2018-06-27 Planning Board Packeto Agenda
Edmonds Planning Board
snl. ynyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS
250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
J U N E 27, 2018, 7:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Approval of Draft Minutes of June 13, 2018
3. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA
4. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
5. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
A. Development Services Director Report
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Draft Housing Strategy
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Shoreline Mater Program Periodic Review Introduction
9. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA
A. Review Planning Board Extended Agenda
10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS
11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS
12. ADJOURNMENT
Edmonds Planning Board Agenda
June 27, 2018
Page 1
2.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/27/2018
Approval of Draft Minutes of June 13, 2018
Staff Lead: N/A
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Review and approve draft minutes.
Narrative
Draft minutes are attached.
Attachments:
PB180613d
Packet Pg. 2
2.A.a
CITY 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 — 5r' 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 -
Packet Pg. 3
2.A.a
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
Packet Pg. 4
2.A.a
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.
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.
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
Packet Pg. 5
2.A.a
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 141 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 271
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
Packet Pg. 6
2.A.a
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', 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
Packet Pg. 7
2.A.a
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 along 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
Packet Pg. 8
2.A.a
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 21 ". 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 27r' 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
Packet Pg. 9
2.A.a
equation. The recent multi -family development on 2121 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
Packet Pg. 10
2.A.a
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. In 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
Packet Pg. 11
2.A.a
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
Packet Pg. 12
2.A.a
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 may be 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 MYEDMONDS 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 12th. (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
Packet Pg. 13
2.A.a
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 CAO 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
Packet Pg. 14
2.A.a
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 11'.
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 I' 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
Packet Pg. 15
2.A.a
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
Packet Pg. 16
5.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/27/2018
Development Services Director Report
Staff Lead: Shane Hope, Director
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
Report is attached
Attachments:
Director. Report.06.22.18
Packet Pg. 17
5.A.a
of EL]M
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 22, 2018
To: Planning Board
From: Shane Hope, Development Services Director
Subject: Director Report
"Far up in the deep blue sky, Great white clouds are floating by; All the
world is dressed in green; Many happy birds are seen, Roses bright and
sunshine clear show that lovely June is here."
— F. G. Sanders
Next Planning Board Meeting
The Planning Board meets next on June 27. Items of discussion will include the Draft Housing
Strategy and an introduction to the Shoreline Master Plan periodic review.
REGIONAL NEWS
Washington Ferries
A long-range plan for the ferry system is being updated by the Washington State Department of
Transportation. The department has sought public input. A summary of the agency's public
engagement process and key findings is at: https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/ferries/planning/long-range-
plan/public-involvement.
EnviroStars
The City of Edmonds participates with other jurisdictions and agencies in the EnviroStars
Program, which seeks to encourage local businesses to go "above and beyond" for
environmental purposes. The first business in Edmonds to receive EnviroStars certification is
Walnut Street Coffee.
LOCAL NEWS
Creative District
Going beyond traditional arts and culture activities and venues, the "creative sector" in
Edmonds includes creative technology, graphic design, architecture, florist, breweries, and
many more. On June 7, the City held a public meeting for people to learn about a new state
1 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 18
5.A.a
program for creative districts and to provide input. The City may apply for the new State
Certified Creative District Program.
Architectural Design Board (ADB)
The ADB has no meetings scheduled in June.
Arts Commission
The Arts Commission met June 4. Topics included:
❑ "Write on the Sound" event
❑ Youth literary program at EWHS
❑ Tourism promotion awards
❑ Public art
❑ Potential partnership programs
❑ Certified Creative district
Cemetery Board
The Cemetery Board met June 21. The agenda included:
❑ Cemetery Sales and Burials
❑ Financial Report
❑ Memorial Day thoughts
❑ Walk Back in Time discussion
Climate Protection Committee
The Climate Protection Committee met June 7. Discussion included:
❑ Update on Climate Goals Project
❑ Update on Council resolution on plastic materials ban
❑ 2018 priorities
❑ Subcommittee reports
Diversity Commission
The Diversity Commission met June 6. Topics included:
❑ Proposal for Community -Based Project
❑ Update on Edmonds United Methodist Church meeting
❑ Updates from the City
❑ Incidents in Community & Commission Role
Economic Development Commission (EDC)
The Economic Development Commission met June 20, with a focus on:
❑ Development Feasibility
❑ Art — Creative District application process and progress
❑ Civic Facilities update
❑ Liaison Report discussion
21
Packet Pg. 19
5.A.a
Hearing Examiner
The Hearing Examiner has no meetings scheduled for June.
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC)
The Historic Preservation Commission met June 14 for a public hearing to determine the
eligibility of the Yost house located at 658 Maple St for listing on the Edmonds Register of
Historic Places. The HPC found that the Yost house meets the criteria for designation and
recommends that the City Council approve inclusion on the Edmonds Register. The City Council
hearing date for this will be set in the near future.
Tree Board
The Tree Board met June 7. Topics included:
❑ Taming Bigfoot expenditure increase
❑ Upcoming events activity
❑ Tree Board mission statement
❑ Using social media
❑ Consultant services contract
❑ Student representative position
City Council
The City Council's June 19 meeting included the following:
❑ Presentations:
o "Housing Snohomish County" Report (from the Housing Coalition)
❑ Consent Calendar, including:
o Utility easement for new groundwater monitoring well on 72nd Ave
o Acceptance on final construction costs for the 2017 sanitary sewer replacement
project
❑ Public hearing on proposed Urban Forest Management Plan 1
❑ Public Hearing on approval of ordinance approving vacation of unopened ROW on
certain property at 23111 St. SW
❑ Approval of Edmonds Youth Commission ordinance
COMMUNITY CALENDAR
• June 24: Young jazz musicians perform every Sunday 1— 3 pm at Port of Edmonds public
plaza
• June 30: Ranger Talk - The Seals of Edmonds at Olympic Beach visitor station at 2:30 pm
• July 4: Edmonds parade at 12 pm
• July 4: Beat Brackett 5K & 1K at 10 am
• July 12: Low tide beach walk at Olympic Beach visitor station at 10 am
• July 14: Ranger Talk — Buoys and Gulls at the base of the Brackett's Landing north jetty
at 2:30 pm
• July 15: Summer concerts begin at city park at 3pm
Note: Based on input, City staff is working on changes to the draft Urban Forest Management Plan.
The revised version will be considered by the City Council in early August.
3 1 P a g e
Packet Pg. 20
7.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/27/2018
Draft Housing Strategy
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Development Services
Prepared By: Denise Nelson
Background/History
Housing that is affordable or attainable for people is often a challenge, especially in these days of rising
housing prices and growing Puget Sound population --regardless of whether someone is purchasing or
renting. A I s o, h o w t o m e e t d iverse needs --including for seniors and people with different
abilities, family sizes, and backgrounds --is an issue we face.
The Comprehensive Plan calls for developing a housing strategy by 2019 to increase the supply of
housing affordable for a range of incomes and to meet special housing needs. A draft strategy has been
developed. It will be a key topic for the Planning Board's June 27 meeting.
City Council Involvement
The City Council adopted the citywide Comprehensive Plan to include the requirement for developing a
housing strategy. The Council approved of Edmonds becoming a member of the Alliance for Housing
Affordability, a countywide organization. It has had numerous briefings and discussions on housing and
homelessness issues over the last three years and has taken action on some items. The Council will have
more direct review and discussion of the proposed Housing Strategy later this summer.
Planning Board Involvement
The Planning Board has discussed housing issues and strategies many times.
Between 2015 and early 2018, housing topics were on the Board's agenda 35 times.
Planning Board input was built into the draft Housing Strategy.
On May 23, the Planning Board reviewed and discussed an early draft of the Housing Strategy.
On June 13, the Planning Board held a public hearing, which included numerous public
comments; the Board also received written comments.
Task Force
In the summer of 2017, Mayor Earling appointed the Housing Strategy Task Force to make
recommendations for City actions that could be incorporated into a housing strategy that would
increase the supply of affordable housing and meet diverse housing needs. The nine task force
members are primarily housing experts. (See Attachment 1.) The Task Force met six times between
September 2017 and May 2018 and made recommendations for the draft Housing Strategy.
Public Outreach
Public outreach about the development of a housing strategy included:
Housing forum in the spring of 2017 (co -sponsored by the City)
Four press releases
Packet Pg. 21
7.A
News articles (in My Edmonds News, the Beacon, and City of Edmonds Newsletter)
Website (see <https://www.edmondshousingstrategy.org/>) with information regularly
updated about the task force, meetings, the draft strategy, and more
Facebook posting
Public open house on May 21, 2018
Planning Board public hearing on June 13, 2018.
Staff Recommendation
Discuss and provide feedback on the Strategy (See below: "Focus of June 27 Meeting")
Narrative
The Draft Housing Strategy (see Attachment 2) is intended to identify actions the City could take to
increase the supply of housing affordable to a range of incomes and special needs. It contains data on
housing and housing needs in Edmonds. It also recommends six key objectives, summarized below as:
1. Increase the supply of market -rate multi -family housing
2. Expand opportunities for housing diversity (for example, accessory dwellings)
3. Support the needs of an aging population
4. Increase the supply of income -restricted housing
5. Participate in South Snohomish County strategies to reduce homelessness
6. Provide protection for low-income tenants (for example, fair housing information)
Attachment 3 is an appendix to the Draft Housing Strategy. It describes a variety of housing tools in
greater detail.
Focus of June 27 Meeting
At the June 27 meeting, staff will provide focused information about key parts of the Strategy and
respond to Planning Board questions.
Also, the Planning Board will be asked to discuss:
Did the draft Strategy address a broad range of housing needs relevant to Edmonds?
Were there aspects of the draft Strategy that you particularly appreciated?
Were there aspects of the draft Strategy that concerned you or that needs more clarification?
What is needed for the Planning Board's next meeting on this topic?
Next Steps
As needed, staff will update the draft Housing Strategy to reflect Planning Board and City Council
direction and to make any technical corrections.
The Planning Board will have further discussion (which will include the project consultant) on July 11.
The Board may be ready to make a recommendation to the City Council at that time. Alternatively, the
Board may want to have further discussion on July 25.
After the Planning Board completes its review and adopts a recommendation to the City Council, the
Draft Strategy will continue through the public process. This includes more Council meetings and a
public hearing. It is up to the City Council to make a decision about adopting the Strategy, with any
changes.
NOTE: The Housing Strategy does not address any actions at a detailed level, Following adoption of the
final Strategy, an implementation stage would begin. For example, if any Strategy actions include a code
amendment, that amendment would be developed as a draft, perhaps with options, and go through its
Packet Pg. 22
7.A
own full public process.
Attachments -
List of Housing Strategy Task Force members
Draft Housing Strategy (dated June 2018)
Draft Housing Strategy Appendix
Attachments:
Att. 1: Housing Task Force Member List
Att. 2: Draft Edmonds Housing Strategy_2018_0613
Att. 3: Draft Edmonds Housing Appendices_2018_0613
Packet Pg. 23
7.A.a
Y CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Updated 5/18
MEMBERS
Bill Anderson
Compass Housing Alliance
Rev. M. Christopher Boyer
Good Shepherd Baptist Church
Chris Collier
Alliance for Housing Affordability
Mark Craig
Henbart, LLC
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas
Edmonds City Council
Jamie Reece
Reece Homes Real Estate
Mark Smith
Housing Consortium of Everett & Snohomish County
Rob Van Tassell
Catholic Housing of Western Washington
Anne Wermus
Edmonds Housing Instability Coalition
CITY STAFF
Shane Hope, Director of Development Services
Shane.hope@edmondswa.gov
Brad Shipley, Associate Planner
Brad.shipley@edmondswa.gov
Diane Cunningham, Administrative Assistant
Diane.cunningham@edmondswa.gov
Packet Pg. 24
M IN
03 ►I 901\ 1
mkt ''.77
,fl�
Mmm 1
r.' ' 'I'll
C ..
,. d�•1•galFx��J
;
�:.:
7.A.b
Cover Photos
Top Row
(Left) Townhomes in Seattle.
https://wwwredf n.com/WA/Seattle/2850-S-Nevada-St-98108/home/8187294
(Center) Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (DADU) by Sheri Newbold of live -
work -play architecture.
Seattle Accessory Dwelling Units Draft EIS, http.//www.seattle.gov/council/adu-eis
(Right) Mixed -use, mixed -type, and mixed -income housing in the Westlawn
Gardens neighborhood of Milwaukee, WI.
https://planning. orq/awards/2018/westlawn/
Second Row
(Left) Highpoint is a development located in West Seattle with a mix of low-
income and market rate housing —it offers 1,600 housing units, with nearly half
being affordable, with a mix of publicly and privately funded units. High Point
offers a variety of housing styles and scales, and is integrated with retail and
civic amenities.
Mithun, Juan Hernandez, http://comm-aps.com/portfolio_ poge/high-point/
(Center) Low Income Housing Institute (LIHI) provides Tiny House Village
shelters in Seattle for the homeless.
https://lihi. orq/tin v-houses/othello-vill age/
(Right) Lovejoy Station in Portland, OR is a five -story apartment community that
serves residents with incomes between 40% and 80% area median income.
Edmonds Highway 99 Subarea Plan, https/wwwedmondswo.gov/2011-07-27-22-31-43/highway-99-
planning-project.html
Third Row
(Left) One way to address the housing needs of aging residents is to provide
resources to support aging in place and provide options for long-term care
in current housing units —such programs could include home modification,
transportation, recreation and socialization, yard care, or care management and
counseling.
Edmonds Senior Center, https//www.facebook.com/E`dmondsSeniorCenterl
(Center) Anthem on 12th is a workforce housing development in Seattle
financed through a multifamily tax exemption program.
Edmonds Highway 99 Subarea Plan, https/wwwedmondswo.gov/2011-07-27-22-31-43/highway-99-
planning-project.html
(Right) Cottage housing on Bainbridge Island.
HUD, https://www.huduser.gov/portal/cosestudies/study_102011 2.html
Bottom Row
(Left) Quixote Village is a tiny house community in Olympia, WA that evolved
from a tent camp for the homeless.
http://guixotevillage. com/
(Center) Capitol Hill Housing is a publicly owned corporation that developers
affordable housing and provides resident and homeless services in
collaboration with local economic development organizations, service provider
networks, and other affiliates. The Fleming Apartment building in Seattle's
Belltown neighborhood serves households earning 50% of area median income.
https://www capitolhillhousing.orq/ourproperties/buildings/flemin. php and https.-Ilwwwapartments.com/
fleming-apartments-seattle-wa/ycwvmns/
(Right) Section 8 Vouchers can be used by people with low -incomes to rent
market -rate housing units. The vouchers are intended to help people with low -
incomes live in neighborhoods that would otherwise be unavailable to them
within their means. Aline Ridge Apartments, pictured here, are a multifamily
housing development in Kirkland that accepts Section 8 vouchers.
https://www. kcho. orq/housinq/property aspx?PropertvlD=1
Packet Pg. 26
7.A.b
Acknowledaements DRAFT
Edmonds Housing Strategy Task Force
BILL ANDERSON
Compass Housing Alliance
REV. M. CHRISTOPHER BOYER
Good Shepherd Baptist Church
CHRIS COLLIER
Alliance For Housing Affordability
MARK CRAIG
Henbart, Llc.
ADRIENNE FRALEY-MONILLAS
Edmonds City Council
JAMIE REECE
Reece Homes Real Estate
MARK SMITH
Housing Consortium Of Everett And Snohomish County
ROB VAN TASSELL
Catholic Housing Of Western Washington
ANNE WERMUS
Edmonds Housing Instability Coalition
City of Edmonds Staff
SHANE HOPE
Development Services Director
BRAD SHIPLEY
Associate Planner
DIANE CUNNINGHAM
Planning Administrator
Consultant Team: BERK Consulting
KEVIN RAMSEY
Project Manager
ANDREW BJORN
Policy Specialist
JESSIE HARTMANN
Layout and Information Designer
MELANIE MAYOCK
Analyst
3
Packet Pg. 27
7.A.b
r
Q
Packet Pg. 28
7.A.b
Executive Summa
Edmonds is facing urgent housing affordability challenges that are
impacting communities across the Central Puget Sound Region. To a
great extent, these challenges are caused by rapid job and population
growth that is outpacing the production of new housing near job centers.
With so many new people and families competing for a limited supply of
housing, prices get pushed increasingly higher. This results in a widening
gap between housing costs and what is affordable to low, moderate, and
even middle -income households. In Edmonds, nearly 6,000 households
are "cost burdened" and struggling to afford rising housing costs. Over
4,000 of these cost -burdened households are low-income. Additionally,
at least 2,400 low-income workers are commuting long distances to
jobs in Edmonds from homes in more affordable communities.
Housing affordability is an issue that impacts all Edmonds residents.
Rising housing costscan leadtothedisplacementoflong-term residents,
uprooting lives and undermining the stability of neighborhoods. When
workers in Edmonds are not living close to their jobs, they must drive
longer distances to their workplace. This increases traffic congestion
on local streets, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation costs.
A lack of affordable housing also makes it difficult to hire and retain
teachers, nurses, firefighters, and other essential members of the
community. Maintaining a healthy and sustainable city means that
Edmonds will need to build more housing and different kinds of housing
to meet the diverse needs of our population and workforce.
While the City has already taken some important steps to address
critical housing needs and contribute to regional housing solutions,
additional actions are both necessary and urgent. This report presents a
multi -part strategy for increasing the supply affordable housing options
in Edmonds to meet the needs of a diverse range of household types
and income levels. This strategy recognizes that both market rate and
subsidized housing production will play a role in meeting the housing
needs of Edmonds residents and workforce. The strategy includes six'
objectives:
1. Encourage the development of multifamily housing. Ensuring
that there is sufficient supply of apartments and condominium
housing in Edmonds is essential to reduce upward pressure on
housing costs and providing more options for small households
who do not need a lot of space. Edmonds should allow and
1 These objectives are not presented in rank order.
DRAFT
Why is Edmonds Developing
a Housing Strategy?
The City's 2016 Comprehensive
Plan includes an Implementing
Action to "[d]evelop a strategy by
2019 for increasing the supply of
affordable housing and meeting
diverse housing needs"
5
Packet Pg. 29
7.A.b
DRAFT
EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018
What is Affordable Housing? encourage more multifamily housing production in targeted areas
A home is generally considered
to be affordable if the household
is paying no more than 30
percent of their income on
housing costs. A healthy housing
market includes a variety of
housing types that are affordable
to a range of different household
income levels.
The term "affordable housing" is
often used to describe income -
restricted housing available
only to qualifying low-income
households. Income -restricted
housing can be located in public,
nonprofit, or for -profit housing
developments. It can also include
households using vouchers to
help pay for market -rate housing.
In this report, "affordable
housing" refers to any housing
that is affordable to the
household that is occupying
it, whether market rate or
subsidized.
See Appendix C for a glossary of
housing terminology used in this
report.
across the city to address this need.
2. Expand housing diversity in the "missing middle". We need
a wider range of housing options to meet the diverse needs of
different households at various income levels and stages in their
life -cycle, ranging from young one -person households to retirees.
Edmonds should allow and encourage the development of
"missing middle" housing types such as accessory dwelling units,
duplexes, and townhomes to meet these needs.
3. Support the needs of an aging population. One out five
Edmonds residents is over the age of 65, this share will continue
to grow over the coming years. Our community must consider the
housing and lifestyle needs of these older residents. Managing
these needs will require supporting the desire for some residents
to "age in place" in their homes, while accommodating other
residents in assisted living and nursing home facilities.
4. Increase the supply of income -restricted affordable housing.
A large share of the Edmonds workforce and current population
do not earn enough income to afford market -rate housing.
Edmonds should support and encourage more affordable housing
development in partnership with nonprofits and regional agencies
to meet the needs of these community members.
5. Participate in South Snohomish County strategies to reduce
homelessness. People experiencing homelessness are often
struggling with issues that are beyond the scope of this strategy
such as addiction, mental illness, or domestic violence. However,
Edmonds can play an important role by coordinating with regional
service providers and reducing barriers to the development
of emergency, transitional, and permanent supportive housing
for the homeless. The City is also pursuing a separate and
more detailed study into the needs of homeless populations in
Edmonds and options for addressing those needs.
6. Provide protections for low-income tenants. Low-income tenants
may be impacted by a range of issues in the market which can
affect their ability to find and maintain stable housing. Edmonds
should identify short and long-term solutions to address these
needs and assist households displaced from affordable housing
in the community.
M
Packet Pg. 30
7.A.b
Contents
Introduction
DRAFT
Housing Needs in Edmonds 31
Homeless Persons and Families 12
R
L
Workforce Housing 13
a�
Senior Housing 16 S
.y
0
Housing Strategy
L
Overview 17 a
4-
1. Encourage the Development of Multifamily Housing 19 c
0
2. Expand Housing Diversity in the "Missing Middle" 22 N
0
3. Support the Needs of an Aging Population 24 N
4. Increase the Supply of Income -Restricted Affordable Housing 25 0
M
5. Participate in South Snohomish County Strategies to Reduce
Homelessness 29
00
6. Provide Protections for Low -Income Tenants 31 c
Appendices. 33
Appendix A. Edmonds Housing Needs Assessment
35
Household Incomes in Edmonds
35
Housing Supply in Edmonds
36
Housing Needs by Household Type
41
Special Needs Populations
44
Appendix B. Homeless Services and Resources in Edmonds 49
Appendix C. Glossary of Housing Affordability Terminology 51
Appendix D. Preliminary Assessment of Housing Tools 55
Packet Pg. 31
7.A.b
DRAFT
EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018
Exhibits
Exhibit 1 Cost -Burdened Households and Current Income -
Restricted Housing Inventory
11
Exhibit 2
Low -wage Long-distance Commuters to Edmonds
14
a�
L
Exhibit 3
Cost -Burdened Households in Edmonds by
in
Household Type Income Level (Seniors Excluded)
15
Exhibit 4
Median Family Income
35
c
Exhibit 5
Edmonds Household Income as Percent of AMI, by
=
Housing Tenure
36
L
Exhibit 6
Edmonds Housing Inventory
36
c
Exhibit 7
Household (HH) Sizes Compared to Housing Unit Sizes
37
0
Exhibit 8
Affordability of Average Cost Rental in Edmonds Units
.N
3
by Income Level, 2017
39
y
Exhibit 9
Rental Housing Supply by Affordability Level
Compared to Household Need
40
M
r
Exhibit 10
Average Rents in Edmonds, 2011-2018
40
to
cl
ao
Exhibit 11
Low -wage Workers Commuting Long Distances to
N
Jobs Located in Edmonds
42
- I
Exhibit 12 Renter Households with Incomes 30-50% of AMI
(Households with Members Age 62+ Excluded)
43
Exhibit 13
Renter Households with Incomes 50-80% of AMI
(Households with Members Age 62+ Excluded)
43
Exhibit 14
Edmonds Population by Age Range
44
Exhibit 15
Senior Households (Age 62+) with Incomes Below
AMI, by Income Level
45
Exhibit 16
Homeless Students in the Edmonds School District
46
8
Packet Pg. 32
7.A.b
Introduction
With its prime location and quality of life, the appeal of living in
Edmonds is strong. As more people move to the Puget Sound Region,
the competition for limited housing in Edmonds also grows. Rents and
housing prices rise as a result, which can lead to the displacement of
many long-term residents.
Rising housing costs impact the quality of life for all Edmonds residents.
