used to identify the number of households that are housing cost burdened are based on combined household income, but the data provided to illustrate the average wage for people who work in Edmonds is based on individual income. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that these two different data points should be better clarified in the report. Board Member Rubenkonig recalled that concern was expressed about how the data was presented. She said it is important that the significance of all the data provided in the report is easy for everyone to understand. The terms used in the report are familiar to the consultant and staff, but those who are not as steeped in the terminology and how the facts and figures impact the community need help in understanding the data better. Board Member Rubenkonig said several members of the public raised concern about impacts on the City's infrastructure. These concerns were based on the image that large housing complexes would be constructed and impact the existing roadways. She asked if the consultant has reviewed studies to show how these types of projects might impact the infrastructure. Mr. Ramsey reminded the Board that the Housing Strategy identifies potential ideas that have worked in other communities that could be evaluated in more detail to determine their applicability to Edmonds. If and when the City moves forward with any one of the strategies, further study will be done to identify and understand potential impacts to roadways, utilities, etc. Mr. Shipley further clarified that it would not be feasible to do this detailed work for each of the strategies because they are simply ideas at this point. However, infrastructure impacts would be studied as part of any rezone or other strategy implementation. Board Member Rubenkonig asked if it ever came up in any of the consultant's discussions with the task force, Mayor, City Council or community that some of the major employers were concerned about housing affordability for their employees. Mr. Shipley responded that Swedish Hospital is a large employer and they are looking at potentially developing a portion of their property to provide employee housing. Board Member Rubenkonig pointed out that this information was not included in the report. Board Member Rubenkonig said it would be helpful to go over why the different people were selected to serve on the Housing Strategy Task Force every time the report is presented. The community needs to be informed as to why these individuals were selected and their background. Board Member Rosen thanked the public for participating in the hearing. The intent of the process is for the citizens to say what is on their mind and the Board to listen. He encouraged them to continue to show up and say their peace. He commented that the number of people and the passion that was expressed also speaks to this issue, and the Board is listening and hearing their concerns. It is real that Edmonds is nearly built out and incomes are not keeping pace with the cost of housing. It is real that that the current housing mix does not represent who the City is becoming as the age level, alone, reflects and how younger people feel about housing and transportation. It is real that issues related to homelessness are very complex and can't be dealt with separately. He pointed out that Seattle grew by more than 1,000 people a month in 2017, and he does not want this growth and the problems that come with it moving north to Edmonds. However, the fact that this kind of population base is moving to the Northwest does say that a lot of people are headed in this direction Board Member Rosen emphasized that housing is not a single issue, and there will not be a single solution. It will take a lot of different approaches to solve the problems. Like the citizens, he has a long list of wants. He wants to make sure that homes and neighborhoods are safe and that kids are safe and allowed to reach their individual and full potential. He wants to make sure the elderly can age in place and live in their homes if they want to. He would like if young professionals could live, work and grow their families in Edmonds without having to move out until they can afford to move back. He does not want to negatively impact the City's aesthetics and public spaces, and he does not want to compromise property rights or values. He would like not to significantly impact the environment, which is very precious and part of why they all live in Edmonds. He wants to ensure that homeowners and developers are both a part of the solution and that both can benefit and play on an equal Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2018 Page 10 playing field. He wants to implement the solutions that represent the core values of the community. He would also like to have room for tourists to come and spend their money and then leave. Board Member Rosen applauded the City for looking at the housing issue through multiple lenses because there is not a single fix. He wants the draft Housing Strategy to go forward representing the City's values. The residents should continue to work with the City to make decisions that are data -driven and based on science and not purely on emotion. Whatever they finally do decide will have a very long and large impact. Vice Chair Cheung said that if he were seeing the draft Housing Strategy for the first time, he might have similar concerns as those expressed by the public that the entire point of the study is to address homelessness and low-income populations. However, it is much more than that. He shared the example of his mother, who has lived in Edmonds for 20 years. His stepfather took care of everything but passed away about a year ago. His mom deals with health issues and is now faced with a house and lot that are too large for her to care for. She has a dog, which further limits where she can actually move. She wants to stay in Edmonds but there are not a lot of options that meet her needs, and she is being priced out of the area. Vice Chair Cheung summarized that there is a large number of 1 and 2-person households, but hardly any 1-bedroom homes. People need more options, particularly elderly people who don't want to or can't live in larger home. He looks at the issue as more than just affordable housing, but also a variety of housing options. They need to be able to take care of the people who already live in Edmonds who may not fit with the existing housing supply. It is not the intent to replace $1 million homes with multi -family housing units. However, there maybe opportunities for redeveloping properties that are near the end of their life. Vice Chair Cheung said he understands peoples' concerns about safety and said he moved out of Seattle for the same reasons that were stated in the hearing: high prices, crime, etc. However, right now they are just looking at potential strategies to address the existing problems and changing demographics. There is no proposal on the table at this time to change the