When workers in Edmonds can't live close to their jobs, they must drive
longer distances to work: increasing their transportation costs as well
as traffic congestion on local streets and greenhouse gas emissions.
A lack of affordable housing makes it difficult to recruit, hire, and
retain teachers, nurses, firefighters, and other essential members of
the community. Students in families struggling with housing insecurity
often have increased challenges in school and require greater
attention and resources. Housing affordability is essential to quality of
life, environmental sustainability, and community resiliency.
To maintain a healthy and thriving city, Edmonds needs more housing
in a variety of formats to meet the housing demand from our diverse
population and workforce. Also, with a large population of older
residents, Edmonds needs to make more space foryounger community
members who can contribute to our city's economic and civic vitality.
This requires different kinds of housing that meet the needs of diverse
lifestyles. This is important because not everyone needs the same
type of housing: some families prefer a large detached housing with
a large yard, while others are happy with a small house and small
yard. Still, others want the option to live in an apartment, townhome,
condominium, or something else. When we provide opportunities for
different types of housing to be built, people have more choices. This
also enables us to support the housing needs of community members
across their entire life cycle, from younger adults living alone, to new
families, and to retirees looking to downsize.
The City of Edmonds is committed to addressing housing affordability
challenges. In recent years, Edmonds has taken several actions:
• Adopted a multifamily tax abatement program that applies in
some locations when at least 20 percent of the new housing is
dedicated to low and moderate -income households.
• Adopted reductions in park and transportation impact fees for
low-income housing projects.
DRAFT
9
Packet Pg. 33
7.A.b
DRAFT
EDMi HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018
• Set aside $250,000 for a fund that will assist with homeless
needs and began a new study to assess those needs
Joined the Alliance for Housing Affordability, a multi jurisdiction
organization that is looking to contribute funds toward selected
affordable housing projects.
• Adopted a plan and regulations that allow more housing in the
Westgate and State Route 99 areas.
While these steps show progress, more actions are necessary.
Therefore, the 2016 Edmonds Comprehensive Plan committed the City
to develop and implementa Housing Strategy by2019. In 2017the Mayor
appointed a Housing Strategy Task Force to make recommendations
for increasing the supply of affordable housing and meeting diverse
housing needs. The Task Force is composed of nine local housing
developers, policy experts, and civic leaders representing the public,
nonprofit, and for -profit sectors. This group has met on five occasions
to review an analysis of the local housing supply and housing needs,
identify best practice solutions for addressing housing needs, and
evaluate potential actions that the City can take to most effectively
address housing needs in Edmonds. Some of these actions the City
could tackle alone, while others would be most effectively pursued in
collaboration with Snohomish County, neighboring communities, and
other partners through coordinated regional strategies.
This report presents the Housing Strategy, including actions
recommended by the Task Force. The strategy addresses the need to
increase the production of both market rate and subsidized affordable
housing to meet the needs of a diverse range of household types and
income levels.
10
Packet Pg. 34
7.A.b
Housina Needs in Edmonds
The need for affordable housing in Edmonds is significant and growing.
One indicator of need is cost -burdened households. A cost -burdened
household is spending over 30 percent of their income on housing
costs, while a severely cost -burdened household is spending over 50
percent of income on housing.
Between 2010 and 2014 there were nearly 6,000 cost -burdened
households in Edmonds. This includes over 4,600 low- and moderate -
income households. These needs have very likely grown in the years
since this data was collected. Between 2011 and 2018 average monthly
rents in Edmonds have increased by over $600, or 4.6 percent per
year.2
As shown in Exhibit 1, the current inventory of income -restricted
subsidized housing is small and inadequate compared to the level of
need.
EXHIBIT 1
Cost -Burdened Households and Current Income -Restricted Housing Inventory
DRAFT
What is Area Median
Income (AMI)?
Analyses of housing affordability
typically group all households
by income level relative to area
median family income, or the
median income of all family
households in the metropolitan
region or county. Median income
of non -family households is
typically lower than for family
households.
In this report AMI refers to the
U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD)
Area Median Family Income.
In Snohomish County, AMI is
$96,000.
Households
2,500 Total Households
Total Households 2,250
2,045 Total Households
ffjj.0 1,945
2,000 ' Total Households
1,690
Cost -burdened
1,500 Households
1,570
1,000
500 Income -Restricted
Housing Units
Cost -burdened
Households
1,490
It
Cost -burdened
Households
1,075
Income -Restricted
Income -Restricted
Housing Units
Housing Units
I
Total Households
9,510
Cost -burdened
Households
1,170
1W
Cost -burdened
Households
520
Extremely Low -Income Very Low -Income Low -Income Moderate Income Above Median Income
(<30% AMI) (30-50% AMI) (50-80% AMI) (80-100% AMI) (>100% AMI)
Not Calculated ■ Cost -Burdened ■ SeverelyCost-BurdenedSources: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 2010-2014
Not Cost Burdened Household spends more than 30% Household spends more than 50% 5-year estimates); Housing Consortium of
of monthly income on housing costs of monthly income on housing costs Everett and Snohomish County, 2018
2 Source: BERK analysis ofZillow Rent Index data for City of Edmonds, March 2011—March 2018.
11
Packet Pg. 35
7.A.b
DRAFT
EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018
Meeting these needs will require a variety of housing solutions that
match a diverse array of different household types and income levels.
This chapter provides a summary of housing needs in Edmonds. A more
detailed assessment of the Edmonds housing supply and community
needs is available in Appendix A: Edmonds Housing Needs Assessment.
Homeless Persons and Families
Homelessness in Snohomish County is on the rise. Since 2013 there
has been a 50 percent increase in unsheltered homeless persons,
from 344 to 515 in 2017.3 Chronic homelessness has increased at an
even faster rate, from 135 persons in 2013 to 313 persons in 2017. There
are 260 students attending schools in Edmonds that are homeless.4
There are many causes of homelessness and many barriers to housing
stability, including poverty, unemployment, low wages, housing costs,
disability/illness, substance abuse, domestic violence/child abuse, and
criminal records. Housing strategies must often be coordinated with
support services to help homeless residents address the underlying
causes of housing insecurity. The City is currently conducting a more
detailed analysis of the needs of its homeless population.
Housing Strategies for Homeless Persons and Families
• Winter and emergency shelters for short-term needs
• Transitional housing (particularly for women and children)
• Flexible low-cost housing formats that can be built quickly to
address targeted needs on a temporary basis
• Permanent supportive housing with coordinated services
3 Snohomish County Point -in -Time County Summary For the night of January 23,
2017 httt)s://snohomishcountywo.you/DocumentCenter/HomeNiew/41603
4 This includes students who are in temporary housing situations such as
"doubled -up", or staying with friends or family due to lack of housing.
12
Packet Pg. 36
7.A.b
Workforce Housing
Workforce housing refers to housing suitable for people whose place
of work is in the community. Nearly 11,000 people work in Edmonds.'
The majority of these workers are employed in the health care, retail,
accommodations and food service industries. Jobs in these industries
are typically low wage. In fact, nearly 60 percent of jobs in Edmonds
pay less than $40,000 per year, or just over 40 percent of Area Median
Income (AMI). Over a quarter of all jobs in Edmonds pay less than
$15,000 per year, or about 15 percent of AMI. Workers earning these
wage levels would have an extremely difficult time finding anywhere
to live in Edmonds without a second job or a dual -income household.
This helps explains why 87 percent of all workers in Edmonds live
outside of Edmonds and 42 percent live more than 10 miles from their
workplace. As shown in Exhibit 2 on the following page, nearly 1,100
low -wage workers commute more than 25 miles, and nearly 1,300
additional workers commute more than 10 miles from their homes
outside of Edmonds.
EXAMPLE:
Home Health Aide Living Alone
A home health aide in Edmonds earns
around $26,000 per year. At this income,
she could afford a monthly rent of $840
per month. The average rent for a studio
apartment in Edmonds is over $1,000
per month and studios are in very limited
supply. It is unlikely that a home health aide
living alone could find a suitable home in
,.�
Edmonds, affordable or otherwise.
--
The most effective way to meet the needs
of very low-income workers is increasing
Image: Bureau of Labor Statistics
production of subsidized income -restricted
affordable housing. However, increasing the
supply of market -rate small apartments or "micro -housing" can also help to provide
more low-cost housing options for workers living alone in Edmonds.
5 Source of employment statistics: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap
Application and LEHD Origin -Destination Employment Statistics
(Beginning of Quarter Employment, 2nd Quarter of 2015).
DRAFT
13
Packet Pg. 37
7.A.b
EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018
EXHIBIT 2
Low -wage Long-distance
Commuters to Edmonds
Very Low Waqe Workers
Monthly Wage': up to $1, 250
Max Affordable Monthly Rent2: up to $375
93F
Commute More Than
10 Miles to Work
435
Commute More Than
25 Miles to Work
DRAFT
11518
Commute More Than
10 Miles to Work
ow Wage Workers
>nthly Wage': up to $3,333
ix Affordable Monthly Rent': up to $1,000
658
Commute More Than
25 Miles to Work
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies 2015, BERK, 2077
(1) Earning up to this wage for their primary job. (2) Assuming they earn the top of the bracket.
14
Packet Pg. 38
7.A.b
EXAMPLE:
Single Parent Working as a Receptionist
A single parent working as
a receptionist in Edmonds
earns an average of about
$34,000 per year. At this
wage the family could
afford $960 per month in
rent, whereas 1-bedroom
apartments rent for at
least $1,200 in Edmonds
Image: Shutterstock, Alena Vasko and they are in very short
supply. Increasing the
supply of smaller apartments and reducing restrictions to
other home types like accessory dwelling units could help
to address the needs of working single parents. Increasing
the supply of subsidized housing is needed to meet the
needs of low-income households.
L.
DRAFT
EXAMPLE:
Teacher Supporting a Family of Four
A family of four with o�
parent employed as an
�1 elementary teacher earns
f an average of $62,000 per
year, or about 65 percent
of AMI. At this wage the
family could afford up to
$1,550 in rent. The average
three -bedroom apartment
Image: Bureau of Labor Statistics in Edmonds rents for
almost $1,700 per month.
Homeownership options are generally far out of reach.
Moderate -income family households like this one
need more "missing middle" housing options such as
townhomes, duplexes, or detached accessory dwelling
units to provide more rental and ownership housing
opportunities.
Exhibit 3 shows cost -burdened non -senior households by household
type and income level. It shows there are household struggling with
housing costs across the entire income spectrum. The greatest need
is among small families (2-4 members) and non -family households,
which are typically people living alone or with unrelated housemates.
EXHIBIT 3
Cost -Burdened Households in Edmonds by Household Type Income Level (Seniors Excluded)
Large Family 80 50 10 0 10
Small Family 170
Non -family 215
150
380 330 245 645 1,770
270 340 110 210 1,145
Source: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 2010-2014 5-year estimates)
Workforce Housing Solutions
• Subsidized multifamily housing.
Increased production of small market rate apartments, including
studios, efficiencies, and micro -housing.
More "missing middle" housing formats like ADUs, duplexes, and
townhomes.
15
Packet Pg. 39
7.A.b
91MAIIIIJ044
RM DRAFT
EDMOND�- HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018
EXAMPLE: Senior Housing
Supporting Affordable
Aging in place for One in five residents in Edmonds is over the age of 65 and over
Edmonds Seniors 7,000 residents age 55-65 will become seniors within the next 10
years.6 Seniors are at greater risk of chronic disease, disability, and
mobility challenges. As a result, many seniors have special housing
needs that differ from the population at large. Seniors choosing to
age in lace may require additional support services such as home
g p Y q pp
modification, transportation, recreation and socialization, yard care, or
_ care management and counseling. While many senior households in
Edmonds have the financial means to afford appropriate housing and
services, many others will not.
Image: Unspash, Sam Wheeler Indicators of Need
Frank is a 74-year-old widower
3,200 senior households in Edmonds with incomes below AMI.
who has lived in a single-family
home in Edmonds for 46 years.
422 cost -burdened renters' households.
He loves his community and
Over 1,500 cost -burdened homeowners.
wishes to stay in Edmonds.
However, the cost of maintaining
his large home is becoming
Senior Housing Solutions
unmanageable. So, Frank would
like to build a detached accessory
Subsidized and market -rate senior living facilities with coordinated
dwelling unit (DADU) in the large
support services.
yard and rent the main building to
a young family who cannot afford
Detached and attached accessory dwelling units.
to buy a home in Edmonds. A
DADU would be the perfect size
Support services to facilitate aging in place.
for Frank and could be designed
with accessibility in mind so
that he can stay in the home as
his mobility declines. The rent
from the primary home would
be more than enough to cover
the loan to build the DADU. It
could also provide Frank enough
income to cover the costs of
other services like transportation,
grocery delivery, gardening, and
occasional visits from a home
health aide.
Currently DADUs are not
allowed by Edmonds code. A
key element of this strategy is to
relax these kinds of restrictions
to enable more housing solutions
for seniors and others.
6 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year estimates, 2011-2015
16
Packet Pg. 40
7.A.b
Housing Strategy DRAFT
Overview
The Edmonds Housing Strategy charts a course for supporting a
sustainable, inclusive community with a range of housing types for
households with different income levels and housing needs. It includes
six objectives for improving access to affordable housing across the
full range of housing types. The strategy is focused on reducing costs
of development, increasing housing production, and addressing the
specific needs of special populations in the city.
The 2016 City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan includes the following
10 goals related to housing in the community to achieve this strategy's
mission:
1. Encourage adequate housing opportunities for all families and
individuals in the community regardless of their race, age, sex,
religion, disability or economic circumstances.
2. Ensure that past attitudes do not establish a precedent for future
decisions pertaining to public accommodation and fair housing.
3. 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.
4. Maintain a valuable housing resource by encouraging
preservation and rehabilitation of the older housing stock in the
community.
5. Provide opportunities for affordable housing (subsidized, if
need be) for special needs populations, such as disadvantaged,
disabled, low income, and senior residents.
6. Provide for a variety of housing that respects the established
character of the community.
7. Provide housing opportunities within Activity Centers consistent
with the land use, transportation, and economic goals of the
Comprehensive Plan.
8. 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.
17
Packet Pg. 41
7.A.b
DRAFT
EDMi HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018
9. Increase affordable housing opportunities with programs that
seek to achieve other community goals as well.
10. 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.
The development and implementation of the Housing Strategy is
proposed in the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan also proposes that the
City track and report the development of housing over time, with a
target of 112 additional dwelling units per year to reach 21,168 units
by 2035. This target rate of growth is faster than Edmonds has seen
in recent years. Between 2010 and 2017 Edmonds added an average
of 68 units per year. More recently, since 2014, the City has added
107 units per year. To achieve the growth target, Edmonds will need to
continue increasing its rate of new housing production.
Considering the content of the Comprehensive Plan, this Housing
Strategy is structured around six priority objectives to achieve these
goals:
1. Encourage the development of multifamily housing
2. Expand housing diversity in the "missing middle"
3. Increase the supply of subsidized affordable housing
4. Identify and adopt strategies to address homelessness
5. Support the needs of an aging population
6. Provide protections for low-income tenants
For each of these strategic objectives, this Housing Strategy provides
a description of the general focus and intent with respect to housing in
Edmonds, a list of potential actions to achieve each objective, and next
steps for implementing these actions.
18
Packet Pg. 42
7.A.b
Edmonds needs to aggressively increase the supply of market -rate
multifamily housing such as apartments or condominiums to provide
a greater variety of housing options and reduce upward pressure on
housing costs. This can be facilitated by easing requirements and
providing new market -based incentives. These actions typically focus
on units appropriate for smaller households with one to two members
and between 60 and 120 percent of AMI, including some low- and
middle -income workers.
Recommended Actions
1.1 Support transit -oriented development along current and future
transit corridors. Some areas which have higher levels of transit service
can support transit -oriented development (TOD). This can include
not only targeted rezoning and code refinement for more intensive
development, but also support for a mix of residential, retail, and service
offerings, multi -modal transportation options, and parking management
that can support walkability and transit use. The City should coordinate
with Community Transit and Sound Transit to identify current and future
areas for TOD and review potential schedules for implementation.
Finally, the City should explore combining this action with an expanded
multifamily tax exemption (Action 4.5) inclusionary zoning program
(Action 4.6) to encourage affordable housing development.
1.2 Allow greater flexibility in multifamily zones Providing more
flexibility for new development, including greater building heights
or densities on a site allows more units to be accommodated on
available land in areas zoned for multifamily development. This not
only increases potential housing supply in Edmonds, it can also spur
redevelopment of older, obsolete housing by permitting larger projects
that would be more economically feasible to develop. The City should
identify targeted areas where increases building heights or density
levels would be appropriate and supportable by local infrastructure
and services.
1.3 Reduce residential parking requirements in targeted areas.
Reducing the number of parking stalls required for each new housing
unit allows for lower development costs by reducing the amount of
land necessary to accommodate parking spaces and the need to
DRAFT
19
Packet Pg. 43
7.A.b
DRAFT
EDMONDS HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018
11110ML, I i
01
Smaller houses that better fit existing
neighborhoods (top), more housing options
for people's changing needs (center), clear
and fair rules for narrow low development
(bottom)
EXAMPLE:
Portland's Infill Design Project
Policymakers in the City of Portland wanted to encourage building a greater variety
of housing types (such as duplexes and townhomes) in its residential neighborhoods
and reduce the costs of development. But it also wanted high design standards to
avoid impacting community character. To do this they brought together community
stakeholders to design a series of housing prototypes that meet City regulations and
design objectives and are feasible from a market perspective. The purpose is to make i
easier and faster for builders to develop the kinds of new housing that meet community
objectives. For more information see Portland's Infill Design Project Overview.
Source: City of Portland, Planning and Sustainability
accommodate parking within a residential building. This can also make
market -rate projects more feasible by allowing for more of a site to be
used for development. The City should explore where it makes sense
to reduce parking requirements, particularly in areas well served by
transit to facilitate TOD.
1.4 Provide for a fast, predictable, and user-friendly permitting
process. The City should work to improve the development permitting
process and related reviews. Faster permit reviews, predictable
timelines, and an easy to understand process and requirements would
reduce the administrative and carrying costs for development projects
in the community. This may be accomplished in multiple ways, such
as by increased department staffing during busy cycles, clear and
informative reference materials, public reports on actual permit review
times, and "one window" access for applicants.
1.5 Provide density bonuses for projects that set aside income -
restricted units. The City should identify locations where increases
in density or building heights could be allowed, in exchange for a
percentage of the units being allocated to income -restricted housing
for a specified period or an in -lieu payment to a City affordable housing
fund. This program would be a voluntary incentive to encourage more
multifamily housing production as well as income -restricted housing
production. As an alternative, the City could consider a mandatory
inclusionary zoning program as described in Action 4.6.
1.6 Explore the application of "micro -housing" style developments.
"Micro -housing" typically refers to multifamily buildings with very small
20
Packet Pg. 44
7.A.b
efficiency units (usually less than 200 square feet) or congregate
housing with private rooms and shared kitchens and other facilities.
Micro -housing projects can provide lower -cost options for one or
two -person households that do not need significant amounts of living
space. Modifications or relaxations of zoning and code requirements
should be explored to determine the feasibility of micro -housing in key
locations. Note that although this discussion is focused on workforce
housing, code amendments could be explored in conjunction with
those for flexible housing options for homeless residents detailed in
Action 5.1.
Additional Actions
1.7 Advocate for state legislation to promote condominium
development. The Washington State Condominium Act is interpreted
to subject condo developers to an implied warranty for constructions,
which has provided a disincentive for condo production in the market.
Edmonds should work with other cities when possible to encourage
the state legislature to revise the Act.
1.8 Coordinate communication and outreach to the development
community. Providing public information about city regulations and
incentives, especially those designed to encourage specific housing
types, should be used to support the use ofthese programs in Edmonds.
This can include web and hard -copy informational handouts, city email
newsletters, forums, workshops, and other approaches.
Next Steps
• Review developable lands and the status of developed single-
family areas in Edmonds to determine potential areas for
upzoning that could accommodate greater amounts of residential
development.
• When considering changes to development code, identify whether
new design standards may be needed to maintain community
character while providing developers with additional flexibility.
• Coordinate with Community Transit and Sound Transit to
determine appropriate locations for new and expanded transit -
oriented development and coordinate long-range land use and
transit planning for these locations.
• Continue to streamline the process for permit reviews and other
associated project reviews for new development and maintain a
DRAFT
21
Packet Pg. 45
7.A.b
DRAFT
EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018
clear and transparent system to allow the public to understand the
process. Provide information resources as necessary to educate
stakeholders about the development review process.
Review the current Community Development and Building Codes
to assess potential obstacles to the development of different
micro -housing options, determine the expected uptake of micro -
housing units, and provide recommendations for changes to the
Codes that would help to achieve housing goals.
• Coordinate with the PSRC, Snohomish County, other local
governments, and key stakeholders to lobby the legislature to
address issues with the Condominium Act.
Compile available information on the development process in
Edmonds, and provide the public with clear, easy to understand
guides to the process to improve transparency.
The housing market in Edmonds is primarily composed of single-
family homes and apartments. The development of a wider variety of
housing products is essential to meet the diverse needs of different
populations. Households at various income levels and stages in their
life -cycle (ranging from young one -person households to retirees)
will have different space needs and financial capacities. This range
of conditions can be addressed more efficiently in the market by
providing units in "missing middle" housing types such as accessory
dwelling units, duplexes, and townhomes. Market -based approaches
to expand opportunities for these developments can encourage a
more diverse and flexible housing supply that better meets the needs
of the community.
Recommended Actions
21 Allow more flexible requirements for accessory dwelling units
and backyard cottages. An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is a small,
self-contained residential unit built on the same lot as an existing
single-family home. ADUs may be built within a primary residence
(e.g., basement unit) or detached from the primary residence. The City
should promote the development of ADUs by modifying requirements
22
Packet Pg. 46
7.A.b
that prevent or discourage homeowners from adding a unit to an
existing property. This may include more flexible parking requirements,
changing owner occupancy requirements, allowing unrelated
households to reside in these units, and so forth. The City should also
explore the impacts of allowing some ADUs to be used for short-term
rentals as a source of income for local homeowners, including impacts
on the surrounding community and long-term rental housing supply.
2.2 Allow for more housing diversity in some single-family areas.
Most households cannot afford to live in a single-family home. In
locations near transit and commercial centers, it may make sense to
allow for a greater variety of housing types that still fit the character
of the surrounding community. These could include townhomes,
duplexes, cottage housing, or small -lot single-family units. Targeted
rezones to allow more flexibility can help to promote a wider diversity
of housing types on the market to meet the needs of a wide range of
household types and income levels.
Next Steps
• Review existing provisions within the Community Development
Code and determine the changes necessary to address major
obstacles in the development of accessory dwelling units and
other small housing formats.
• When considering changes to development code, identify
whether new design standards may be needed to maintain
community character while providing developers with additional
flexibility.
• Review developable lands and the status of developed single-
family areas in the community to determine potential areas for
rezoning to allow "missing middle" housing development, such as
duplexes and townhouses.
• Explore the wider application of form -based codes that could
support the development of "missing middle" housing in other
neighborhoods.
• Compile available information that would be able to support the
development of community land trusts in the city.
DRAFT
EXAMPLE:
Encouraging Accessory
Dwelling Units
The cities of Mountlake Terrace,
Shoreline, Lynnwood and Everett
all impose less constraints on the
development and use of ADUs
when compared to Edmonds.
The City of Mountlake Terrace
promote the development of
ADUs and detached ADUs on
their website and provide a
clear guide for homeowners
considering adding an ADU
to their property. Planners
in Mountlake Terrace report
a significant increase in the
number of ADU permits in recent
years as awareness of concept
grows in the community.
.It
Source: City of Mountlake
Terrace, via city website
23
Packet Pg. 47
7.A.b
DRAFT
EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018
Over 20 percent of Edmonds residents are over the age of 65.
Demographic trends indicate this share will continue to grow over the
coming years. Our community must consider the housing and lifestyle
needs of these older residents. For those that decide to "age in place"
in their current housing units, there will be challenges in accessing
appropriate health and social services as well as managing the ongoing
costs of housing with fixed incomes. For those that choose assisted
living options or care in nursing homes land use requirements should
allow sufficient options to be built affordably for their needs.
Recommended Actions
3.1 Pursue partnerships to support aging in place. One way to
address the housing needs of aging residents is to provide resources
to support aging in place and provide options for long-term care in
current housing units. Such programs could include home modification,
shared housing, transportation, recreation and socialization, yard care,
or care management and counseling. This may be best pursued in
partnership with another organization involved with elder care, such as
Aging and Disability Services of Snohomish County.
3.2 Examine property tax relief and utility rate/tax relief programs.
Low-income homeowners, especially seniors, can be at risk of economic
displacement when property tax or utility charges increase. Snohomish
County has a property tax exemption and deferral programs for senior
and disabled persons as well as propertytax deferral program for limited
income homeowners. The City could expand participation in these
programs through increased outreach and education. Additionally, the
City could develop similar programs to provide relief for the cost of
utilities to provide support to seniors and other groups.
Additional Actions
3.3 Reduce barriers to group homes and housing for seniors.
Housing in retirement and assisted living communities in Edmonds,
including nursing homes or memory care facilities, may have certain
code requirements (e.g., vehicle parking) that are less applicable to
the needs for seniors or other group home residents. Modifications
or relaxations of code requirements can help to reduce the costs of
development, as well as the associated costs of housing for seniors
and other special needs populations.
24
Packet Pg. 48
7.A.b
DRAFT
Next Steps
• Develop partnerships with nonprofit organizations involved with
elder care to coordinate a "aging in place" plan for city services
and land uses that will support residents of Edmonds as they age.
Review options for property tax and utility rate relief programs for
seniors to determine the expected uptake, fiscal implications, and
relative impacts of such a program.
Coordinate a forum with local and regional developers of
care facilities and nursing homes to review requirements for
developing these uses in Edmonds, and potential innovations to
reduce the costs of these projects.
EXAMPLE:
For many low-income households with incomes 60 percent of AMI or
Shoreline Density Bonus
below, it is unlikelythatthe marketcan provide housing that is affordable.
Actions should be taken by the City to support and encourage the
Under the Shoreline Municipal
development of income -restricted housing through direct funding,
code, density bonuses are
provided in multifamily areas,
reducing costs to build new affordable housing projects, and incentives
with up to a 50 percent increase
to include affordable units in new market -rate developments. The City
in density provided for units
can also encourage innovative private or nonprofit financing tools for
affordable for households with
incomes up to 80 percent AMI.
housing types that are more difficult to finance in the traditional market.
covenants are registered on the
These actions can be most effectively pursued in partnership with other
property to retain this affordable
agencies and nonprofits such as the Housing Authority of Snohomish
housing on the site for a 30-year
period.
County, Housing Hope, YWCA, Compass, Hazel Miller Foundation, and
Verdant.
Recommended Actions
41 Conduct an inventory of public and nonprofit land suitable for
affordable housing development. The City should assess its inventory
of surplus and underutilized parcels and develop an inventory of other
public- or nonprofit -owned that can potentially support affordable
housing development. This will enable the City to identify and prioritize
opportunities to facilitate new affordable housing development through
the direct donation of parcels or through funding from the sale of city
owned land that is less suitable for affordable housing development.
4.2 Allocate City resources to support new affordable housing
development targeted at 0-30 percent AMI. The City should allocate
25
Packet Pg. 49
7.A.b
Er
HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018
EXAMPLE:
Fee Waivers for Affordable
Housing in Everett
Affordable housing projects for
households of 50 percent AMI
or less in Everett may apply
for a transportation impact fee
exemption, which is granted
on a case -by -case basis.
An exemption requires the
developer to register a covenant
on title to ensure the site remains
in use for affordable housing.
Fees for development permits
may also be waived at the
discretion of the planning
director if a landowner agrees
to register a covenant on title to
retain affordable units on the site
for a 30-year period.
DRAFT
funding to directly support an affordable housing project targeted for
extremely low-income households. In addition to providing resources
for local affordable housing, a contribution by the City can greatly
improve the competitiveness for receiving additional grant funding,
particularly Washington State Housing Trust Fund grants that are
administered by the Housing Authority of Snohomish County. Funding
from the City could be used to pursue projects in Edmonds in partnership
with a nonprofit housing developer, or pooled to contribute to regional
housing solutions through the Alliance for Housing Affordability.
4.3 Pursue Section 8 voucher allocations. A major source of support
that can help low-income households access housing on the private
market is the Section 8 voucher program, funded by the federal
government and administered by the Housing Authority of Snohomish
County. The City of Edmonds should work proactively with the Authority
to secure additional project -based vouchers for developments within
the city where possible. This should be done in cooperation with third -
party nonprofit organizations where applicable.
4.4 Encourage the use of available grants and tax credits for
affordable housing development. The City should provide support
and funding to nonprofit developers interested in receiving financial
support from the state and federal governments. Among the available
programs, federal Low -Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs) can
provide tax credits for 10 years of up to about 9 percent of the qualified
basis of a building and are administered through the Washington State
Housing Finance Commission. Additionally, the State Department of
Commerce administers the Housing Trust Fund for the construction,
acquisition, and/or rehabilitation of affordable housing, preferably for
households with special needs or incomes below 30 percent of the
Area Median Income.
4.5 Expand the multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) program. The
multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) program is a voluntary incentive
provided by the City. Under this program, private multifamily housing
developments in certain designated districts are exempted from
property taxes for upto12 years if income -restricted units are maintained
in the development. This program is currently applied to the SR-99
Subarea and the Westgate Mixed -use District. It should be expanded
as appropriate to spur the development of affordable housing in other
locations.
26
Packet Pg. 50
7.A.b
4.6 Explore the development of an inclusionary zoning program.
Possible changes to the Edmonds Community Development Code
should be explored that would permit greater residential building
heights and densities in certain targeted areas, in exchange for a
percentage of the units being allocated to income -restricted housing
for a specified period or an in -lieu payment to a City affordable housing
fund. This can either be voluntary (as described in Action 1.5), where
affordable units are necessary for additional capacity, or mandatory,
where affordable units are required for any development on the site.
Since inclusionary zoning must be implemented as part of an increase
in development capacity, this should be explored as part of other
strategies involving upzoning, such as Action 1.2 and Action 1.3.
4.7 Reduce development fees for low-income housing. Fees for
development in the City of Edmonds include impact fees to finance
capital spending for community infrastructure, utility connection fees
to fund new connections with city services, and permit fees to cover
administrative costs of processing applications. Some discounts are
currently provided for low-income housing, and further reductions
should be explored to improve the financial feasibility of the
development while maintaining necessary funding for these services.
Additional Actions
4.8 Support community land trusts. Community land trusts (CLTs)
are a way to promote affordable home ownership by keeping
the ownership of the land with a separate nonprofit community
organization and providing renewable leases and portions of the total
equity to homeowners. Although these arrangements are not typically
implemented by local governments, the City can provide support for a
new CLT recently formed in Snohomish County ("Homes and Hope"),
including direct funding or the provision of surplus public lands.
4.9 Expedite the permitting process for affordable housing. The
City can prioritize the processing of permits for affordable housing
projects, which will reduce the time spent in the permitting process
and the associated costs with holding the property. Although this could
be used for high priority projects, the short-term focus should be to
provide overall support for streamlining the permitting process.
4.10 Support the use of Historic Tax Credits. LIHTCs can be used in
conjunction with the federal Historic Tax Credit (HTC) to rehabilitate
DRAFT
27
Packet Pg. 51
7.A.b
DRAFT
EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018
older buildings for use as low-income housing. Although this may be
applicable in individual cases, it is unlikely that this could be applied
generally to properties within Edmonds.
4.11 Coordinate with organizations to address special housing
needs in the community. This housing strategy focuses on general
community housing needs, as well as the needs of seniors, low-income
households, and the homeless. However, other groups in Edmonds
may have needs beyond the scope of this overall strategy. For instance,
some communities, such as artists, may benefit from affordable
housing that provides appropriate live/work spaces to facilitate in
home businesses that are compatible with the surrounding community.
The City should maintain a dialogue with community organizations to
determine how planning regulations and affordable housing programs
can provide the flexibility to consider specific needs for housing and
explore partnerships for new affordable housing development.
Next Steps
• Research the implications of expansions to the MFTE program
to new neighborhoods, including the expected low-income and
market -rate housing yields resulting from such a program, and
develop recommendations for changes to the MFTE to reach the
goals of this Strategy.
• Review existing land use capacity and expected impacts on
market -rate and affordable unit development from different
inclusionary zoning policies to provide recommendations for
inclusionary zoning policies to incorporate into the Community
Development Code.
• Evaluate the fiscal impacts and expected benefits from further
reductions in development fees for affordable housing.
• Compile available information to support applications for grants
and tax credits by developers interested in low-income affordable
housing, including how-to guides for completing applications and
relevant city data that can be used to support the rationale.
• Coordinate a dialogue with relevant community organizations
to understand what specific needs may existing for affordable,
flexible housing options.
28
Packet Pg. 52
7.A.b
People experiencing homelessness are often struggling with issues
that are beyond the scope of this strategy such as addiction, mental
illness, or domestic violence. The City can and should coordinate with
nonprofit and regional partners to identify roles it can play in helping
to tackle these problems. One of these roles could be identifying and
eliminating barriers to the development of emergency, transitional,
and permanent supportive housing for the homeless. The City is also
conducting a separate assessment of the needs homeless populations
as well as options for addressing those needs. This study should be
used to refine and prioritize the implementation of the options that are
identified and may include one or more of the potential actions below.
Potential Actions
5.1 Explore partnerships with the County and nonprofit service
providers. Work with nonprofits and/or regional partners to identify
opportunities to acquire and/or operate facilities that provide both
transitional housing and social services for the purpose of helping
homeless people overcome barriers to productive livelihood.
5.2 Support and reduce barriers to the development of permanent
supportive housing. The City could partner with nonprofits or regional
partners to develop new permanent supportive housing intended to
provide stability and integrate services that attend to necessities like
food and shelter without preconditions such as sobriety, treatment, or
service participation requirements.
5.3 Reduce barriers to single room occupancy housing. Options for
permanent or semi -permanent housing for low-income and formerly
homeless individuals can include individual room rentals with shared
bathrooms and/or kitchens. Certain code requirements in Edmonds
may limit this kind of housing, and modifications or relaxations of the
building code can help to reduce the costs of development, as well as
the associated costs of housing to these residents. Note that this could
be implemented in conjunction with efforts in Action 1.5 to allow the
development of micro -housing.
DRAFT
EXAMPLE:
Tiny Homes in Seattle
Othello Village is a city -
authorized homeless
encampment with 28 96-square
foot tiny houses and 12 tent
platforms. It is intended as a
short-term housing solution for
up to 100 people. The village
shares a kitchen, shower trailer,
donation hut, and security
booth. The city pays about
$160,000 per year to supply
water, garbage services, and
counseling on -site. Donations
from individuals, foundations, and
other organizations have recently
allowed all Othello Village
tiny houses to install heat and
electricity. The Village is owned
and operated by the Low -Income
Housing Institute (LIHI), which
also provide case management
services. Donations to LIHI also
fund the materials for the tiny
houses, which cost about $2,200
per house; construction is mostly
courtesy of volunteers.
M
Seattle has five other similar
encampments. These are
permitted for 12 months with the
option to renew for a second 12
months.
29
Packet Pg. 53
7.A.b
DRAFT
EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018
5.4 Reduce barriers to the development of temporary shelters
such as tiny home villages. New permanent housing can take several
years or more to develop. The City could explore whether to relax or
remove barriers to the creation of authorized homeless encampments
in temporary shelters such as tent camps or tiny home villages (see
sidebar example). This could allow for a flexible and low-cost temporary
housing strategy targeted at populations who are notyet able to access
more permanent housing options.
5.5 Explore partnerships to develop winter shelter programs. The
City could work in partnership with nonprofits to develop emergency
overnight shelter programs that operate during the winter months. Such
programs can also help connect homeless individuals with services
and other resources, including support services provided by the City
and the broader region.
Next Steps
Review the current Community Development and Building Codes
to identify obstacles to development of emergency shelter beds,
affordable housing options, and low barrier, permanent supportive
housing.
Assess examples of alternative housing options to provide
flexibility with housing unit development and determine necessary
changes to implement these housing options.
Explore partnerships with local and regional organizations
working with homeless populations to develop and implement a
"housing first" program, winter shelters, safe parking lot use, and
other targeted strategies to address both short and long-term
needs in the community.
30
Packet Pg. 54
7.A.b
Low-income tenants may be impacted by different issues in the market
that affect their ability to find safe and stable housing. To address
these concerns, the City should work to provide protections that help
ensure tenant safety, discourage discrimination, and aid those facing
displacement. Although these initiatives do not increase the housing
supply or address housing affordability, they can contribute to a more
sustainable base of renters in the city. They can also promote long-
term connections to the community.
Recommended Actions
61 Create requirements to provide fair housing information. The
City should work to pass ordinances that require property managers to
provide information to all tenants regarding tenant rights and property
manager responsibilities under federal fair housing law.
6.2 Create anti -discrimination requirements for tenants. The City
should work to pass ordinances to affirm that discrimination against
prospective tenants based on source of income, race, ability, or other
factors is not permitted, and provide protections against discriminatory
behavior by landlords.
Additional Actions
6.3 Provide rental housing inspection programs. The City could
provide for an ordinance or program to educate property owners,
managers, and renters about City housing codes. This could also
include requirements for owners to register all rental units and verify
their properties meet building standards. Note that this would require
additional City resources and should be assessed to determine the
capacity needed for implementation.
6.4 Develop a tenant relocation assistance program. The City could
also develop a program to provide financial assistance and services
to households that are physically displaced due to the demolition or
renovation of rental units. This program would be financed through
charges on the owners of the demolished units but would need to be
tailored to ensure that it would have a benefit to tenants while not
significantly increasing the costs of development.
DRAFT
31
Packet Pg. 55
7.A.b
DRAFT
EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018
Next Steps
• Develop a fair housing ordinance for review by Council that
requires the distribution of relevant fair housing information at the
time of a residential lease.
• Create a fair housing information packet to be distributed to
residential tenants upon the lease of a housing unit.
• Develop a housing anti -discrimination ordinance for review
by Council which affirms that the City of Edmonds prohibits
anyone from being denied housing, evicted unfairly, or otherwise
discriminated against based on race, ancestry, color, age, religion,
sex, familial status, disability, sexual orientation, source of income,
or national origin.
• Develop public information for distribution to ensure that the
public is informed about the anti -discrimination ordinance and the
process for reporting discrimination in housing.
• Examine the expected costs, benefits, and impacts on
development resulting from options for tenant relocation
programs and outline recommended program characteristics.
32
Packet Pg. 56
M m 46
03 ►I 901\ 1
7.A.b
Cover Photos
Top Row
(Left) Townhomes in Seattle.
https://wwwredf n.com/WA/Seattle/2850-S-Nevada-St-98108/home/8187294
(Center) Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (DADU) by Sheri Newbold of live -
work -play architecture.
Seattle Accessory Dwelling Units Draft EIS, http.//www.seattle.gov/council/adu-eis
(Right) Mixed -use, mixed -type, and mixed -income housing in the Westlawn
Gardens neighborhood of Milwaukee, WI.
https://planning. orq/awards/2018/westlawn/
Second Row
(Left) Highpoint is a development located in West Seattle with a mix of low-
income and market rate housing —it offers 1,600 housing units, with nearly half
being affordable, with a mix of publicly and privately funded units. High Point
offers a variety of housing styles and scales, and is integrated with retail and
civic amenities.
Mithun, Juan Hernandez, http://comm-aps.com/portfolio_ poge/high-point/
(Center) Low Income Housing Institute (LIHI) provides Tiny House Village
shelters in Seattle for the homeless.
https://lihi. orq/tin v-houses/othello-vill age/
(Right) Lovejoy Station in Portland, OR is a five -story apartment community that
serves residents with incomes between 40% and 80% area median income.
Edmonds Highway 99 Subarea Plan, https/wwwedmondswo.gov/2011-07-27-22-31-43/highway-99-
planning-project.html
Third Row
(Left) One way to address the housing needs of aging residents is to provide
resources to support aging in place and provide options for long-term care
in current housing units —such programs could include home modification,
transportation, recreation and socialization, yard care, or care management and
counseling.
Edmonds Senior Center, https//www.facebook.com/E`dmondsSeniorCenterl
(Center) Anthem on 12th is a workforce housing development in Seattle
financed through a multifamily tax exemption program.
Edmonds Highway 99 Subarea Plan, https/wwwedmondswo.gov/2011-07-27-22-31-43/highway-99-
planning-project.html
(Right) Cottage housing on Bainbridge Island.
HUD, https://www.huduser.gov/portal/cosestudies/study_102011 2.html
Bottom Row
(Left) Quixote Village is a tiny house community in Olympia, WA that evolved
from a tent camp for the homeless.
http://guixotevillage. com/
(Center) Capitol Hill Housing is a publicly owned corporation that developers
affordable housing and provides resident and homeless services in
collaboration with local economic development organizations, service provider
networks, and other affiliates. The Fleming Apartment building in Seattle's
Belltown neighborhood serves households earning 50% of area median income.
https://www capitolhillhousing.orq/ourproperties/buildings/flemin. php and https.-Ilwwwapartments.com/
fleming-apartments-seattle-wa/ycwvmns/
(Right) Section 8 Vouchers can be used by people with low -incomes to rent
market -rate housing units. The vouchers are intended to help people with low -
incomes live in neighborhoods that would otherwise be unavailable to them
within their means. Aline Ridge Apartments, pictured here, are a multifamily
housing development in Kirkland that accepts Section 8 vouchers.
https://www. kcho. orq/housinq/property aspx?PropertvlD=1
Packet Pg. 58
7.A.c
ndix A.
Edmonds Housing
Needs Assessment
The need for affordable housing in Edmonds is significant and growing.
Meeting these needs will require a variety of housing solutions that
match a diverse array of different household types and income levels.
This appendix presents an assessment of the current housing supply
and housing needs in Edmonds, across the full spectrum of household
types and income levels.
Household Incomes in Edmonds
When summarizing housing affordability by income level, household
income is typically compared to the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) Median Family Income, orAMI. In Snohomish
County, AMI is $96,000. Exhibit 4 compares AMI to median income in
Edmonds for families (households with two or more related persons)
and non -families. Family incomes are typically higher than non -family
due to the potential for dual income households. However, the gap in
Edmonds is particularly wide with the median non -family income being
less than 50 percent of AMI.
Snohomish County 2017 HUD
Median Family Income (AMI)
Edmonds Median
Family Income
Edmonds Median
Non -Family Income
Exhibit 5 on the following page breaks down all households in Edmonds
by income level and housing tenure. It shows a significant divide
between renter and owner -occupied households. Only 31 percent of
renter households earn at or above AMI, compared to 65 percent of
owner -occupied households.
DRAFT
EXHIBIT 4
Median Family Income
Source: HUD, 2017; 2012-2016 American
Community Survey (S1901); BERK, 2018.
35
Packet Pg. 59
7.A.c
EDMC
DRAFT
HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018
EXHIBIT 5
Edmonds Household Income as Percent of AMI, by Housing Tenure
All Households 11% 13% 10% 55%
L
Renter 18% 20% 10% 31% 0
O
2
M
L
Own er 10% 9% 65%
O
C
O
■ 30% or less ■ 30-50% 50-80% 80-100% _ Above 100% y
to
Source: HUD CHAS (based on ACS 2010-2014 5-year estimates). M
N
i
Housing Supply in Edmonds
There are 18,663 housing units in Edmonds. As shown in Exhibit 6,
nearly two thirds of these units are single family homes and nearly
one third are in multifamily buildings with five or more units, such as
apartments and condominiums. Only 7 percent of all units are in smaller
multifamily buildings such as duplexes, triplexes, or townhomes.
EXHIBIT 6
Edmonds Housing Inventory
SING
JTORY
1 7)
Single Family
Duplexes
Multi -family (3 or 4 Units)
Multi -family (5+ Units)
Mobile Homes
Source: Washington State
Office of Financial Management
(OFM), 2018; BERK, 2018.
36
Packet Pg. 60
7.A.c
DRAFT
Exhibit 7 breaks down the housing stock in Edmonds by number of
bedrooms (in green) and households by household size (in yellow). Over
60 percent of the housing units in Edmonds have 3 or more bedrooms,
yet over 70 percent of the households have only 1 or 2 members. One
explanation for this mismatch is the large number of "empty nest" or
childless couples living in large single-family homes. Nonetheless there
is a severe lack of smaller format housing available to single workers
or small families seeking to live in Edmonds. Likewise, there are few
options available to existing households in Edmonds, such as retirees,
who may wish to downsize their home and stay in the community.
45%
EXHIBIT 7
o
Household (HH) Sizes Compared
40r
to Housing Unit Sizes
N
O 35 %
2
Source: U.S. Census American Community
W_
Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2011-2015.
O 30%
_
v 25%
wL'
W
a
20%
4%
15% 11%
45%
_
G1
v
wL'
W
a
1 Person HH 2 Person HH 3 Person HH 4 Person HH 5+ Person HH
35%
No Bedrooms 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom 5+ Bedroom
37
Packet Pg. 61
7.A.c
DRAFT
EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018
Ownership Housing
The cost of ownership housing in Edmonds is on the rise and out of
reach of most Snohomish County residents. During the past six years
median home values in Edmonds have increased by $240,000. Today
a household needs to make over $150,000 a year to afford the median
value home. That is 159 percent of area median family income.
The ownership housing market in Edmonds is dominated by large
single-family homes. There are very few options for smaller and
middle -income households seeking to get a foothold in the ownership
housing market through the purchase of a condo or small townhome.
OWNERSHIP HOUSING
Median home values have
increased by $240,000
over the past b years
$554,400
$314,500
SEP I I
SEP'17
Sources: Zillow Home Value Index, 2017; BERK, 2017
$152,556
(159% of county AMI)
Annual household
income needed to
afford median
value home
38
Packet Pg. 62
7.A.c
Rental Housing in Edmonds
Rental housing in Edmonds is significantly more affordable than
ownership. However, costs are rising, and options are limited for low
and moderate incomes households. As shown in Exhibit 8, one and
two -bedroom apartments in Edmonds are affordable to households
earning 60 percent of AMI or above. Households earning 50 percent
of AMI cannot afford average rents for any unit size.
EXHIBIT 8
Affordability of Average Cost Rental in Edmonds Units by Income Level, 2017
80%
60%
50% or less
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Source: Dupre+Scott, 2017; HUD, 2017; BERK, 2018.