code. Aging in place is a strategy that the study is trying to address. A potential option for his mother would be to develop a small ADU on her property where she could live and then rent out the larger home. Board Member Lovell referred to a recent report in THE EDMONDS BEACON and W EDMONDS NEWS about a proposal by the Lutheran Church and the Compass Housing Alliance to put in a stackable, pre -constructed, low-income housing complex on the church property that is located on SR-524. He encouraged the public to provide their comments on this proposal. The first unit is anticipated to go in mid -July. Mr. Shipley emphasized that the City has not received an application for the 60 units, but the single unit has been approved. A lot -line adjustment is currently in progress, as well. He added that the Lutheran Church will host a public meeting on July 12". (A number of citizens commented from the audience about the lack of information regarding this project.) Mr. Shipley pointed out that additional information about the project can be found on the City's website, and public notices have been released as required by code. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that there used to be a lot more apartments in Edmonds, but they were later converted to condominiums and new apartments were never built. She asked staff to provide additional information about the recently - approved condominium law, which is the type of change the Board is interested in addressing so as to provide a variety of housing. Mr. Shipley advised that, as per the State's condo law, responsibility is placed back on the developer after condos have been developed, and there have been significant frivolous lawsuits. Many developers do not want to develop condominiums and changing the law will require a State amendment. Board Member Rubenkonig said she heard from a builder that this law is why they aren't seeing as much condo development in Edmonds. She suggested this law has impacted housing affordability. If it were changed, developers would be more willing to construct new units and the availability of housing variety would increase. Mr. Ramsey agreed that more condominiums would definitely provide a greater variety of housing options in Edmonds, and the City of Edmonds, as well as other cities are already lobbying the state for changes to the law. Board Member Rubenkonig clarified that "condo" refers to the type of ownership, but these developments can be townhomes, units within large buildings, etc. Mr. Ramsey commented that condos are an important part of a broader housing ecosystem that could be a good option for people who want to age in place. They are typically more affordable ownership products that are easier to maintain and fit the needs of smaller households. This type of development is encouraged in the draft Housing Strategy. Chair Monroe summarized that the current condominium law, the Growth Management Act, and rising housing prices in Seattle have all contributed to the current housing crisis. He recalled that the Planning Board has had several discussions about how Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2018 Page 11 ADUs can be a key strategy, and he is glad to see the concept reflected in the draft document. He emphasized that the Housing Strategy is the beginning of the conversation, and any kind of real structural change will have to go through another process, including an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process where issues such as infrastructure impacts will be discussed. Chair Monroe asked if the fire and police departments have been involved in the Housing Strategy process. Mr. Shipley said the draft document is intended to provide broad -level list of housing strategies. As the City begins to select strategies for implementation, the fire and police departments will be invited to engage in the discussions and share their thoughts on potential impacts. Mr. Lien announced that there is a link to the Housing Strategy website on the City's homepage, and the Housing Strategy website has a link for written comments. All written comments will be incorporated into the record. The Board took a short break at 9:07 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:13 p.m. INTRODUCTION OF CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE (CAO) UPDATE — WETLANDS Mr. Lien reviewed that the City completed a comprehensive review of its Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) as required by the Growth Management Act (GMA) in May 2016, with adoption of Ordinance No. 4026. The wetland section (ECDC 23.50) of that document was based on the Department of Ecology's (DOE) "Wetlands and CAO Updates: Guidance for Small Cities. " However, in June of 2016, the DOE subsequently issued new guidance for wetlands in a publication titled, "Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates. " When the more recent guidance was published, the City was in the process of completing a comprehensive update of its Shoreline Master Program (SMP), and the City Council indicated a desire to incorporate the most current regulations within the SMP, which means that the regulations in the SMP are different than what's in the CAO. Mr. Lien explained that the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the Growth Management Act (GMA) conflict with each other. The SMA rules in shoreline jurisdictions within 200 feet of shorelines, and the GMA rules outside of the shoreline jurisdictions. The CAO implements the GMA and the SMP implements the SMA. Currently, the City has two versions of wetland regulations, one that applies within shoreline jurisdiction and another that applies outside of shoreline jurisdiction. The City is required to complete a periodic review of the SMP by June 2019, and the overall plan is to update the CAO before completing the periodic review of the SMP and then adopt the CAO again. Mr. Lien advised that the SMP adopted most of the CAO regulations, but there were some that were excepted out. In particular, the wetland ratings were excepted out because the new guidance came out after the CAD was adopted. The proposed amendments would update the CAO to be consistent with the most recent wetland guidance from the DOE. When the SMP is revised, the City will adopt the updated CAO and then one set of wetland regulations will apply to the entire City. Mr. Lien advised that two other minor revisions to the CAO are also being proposed. He reviewed that during the last CAO update, a new provision was added that dealt with adding or developing within the footprint of existing development that required some enhancement. A proposed amendment would delete the "allowed activity" section in ECDC 23.50.020.E, to be consistent with the updated regulations. Another amendment would correct a scrivener's error in the Wetland Buffer Averaging section. As part of the CAO update, the wetland buffer cannot be reduced by more than 25%, but language was inadvertently left in that said a buffer could be reduced