The rental market in Edmonds includes units available at a variety of
affordability levels. Exhibit 9 breaks down all renter households in
Edmonds by income level and compares it to the rental housing supply
by affordability level, based on Census data collected from 2010 to
2014. It shows that there was a significant shortage of units available
for households with incomes at 30 percent of AMI or less, as well as
a shortage of units for middle and upper income households (above
80 percent AMI). However, the following chart, Exhibit 10, shows that
average rents have risen by over $600 since March 2011at a rate of 4.6
percent per year. Therefore, it is likely that the supply of units affordable
to lower income households, particularly those below 50 percent of
AMI, is significantly diminished today. Furthermore, undersupply of
units at higher affordability levels results (>80 percent AMI) results in
middle and higher income households competing for units that would
be affordable to lower income households. This diminishes the supply
of units available to those lower income households.
DRAFT
39
Packet Pg. 63
7.A.c
EDMONDS HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018
EXHIBIT 9
Rental Housing Supply by Affordability Level Compared to Household Need
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
Source: HUD CHAS (based
on ACS 2010-2014 5-year
estimates); BERK, 2018.
Source: Zillow, 2018;
BERK, 2018.
Households
■ Units Available
1,925
1,150
975
435
2,235
940
<30% AMI 30-50% AMI 50-80% AMI >80% AMI
Household Income as a Percent of HUD Area Median Family Income
EXHIBIT 10
Average Rents in Edmonds, 2011-2018
C $2,500
21
c
0 $2,000
$1,699
Z1 -
$1,500
DRAFT
$2,327
$1,000 Jan-11 Jan-12 Jan-13 Jan-14 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Jan-18
i
40
Packet Pg. 64
7.A.c
Housing Needs by Household Type
This section presents indicators of housing need based on the latest
and best available data. Since housing costs are rising fast in Edmonds
and neighboring communities, it is likely that many of these indicators
underestimate the full extent of needs in the current housing market.
Most notably, the estimates of cost -burdened households (those with
housing costs that exceed 30 percent of household income) are based
on household survey data collected between the years of 2010 and
2014. A lot has changed since this period. In 2010 the region was still
in the early stage of recovery from an economic recession and housing
market decline. The recent period of rapidly rising housing costs didn't
begin until around 2013, near the end of the survey period. Despite
these limitations, these indicators do provide a sense of scale of the
problem among different household types and income levels.
Low-income Workforce Housing
Workforce housing refers to housing suitable for people whose place
of work is in the community. Nearly 11,000 people work in Edmonds.'
The majority of these workers are employed in the health care, retail,
accommodations and food service industries. Jobs in these industries
are typically low -wage. In fact, nearly 60 percent of jobs in Edmonds
pay less than $40,000 per year, or just over 40 percent of AMI. Over a
quarter of all jobs in Edmonds pay less than $15,000 per year, or about
15 percent of AMI. Workers earning these wage levels would have an
extremely difficult time finding anywhere to live in Edmonds without a
second job or a dual -income household. This helps explains why 87
percent of all workers in Edmonds live outside of Edmonds and 42
percent live more than 10 miles from their workplace.
7 Source ofemploymentstatistics: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap
Application and LEHD Origin -Destination Employment Statistics
(Beginning of Quarter Employment, 2nd Quarter of 2015).
DRAFT
41
Packet Pg. 65
7.A.c
')ND�- HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018
EXHIBIT 11
Low -wage Workers Commuting Long
Distances to Jobs Located in Edmonds
Very LAW Waqe Workers
Monthly Wage': up to $1, 250
Max Affordable Monthly Rent2: up to $375
936 �F
Commute More Than
10 Miles to Work
435
Commute More Than
25 Miles to Work
DRAFT
11518
Commute More Than
10 Miles to Work
ow Wage Workers
>nthly Wage': up to $3,333
ix Affordable Monthly Rent2: up to $1,000
658
Commute More Than
25 Miles to Work
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies 2015; BERK, 2017
(1) Earning up to this wage for their primary job. (2) Assuming they earn the top of the bracket.
Exhibit 12 provides estimates for low-income non -elderly renter
households who are living in Edmonds and have incomes between 30
and 50 percent of AMI (or between roughly $20,000 and $50,000 a
year depending on household size). It shows the largest need is among
workers living alone and smaller families. It is likely that the majority of
small families have only two members.
Market -rate apartment rents Edmonds are not significantly more than
what is affordable to many low -wage workers earning 50 percent of AMI,
42
Packet Pg. 66
7.A.c
EXHIBIT 12
Renter Households with Incomes 30-50% of AMI
(Households with Members Age 62+ Excluded)
Cost Burdened ■ Not Cost -Burdened
Persons Living Alone or in
Non -Family Hoseholds
Small Families
(2-4 Persons)
Small Families
(5+ Persons)
0 100 200 300
400
Source: HUD
CHAS (based on
ACS 2010-2014
5-year estimates);
BERK, 2018.
although this varies by household size. The biggest problem is the lack
of supply. Even in cases where market rents are somewhat higher than
the affordability level for lower income workers, many of these workers
could save a great deal of money in transportation costs if they had the
opportunity to live closer to their workplace. However, fully addressing
the needs of low-income workers will require more income -restricted
housing available to qualifying households based on income level.
Moderate -income Workforce Housing
Households with incomes between 50 and 80 percent of AMI are
typically considered moderate income and have unique housing needs.
Exhibit 13 shows the number of moderate income remter households
in Edmonds by household type. In addition to those households living
in Edmonds, there are over 800 workers earning 40 percent of AMI or
EXHIBIT 13
Renter Households with Incomes 50-80% of AMI
(Households with Members Age 62+ Excluded)
Cost Burdened ■ Not Cost -Burdened
Persons Living Alone or in
Non -Family Hoseholds
Small Families
(2-4 Persons)
Small Families
(5+ Persons)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
DRAFT
Source: HUD
CHAS (based on
ACS 2010-2014
5-year estimates);
BERK, 2018.
43
Packet Pg. 67
7.A.c
DRAFT
EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018
above that commute over 25 miles to jobs in Edmonds.$ Presumably
many of these households would prefer to live closer to their jobs if
suitable housing was available.
Special Needs Populations
Senior Households
One in five residents in Edmonds is over the age of 65 and this share
is expected to grow significantly during the next 10 years. Exhibit 14
breaks down the population of Edmonds by age group. This shows that
there are over 7,000 residents aged 55-65 who will become seniors
within the next 10 years.
EXHIBIT 14
Edmonds Population by Age Range
c 4,000
a � �
0 3,000
d
2,000
Source: American Community 11000
Survey 5-Year estimates,
2011-2015; BERK, 2017
Age LO 0- v o- v o` v o- v o` v o, v o- v o- v
O r r (V (V CO CO v v LO LO 0 0 r-, r-, 00 �
-0O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
c LO -a
D O LO O LO O LO O Lr) O Lo O Lo O LO O c
N N M M y v LO LO 0 0 r\ r� M O
LO
00
Seniors are at greater risk of chronic disease, disability, and mobility
challenges. As a result, many seniors have special housing needs
that differ from the population at large. Seniors choosing to age
in place may require additional support services such as home
8 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin -Destination
Employment Statistics (Beginning of Quarter Employment, 2nd Quarter of 2015).
44
Packet Pg. 68
7.A.c
modification, transportation, recreation and socialization, yard care, or
care management and counseling. While many senior households in
Edmonds have the financial means to afford appropriate housing and
services, many others will not. There are 3,200 senior households in
Edmonds with incomes below AMI. Over half of these households are
cost burdened and over a quarter of those households are renters.
Exhibit 15 breaks down these households by income level. The greatest
need is among those with incomes below 50 percent of AMI.
EXHIBIT 15
Senior Households (Age 62+) with Incomes Below AMI, by Income Level
1,200
O
s Senior Living Alone
O
1,000 Senior Family
O
2
800
600
400
200
Extremely Very Low -Income Moderate Income
Low -Income Low -Income (50-80% AMI) (80-100% AMI)
(<30% AMI) (30-50% AMI)
There are a variety of housing solutions that can help meet the needs of
low and moderate -income senior households. These include income -
restricted senior living facilities with coordinated support services
available onsite. Attached and detached accessory dwelling units can
also be a good solution for many seniors. For instance, many senior
households in Edmonds are homeowners. Those seeking to semi -
independently age in place with the support of family can do so by
moving into an accessory dwelling unit, freeing up the main home for
family.
Source: HUD CHAS (based
on ACS 2010-2014 5-year
estimates), BERK, 2018.
DRAFT
45
Packet Pg. 69
7.A.c
DRAFT
EDMC HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018
Homelessness
Homelessness in Snohomish County is on the rise. Since 2013 there 31
has been a 50 percent increase in unsheltered homeless persons,
from 344 to 515 in 2017.1 Chronic homelessness has increased at an r
even faster rate, from 135 in 2013 to 313 in 2017. Many factors can a�
c
contribute to homelessness and present barriers to housing stability.
These include poverty, lack of affordable housing, disability, domestic a
x
violence, mental illness, criminal records, and addiction. Reliable data
for quantifying homelessness within the City of Edmonds is limited. o
The 2017 Snohomish County Point -in -Time (PIT) count indicates that o
c
there were six unsheltered persons who slept in Edmonds the previous g
.y
night and four unsheltered persons whose last permanent residence
was in Edmonds. These are very likely to be undercounts. In southern w
Snohomish County, "job loss" and "family crisis/Break up" were the o
most common reasons for homelessness. r
Data about homeless students from the Edmonds School District
are more comprehensive. Exhibit 16 shows total homeless students
by school year, inclusive of all schools in the district (which includes
EXHIBIT 16
Homeless Students in the Edmonds School District
661
700 600 600
600 ■ Shelters Unsheltered
h 473
500 Doubled -Up Hotels/Motels I
364 403
400 281 304 289 331
300 .
2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17
School Year
Note: Data for 2016-2017 excludes 40 students in foster care to maintain consistency with the data collection methods used
in previous years. The school district's official count of homeless students for the 2016-2017 school year is 640.
Source: Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), 2017; Edmonds School District, 2017; BERK 2017
9 Snohomish County Point -in -Time County Summary For the night of January 23,
2017 https://snohomishcountywo.gov/DocumentCenter/HomeNiew/41603
46
Packet Pg. 70
7.A.c
the cities of Lynwood, Mountlake Terrace, Brier, Woodway, and some
neighboring communities). School districts in Washington State define
homeless students as those "who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate
nighttime residence." This includes categories such as "doubled -up"
households that are sharing housing due to economic hardship. After
a long period of steady increase, the 2016-2017 school year saw a
decrease in homeless students. Much of the growth in homeless
student population has been among those who are doubled -up,
meaning they do not have a permanent residence and are staying with
family or friends. Among just those schools attended by children who
live in Edmonds, there were 260 homeless students during the 2016-
2017 school year.
There are many causes of homelessness and many barriers to housing
stability, including poverty, unemployment, low wages, housing costs,
disability/illness, substance abuse, domestic violence/child abuse, and
criminal records. Housing solutions must often be coordinated with
support services to help homeless residents address the underlying
causes of housing insecurity.
Veterans
Edmonds is estimated to have 3,310 veteran residents, nearly 10
percent of the total population.10 These residents are less likely than
the general population to have income below the poverty level (only
2.6 percent compared to 7.6 percent of non -veterans). However, a
significantly greater percentage of the veteran population is living with
a disability (31 percent compared to 10 percent of non -veterans).
The latest Point -in -Time count surveyed 44 unsheltered veterans and
22 staying in emergency shelters. The overall number of homeless
veterans has remained stable since 2013.
According to the 2017 PIT report, Snohomish County has sustained
"functional zero status" on veteran homelessness under the
guidance of Opening Doors, a Federal strategic plan to prevent
and end homelessness.11 Function zero is attained when there is
"a well -coordinated and efficient community system that assures
10 U.S. Census American Community Survey 2012-2016 5-Year Estimates.
11 Opening Doors: Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness.
Retrieved from https://www.usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset library/
USICH OpeningDoors_Amendment2015 FINAL.pdf
DRAFT
47
Packet Pg. 71
7.A.c
DRAFT
EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018
homelessness is rare, brief and non -recurring, and no Veteran is forced
to live on the street. The Snohomish County summarizes resources
available: "Veteran specific prevention and rapid -rehousing programs
are offered, along with newly funded solutions. Sebastian Place, a
20-unit apartment complex dedicated to solely to house and provide
supportive services to homeless veterans has opened. A low barrier
veteran shelter program also began providing emergency shelter in
conjunction with services:'13
Based on the County's assessment, veterans may be well served
compared to other special needs populations facing housing instability.
Artists
The City of Edmonds Arts & Culture 2017 Economic Impact Study14
recommends that the City "integrate arts and culture's contributions to
the economy in new and existing community economic development
efforts." One way it can do this is consider actions to supportthe housing
needs of artists living in Edmonds. Artists typically have incomes far
below the level needed to afford market -rate housing in Edmonds.
They also often have unique housing needs that could be addressed
through new kinds of live -work formats that allow for studios or gallery
space on the ground floor of artist housing.
12 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, "Ending Homelessness Among Veterans Overview':
https://www.va. gov/HOMELESS/ssvf/docs/Endin p_Veterans_Homelessness_Overview. pdf
13 Snohomish County Point -in -Time County Summary For the night of January 23,
2017 p. 21 https://snohomishcountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/Homelview/41603
14 Currently in draft form. Will likely be published by the time
the Housing Strategy is released publicly.
48
Packet Pg. 72
7.A.c
ndix B.
Homeless Services and
Resources in Edmonds
Resource for homeless population in Edmonds are provided by
Snohomish County as well as local nonprofit organizations. The only
shelter in Edmonds is the South Snohomish County Emergency Cold
Weather Shelter, which is staffed by volunteers and housed at the
Edmonds Senior Center. This shelter is open any night the temperature
drops below 34 degrees. Other shelters are available in the City of
Lynnwood and elsewhere in Snohomish County. Several Edmonds
churches host meals and food banks and provide short-term services.
The cities of Edmonds and Lynnwood Police Departments share a
social worker outreach program that works to assist people struggling
with homelessness in finding long-term solutions that leads them
towards self-sustainability. This program is staffed by one social worker
who helps people to navigate the County's coordinated entry system
for accessing housing, finding access to appropriate mental health or
drug and alcohol treatment services, or assistance in securing other
resources specific to the individual's circumstances. According to the
current social worker, Ashley Dawson, the intent of this program is not
just to immediately house a person but rather to tackle some of the
issues that may be contributing to their homelessness so that they will
be successful once suitable housing is found.
Edmonds Police Department Patrol officers often encounter people
who are homeless, living in motor homes, vehicles, or in structures in
their family member's yards. These officers typically refer people to
the social worker. According to Ms. Dawson, the Police Department
has taken a progressive approach in recognizing that there are many
layers to a person's situation. She indicates that officers act as partners
in taking preventative approaches to supporting the full spectrum of
needs among the homeless population.
DRAFT
49
Packet Pg. 73
7.A.c
DRAFT
EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018
More information about services provided in Snohomish County are
available on the County's Human Services website.15 These services
include:
• Services to help maintain elderly and disabled adults in their own
home or in a community setting
• Drug and alcohol treatment for both youth and adults
• Mental Health counseling
• 24-hour services for persons in either a mental health or drug and
alcohol crisis
• Services to help low-income households meet their basic needs
or obtain specific help to overcome barriers to improving their
economic situation
• An Early Childhood Education Program for low-income families
with four-year old children
• Employment and community support programs for persons with
developmental disabilities and their families
• Community programs for children and families
• Help for veterans
• Weatherization and help for low-income households to pay their
heating bills
The Edmonds City Council recently set aside $250,000 in funds for
addressing homelessness. The City is currently conducting a study
to assess the needs of homeless persons in Edmonds and specific
approaches or programs for most effectively addressing those needs.
15 https://snohomishcountywo.gov/191/Human-Services
50
Packet Pg. 74
7.A.c
ndix C.
Glossary of Housing
Affordability Terminology
This glossary provides definitions for housing terms, acronyms, and
datasets used in the Edmonds Housing Strategy.
Affordable Housing
A home is generally considered to be affordable if the household is
paying no more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs. A
healthy housing market includes a variety of housing types that are
affordable to a range of different household income levels.
The term "affordable housing" is often used to describe income -
restricted housing available only to qualifying low-income households.
Income -restricted housing can be located in public, nonprofit, or for -
profit housing developments. It can also include households using
vouchers to help pay for market -rate housing.
In this report, "affordable housing" refers to any housing that is
affordable to the household that is occupying it, whether market rate
or subsidized.
American Community Survey (ACS)
An ongoing nationwide survey designed to provide communities with
current data about howthey are changing. The ACS collects information
such as age, race, income, commute time to work, home value, veteran
status, and other important data from U.S. households. ACS data is
used for demographic analysis in this study.
Area Median Income (AMI)
Analyses of housing affordability typically group all households by
income level relative to area median family income, or the median
income of all family households in the metropolitan region or county.
Median income of non -family households is typically lower than for
family households.
DRAFT
51
Packet Pg. 75
7.A.c
DRAFT
EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018
In this report AMI refers to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) Area Median Family Income. In Snohomish County,
AMI is $96,000.
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
A small, self-contained residential unit built on the same lot as an
existing single-family home. ADUs may be built within a primary
residence (such as a basement unit) or detached from the primary
residence (such as a backyard cottage).
Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (DADU)
An ADU that is detached from the primary single-family residence,
such as a backyard cottage.
HUD CHAS
Each year, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) receives custom tabulations of American Community Survey
(ACS) data from the U.S. Census Bureau. These data, known as
the "CHAS" data (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy),
demonstrate the extent of housing problems and housing needs,
particularly for low income households. The CHAS data are used by
local governments to plan how to spend HUD funds, and may also be
used by HUD to distribute grant funds.
The most recent CHAS data used for housing cost burden analysis in
this study reflect ACS data collected over a five-year period, 2010-2014.
Inclusionary Zoning (IZ)
Inclusionary zoning is either a local requirement or incentive for
developers to create some below market -rate apartments or for -sale
homes in connection with a proposed market -rate development project.
These below -market rate units are income -restricted, or available
only to households that qualify based on their income level. Rents or
housing prices are set based on the affordability level specified in the
ordinance.
IZ is often accompanied by a density bonus or other incentives to offset
the cost of providing the below market -rate units; other incentives could
52
Packet Pg. 76
7.A.c
include more flexible development standards, parking reductions,
fee waivers or reductions, and expedited permitting. Below market -
rate units may be required to be produced at the same location as
the market -rate units, but some localities have alternative compliance
options including off -site options, land dedication, and "fee in lieu."
Washington State sets the affordability period for these units: All units
developed through an inclusionary zoning program must remain
affordable for at least 50 years. Based on 2006 amendments to the
Growth Management Act, jurisdictions may use mandatory inclusionary
zoning programs as long as they are tied to an upzone or other
regulatory changes that increase development capacity.
A municipal or county ordinance which requires that a given share
of new construction be income -restricted and affordable to low- or
moderate -income households. IZ can apply to either rental or for -sale
housing products. In Washington State
Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE)
MFTE is a statewide program in Washington which allows the value of
eligible multifamily housing improvements to be exempt from property
taxes for a specified period of time, typically 8 to 12 years. The program
aims to stimulate construction, rehabilitation, or conversion of existing
structures to provide multifamily housing, including affordable housing,
in designated areas within a jurisdiction.
Cities can counties can choose to implement an MFTE program
within designated areas and select the requirements for participating
developers. These requirements can include a percentage set aside
of income -restricted units affordable to households at a designated
income level. Income -restricted unit must remain affordable for the
period of the tax exemption.
Tiny House
This term generally applies to small detached residential structures
that are 500 square feet or less. Some tiny houses are designed to
be permanent stand-alone residences. However, the term is also
commonly used to describe very low cost temporary shelters built in
"villages" with shared facilities such as bathrooms and kitchens. These
temporary tiny homes typically do not comply with local building codes
DRAFT
53
Packet Pg. 77
7.A.c
DRAFT
EDMI HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018
and often do not include their own electricity or plumbing. The City of
Seattle has authorized the development of six temporary tiny house
villages located on public or nonprofit -owned land. These villages are
intended to provide temporary housing for homeless individuals and
families and are typically operated by nonprofits who provide case
management services.
Packet Pg. 78
7.A.c
ndix D.
Preliminary Assessment
of Housing Tools
This Appendix includes 47 housing tools, or actions that the City of
Edmonds could pursue to address housing needs. BERK Consulting
conducted a preliminary assessment of these tools and presented to
the results to city staff and the Housing Strategy Task Force. Some of
the recommended actions in the Draft Housing Strategy are selected
from this list of tools, while others reflect refinements or revisions
suggested by the Task Force or city staff. These tools are organized by
the same six objectives featured in the Draft Housing Strategy.
DRAFT
55
Packet Pg. 79
7.A.c
91MA1212J044
RM DRAFT
EDMONDS HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018
Support transit -oriented development
(TOD) in applicable areas.
Areas which have higher levels of transit service
can support development which supports access
to regional and local transit systems. This can
include not only targeted rezoning and code
refinement for more intensive development,
but also support for a mix of residential, retail,
and service offerings, multimodal transportation
options, and parking management that
can support walkability and transit use.
Allow greater building heights and
densities in multifamily zones.
Providing greater building heights and
densities on a site can allow more units to
be accommodated on available land in areas
zoned for multifamily development. This not
only increases the total amount of units that
can be developed in the city, it can also spur
redevelopment of older, obsolete housing.
Kenmore, Bothell, Shoreline, others. Several
communities across the Puget Sound Region
have used TOD District Overlays or other tools to
encourage TOD around corridors with frequent
bus service. These include the nearby cities of
Kenmore, Bothell, and Shoreline, among others.
Lynnwood. The City of Lynnwood has three
multifamily residential zones with height limits of
35-45 feet. (link)
Mountlake Terrace. The City's RMM zone allows
for either 35 or 50 feet, depending on the location
relative to 216th St SW. link
Implemented in the Highway 99 subarea. The
City hasjust completed a subarea plan and has
rezoned areas along the Highway 99 corridor
and the Swift Blue Line. These areas are the most
promising locations for a local TOD corridor,
Sounder Station TOD. The neighborhood
surrounding the Sounder station area can also be
considered for TOD projects, especially if local
transit connections can also provide this area with
sufficient levels of service.
Current height limits discourage development.
The current height limit of 25 feet in many areas
may not be attractive for multifamily development.
Standard multifamily products in this region are
more compatible with the mid -rise height limits
in neighboring communities. Analysis of building
permits indicates nearby communities are
attracting much more multifamily development.16
Increase multifamily development capacity.
Increasing the allowable density of development
in areas close to transit stations or corridors can
increase the amount of multifamily housing that
can be accommodated in the City.
Transit access for less mobile populations.
Greater transit access can provide more
transportation alternatives for seniors, youth, the
disabled, and other sensitive populations.
Lower transportation costs. TOD provides
housing with lower transportation costs through
transit access and high walkability, improving
the combined affordability of housing and
transportation for a household.
Reduced parking. TOD can be combined
with reduced parking requirements in areas
where car ownership and use are expected to
decline. Reductions in parking can also reduce
development costs.
Improve development feasibility. Upzoning
to allow for more units in a project can reduce
development costs per unit. This can make
multifamily development projects in the city more
feasible and encourage unit development.
Increase multifamily development capacity.
Increasing the allowable height and density
of development can increase the number
Limited land supply. Edmonds has limited land are of multifamily housing units that can be
zoned multifamily, and expansions to development accommodated in the city.
capacity may be needed to meet local needs.
16 BERK pulled OFM data on multifamily production (5+ units in structure) by city for 2010-2017 and calculated percent of total housing unit production. Edmonds: 237
units (44 percent); Lynnwood: 1,040 (86 percent); Mountlake Terrace: 343 (60 percent); Shoreline: 1,286 (81 percent).
Locations limited by transit availability. TOD
project locations are limited to nodes and
corridors with high levels of transit service, and are
dependent on the maintenance of these services
into the future.
Impacts of increased height and bulk of
buildings. There are potential impacts to
adjoining single-family neighborhoods due to
bulk and shading from larger buildings. This can
be mitigated using a transition zone or design
standards.
Increases in rent and property value. The
desirability of these neighborhoods can increase
property values and rents beyond those which
may be affordable for low-income and vulnerable
populations.
Impacts of increased height and bulk of
buildings. There are potential impacts to
adjoining single-family neighborhoods due to
bulk and shading from larger buildings. This can
be mitigated using a transition zone or design
standards.
Limited area currently zoned multifamily. This
tool may be best paired with a rezone to expand
areas with multifamily zoning.
"Encourage the Development of Multifamily Housing" continued on the next page
56
Packet Pg. 80
7.A.c
Reduce residential parking requirements.
If the City can reduce the number of parking
stalls required for each new housing unit,
developers can reduce the amount of land
necessary to accommodate parking spaces,
and can reduce the need to accommodate
parking within a residential building. This can
make a project more feasible by reducing costs
and allowing more development on a site.
Provide fast, predictable, and
user-friendly, permit review.
Improving the development process for market -
rate and nonprofit developers could entice
more to build in Edmonds. Developers seek fast
permit reviews, predictable timelines, and an
easy -to -understand process and requirements.
Tactics to accomplish these outcomes could
include: increased department staffing during
busy cycles; materials that clearly explain
requirements and the application process;
public reports on actual permit review times
(to increase predictability for applicants); and
providing one point of contact for applicants.
Allow "micro -housing" style developments.
"Micro -housing" typically refers to multifamily
buildings with very small efficiency units
(200 square feet or less) or congregate
housing with private rooms and shared
kitchens and other facilities. It can provide
lower -cost options for smaller households
that do not need significant amounts of
living space. Modifications or relaxations
of code requirements may be necessary to
make this kind of development feasible.
PSRC/Other cities. Many communities across the
Puget Sound Region have reduced requirements
in transit -rich areas. The PSRC has assembled a
summary that provides more information about
changing requirements. (link)
Seattle. Seattle has no parking minimum for
new construction within urban centers, areas
designated for transit -oriented development,
or urban villages served by frequent transit (10
minutes between bus arrivals or less).
Bellevue. Bellevue has reduced parking
requirements for affordable units downtown, with
0.25 stalls/studio unit required with 60 percent
AMI affordability or less. (link)
Multiple communities. Many communities in the
region provide support and performance statistics
for their permit processes. Marysville provides
annual reports on permit turnaround times, and
Seattle reports on permit review times through its
"Performance Seattle" webpage. link, link)
Multiple communities. The National Association
of Home Builders' 2015 Report, "Development
Process Efficiency: Cutting Through the Red Tape,"
describes strategies used by local governments
to make development review more efficient,
including increasing staff capacity through
dedicated revenue from development services,
and creating a more user-friendly process. (link)
Seattle. After several micro -housing projects were
developed, the City of Seattle recently modified
the building code to place additional restrictions
on micro -housing. (link)
Kirkland. The City of Kirkland has permitted
micro -housing ("Residential Suites") with units
of 120-350 square feet in the Central Business
District and Totem Lake Business District. These
developments are required to have minimum
densities and common areas, and parking is
restricted to 0.5 spaces per unit. (link)
Implemented in the Highway 99 subarea.
Edmonds recently reduced the required amount
of parking spaces per unit in the Highway 99
subarea to -0.75 per unit (<700 sf), -1.25 per unit
(700-1,100 sf), and 1.75 per unit (>1,100 sf).
Wider implementation possible. These standards
in the Highway 99 subarea could be extended to
other areas of the City, or parking minimums could
be reduced further in the Highway 99 area.
Available resources to support implementation.
King County's "Right Size Parking" tool could help
to evaluate current parking minimums versus
predicted usage for different development types.
(link)
Permit review information currently provided
online. Edmonds Development Services already
tracks permit review times; publishing this
information on the website should not require
large additional resources
Potential for contracted support. Many cities
in the Puget Sound Region enhance their
development review staff capacity through
contracting with private firms. This may offer
more flexibility than hiring additional full-time city
employees.
May be allowable under current code. Edmonds
code doesn't have minimum unit sizes, but code
may prevent congregate housing (further research
needed).
Unclear if there is demand in Edmonds.
Additional research would be necessary to
determine if there are developers seeking to
build this kind of product in suburban locations
like Edmonds. These are typically found in high -
amenity neighborhoods of large cities. However,
it may make sense to provide for student housing
near ECC and CWU-Lynnwood.
Significant project cost reductions. Reductions
in required parking can provide significantly
reductions in the cost of building new multifamily
housing. These reductions result from avoiding the
costs of structured / underground parking, and the
significant land requirements for surface parking.
This can make affordable units more economically
feasible to develop.
Increase in demand for transportation
alternatives. Reducing the amount of available
parking can also increase the demand for other
types of multimodal transportation: walking, biking,
transit, etc. When used appropriately, this can
support improved accessibility by these modes of
travel, and can reduce household transportation
costs.
Reduces costs to developers. Reducing the time
necessary to process permits would reduce costs
for holding property prior to development, and
increase the number of developers interested
in building specific desired housing types in
Ix: ul"L.T11'an
Reduced development costs. Micro -housing
significantly reduces the development costs per
unit, particularly if there are lower (or no) parking
requirements. This can increase the viability of a
project.
Suitable for single -person households. These
types of units can meet the needs of single -person
households that do not need a substantial amount
of living area and can benefit from lower housing
costs.
DRAFT
Applications to areas served by transit. Larger
reductions in parking requirements may only be
possible in walkable areas and/or areas served
by transit, where the number of trips by personal
vehicles are lower.
Off -site parking impacts. If requirements are
set too low, there may be parking impacts in the
surrounding neighborhood as residents will use
street parking when on -site parking is unavailable.
Increases staff time and funding requirements.
Increasing staff capacity to provide additional
support for permitting, whether through
contracting or hiring more city staff, would require
additional funding support.
Increased parking demands. There are potential
impacts to parking in surrounding areas, especially
if parking requirements are relaxed and residents
rely on street parking.
May be limited to high -amenity locations. Given
the lack of private space, micro -housing is most
often appropriate for higher amenity locations,
often with transit services available. These types
of units will be less attractive in locations where
these community facilities and resources are
limited.
"Encourage the Development of Multifamily Housing" continued on the next page
CO)
00
t0
O
I
r
O
NI
U)
m
c
m
a
a
Q
a�
c
.N
0
2
U)
c
0
E
w
co
G
ai
Y
Q
c
m
E
t
0
Q
57
Packet Pg. 81
7.A.c
91"12124#
Rn 04 DRAFT
EDMi HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018
Lobby for state legislation to promote
condominium development.
The WA State Condominium Act is interpreted
to subject condo developers to an implied
warranty for constructions, which has resulted
in lawsuits against developers. This has had a
significant impact on condo development, as the
increased risk of liability has reduced the interest
of developers in this type of project. The City
could work with other stakeholders to lobby for
revisions to the Act, or pursue other options for
promoting these types of projects with developers.
Coordinate communication and
outreach to developers.
Keeping local developers informed about city
regulations and incentives, especially those
designed to encourage specific housing types,
could help get more of these projects built in
Edmonds. Communication methods can include:
web and hard -copy informational handouts, city
email listservs, forums or workshops, and personal
communication. In developer interviews, several
were unaware of City incentive programs.
Apply transfers of development
rights (TDR) in applicable areas.
Land preservation initiatives such as protection
of farmlands from development can often
employ "transfers of development rights",
where the development rights to lands
being preserved are managed through a
conservation easement. When these rights are
separated in this way, the landowner receives
the rights to develop at increased densities
in designated urban "receiving areas", which
can be sold to developers in these areas.
Seattle. Seattle's 2015 HALA report includes
this recommendation: "The City should work
with the University of Washington's Runstad
Center to explore options to stimulate the condo
development market, including revising the
warranty scheme in the Condo Act. (link)
Shoreline, Mountlake Terrace. Fact sheets
on topics such as ADUs, affordable housing
regulations, critical areas, and more have been
developed by these communities. (link, link)
Burien, Mountlake Terrace. Email lists are
maintained by these communities where users can
sign up for updates on topics such as planning and
zoning. (link, link)
Bellevue / King County. King County first
developed a TDR program in 1988, which has
expanded significantly to protect forestry, farming,
and critical habitat lands in unincorporated King
County. As part of an interlocal agreement with the
City of Bellevue, development rights from sending
sites in the County can be used to increase base
FAR and base building heights within specific
zoning districts in the Bel -Red area. (link)
Snohomish County. Snohomish County has
identified farm and forest lands for conservation
through its TDR program. This allows for increased
development in locations zoned as "Urban Center"
in unincorporated Snohomish County, as well as
areas where rezoning has allowed for increases in
allowable lots or dwellings. (link)
Outside the City's jurisdiction. This solution
requires action by the state legislature, and
cannot be enacted directly by the City. However,
there may be opportunities to better coordinate
with other jurisdictions advocating for changes
to the Act or working with the state Insurance
Commissioner.
Developer information currently provided online.
The Edmonds Development Services Department
website provides information on long-range
planning projects, code updates, fees, and other
issues. Adding information on incentive programs
or zoning changes would fit with current efforts.
Snohomish County program available. The
Snohomish County TDR program allows cities
to participate and designate "receiving areas"
through interlocal agreements. Edmonds currently
does not have an interlocal agreement with the
County for this program, however.
No strong linkage to housing production /
affordability. Note that while this program is
related to increasing potential density, it is not
directly linked with the production of market -rate
housing. In fact, this program could divert potential
sources of revenue away from programs such as
inclusionary housing.
Addressing the "missing middle". Supporting the
condo market in Edmonds could result in more
opportunities for ownership of "missing middle"
housing for small households.
Downsizing opportunities for seniors.
Condominiums are an option for senior
households seeking to downsize while staying in
the community. This can be supported by services
within these developments dedicated to the needs
of seniors.
Provides opportunities to advertise major
programs. A greater understanding of available
programs to support new development may
increase the number of developers interested
in building specific desired housing types in
Edmonds, as well as the uptake of these incentive
programs.
Encourages communication with the
development community. Providing ongoing
support for resources to the development
community promotes transparency with
stakeholders, and clear communication about
the expectations for development and the use of
incentive programs.
Paired with upzoning. TDR programs are typically
combined with upzoning in urban areas that can
support additional density.
Support for preservation programs. TDR
programs assist in the preservation of natural
areas, farmland, and other areas in the region
under significant development pressures.
Limited to market -rate units. New condominium
construction will support market -rate, owner -
occupied multifamily units, and is not likely to
provide housing that is affordable to low-income
households.
Increases staff time commitment. Staff time
would be required for creating additional
informational handouts and keeping them up to
date, and for administering email lists.
Increase in development costs. This program
increases the costs of development, which
can reduce the affordability of housing in the
community.
Diversion of funding to land preservation
from other housing programs. The additional
cost of development is transferred to rural land
conservation efforts, which are typically unrelated
to building affordable housing at the local or
regional level.
58
Packet Pg. 82
7.A.c
Relax restrictions on accessory dwelling
units and backyard cottages.
The City can promote the development of
accessory dwelling units for housing by relaxing
requirements that would make it less feasible for
homeowners to add these units to an existing
property. This can include reducing parking
requirements, changing owner occupancy
requirements, allowing diverse types of
households to reside in these units, and so forth.
Targeted rezoning of single-family
residential areas to allow multifamily units.
Portions of existing single-family neighborhoods
can be rezoned as appropriate to allow for
new multifamily housing. This may include
rezones that allow lower -density multifamily
housing, such as duplexes or townhomes,
as well as higher density development.
Create/expand fee simple
unit lot subdivision.
The unit lot subdivision process provides
opportunities for dividing fee simple ownership
of land to create townhouses, rowhouses
and similar fee -owned dwelling units as an
alternative to both condominium ownership and
traditional single-family detached subdivision.
Kent. In Kent, waivers to off-street parking
requirements are allowed near transit or where
available on -street parking is sufficient. (link)
Mountlake Terrace, Shoreline, Lynnwood,
Everett. Requirements for ADUs are more
permissive for certain cases in these communities,
such as allowing unrelated households in a unit
and allowing detached accessory units. (link, link
Seattle. The City of Seattle is considering relaxing
restrictions on accessory dwelling units further,
with possible changes in off-street parking
requirements and owner -occupancy limitations.
link
Shoreline. Recent rezones in Link light rail station
areas have redesignated single-family areas to
either low-rise (45 feet) or mid -rise (70 feet) mixed -
use zoning.
Mountlake Terrace, Lynnwood, etc.: Other
communities such as Mountlake Terrance and
Lynnwood have allowed unit lot subdivisions as of
2015-2016. (link, link
Potential for broad application across the City.
As 78 percent of the land in Edmonds is zoned as
single-family residential, and lot sizes are relatively
large, this policy could be applied over a wide
area.
More information about local demand and
impacts is needed. Additional research
into production of ADUs in similar suburban
communities with less restrictions could help
to evaluate potential demand and impacts on
relaxing these restrictions.
Potential areas for rezone in Edmonds. Single
family areas near the Highway 99 corridor and
Swift Blue Line may be good candidates for
rezone. They could serve as transition zones
to the General Commercial zone (up to 75 feet)
adopted in much of the Highway 99 subarea plan.
Limited land supply. Edmonds has limited land are
zoned multifamily, and expansions of these areas
may be needed to meet local needs.
Adopted in Edmonds. This tool was recently
adopted in Edmonds Community Development
Code, under ECDC 20.75.045. link)
Additional research may be necessary to review
implementation. Work may be conducted to
determine the uptake of unit lot subdivision,
potential limitations or obstacles to this type of
development, and policy changes to improve this
approach.
DRAFT
Increases the number of smaller, more affordable Neighborhood impacts. There can be impacts
dwelling units. Accessory units provide smaller I to neighborhood character and parking with
dwelling units that can expand overall housing
supply and choice, especially for smaller housing
types that are accessible to a wide range of
incomes.
Provides additional units in developed
neighborhoods. Promoting accessory units in
existing single-family residential neighborhoods
can also provide for more supply in areas with
existing development with less impact than infill or
redevelopment projects.
Increase multifamily development capacity.
Increasing the allowable density of development
through upzoning can increase the amount of
multifamily housing that can be accommodated in
the city.
Address range of housing types in demand.
Rezoned areas can be tailored to promote
opportunities for housing in the "missing middle"
in historically single-family neighborhoods. This
may include townhomes, duplexes, and multifamily
housing.
Eases development of townhomes and
rowhouses. This can increase the market supply
of ownership housing products that may be
affordable to middle -income family households.
Increases "missing middle" supply. Supporting
the development of townhomes can provide more
opportunities for households to access housing
that is priced and scaled for their needs.
Circumvents limitations on condo development.
Supporting unit lot subdivision can allow
development on a single building site to be
divided between multiple owners without the
need for a condominium, which can avoid the
disincentives for this type of arrangement.
accessory units, especially if usage is widespread.
Note that this can be mitigated through design
standards and appropriate parking requirements.
Additional investment from individual
homeowners. Accessory units need to be
constructed either as part of new construction or
renovation of an existing housing unit. This can
limit the rate of uptake as it can be based on the
investment decisions of individual homeowners.
Impacts of increased height and bulk of
buildings. There are potential impacts to
adjoining single-family neighborhoods due to
bulk and shading from larger buildings. This can
be mitigated using a transition zone or design
standards.
Limited to market -rate units. New townhome
construction can support market -rate, owner -
occupied multifamily units, but is not likely to
provide housing that is affordable to low-income
households.
"Expand Housing Diversity in the "Missing Middle"" continued on the next page
59
Packet Pg. 83
7.A.c
EDMi HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018
Apply targeted rezones to allow for
townhouses, cottage housing, and/
or small -lot single-family housing.
Targeted rezones in single-family areas can
permit more flexibility with building types in
projects, with the development of smaller,
less expensive housing units possible as
part of infill and new development.
Promote planned unit
development (PUD) projects.
PUD ordinances allow developers flexibility
to depart from existing zoning requirements
in exchange for fulfilling an established set of
planning criteria. These criteria may include
housing goals such a density, affordable housing,
diversity of housing stock, or sustainability.
Mountlake Terrace. The City of Mountlake Terrace
created a smaller lot overlay district near the town
center, including new design standards to ensure
the quality of new development. (link)
Everett. Everett had provided zoning for small lot
single-family dwellings, as well as development
standards for duplexes. (link)
Kirkland. Kirkland allowed demonstration projects
in 2002 for small -lot development, and these pilot
programs were permanently adopted in 2007.
(link)
Additional examples can be found at MRSC
website ( )
This PSRC tool description provides additional
examples and steps to implementation. (link)
This MRSC tool description provides examples of
implementation in different communities (link)
Potential areas for targeted rezones. Single-
family areas near the Highway 99 corridor and
Swift Blue Line may be good candidates for
rezone. They could serve as transition zones to
the higher density General Commercial zone
adopted in much of the Highway 99 subarea plan.
This PSRC document provides additional
examples and steps to implementation (link)
Available but not typically used in the city. The
City has this option available in the Zoning Code
as "Planned Residential Development" (ECDC
20.35). It has not been used for recent projects
given the scale of these projects and nature of the
benefits to developers.
Increases "missing middle" supply. Supporting
the development of townhomes, cottage housing,
and other housing types can provide more
opportunities for households to access housing
that is priced and scaled for their needs.
Can be implemented in tandem with design
standards. Targeted rezoning should be paired
with design standards that encourage pedestrian
orientation for higher density development.
Flexibility with development standards.
Negotiated standards for a PRD can promote more
efficient site designs and lower infrastructure and
maintenance costs
Applicable to a range of ownership types.
Although PRDs are typically focused on residential
subdivisions for owner -occupied housing, this can
incorporate the
Provides opportunities for site -specific
considerations. PRDs give the City an opportunity
to tailor a project design to meet goals for a
specific neighborhood or site.
DRAFT
Limited to market -rate units. New townhome
and cottage housing construction can support
market -rate, owner -occupied units in the "missing
middle", but is not likely to provide housing that is
affordable to low-income households.
More applicable to larger -scale projects.
Planned unit developments are intended to
be larger -scale projects, often at the level of a
subdivision. Negotiation for specific development
considerations may not be feasible for smaller
developments.
60
Packet Pg. 84
7.A.c
3. SUPPORT THE NEEDS ULATION 0
Pursue partnerships to
support aging in place.
Demographic forecasts indicate that the senior
and elderly population of Edmonds will grow
significantly over the next decade. One way to
address the housing needs of this population is
to provide resources to support aging in place.
Such programs could include home modification,
transportation, recreation and socialization,
or care management and counseling.
Promote or develop property tax relief
and utility rate/tax relief programs.
Low-income homeowners can be at risk of
economic displacement when property tax
or utility charges increase. Edmonds could
expand participation in the County exemption
and deferral program, and could also
coordinate similar programs for utility costs.
Reduce barriers to group homes
and housing for seniors.
Housing in retirement and assisted living
communities, as well as units in nursing homes
or memory care facilities, may have certain code
requirements which are less applicable to the
needs for seniors or other group home residents.
Modifications or relaxations of code requirements
can help to reduce the costs of development,
as well as the associated costs of housing for
seniors and other special needs populations.
Seattle -King County. The Seattle -King County
Advisory Council on Aging & Disability Services
is exploring models such as "virtual villages" for
supporting aging in place. There are at least three
different virtual villages in the Seattle/King County
area: NEST (link), PNA Village (link), and Wider
Horizons (link).
Bellevue. Bellevue's Utility Tax Relief Program
offers a year end rebate check of the utility
occupation taxes paid to the city. This program
is open to residents who meet low income
guidelines. (link)
Bellevue. The City offers low income seniors and
low-income permanently disabled persons relief
on their utility costs for water, wastewater and
drainage. Rate Relief offers up to 75 percent off
utility costs. (link)
Snohomish County. Snohomish County has a
property tax exemption and deferral programs
for senior and disabled persons as well as
property tax deferral program for limited income
homeowners. (link)
Additional research needed. While these kinds of
facilities are in communities across the State, we
have not yet found examples ofjurisdictions that
have taken actions to reduce barriers.
Identify appropriate role for the City. This tool
may be best pursued in partnership with another
entity such as Aging and Disability Services of
Snohomish County.
County currently provides property tax relief. As
noted, this program is currently in place for county
taxes for the residents of Edmonds.
Expansion of the program possible. Additional tax
and fee exemptions may be possible from the City
of Edmonds. This could be focused on property
taxes and/or utility fees.
Edmonds currently has facilities available.
According to WA DSHS data the following licensed
facilities have mailing addresses in Edmonds:
• 47 adult family homes (accept Medicaid)
• 5 assisted living facilities (no Medicaid)
• 2 nursing homes (accept Medicaid)
Current examples of new development. A
memory care assisted living facility was recently
permitted for development in Edmonds. Review
of that permitting process may provide insight
into the barriers (if any) with Edmonds code
requirements.
Addresses the growing needs from seniors.
Aging -in -place programs help address the housing
needs of a senior and elderly population in
Edmonds that is expected to grow considerably in
the coming years.
Reduced housing costs. Tax and fee relief
provides a reduction in housing costs for low-
income homeowners and those on fixed -incomes,
allowing them to stay in their homes.
Provides more senior housing options in the
community. Increasing the supply of senior
housing can provide more options for Edmonds
residents who wish to remain in the City during
their later stages of life. More supply will be
needed as the elderly population of Edmonds
grows in coming years.
DRAFT
Does not expand the housing supply or improve
housing affordability. These programs are
intended to provide seniors with the ability to stay
in their own homes, but does not include creating
new, affordable units.
Requires additional funding and administrative
costs. This program will require additional funding
from the City, and may compete against other
budget priorities.
Reduced utility/tax revenue for City. Encouraging
fee or tax relief for low-income homeowners
requires that the City address the shortfall in
revenue through cuts in services or increases in
charges to other residents.
Does not increase the housing supply. This
program is directed to existing homeowners, and
does not encourage the creation of new affordable
housing.
Additional research needed. Further research is
necessary to determine if there are any barriers
currently that can be addressed by the City.
"Support the Needs of an Aging Population" continued on the next page
.r
Q
bl
Packet Pg. 85
7.A.c
EDMONDS HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018
Waive or reduce utility connection
fees for affordable housing.
Development projects may also be charged
a fee to connect with city services, such as
sewer and stormwater systems. These fees
could be discounted or completely waived
for affordable housing projects to reduce
the associated costs to the developer and
improve the feasibility of development.
Kirkland. In 2017, the City of Kirkland passed an
ordinance to allow sewer, potable water, and
stormwater connection charges to be waived
"with respect to the construction of any shelter
or low-income housing project found by the city
manager to serve low-income persons" under
RCW 35.92.38. (Iink, link, rink)
Fee waivers would need to balance revenue
needs and cost incentives. Waivers of these fees
may provide further incentives that improve the
feasibility of new affordable housing development
in Edmonds. However, waivers must be balanced
with the need for this revenue to support
connections to local infrastructure.