by 50%. He summarized that the main intent of the amendments is to make sure that the wetland regulations, ratings, buffers and mitigation measures, as well as a section dealing with small wetlands, are updated consistent with the most recent wetland guidance. Board Member Rosen asked if the proposed amendments would maintain, strengthen or weaken the protection of wetlands. Mr. Lien answered that because the changes are based on the DOE's newest guidance document that is based on Best Available Science (BAS), the City's regulations would be strengthened to provide greater protection. The first change has to do with how wetlands are categorized, and the proposed amendment would simply add more description without significantly changing the protection. He explained how wetland determinations and categorizations are done using the Wetland Rating System for Western Washington and advised that the buffer requirements in the DOE's newest guidance document are similar to those in the current CAO. However, the newest guidance requires certain mitigation measures for each wetland classification. If the mitigation measures are not met, the buffers are enlarged. To make this clear, the update includes two buffer tables, one to identify the buffers that apply if you do the required mitigation measures and a second table with wider buffers that would Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2018 Page 12 apply if you don't do the mitigation measures. He noted that most of the wetlands in Edmonds are Category III or IV, and the Edmonds Marsh is a Category II. The SMP update established a 125-foot setback around the Edmonds Marsh (110-foot buffer and a 15-foot building setback). Mr. Lien advised that a public hearing on the proposed amendments is scheduled for July 11tn Chair Monroe asked if there are any cons to the proposed amendments. Mr. Lien said he could not come up with any. The amendments will provide greater protection and are consistent with the latest guidance from the DOE. Chair Monroe asked if the proposed amendments would further limit a developer's ability to develop near a wetland. Mr. Lien answered, provided a developer does the mitigation measures, the buffer requirements would not change. He briefly reviewed the mitigation measures, noting that none of them are particularly onerous over what is currently required. There is also flexibility in the code via buffer averaging and buffer width reductions. In addition, development is allowed within the previously developed footprint with enhancement, and there is flexibility for some small additions within the buffers. He reminded the Board that much of Edmonds was developed before any environmental regulations, and a lot of the current development is within the buffer areas. Board Member Lovell asked if the City has a map that identifies the wetlands areas by category. Mr. Lien answered that this would be a very expensive proposition. However, the web map includes all of the critical area layers. It is a generalized map and not a regulatory map. The most prevalent critical areas in Edmonds are geologically hazardous areas. Anytime development is proposed within a critical area, the applicant is required to fill out a Critical Area Checklist and City staff does a quick map review and site visit. When an applicant applies for a Development Permit, staff takes a closer look at the critical area to determine whether or not a Critical Area Report will be required. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Monroe reviewed that the June 27" agenda will be a continued discussion and possible recommendation on the Housing Strategy and an introduction to the SMP periodic review. The July 1 lth agenda will be public hearings on the CAO update and code updates for permit decision making. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Monroe commented that the public hearing went well, and the comments were evenly split between pros and cons. He heard support for the ADU concept. However, the City needs to do a better job of educating the public on the housing issues. There seems to be a perception that homelessness equals crime and drugs, which is an unfair representation of that population. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Lovell cautioned that the Board will face challenges when and if the Strategy is adopted by the City Council and it comes back to them to develop a specific implementation plan that includes regulation and zoning changes. These changes will require a lot of work by the Board. Board Member Crank recalled comments she made early in the Housing Strategy discussion about the importance of educating and communicating with the public. When people hear the term affordable housing, they tend to think crime -ridden projects. She challenged the Planning Board and the City Council to be very intentional with what this term means and not just leave it to interpretation. They have to do a better of job of conveying the intent to provide housing opportunities for people who already live in Edmonds. They are not trying to move people into Edmonds from other communities. The community she lived in in the Bay Area used in -lieu fees to purchase property when it became available to accommodate affordable housing complexes that were owned by the city. A process was established that the first people who could apply to live in the units were teachers, public safety workers, and certain long-term residents. These complexes are now full of people who already lived or worked in the City. She hopes the Board will use this example and keep in mind who they are trying to serve with the strategies. Board Member Rubenkonig said that during the break, numerous people commented on how much they appreciated how well the meeting was conducted and the information that was provided. Several specifically said that what they felt got the people most concerned was the graphic in the Housing Strategy of the tiny homes that are similar to those that have been used in Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2018 Page 13 Seattle to address homelessness. She expressed her belief that this graphic does not represent the Board's thinking for ADUs and tiny homes. She thought the ADUs were intended to serve those who wanted to age in place and rental income for home owners. The graphic told a different story and is likely why the whole issue about homelessness came up. The Board Members agreed that this graphic is confusing and not reflective the Housing Strategy intent. Board Member Rubenkonig suggested that reports of this type really need to have peer review by people in the community before they are presented for public feedback. While the Board Members understand the terminology that is used in the report, the presentation was not user-friendly for the public. The report ended up casting confusion which made the public doubt the goals and objectives. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:42 p.m. Planning Board Minutes June 13, 2018 Page 14