Reduces cost to develop new affordable housing.
Eliminating or reducing utility connection fees
can reduce the costs to developers, which can
help to boost the feasibility of affordable housing
development.
DRAFT
Reduced City revenue. The cost of connecting
new affordable housing to services would have
to be funded with other revenue sources, or
otherwise passed on to utility rate payers.
62
Packet Pg. 86
7.A.c
Facilitate donations of land.
Although the City does not own significant
parcels of land that are appropriate for new
affordable housing development, it can play
a role in facilitating donations of land from
other organizations for affordable housing.
Coordinate rental assistance programs.
Rental assistance programs such as federal
Section 8 Public Housing and Housing Choice
Vouchers and local and county programs
supported by state funding opportunities.
Subsidies are based on HUD's Fair Market
Rent, which, in Edmonds, is set based on
the Seattle -Bellevue HUD FMR area (King
and Snohomish Counties combined).
Expand the multifamily tax
exemption (MFTE) program.
The multifamily tax exemption (MFTE) program is a
voluntary incentive that exempts private multifamily
housing developments from property taxes for
up to 12 years if income -restricted affordable
units are maintained in the development.
Bellevue. The City of Bellevue has provided direct
assistance in the form of leases or donations of
public lands for four affordable housing projects:
Hopelink Place, Habitat Eastmont, Brandenwood
Apartments, and Park Highlands at Wilburton
Apartments. (link)
Nationwide / Snohomish County. Section 8
Housing Choice vouchers are a federal program
available nationwide to provide rent subsidies
for households with 50 percent AMI or lower. For
Edmonds, this program is administered by the
Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO)
Shoreline. The Shoreline Property Tax Exemption
(PTE) program is offered in seven specific areas
of the City. Under the program, 20 percent of a
project's units must be rented at "affordable" rates
to qualify. For studio and 1-bedroom units, this is
calculated according to 70 percent of King County
AMI, with 2-bedroom or larger units affordable to
80 percent of King County AMI. (link)
Lynnwood. The MFTE program in Lynnwood
provides exemptions for apartment and
condominium projects of 50 units or more located
within the City Center. Tax exemptions of eight
years are permitted for any multifamily project,
with a 12-year exemption permitted if 20 percent
of the units are affordable. (link
Significant parcels of land available for
development. Although there are few larger tracts
of land available for new greenfield development
in the City, some institutions (including local
churches) do hold vacant or underutilized parcels
that could be used for developing new housing.
Supporting role for the City. As the City does
not have substantial land holdings to donate and
will not typically be involved directly as a land
developer, it will likely serve as a champion and
mediator for these types of arrangements.
Currently administered by HASCO. Local
management of Section 8 programs is through
HASCO. The Authority also manages rent -
controlled properties for low-income households
and households with special needs, and has
participated in voucher programs with the Sound
Families Initiative of the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation.
Institutional capacity in Edmonds. The City of
Edmonds does not manage rental assistance
programs as part of municipal operations.
Coordinating rental assistance programs may
require partnerships with public housing agencies
or other nonprofits.
Currently adopted in Edmonds. The City recently
adopted a new MFTE program in the Westgate
Mixed -use District and SR-99 subarea. The
program requires 10 percent of units affordable at
80 percent AMI and 10 percent affordable at 150
percent AMI. No projects have been built to date
under this program, however.
Lack of awareness in the development
community. Interviews indicated that there
was a lack of awareness of the MFTE program
among developers in the community. Better
communication by the City could increase
participation in this program.
Supports productive use of available lands
for affordable housing. Encouraging the use of
donated lands for affordable housing can move
sites that are currently vacant or underutilized into
productive use to support affordability in the local
market.
Addresses costs of land acquisition to affordable
housing projects. As land prices can be one major
factor in the feasibility of nonprofit affordable
housing projects, providing land at a low cost can
improve the feasibility of development.
Significant demand for housing subsidies could
be met. Additional investment by Edmonds could
provide direct subsidies to support housing
affordability to vulnerable populations in the city
itself. This could provide a direct means to support
affordability in the city.
Affordable units built and managed by private
developers. The City is required to monitor the
status of affordable units provided by private
developers for the MFTE program
Helps provide housing for moderate- and middle -
income households. MFTE programs can require
housing affordable to 80 percent of AMI, providing
opportunities for housing to meet the needs of this
income group that may otherwise be priced out of
the community.
Can provide incentives for market -rate housing.
MFTE programs may also be used to promote the
development of new multifamily housing units that
are not income restricted in specific areas where
redevelopment is desirable.
DRAFT
Cooperation with other stakeholders required.
As the City of Edmonds does not have substantial
surplus land reserves to donate, the success of
land donation programs will require coordination
with other stakeholders. While the City can
mediate these efforts, it will require decisions
by these organizations to succeed, and may be
subject to goals and considerations specific to
these organizations.
Institutional capacity for administering rental
assistance is limited. Although providing rental
assistance may contribute needed resources to
these programs, administration by the City may
be difficult given the current lack of local capacity.
Coordination with existing public housing agencies
such as HASCO would be more effective.
Expiration of program benefits. Under the
legislation, affordability requirements for units
built under this program will expire after 12 years.
These could be retained as affordable units, but it
would require additional expenditures by the City.
Reduced City revenue. An MFTE program will
reduce future property tax revenue from the
corresponding development, which could have
fiscal impacts if its use is widespread in the City.
Not applicable for very low income households.
This incentive is typically only feasible if the
income -restricted units are targeted at 80
percent of AMI or above. Requiring units at lower
affordability levels would reduce the economic
feasibility and therefore lower the likelihood that
a developer would choose to participate in the
program.
"Increase the Supply of Income -restricted Affordable Housing" continued on the next page
63
Packet Pg. 87
7.A.c
91612124#
mm 04 DRAFT
EDMi HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018
Develop voluntary inclusionary zoning
/ density bonusing programs.
Changes to the Edmonds Municipal Code
can permit greater building height and/
or densities for residential developments in
certain areas, in exchange for a percentage
of the units being allocated to affordable
housing for a specified period.
Waive or reduce impact fees
for affordable housing.
Impact fees in the City of Edmonds are collected
to finance capital spending for community
infrastructure such as parks and streets.
Discounts are provided for certain levels of
affordable housing. This program could be
modified to further reduce or waive impact
fees for new affordable housing, which would
reduce development costs and improve the
financial feasibility of the development.
Shoreline. Under the Shoreline Municipal Code,
density bonuses are provided in multifamily
areas, with up to a 50 percent increase in density
provided for units affordable for households up to
80 percent AMI. Covenants are registered on the
property to retain this affordable housing on the
site for a 30-year period. (link)
Federal Way. Multifamily housing that includes
affordable housing (80 percent AMI) can include
one bonus market rate unit for each affordable
unit included in the project. In single-family
developments with affordable units, lot sizes may
be reduced by 20 percent. Units are required to
be affordable for the lifetime of the project through
a covenant on the land. (link)
Everett. Affordable housing projects for
households of 50 percent median family income
or less in Everett may apply for a transportation
impact fee exemption, which is granted on a
case -by -case basis. An exemption requires the
developer to register a covenant on title to ensure
the site remains in use for affordable housing. (link)
Bellingham. Affordable housing projects for
households of 80 percent median family income or
lower may receive exemptions from 80 percent of
applicable park, transportation, and school impact
fees. These exemptions require a covenant to be
registered with the property. (link, link, link)
Fiscal assessment required. The feasibility for
inclusionary zoning requirements must be carefully
designed to provide enough incentives to make
development feasible.
An Urban Land Institute report provides guidance
on optimizing the effectiveness of incentives for
inclusionary development. (link)
Additional resources from the PSRC provide
details about inclusionary zoning. (link)
MRSC provides links to other resources related
to inclusionary zoning. (link)
Currently adopted in Edmonds. Discounts for
certain impact fees are already implemented
in Edmonds for new affordable housing
development.
Further discounts or waivers would need to
balance revenue needs and cost incentives.
Additional discounts/waivers of impact fees
may provide further incentives that improve the
feasibility of new affordable housing development
in Edmonds. This must be balanced, however,
with the need for this revenue to support local
infrastructure.
No public funding required. As inclusionary
zoning provides incentives through increased
entitlements for development on a site, these
projects do not require direct public investment or
diversion of revenue from the City.
Units built and managed by private developers.
The units developed from inclusionary zoning
are managed over the long term by private
developers, and do not require intervention by the
City.
Reduces the cost to develop new affordable
housing. Eliminating or reducing impact fees
can reduce the costs to developers, which can
help to boost the feasibility of affordable housing
development.
Expiration of program benefits. Under
inclusionary zoning requirements, affordability
requirements for units built under this program
will expire after a specific period (typically longer
than for MFTE programs). These could be retained
as affordable units, but it would require additional
expenditures by the City.
Impacts of increased height and bulk of
buildings. There are potential impacts to
adjoining single-family neighborhoods due to
bulk and shading from larger buildings. This can
be mitigated using a transition zone or design
standards.
Not applicable for very low income households.
This incentive is typically only feasible if the
income -restricted units are targeted at 80
percent of AMI or above. Requiring units at lower
affordability levels would reduce the economic
feasibility and therefore lower the likelihood that
a developer would choose to participate in the
program.
Reduced City revenue. Waiving impact fees
can reduce revenue for the City that is typically
earmarked for capital improvement programs,
such as for parks and streets. This may also
require the City to expend other funds directly to
replace these fees (depending on the amount of
the waiver).
"Increase the Supply of Income -restricted Affordable Housing" continued on the next page
CO)
r
to
0
00
I
0
NI
N
a�
U
=a
c
m
a
a
Q
a�
c
.N
0
2
c
0
E
w
L
0
ai
r
Q
C
E
t
a
64
Packet Pg. 88
7.A.c
Support community land trusts.
Community land trusts (CLTs) are one way
to enable stakeholders to get involved in
the development of affordable housing
through land ownership. This involves
alternative ownership structures for land
that can reduce costs for development.
Expedite the permitting process
for affordable housing.
The City can choose to prioritize the processing of
permits for affordable housing projects, which will
reduce the time spent in the permitting process
and the associated costs with holding the property.
Provide historic tax credits.
At the federal level, Low -Income Housing Tax
Credits (LIHTC) can be used in conjunction with
the Historic Tax Credit (HTC) to rehabilitate
older buildings for use as low-income housing.
At the local level, this can be supported
through special assessments of the value of
certain historic buildings after rehabilitation.
Homestead Community Land Trust (Renton,
Seattle, Tukwila). Homestead Community Land
Trust is a local CLT with projects throughout King
County, many of which involve the local city as a
partner. Homebuyers typically have incomes from
60-80 percent AMI to qualify for the program.
(link)
Pierce County. Affordable housing projects for
households with less than 80 percent of Pierce
County median income can pursue an expedited
permit process. Under this process, the permit
is considered a priority for review by county
departments, and a project manager from the
Department of Planning and Land Services is
assigned to coordinate the review process. (link)
Seattle. Properties such as the Pacific Hotel and
the Downtowner Hotel in the City of Seattle have
been rehabilitated into affordable housing units
through a combination of LIHTCs and HTCs. (link)
Oriented to a range of possible housing types.
CLTs can be employed in different situations where
down payments or monthly mortgage payments
are a significant obstacle to homeownership. As a
result, this can include a range of owner -occupied
housing types, including townhomes, duplexes,
cottage housing, and single-family detached
housing.
Requires an assessment of potential sites
for use. Although this could be appropriate
for Edmonds, identifying appropriate sites for
CLTs will require an evaluation of properties,
including opportunities for donations of land in the
community.
Balance between permit processing times
for different development types. Unless the
permitting department is expanded, prioritizing
one permit type leads to more delays for
other permit types. This could result in making
Edmonds a less desirable location for market -rate
development.
Applicable for developers. Tax credits under the
HTC program are applicable for developers only.
The City of Edmonds may have a role in promoting
this program with developers, and providing
support for applications.
Additional research required for historic tax
credits. Program criteria from the US Department
of Housing and Urban Development indicates
funds can only can be used for income -producing
certified historic structures. Further research
required to determine if there are any such
structures that are appropriate to be used for
affordable housing in Edmonds, but widespread
use is unlikely. (link)
Provides affordable homeownership. CLTs are a
model to enable affordable home ownership for
lower income households, and can reduce the
down payments and monthly costs for households
to access single-family housing units in the
community.
Viable as a long-term program. Re -selling
households are often required to sell the home at
resale -restricted and affordable price to another
low-income household. This ensures the unit
maintains permanent affordability.
Reduces time and costs to build new affordable
housing. Expediting these permits can reduce
the amount of time this process will take for
developers. This can also reduce associated costs
with holding property and carrying financing.
Provides an external source of fiscal support.
Tax credits from the federal level can offset up
to 20 percent of the costs of rehabilitating older
buildings for affordable housing.
Supports reuse of historic buildings in the
community. In communities that have historic
buildings available for reuse, these credits can be
applied to repurpose these buildings to provide
value for the community.
DRAFT
Land and capital required to begin a land trust.
CLTs typically require donations of land and capital
to the managing trust to start up projects. The
availability of sites and funding may impact the
feasibility of a trust to operate in Edmonds, but
the City could serve in a coordinating role for this
work.
Focuses on owner -occupied housing. CLTs are
focused on owner -occupied housing, and typically
include single-family options for larger households.
This model does not include income -restricted
rental housing for lower -income households.
Increases delays in processing other
applications. Providing expedited services
will delay other projects, potentially those that
will contribute additional housing. Developers
interviewed for this study expressed frustration
with delays under the current system, and further
delays could make the market less attractive for
new market -rate housing.
Supports building reuse only. Historic tax credits
are not applicable to new development, only
building reuse.
Limited to historic buildings. These tax credits
are allocated for rehabilitating certified historic
buildings with a "substantial investment" for use as
low-income housing. In the case of Edmonds, this
tax credit would not be applicable to a wide range
of sites.
"Increase the Supply of Income -restricted Affordable Housing" continued on the next page
a�
W
L
W
a�
c
y
M
0
2
M
L
0
c
0
.y
N
7
U
0
65
Packet Pg. 89
7.A.c
IEDMi •
4. INCREASE THE SUPPLY OF INCOME -RESTRICTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Support low-income housing tax credits.
The federal government provides Low -Income
Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) for use in subsidizing
affordable low-income housing projects through
tax credits of up to approximately 9 percent of the
amount of a building's qualified basis annually for
10 years. In Washington State, these tax credits are
issued by the State Housing Finance Commission,
which requires applications for prospective
projects interested in receiving these credits.
Waive or reduce building permit
fees for affordable housing.
Permit fees are charged by the City to cover
the costs of reviewing and auditing building
and development permits during the process of
construction. These fees could be discounted
or waived for affordable housing projects to
reduce the associated costs to the developer
and improve the feasibility of development.
Establish linkage fees.
Fee charged to developers for every square
foot of new development. Funds used
to pay for new affordable housing.
Everett. Housing Hope Properties was approved
for almost $1.4 million in tax credits for HopeWorks
Station II, a 65-unit mixed -use affordable housing
project for disadvantaged veterans, families, and
youth that incorporates a 1,000-sf kitchen as a
community meeting place and location for culinary
training programs. (link)
Renton. The Low -Income Housing Institute (LIHI)
successfully applied for $984,979 in tax credits for
Renton Commons, a 48-unit affordable housing
building in downtown Renton. Half of the units
in the building are reserved for households at
50 percent AMI or less, and half are reserved for
households at 30 percent AMI or less.
Everett. Fees for development permits may be
waived at the discretion of the planning director if
a landowner agrees to register a covenant on title
to retain affordable units on the site for a 30-year
period. (link)
Kirkland. Development permit fees are waived in
Kirkland for affordable units and the associated
bonus market -rate units developed under
inclusionary zoning requirements. (link)
Seattle. The recently adopted Mandatory Housing
Affordability (inclusionary zoning) legislation
includes a "performance option" which charges
a per square foot fee on all new commercial
development in designated areas, with funds
dedicated to affordable housing.
Applicable for developers. Tax credits under the
LIHTC program are applicable for developers only
The City can provide support for applications and
promote this program with developers.
Fee waivers would need to balance revenue
needs and cost incentives. Waivers of these fees
may provide further incentives that improve the
feasibility of new affordable housing development
in Edmonds. However, waivers must be balanced
with the need for this revenue to support staff
resources to process permits, and the costs that
would be distributed to other applicants.
Additional research required. Evaluation could
be informed by a comparison of developer cost
burdens in Edmonds to other communities.
Adopting a fee that is too high can be a
disincentive to development when similar
opportunities can be found in neighboring
communities.
Provides significant tax credits to support
development or rehabilitation. Under the LIHTC
program, up to around 9 percent of the amount
of a building's qualified basis annually for 10
years, up to a present value of 70 percent of the
building's qualified basis. A 4 percent annual credit
up to 30 percent of present value is available
for projects receiving federal subsidies or for
rehabilitation.
Support for special needs populations. Additional
consideration is provided in the application for
LIHTCs to projects that provide housing for the
homeless, large households, the disabled, and the
elderly.
Support for specific types of projects. In addition
to special needs populations, LIHTC applications
favor projects in transit -oriented areas and areas
at risk for market conversion, as well as projects
involving donations, nonprofits, and public funding.
Reduces cost to develop new affordable housing.
Eliminating or reducing building permit fees can
reduce the costs to developers, which can help
to boost the feasibility of affordable housing
development.
New funding source for permanent affordable
housing. Funds can be targeted to specific groups
in need who aren't addressed by other tools.
Applications and competitive review required.
Tax credits under this program are issued by the
Housing Finance Commission from a limited pool
under a competitive process, and receiving credits
under the program is not guaranteed.
Potential for reduced City revenue. Waiving
building permit fees will reduce the revenue
received by the City specifically to offset the
costs of permit review and processing. This would
require the City to offset these losses with other
sources of funding.
Potential increases in other building permit fees.
If the need for additional revenue from permit fees
is passed to other applicants, this can increase the
costs of other permits and reduce the feasibility of
these types of development.
Disincentive to development in Edmonds.
Particularly if not implemented in neighboring
communities. May reduce the production of new
housing supply.
"Increase the Supply of Income -restricted Affordable Housing" continued on the next page
Packet Pg. 90
7.A.c
Develop mandatory inclusionary zoning.
A requirement that all new development
include a certain percentage of units that
are affordable and rented to qualifying low-
income households. Some programs provide
the option of paying a fee instead of providing
housing on site. Fees are then used by the
City to fund affordable housing elsewhere.
Apply for Washington State
Housing Trust Fund grants.
The Washington State Department of Commerce
(DOC) administers a Housing Trust Fund (link),
which can be used to support projects involving
the construction, acquisition, and/or rehabilitation
of affordable housing, preferably for households
with special needs or incomes below 30 percent of
the Area Median Income. Other expenses related
to low-income housing may also be eligible.
Apply for CDBG and other HUD grants.
The US Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) program and other sources of grant
funding are administered by the US Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Edmonds
is a member of an Urban County Consortium
in Snohomish County which administers funds
from HUD in partnership with cities through
an interlocal agreement. These funds can be
used to support rehabilitation and infrastructure
development to support affordable housing.
Redmond. Requires 10 percent of units to be
affordable to an 80 percent AMI household.
Applies to all new residential and mixed -use
development in several neighborhoods. "ink
Issaquah. The City of Issaquah provides both
mandatory and voluntary programs, with the
primary focus of the mandatory programs on 70
percent AMI households. link
Seattle. The Mandatory Housing Affordability
(MHA) program requires 5-11 percent of units
in new multifamily buildings to be affordable, or
payment of an in -lieu fee. (link
Federal Way. The City requires 5 percent of rental
units to be affordable at 80 percent AMI, with up to
10 percent additional market units permitted. link
Communities across Washington State.
Nonprofit housing providers across the region
access Housing Trust Fund support for financing
affordable housing projects.
Snohomish County. Deadline for 2019 grant
applications for public facilities and infrastructure
projects is likely to be in fall 2018. Applications
must be consistent with the 5-year consolidated
plan, and the applicant can be a city or nonprofit.
link
Must be paired with upzone. Washington State
law requires cities to implement a rezone allowing
additional height or density when implementing
mandatory inclusionary zoning.
Additional research required. Research is
necessary to determine appropriate affordability
requirements that still incentivize market rate
production while also providing affordable units.
Funding uncertainty. For 2017, trust fund is
unfunded by Washington State legislature due to
failure to pass a Capital Budget. Future funding
availability will be dependent on future Capital
Budgets.
Additional research required. Research is
necessary to determine the competitiveness of a
specific proposal from Edmonds.
Generally, only for low-income areas. There are
no Low -Income Housing Tax Credit qualifying
census tracts in the City of Edmonds. Additional
research would be required to determine if this
makes Edmonds less competitive for all grant
types.
New affordable housing. Provides new affordable
housing funded by developers, and thus requires
no city investment.
Mixed -income projects. The inclusion of
affordable units in market -rate developments
allows for a mix of incomes, providing better
outcomes for families and children.
State funding source for affordable housing
projects. The Housing Trust Fund represents a
state -level funding source available for housing
projects.
New funding source. These grants would provide
an external source of funds for public facilities
and infrastructure projects that support affordable
housing.
DRAFT
Can be a disincentive to new development.
Particularly if the requirements are set too high.
This can paradoxically result in less new affordable
housing than would be the case with lower
requirements.
Competitive process. An application under this
process may not result in a successful grant.
Focus of the grants. Priority for grants is given to
projects with local government contributions and
several other factors.
Requires successful application. Funding
from these grants is limited, and a competitive
application is required to secure funds for specific
projects or programs.
"Increase the Supply of Income -restricted Affordable Housing" continued on the next page
67
Packet Pg. 91
7.A.c
91"12124#
Rn 04 DRAFT
EDMi HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018
Institute a City affordable housing levy.
A City-wide affordable housing levy can
be instituted as part of the local property
tax. This levy is typically developed as an
excess levy, and requires voter approval
(with a 60 percent supermajority).
Institute a City sales tax for
affordable housing.
The local sales tax can be increased to fund
affordable housing programs serving households
with income below 60 percent of the Area
Median Income and within specific categories,
including: individuals with mental illness, veterans,
senior citizens, homeless families with children,
unaccompanied homeless youth, persons with
disabilities, or domestic violence victims. This
increase must be approved by a ballot measure.
Support employer -assisted
housing programs.
Employer -assisted housing programs typically
involve housing support programs funded by
major employers that provide financial and
educational assistance to employees, typically to
allow them to live within the community where
they work. These programs may be co -sponsored
or provided additional support by the City.
Seattle. Housing levies have been approved in
Seattle since 1981, with a median cost of $112 per
year over 7 years. (link)
King County. In 2017, King County voters passed
a tax levy lift of $0.10 per $1000 for housing and
human services needs of veterans, seniors and
vulnerable populations.
Bellingham. In 2012, Bellevue passed a 7-year
levy combining a single -year levy lid lift with an
affordable housing levy under RCW 84.52.105.
(link)
Ellensburg. In 2017 voters in Ellensburg, WA
approved a 0.1 percent sales tax to support
affordable housing projects. The tax passed with
61 percent in favor. (link)
Resort communities. Employer -assisted
housing programs are commonly found in resort
communities where local housing costs far exceed
that which is affordable to service workers, and
housing access is necessary to support the local
labor pool.
Additional research required. Research is
necessary to determine potential level of public
and elected official support. A successful
campaign would also require the support of
community organizations and funders.
Potential for future partnerships. Edmonds could
also pursue a countywide levy in partnership with
other cities and the county.
Additional research required. Further research
is necessary to determine potential level of
public and elected official support. A successful
campaign would also require the support of
community organizations and funders.
Potential partnerships. Edmonds could also
pursue a countywide sales tax in partnership with
other cities and the county.
Requires a major employer partner. This tool has
only limited potential unless a willing partner is
identified in the city or surrounding area.
New dedicated funds for affordable housing.
Funds can be targeted to specific groups in need
who aren't addressed by other tools.
New dedicated funds for affordable housing.
Funds can be targeted to specific groups in need
who are not addressed by other tools.
Addresses housing options for the local
workforce. Affordable housing can meet the
needs of the workforce for a major employer, and
ensure that employees can live in the community
where they work.
Requires voter approval. Voter approval is
necessary to raise property taxes through a
housing levy.
Increases tax burden. Local residents and
property owners would need to pay additional
taxes under this levy.
Limited in scope. Increasing sales taxes beyond
the maximum allowed under RCW 82.14.030 are
typically allowed only for specific uses, such as
chemical dependency or mental health treatment
services. Housing subsidies would be limited to
these specific categories.
Can be repealed by referendum. Under the law,
increases in sales taxes require a referendum to
be upheld, and could be repealed by popular vote
Impact on the cost of living in the City. Sale taxes
are regressive and can increase cost of living for
low income households.
Revenue reliability is tied to retail economy. As
more residents buy products online, revenues
from a sales tax can decline.
Requires a major employer partner. This
program requires a major employer or coalition
of employers in the city as a partner to provide
funding and/or other support for affordable
housing programs.
"Increase the Supply of Income -restricted Affordable Housing" continued on the next page
M
to
CDf
00
0
N
I
m
c
m
a
a
Q
a�
.N
0
2
c
0
E
w
c�
0
ai
Q
c
m
E
0
Q
68
Packet Pg. 92
7.A.c
Provide funding for affordable housing
from the City General Fund.
Another source of funding for affordable housing
programs is through specific allocations from the
General Fund in the City budget. While this does
not represent a new funding source and may be
subject to tradeoffs within the budget, this does
not require tax increases or ballot measures.
Contribute to down payment
assistance programs.
Some cities have down payment assistance
programs to help first-time low- or moderate -
income homebuyers. Such programs are
typically run in coordination with local
nonprofits and lending institutions.
Local funding for government programs is
typically drawn from the General Fund.
Seattle. The Office of Housing works with
nonprofit partner organizations to provide down
payment assistance to first-time homebuyers at or
below 80 percent of area median income. (link)
Political focus. The recent move by City Council to ' New dedicated funds for affordable housing.
allocate general funds for homelessness indicates Funds can be targeted to specific groups in need
an openness to using funds for programs that that are not addressed by other tools.
address housing needs.
Regional coordination. The amount of funding
from this tool is not likely to be significant
compared to scale of need. In this case,
contributing to a regional fund may be more
effective.
Best when preserving long-term affordability.
Down payment assistance programs may be more
effective when paired with CLTs or other tool that
uses affordability covenants to ensure homes
remain permanently affordable. (link)
Supports moderate income households in
purchasing their first home. Providing assistance
with down payments addresses one of the main
obstacles to homeownership, and can target
demographics that may be excluded from the
housing market.
DRAFT
Tradeoffs in budgeting. The use of general fund
dollars requires a trade-off with funding other City
priorities.
Not viable for rental units. Low-income
households or other households that are not
seeking homeownership may not be directly
supported with this program.
69
Packet Pg. 93
7.A.c
91"12124#
Rn 04 DRAFT
EDMi HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018
Reduce barriers to tiny houses, boarding
homes, and single room occupancy housing.
These are forms of multi -tenant housing where
residents occupy individual rooms and typically
share bathrooms and/or kitchens. These are
typically rented as permanent housing for low-
income and formerly homeless individuals. Certain
code requirements in Edmonds may be less
applicable to this kind of housing. Modifications
or relaxations of code requirements can help
to reduce the costs of development, as well
as the associated costs of housing for low-
income and formerly homeless individuals.
Pursue partnerships to develop
winter shelter programs.
Edmonds could work in partnership with
nonprofits to develop emergency overnight
shelter programs that operate during the winter
months. Such programs can also help connect
homeless individuals with services resources.
Pursue partnerships to develop
a housing first program.
Edmonds could partner with nonprofits or
regional partners to develop a housing first
program that prioritizes providing permanent
housing to people experiencing homelessness.
Pursue partnerships to develop
housing for veterans.
Military veterans can experience post -traumatic
stress, injury and other unique challenges
as they return from duty and re -integrate
into society. Edmonds could partner with
nonprofits to help fund and develop new
housing targeted towards veterans which
may include case management services.
Seattle. Othello Village is a City -authorized
homeless encampment with 28 96-square foot
tiny houses and 12 tent platforms. It is intended
as a short-term housing solution for up to 100
people. Donations to LIHI fund the materials for
the tiny houses, with construction mostly courtesy
of volunteers. Seattle has five other similar
encampments. These are permitted for 12 months
with the option to renew for a second 12 months.
(link)
Multiple communities. Many communities have
emergency winter shelters provided during
extreme weather conditions.
Snohomish County. According to the Snohomish
County Homeless Prevention and Response
System Strategic Plan, the County uses a
housing first approach to quickly move people to
permanent housing. (link)
King County. In 2017, King County voters passed
a tax levy lift of $0.10 per $1,000 for housing and
human services needs of veterans, seniors and
vulnerable populations.
Additional research needed. The City will need
to determine there are any current legal or
development code barriers that would prevent tiny
house villages. Similar analysis would be needed
to evaluate whether there are barriers to more
permanent structures such as SROs or boarding
houses.
Appropriate locations would need to be
identified. One option is underutilized parking lots
owned by the City or a willing community partner
such as a church.
Edmonds currently has one winter shelter
program. We All Belong is currently located at the
Edmonds Senior Center near the ferry terminal.
It opens for night where the temperature drops
below 34 degrees. Outreach to this shelter
could help inform level of demand and need for
additional capacity. (link)
Requires the availability of permanent housing.
For a housing first program to work, housing
units appropriate for persons transitioning from
homelessness must be available. Therefore, this
tool may be best pursued as a regional strategy in
partnership with the County Office of Community
& Homeless Services or nonprofit developers of
permanent housing for individuals and families
transitioning out of homelessness.
Requires a partner seeking to develop a facility
in Edmonds. Census data and the Snohomish
County PIT report indicates there aren't likely to
be a lot of veterans in Edmonds that suffer from
poverty or housing instability.
Provides short-term housing that is inexpensive
to build. Tiny houses can be rapidly and
inexpensively built when sufficient long-term
affordable housing is not available.
Provides emergency shelter options in the
community. Winter shelter programs provide
a warm place to sleep when temperatures are
dangerously low, and potentially connecting
homeless individuals and families with resources
Housing stability. The purpose of these programs
is to provide stability and attend to necessities
like food and shelter without preconditions such
as sobriety, treatment, or service participation
requirements.
Provides options for additional support. New
affordable housing designed to meet the unique
needs of veterans can access programs and
Neighborhood opposition. Community outreach
would be required to hear and address concerns
of nearby neighbors. While Seattle's camps have
been controversial, the City has succeeded in
generating some community support in nearby
neighborhoods.
Temporary housing option only. Tiny houses do
not provide adequate long-term housing options
for formerly homeless individuals and families.
Does not provide long-term housing stability.
Limited long-term benefits for people suffering
from homelessness and housing instability,
although winter shelters can be an opportunity
to connect homeless persons with services and
permanent housing opportunities.
Additional research is needed. Research is
necessary to determine what kinds of partnerships
would be most effective and what role(s) the City
can play.
Limited impact on overall housing issues. The
needs assessment for the City indicates that there
is not a sizeable number of veterans in Edmonds
funding sources specifically for these households. I who are challenged by poverty or homelessness.
"Participate in South Snohomish County Strategies to Reduce Homelessness" continued on the next page
CO)
cro
of
0
0
NI
a�
U
=a
c
m
a
a
Q
a�
c
.N
0
2
c
0
E
w
co
0
ai
Y
Q
c
m
E
t
0
a
70
Packet Pg. 94
7.A.c
Pursue coordination of housing and
social service assistance programs.
Many factors can contribute to homelessness
and housing instability. These can include
poverty, illness, domestic violence, mental
health, and addiction. Edmonds can explore
ways to address these root causes of
homelessness through support for and
coordination with social service providers.
Snohomish County. According to the Snohomish
County Homeless Prevention and Response
System Strategic Plan "The homeless housing
and service system, which uses a low -barrier and
housing first approach to quickly move individuals
and families to permanent housing consists
of: outreach services, Coordinated Entry and
navigation services, homelessness prevention,
emergency shelter, transitional housing, rapid
rehousing, permanent supportive housing, and
other permanent housing" link)
Identify appropriate role for the City. If Edmonds
decides to develop more homeless housing in the
city, it can play a role in making sure it is integrated
in the county's coordinated homeless housing and
service system.
Connecting services to households in need.
Providing coordinating services can ensure that
residents are connected with appropriate services
from different agencies, presenting a "one -stop"
solution for accessing these services in the
community.
DRAFT
Institutional capacity in Edmonds. The City of
Edmonds does not currently manage housing
or social service assistance programs as part of
municipal operations. Coordinating assistance
programs would require partnerships with public
housing agencies or other nonprofits.
71
Packet Pg. 95
7.A.c
91MAIIIIJ044
RM DRAFT
EDMONDS HOUSING STRATEGY I JUNE 2018
Create requirements to provide
fair housing information.
An ordinance which requires property
managers to provide information to all tenants
regarding tenant rights and property manager
responsibilities under federal fair housing law.
Create anti -discrimination
requirements for tenants.
Ordinances intended to prevent the discrimination
of prospective tenants based on source of
income, race, ability, or other factors.
city must provide state and city landlord/tenant
regulations as addenda to the lease, as well as
voter registration information. link
Seattle. A Source of Income Protection Ordinance
prohibits discrimination against renters who use
subsidies or alternative sources of income, among
other requirements. Landlords must accept first
qualified applicant. link
Provide rental housing inspection programs. Seattle. A Rental Registration & Inspection
An ordinance or program intended to educate
property owners, managers, and renters
about City housing codes. It may also include
requirements for owners to register all rental
units and verify their property meets standards.
Develop a tenant relocation
assistance program.
An ordinance or program that provides financial
assistance and/or services to households that
are physically displaced due to redevelopment
or renovation of their rental unit.
Ordinance helps ensure rental units are safe and
meet basic housing maintenance requirements.
link
Seattle. A Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance
(TRAO) aids low income (below 50 percent AMI)
households displaced due to demolition or
renovation of their rental unit. Half of the cost is
paid by the property owner and half paid by the
city. link
.-.......uv.c�.—..--.0 1-1IUI I o UI—I
may be required to determine if discrimination
(particularly against households using vouchers) is
a significant problem in Edmonds.
Additional research required. Additional research
would be required to determine if discrimination
(particularly against households using vouchers) is
a significant problem in Edmonds.
Controversial application in other communities.
Seattle's requirement for landlord to accept
first qualified applicant has been controversial.
However, without this requirement it is difficult to
enforce fair housing laws.
Additional research required. Additional research
would be required to determine if significant
portions of Edmonds' rental housing stock present
unsafe or unhealthy conditions for tenants.
Range of options for tenant education and
assistance. There are many ways to crafts
ordinances to help educate tenants of their rights
and prevent property owners from exploiting
loopholes.
Additional research required. Additional research
would be required to assess whether there are
many building with renter households that are at
risk of demolition and redevelopment.
Potential to expand to include economic
displacement. City Council members in Seattle
have proposed expanding their program to include
economic displacement due to rising rents.
Promotes educated tenants that are aware
of their rights. If successful, could aid with the
education of and outreach to tenants who may be
at risk of discrimination.
Not linked with housing affordability. Does not
help to make rental housing more affordable.
Challenges to enforcement. Enforcing the
requirement could be difficult, and it does not
ensure that property managers abide by fair
housing laws.
Increases access to affordable housing by Additional costs to the City. Developing and
voucher users. Could provide significant benefits administering a program would be an additional
to low-income households who use vouchers to cost to the city.
subsidize rents.
Reduces potential discrimination in the housing
market. Could help reduce other forms of housing
discrimination that may exist in Edmonds.
Promotes healthy and safe rental units. Helps to
ensure that rental units in Edmonds are safe and/
or healthy to live in.
Assists with members of the community
displaced by rising rents. This program can help
current renters who are displaced during times
of rapid redevelopment. Financial assistance can
relieve some of the financial burdens of moving
and move -in costs.
Not linked with housing affordability. Does not
help to make rental housing more affordable.
Additional costs to the City. Developing and
administering a program would be an additional
cost to the city.
Not linked with housing affordability. Does not
help to make rental housing more affordable.
Households may relocate outside Edmonds.
These programs do not provide any assurance the
renters will find housing that is affordable or will
choose to remain in Edmonds.
Increase in costs to developers. Requiring
developers to pay for relocation provides a small
disincentive to redevelopment and therefore
could, potentially, reduce new housing production.
"Provide Protections for Low-income Tenants" continued on the next page
%2
Packet Pg. 96
7.A.c
Support third -party purchases
of existing affordable housing
for long-term preservation.
Units in older, more affordable apartment
buildings may be at risk of loss due to
redevelopment, renovation, or expiration of
affordability requirements as rents continue to
rise. The City could provide funds to a nonprofit
to purchase for long-term preservation.
Assist property owners with improvements
in return for affordability covenant.
Owners of rental housing that is currently priced
for lower income tenants can face a tradeoff
between raising rents and making needed
improvements, or selling the property due to
inability to finance needed repairs. The city could
create a program to provide low cost rehab
loans in exchange for an affordability covenant.
Seattle. The City of Seattle uses Housing Levy
funds for housing preservation with a required
minimum affordability period of 50 years. (link)
Seattle. Assistance for renovations in exchange
for affordability covenants has been proposed
in Seattle's HALA Report as one option for
encouraging affordable housing. (link)
Additional research. Further research would
be required to determine if there are known
properties in Edmonds that would be good
candidates for such a program.
Additional research. Further research would
be required to determine if there are known
properties in Edmonds that would be good
candidates for such a program.
Promotes preservation of existing affordable
housing. Third -party purchases can ensure the
long-term affordability of existing low-cost housing
units in Edmonds that are at risk of loss or price
increase.
Cost-effective approach to maintain existing
affordable housing. Renovating existing housing
stock can be more cost-effective than building
new affordable housing. This can ensure the long-
term affordability of existing low-cost housing
units in Edmonds that are at risk of loss or price
increase.
DRAFT
Does not increase the housing supply. This
program is directed to rental housing renovations
only, and does not increase the number of units on
the market.
Does not provide net new affordable housing.
This program provides an opportunity to preserve
existing low-income housing, but does not provide
new units.
Does not increase the housing supply. This
program is directed to rental housing renovations
only, and does not increase the number of units on
the market.
Does not provide net new affordable housing.
This program provides an opportunity to preserve
existing low-income housing, but does not provide
new units.
73
Packet Pg. 97
8.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/27/2018
Shoreline Mater Program Periodic Review Introduction
Staff Lead: Kernen Lien
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Kernen Lien
Background/History
Under the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), each city and county with "shorelines of the state" must
prepare and adopt a Shoreline Master Program (SMP) that is based on state laws and rules but tailored
to the specific geographic, economic and environmental needs of the community. The SMP is essentially
a combined comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, and development permit system for shoreline
specific uses.
The SMA requires each city and county to review, and if necessary, revise their SMP at least once every
eight years. The legislature set a staggered schedule that alternates with similar reviews under the
Growth Management Act. The City of Edmonds is required to complete its SMP periodic review by June
30, 2019.
The Edmonds City Council adopted Resolution No. 1411 (Attachment 1) initiating the periodic review
and adopting the Work Program (Attachment 2), and Public Participation Plan (Attachment 3) on May
22, 2018.
Staff Recommendation
Continue review of SMP revisions at future Planning Board meetings.
Narrative
The intent of this action is to formalize the City's intent to develop an update to the SMP for
consideration in 2019 consistent with Department of Ecology recently adopted rules (WAC 173-26-090)
for conducting the periodic review. The periodic review ensures the SMP stays current with changes in
laws and rules, remains consistent with other City of Edmonds plans and regulations, and is responsive
to changed circumstances, new information and improved data.
The City of Edmonds just completed a comprehensive update of its SMP in June 2017. This
comprehensive update took many years to complete and some recent amendments to the SMA and
shoreline guidelines did not get incorporated in the City's SMP. Attachment 4 contains the periodic
review checklist which identifies recent statutory and regulatory amendments that relate to shorelines.
Most of the updates identified in the SMP Periodic Review Checklist are minor in nature and will not
substantially modify the SMP adopted in 2017.
Staff added the Other Review Elements section to the end of Ecology's checklist to identify a couple of
Packet Pg. 98
8.A
other items that may be amended with this periodic update. Updates to the SMP may result from the
site specific study of the Edmonds Marsh being undertaken by the City including updating the Shoreline
Inventory and Characterization and potential modifications to the development regulations associated
with the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline jurisdiction. Additionally, staff identified section ECDC 24.80.100
for process clarifications how a shoreline permit review moves from a staff decision process (Type II) to
a public hearing process (Type III).
Staff has also recommended that the City of Edmonds revise its critical area ordinance (CAO) wetland
regulations for consistency with Department of Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates
(Publication No. 16-06-001). The recent CAO update was completed prior to Ecology's issuance of their
updated wetland guidance. This updated guidance was incorporated into the SMP, but the CAO has yet
to be revised to include the most recent guidance on wetlands. As a result, the City currently has two
sets of wetland regulations, one that applies in shoreline jurisdiction and a second that applies outside
of shoreline jurisdiction. Updating the CAO and incorporating the CAO by reference will provide
consistency for wetland regulation within the City.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Resolution No. 1411
Attachment 2: SMP Periodic Review Work Program
Attachment 3: Public Participation Plan
Attachment 4: SMP Periodic Review Checklist
Attachment 5: May 15, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt
Attachment 6: May 22, 2018 City Council Minutes Excerpt
Packet Pg. 99
8.A.a
RESOLUTION NO. 1411
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS ADOPTING THE PUBLIC
PARTICPATION PLAN AND WORK PROGRAM FOR CONDUCTING THE
LEGISLATURE'S MANDATED 2019 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
PERIODIC REVIEW UPDATE
WHEREAS, RCW 90.58.080(4) of the State Shoreline Management Act (SMA)
requires that (jurisdiction name) take legislative action to review its Shoreline Master Program
by June 30, 2019, and
WHEREAS, to assist SMA planning jurisdictions the State Department of Ecology,
which administers the SMA, provides compliance checklists for agencies to review against
their local Shoreline Master Programs, and
WHEREAS, Edmonds' planning staff used the Ecology checklists to review the
Edmonds' SMP for compliance with applicable provisions of the SMA, and
WHEREAS, Edmonds' planning staff have also conducted an initial review of the
SMP for consistency with the current Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations,
and prepared initial considerations of changed circumstances, new information, and improved
data relevant to the Edmonds' SMP, and
WHEREAS, local governments are required to establish a program that identifies n
procedures and schedules for the public to participate in the periodic Shoreline Master Program
update process, and
r
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Draft 2019 Shoreline Master Program -
Work Plan, Public Participation Plan, & Tentative Schedule at its work session on May 15
and May 22, 2018; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS, WASHINGOTN, HEREBY RESOLVE
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Work Plan, Public Participation Plan, & Tentative Schedule Adoption. The
Edmonds City Council hereby adopts the Draft 2019 Shoreline Master Program - Work Plan,
Public Participation Plan, & Tentative Schedule as attached for the 2019 Shoreline Master
Program Periodic review.
RESOLVED THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY, 2018.
MAYOR, DAVE O. EARLING
1
Packet Pg. 100
8.A.a
ATTEST:
LE , SCOT
3,44ASSEY
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: May 18, 2018
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: May 22, 2018
RESOLUTION NO. 1411
2
T
r
Packet Pg. 101
8.A.b
May 2018
City of Edmonds' SMP Periodic Review Work Program
This work program is a schedule of tasks associated with a review of SMPs under RCW 90.58.080(4). The schedule highlights
options at various steps in the review and amendment process.
Timeline
Tasks
Notes
Initial Staff Review
April - May
Consult with Ecology
Staff has filled out the Ecology checklist of statutory and regulatory
2018
[WAC 173-26-100 or WAC 173-26-104(1) and
amendments; reviewed amendments to the City of Edmonds
WAC 173-26-090]
Comprehensive Plan and development regulations; and prepared an
initial set of topics on proposed updates to the SMP for City Council
Fill out Ecology checklist of statutory and
review.
regulatory amendments; review amendments to
comprehensive plan and development regulations;
Ecology has reviewed the checklist and concurred with the proposed
and prepare initial recommendations on other
scope of the City of Edmonds' SMP periodic update.
changes needed to address changed local
circumstances, new info, or improved data. [WAC
173-26-090(3)(b)]
Get professional help (if needed)
April 2018 -
Hire consultant using local hiring procedures
The City of Edmonds' City Council has secured the services of
November
Windward Environmental LLC to conduct a scientific baseline study of
2018
the Edmonds Marsh. Portions of this study will be used to inform this
SMP periodic update. In particular, the marsh study will be used to
update the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization and evaluate
buffers in the Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline environment.
Public Participation Program
April - May
Develop public participation program
A Public Participation Program has been drafted for City Council review.
2018
[WAC 173-26-090(3)(a)]
City of Edmonds' SMP Periodic Review Work Program
Packet Pg. 102
8.A.b
May 2018
Timeline
Tasks
Notes
City Council take action on Participation Plan and Review Work Program
May 8, 2018
Study session on public participation program
Introduce SMP update at City Council Committee.
Review Work Program.
May 22, 2018
Adoption of Work Program by resolution
Full City Council reviews SMP Periodic Update Checklist, Public
Participation Plan and Work Plan. Council adopts resolution for SMP
Periodic Update.
Critical Area Ordinance Wetland Regulations Update
June -August
Revise critical area ordinance wetland
Concurrently with (or slightly ahead) of the SMP periodic update,
2018
regulations for consistency with Department of
amend ECDC 23.50.040 Development Standards - Wetlands to be
Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO
consistent with Ecology's Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates
Updates (Publication No. 16-06-001).
(Publication No. 16-06-001). With this amendment, the SMP and
adopt the City of Edmond CAO by reference and the same wetland
regulations will apply within and outside of shoreline jurisdiction.
Planning Board with conduct public work session, hold a public
hearing, and forward a recommendation to City Council.
City Council hold work session, public hearing and adopt critical area
amendments via an ordinance. SMP will adopt amended CAO by
reference.
Planning Board Review and Hearings on SMP Revisions
June - July
Staff prepares draft revisions for Planning
Following the SMP Periodic Checklist, staff drafts proposed
2018
Board review and discussion. [WAC 173-26-
amendments to the SMP.
090(3)(c)(ii)]
City of Edmonds' SMP Periodic Review Work Program
=a
0
�L
Q.
E
�a
a�
0
L
Q_
L
a�
c
•L
0
t
U)
E
R
L
a�
0
a
Y
0
a�
a
0
a�
(L
IL
2
U)
N
c
a�
E
�a
r
r
r
c
a�
E
a
Packet Pg. 103
8.A.b
May 2018
Timeline
Tasks
Notes
May 2018
Windward Environmental begins an evaluation of
If completed in time, Windward's evaluation may result in
wetland buffers as described in the Scope of Work
recommendations for buffer's and setbacks within the UMU IV
for the Edmonds Marsh Study.
shoreline environment.
July — Sept
Planning Board reviews draft amendments to the
Planning Board holds work sessions on proposed SMP amendments.
2018
SMP.
Sept 2018
Conduct SEPA review
Some local governments find it useful to start SEPA review at the
[WAC 173-26-100(6) or WAC 173-26-104(2)(a)]
early phases of developing amendments.
For minor amendments, SEPA is exempt under WAC 197-11-800(19)
which covers resolutions or ordinances "relating solely to
governmental procedures, and containing no substantive standards
respecting use or modification of the environment," or "text
amendments resulting in no substantive changes respecting use or
modification of the environment."
Sept 2018
Send draft Planning Board documents to
Ecology recommends sending preliminary draft revisions at least 30
Ecology for informal review before hearings
days prior to your public hearing if possible.
Sept 2018
Submit 60-day Notice of Intent to Adopt
Consider sending draft documents to Commerce early in the review
[WAC 173-26-100(5) or WAC 173-26-104(2)(b)]
process so other state agency comments can be considered by
Planning Commissioners.
Oct - Nov
Windward Environmental LLC provides
Have the updated Shoreline Inventory and Characterization
2018
information for amendments to the Shoreline
available prior to the public hearing before the Planning Board.
Inventory and Characterization with more specific
information on the Edmonds Marsh.
City of Edmonds' SMP Periodic Review Work Program
a
0
•L
a)
a
E
�a
L
0
L
L
R
a�
c
0
U)
E
CU
L
0
L
a
Y
0
3
a�
a�
o:
a
0
�L
a
(L
2
U)
N
c
a�
E
�a
r
r
c
a�
E
U
a
Packet Pg. 104
8.A.b
May 2018
Timeline
Tasks
Notes
Oct — Nov
2018
Conduct 30-day comment period and hearing
Nov 2018
Option: Planning Board discussion of hearing
testimony and possible modifications
If initial hearing reveals extensive comments, extend discussion to
consider response options.
Prepare SMP for final action
Nov — Dec
2018
Prepare final SMP amendments
If the City of Edmonds choses to use the standard adoption process,
Ecology will hold its own comment period.
City of Edmonds' SMP Periodic Review Work Program
a
0
•L
m
a
E
�a
L
0
a
a�
R
0
t
U)
E
CU
L
0
L
Y
L
0
NN�
I.b
c,>
a
2
�L
0
0.
(L
U)
N
C
d
E
L
V
R
r
r
Q
r
C
E
t
V
R
Q
Packet Pg. 105
8.A.b
May 2018
Timeline
Tasks
Notes
Elected officials review and action
Jan - Feb 2019
City Council holds study sessions on draft
amendments developed by Planning Board
March 2019
City Council holds public hearing on draft
amendments.
April 2019
City Council discussion of hearing testimony
and possible modifications
April - May
City Council adoption of draft amendments
City Council adopts resolution or ordinance. Recitals should outline the
2019
[WAC 173-26-090(3)(c)(i)-(iii)]
major steps in the review process and include a definitive statement that
this action concludes the required review.
May - June
Submit SMP to Ecology
Submittals for periodic reviews include a copy of the completed SMP
2019
[WAC 173-26-090(3)(d)(i); WAC 173-26-110(l)-
periodic update checklist.
(8) and (9)(b)]
May - June
State Review
Ecology will hold a state- level comment period.
2019
[WAC 173-26-090(3)(e); WAC 173-26-120]
June 2019
SMP is effective 14-days after approval by Ecology's Director. Ecology's
publication of final adoption triggers 60-day appeal period.
City of Edmonds' SMP Periodic Review Work Program
Q
Packet Pg. 106
8.A.c
City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program:
Periodic Review Public Participation Plan
Introduction
The Washington State Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (SMA) was enacted for the purpose of
comprehensively managing and protecting the state's shorelines. The SMA (RCW 90.S8 and WAC 173-
26) emphasizes accommodation of appropriate uses that require a shoreline location, protection of
shoreline environmental resources and protection of the public's right to access and use the shorelines.
Under the SMA, each city and county with "shorelines of the state" must prepare and adopt a Shoreline
Master Program (SMP) that is based on state laws and rules but tailored to the specific geographic,
economic and environmental needs of the community. The SMP is essentially a combined
comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, and development permit system for shoreline specific uses.
The shoreline areas within the City of Edmonds jurisdiction include Puget Sound, Lake Ballinger, and the
tidally influenced portions of the Edmonds Marsh. Shoreline Jurisdiction also applies to upland areas
within 200 feet of the shoreline edge (ordinary high water mark) and associated wetlands.
The SMA requires each SMP be reviewed and revised, if needed, on an eight -year schedule established
by the Legislature. Ecology is the regulatory body in charge of overseeing the City's SMP update and will
also provide technical support and partial funding to prepare SMP periodic reviews. The City of
Edmonds periodic review is to be completed by June 30, 2019. The review ensures the SMP stays
current with changes in laws and rules, remains consistent with other City of Edmonds plans and
regulations, and is responsive to changed circumstances, new information and improved data.
The City of Edmonds just completed a comprehensive update of its SMP in June 2017. This
comprehensive update took many years to complete and some recent amendments to the SMA and
shoreline guidelines did not get incorporated in the City's SMP. Most of the updates identified in the
SMP Periodic Review Checklist are minor in nature and will not substantially modify the SMP adopted in
2017. Potentially more substantive updates to the SMP may result from a site specific study of the
Edmonds Marsh which could suggest modifications to the development regulations associated with the
Urban Mixed Use IV shoreline jurisdiction.
This Public Participation Plan describes the steps that Edmonds will take to provide opportunities for
public engagement and public comment, as well as City contact information and web addresses. This
plan is in addition to any other minimum requirements for public participation required by Chapter
20.06 Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). This plan is a working document and will be
adjusted as needed to provide for the greatest and broadest public participation.
Public Participation Goals
The overall goal of the City of Edmonds' Public Participation Plan is to make the planning process
accessible, inclusive, and engaging to stakeholders and all members of the public. Specific goals are to:
Page 1 of 4
Packet Pg. 107
8.A.c
• Make reasonable effort to invite, inform, and involve all interested persons, private entities,
tribal nations, and agencies of the federal government having interests and responsibilities
relating to shorelines of the state and Edmonds' SMP.
• Provide interested parties with timely information, an understanding of the process, and
multiple opportunities to review and comment on proposed amendments to the SMP.
• Encourage interested parties to informally review and comment on proposed changes to the
SMP throughout the process and provide those comments to decision makers.
Roles and Responsibilities
The Shoreline Management Act establishes a balance of authority and partnership between local and
state government. While the City of Edmonds is the primary regulator for its shorelines, Washington
State Department of Ecology provides support, technical assistance and conducts final review for
approval and adoption into the state program to meet federal requirements for a Coastal Zone
Management Program. The City of Edmonds is responsible for updating its shoreline master program in
compliance with Washington State rules and guidelines. This responsibility includes inviting public
comment and coordinating with adjacent jurisdictions, affected tribes and state agencies. The primary
contact for the City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program periodic update is:
Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager
City of Edmonds Planning Division
121— 5ch Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
kernen.lien@edmondswa.gov
425-771-0220
The Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) is responsible for providing technical assistance to
the City and must approve the City's updated Shoreline Master Program. The primary contact person at
DOE for Edmonds' periodic update is:
David Pater, Shoreline Planner
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program
Washington State Department of Ecology
913 Squalicum Way Unit 101
Bellingham, WA 98225
david.pater@ecy.wa.gov
360-255-4375
List of stakeholders
Many different users and interest groups have a stake in the City of Edmonds shorelines. The following
are key stakeholders in the City of Edmonds periodic Shoreline Master Program update:
Residents and Public
Shoreline Property Owners
Interested Citizens
Page 2 of 4
Packet Pg. 108
8.A.c
Environmental Organizations
Business
Waterfront Business Owners
BNSF Railroad
Master Builders
Local Government
Port of Edmonds
Snohomish County
City of Lynwood
Town of Woodway
City of Edmonds
State
Tribal
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department
Public Works Department
Development Services Department
Department of Ecology
Department of Natural Resources
Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Puget Sound Partnership
Tulalip Tribes
Public Participation Opportunities
The City of Edmonds is committed to providing multiple opportunities for public participation
throughout the process. The City of Edmonds will use a variety of communication tools to inform the
public and encourage their participation, including the following:
Website
The City of Edmonds website will include a Periodic Review webpage where interested parties can
access status updates, draft documents, and other project information. The webpage will be the
primary repository of all information related to the Periodic Review process. The page will include
who to contact for more information and an email link for questions and comments.
Open House
Given the Edmonds' comprehensive Shoreline Master Program was recently completed in June
2017, no open house is scheduled for this periodic update. However, the City of Edmonds may hold
an open house on findings of the Edmonds Marsh study as it relates to the SMP periodic update as
findings become available.
Page 3 of 4
Packet Pg. 109
8.A.c
Notice mailing list
An email list of interested parties will be created and maintained by the City of Edmonds. The list
will be used to notify interested parties regarding Periodic Review progress and participation
opportunities. Interested parties will be added to the list by contacting the Planning Department.
Comment
Interested parties will be encouraged to provide comments to Edmonds by letter, email or at public
meetings and hearings. All comments will be provided to the Planning Board and City Council. The
Periodic Review webpage will be the central repository for information under consideration.
Documents will be available for review at City of Edmonds Planning Division, and copies will be
provided at the established copying cost.
Planning Board Public Work Sessions and Hearings
The Planning Board will conduct public work sessions to gather public comment on the draft
Shoreline Master Program before scheduling a public hearing to develop recommendations that will
be forwarded to the City Council. Notice of the public hearing will be published in the Everett
Herald and on the City's website at least 14 days prior to the hearing. In addition to the required
noticing procedures, notice may also be provided through such means as a press release, posting on
the City's website and email to the interested party list.
City Council Public Work Sessions and Hearings
The City Council will conduct public work sessions that may include input on the draft Shoreline
Master Program before scheduling a public hearing. Notice of the public hearing will be published in
the Everett Herald and on the City's website at least 14 days prior to the hearing. In addition to the
required noticing procedures, notice may also be provided through such means as a press release,
posting on the City's website and email to the interested party list.
News media
The local news media will be kept up-to-date on the Periodic Review process and receive copies of
all official notices.
Schedule
The following is a general timeline including anticipated public participation opportunities. The City of
Edmonds will coordinate with the Department of Ecology throughout the process. A detailed timeline
will be posted on the Periodic Review webpage.
May 8 &15, 2018 Introduce the Periodic Shoreline Master Program update to the City Council
July — November 2018 Planning Board holds work sessions and a public hearing
January 2018 — June 2019 City Council holds work sessions and a public hearing
April —June 2019 Department of Ecology public comment process (if City chooses to not use the
joint review process)
Page 4 of 4
Packet Pg. 110
8.A.d
DEPARTMENT OF
�IIIIECOLOGY
qVIIIIiiiiim State of Washington
SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW
Periodic Review Checklist
Introduction
This document is intended for use by counties, cities and towns conducting the "periodic review' of
their Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs). This review is intended to keep SMPs current with
amendments to state laws or rules, changes to local plans and regulations, and changes to address local
circumstances, new information or improved data. The review is required under the Shoreline
Management Act (SMA) at RCW 90.58.080(4). Ecology's rule outlining procedures for conducting these
reviews is at WAC 173-26-090.
This checklist summarizes amendments to state law, rules and applicable updated guidance adopted
between 2007 and 2017 that may trigger the need for local SMP amendments during periodic reviews.
How to use this checklist
See Section 2 of Ecology's Periodic Review Checklist Guidance document for a description of each item,
relevant links, review considerations, and example language.
At the beginning: Use the review column to document review considerations and determine if local
amendments are needed to maintain compliance. See WAC 173-26-090(3)(b)(i).
At the end: Use the checklist as a final summary identifying your final action, indicating where the SMP
addresses applicable amended laws, or indicate where no action is needed. See WAC 173-26-
090(3)(d)(ii)(D), and WAC 173-26-110(9)(b).
Local governments should coordinate with their assigned Ecology regional planner for more information
on how to use this checklist and conduct the periodic review.
Row Summary of change
2017
a. OFM adjusted the cost threshold
for substantial development to
$7,047.
b. Ecology amended rules to clarify
that the definition of
"development" does not include
dismantling or removing
structures.
C. Ecology adopted rules that clarify
exceptions to local review under
the SMA.
Review
ECDC 24.80.010.13.1 lists a
threshold value of $5,718.
ECDC 24.90.020.1 does not
include the clarifying sentence
at the end of the definition
noting that "development"
does not include dismantling
or removing structures.
ECDC 24.80 does not include
the clarifications for
exceptions to local review.
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
Action
Section should be updated to
reflect the updated dollar
threshold.
Definition of development
should be updated.
Should add new section to
ECDC 24.80 consistent with
WAC 173-27-044 and 173-27-
045.
Packet Pg. 111
Row i Summary of change
d. Ecology amended rules that
clarify permit filing procedures
consistent with a 2011 statute.
e. Ecology amended forestry use
regulations to clarify that forest
practices that only involves
timber cutting are not SMA
"developments" and do not
require SDPs.
f. Ecology clarified the SMA does
not apply to lands under
exclusive federal jurisdiction
g. Ecology clarified "default"
provisions for nonconforming
uses and development.
III
Ecology adopted rule
amendments to clarify the scope
and process for conducting
periodic reviews.
Ecology adopted a new rule
creating an optional SMP
amendment process that allows
for a shared local/state public
comment period.
Submittal to Ecology of proposed
SMP amendments.
Review
Administrative procedures in
24.80 are consistent with the
permit filing procedures
adopted un SSB 5192.
The City of Edmonds' SMP
relies on the Forest Practices
Act (RCW 76.09) for forestry
activities within shoreline
jurisdiction as recommended
by WAC 173-26-241(3)(e).
No shoreline areas within
Edmonds jurisdiction are
under exclusive federal
jurisdiction.
The City of Edmonds' SMP
contains a nonconforming
development chapter
(Chapter 24.70 ECDC).
The only mention of periodic
reviews (updates) in the SMP
is under the Administrative
Authority and Responsibility
section in ECDC 24.80.150.
ECDC 24.80.150.A notes a
cumulative effecters review
every seven years with the
SMP update.
Joint public hearings with
other local, state, regional,
federal or other public agency
allowed by ECDC 20.06.001.
City of Edmonds may consider
the optional SMP amendment
process during the periodic
update.
The City of Edmonds' SMP
does not contain a description
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
8.A.d
DEPARTMENT OF
ECOLOGY
_I�� State of Washington
Action
No amendment necessary.
No amendment necessary.
No amendment necessary.
Should considered amending
provision requiring a
nonconforming structure
which is moved any distance
to be brought into full
conformance. Current
language may act a
disincentive to making
something less
nonconforming (e.g. move
further away from shoreline).
Consider adding line regarding
periodic reviews under City
Council's Administrative
Authority and Responsibility
(ECDC 24.80.150.C) and
correct the update frequency
in ECDC 24.80.150.A.
No amendment necessary
No amendment necessary.
2
Packet Pg. 112
Row
2016
a.
b.
2015
a.
2014
a.
b.
2012
i Summary of change
The Legislature created a new
shoreline permit exemption for
retrofitting existing structures to
comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Ecology updated wetlands
critical areas guidance including
implementation guidance for the
2014 wetlands rating system.
The Legislature adopted a 90-day
target for local review of
Washington State Department of
Transportation (WSDOT)
projects.
The Legislature raised the cost
threshold for requiring a
Substantial Development Permit
(SDP) for replacement docks on
lakes and rivers to $20,000 (from
$10,000).
The Legislature created a new
definition and policy for floating
on -water residences legally
established before 7/1/2014.
a. The Legislature amended the
SMA to clarify SMP appeal
procedures.
Review
of the SMP submittal process
for Ecology's review.
The list of exemptions in ECDC
24.80.010.13 does not contain
and exemption regarding ADA
retrofitting.
The City of Edmonds included
the most recent wetland
guidance (June 2016) within
its SMP.
The City of Edmonds SMP
currently does not contain the
special procedure for WSDOT
projects.
ECDC 24.80.010.B.7.b lists a
threshold value of $10,000.
The City of Edmonds does not
have any floating on -water
residences and new on -water
residences are prohibited.
These provisions are not
about appeals of individual
permits. They describe the
appeal pathway after
Ecology's approval of an SMP.
The City of Edmonds SMP
does not describe the appeal
process of an SMP.
2011
a. Ecology adopted a rule requiring ECDC 23.50.010.A (which is
that wetlands be delineated in 1 adopted by the SMP)
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
8.A.d
DEPARTMENT OF
�IIIIECOLOGY
_I� State of Washington
Action
The list of exemptions should
be updated to add the new
exemption for ADA
retrofitting.
The City of Edmonds should
considered updating the CAO
with the June 2016 guidance
prior to updating the SMP so
the same wetland regulations
will apply both within and
outside shoreline iurisdiction.
A new section could be added
to ECDC 24.80 to address the
90-day review target for
WSDOT projects.
Section should be updated to
reflect the updated dollar
threshold. .
No amendment necessary
No amendment necessary.
No amendment necessary.
3
Packet Pg. 113
Row i Summary of change
accordance with the approved
federal wetland delineation
manual.
b. Ecology adopted rules for new
commercial geoduck
aquaculture.
c. The Legislature created a new
definition and policy for floating
homes permitted or legally
established prior to January 1,
_2011.
d. The Legislature authorized a new
option to classify existing
structures as conforming.
2010
The Legislature adopted Growth
Management Act — Shoreline
Management Act clarifications.
2009
a. The Legislature created new
"relief" procedures for instances
in which a shoreline restoration
project within a UGA creates a
shift in Ordinary High Water
Mark.
b. Ecology adopted a rule for
certifying wetland mitigation
banks.
Review
references the approved
federal wetland delineation
manual for designating
wetlands.
Geoducks are not specifically
addressed in the aquaculture
section (ECDC 24.60.010);
however, given the urbanized
shoreline, geoduck
aquaculture in Edmonds is
highly unlikely.
No existing floating homes
within Edmonds and new on -
water residences are
prohibited.
Nonconforming structures
addressed in ECDC 24.70.020.
SMP was developed with
GMA/SMA integration taken
under consideration.
This "relief" procedure is not
explicitly referenced in the
SMP; however, the process
may be used even if the
provision is not in the SMP.
Critical area regulations
incorporated in the SMP
authorizes the use of wetland
mitigation banks.
c. The Legislature added moratoria Moratoria not explicitly
authority and procedures to the addressed in the SMP.
SMA.
2007
a. The Legislature clarified options Floodway not defined in SMP
for defining "floodway" as either or CAO.
the area that has been
established in FEMA maps, or the
floodway criteria set in the SMA.
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
8.A.d
DEPARTMENT OF
�IIIECOLOGY
MOWS� State of Washington
Action
No amendment necessary.
No amendment necessary
No amendment necessary
No amendment necessary.
Consider adopting "relief" rule
by reference, or granting relief
incorporate the rule into the
SMP to make it clear that this
process is available.
No amendment necessary
No amendment necessary
A definition of floodway
should be added to the CAO
noting that floodways are the
area established in the FEMA
maps.
0
Packet Pg. 114
Row Summary of change
b. Ecology amended rules to clarify
that comprehensively updated
SMPs shall include a list and map
of streams and lakes that are in
shoreline jurisdiction.
C. Ecology's rule listing statutory
exemptions from the
requirement for an SDP was
amended to include fish habitat
enhancement projects that
conform to the provisions of
RCW 77.55.181.
Other Review Elements
Review
Shoreline jurisdiction in the
City of Edmonds is defined
within the text of the SMP and
on maps.
The City of Edmonds' SMP
provides an exemption for fish
habitat enhancement
projects, but does not contain
all of the language included in
WAC 173-27-040(2)(p).
8.A.d
DEPARTMENT OF
momod ECOLOGY
State of Washington
Action
Review and revise shoreline
jurisdiction as necessary.
Consider amending the
exemption provision to match
WAC 173-27-040(2)(p) or
simplify the language to
reference the exemption.
In addition to ensuring consistency with changes to the state laws and rules identified above,
the City of Edmonds is considering reviewing and modifying (as necessary) the following
elements of the City's Shoreline Master Program.
SMP Section
Edmonds
Marsh, UMU IV
shoreline
designation,
Shoreline
Inventory and
Characterization
24.80.100
Summary
Review
Action
The Edmonds Marsh was
The City of Edmonds has
Results from the
identified as a shoreline of the
contracted with a
Edmonds Marsh study
state relatively late in the
consultant to assess the
will be used to update
previous SMP update and
ecological functions of the
the Shoreline Inventory
appropriate shoreline
marsh and evaluate buffer
and Characterization and
regulations surrounding the
widths that will ensure
could result in
marsh was the subject of
effective site -specific buffer
modifications to UMU IV
significant public comment and
functions.
shoreline regulations.
discussion before the City
Council.
This section identifies when a
Clarification should be
Consider establishing a
public hearing is required for a
added to how a review
process similar to the
shoreline substantial
moves from a staff decision
contingent review
development permit. In some
process (Type II) to a public
process in critical areas
instances, a shoreline permit
hearing process (Type III).
section ECDC 23.40.195.
may begin the process as a
staff decision but require a
public hearing if one or more
interested persons request a
public hearing.
Shoreline Master Program Periodic Review Checklist
Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program, September 20, 2017
5
Packet Pg. 115
8.A.e
2. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW
Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien reviewed:
• Purpose:
o Introduction to SMP Periodic Review
o Identify scope and work program for periodic review
o Resolution would adopt scope of review, work program and public participation (not any
specific amendments to regulations)
o June 30, 2019 deadline for periodic review.
• Comprehensive Update vs. Periodic Review
o Completed Comprehensive Update in June 2017
■ State adopted comprehensive guidelines for Shoreline Master Programs in 2003 under
WAC 173-26
• Jurisdictions across the state were required to update their SMPs
■ Edmonds' SMP adopted in June 2017 was a complete rewrite of the SMP to be consistent
with WAC 173-26
o Periodic Review
■ SMA requires each city and county to review, and, if necessary, revise their SMP at least
once every eight years. The City's periodic review is due June 30, 2019
■ State filed WAC 173-26-090 in August 2017, which became effective September 2017
■ Provides guidance on the periodic update
■ Periodic review ensures SMP stays current with changes in laws and rules, remains
consistent with other City of Edmonds Plans and regulations, and is responsive to changed
circumstances, new information and improved data
• Periodic Review Checklist
o Summarizes amendments to state law, rules and applicable guidance between 2007 and 2017
that may trigger the need for SMP amendments during periodic reviews
o City's SMP comprehensive updated lasted from 2009 — 2017
o Completed checklist identifies items that should be updated in the City's SMP for consistency
with state laws and rules
o Identified amendments would not result in substantive changes to the SMP
• Other Review Elements
o Staff identified the other review elements section at the end of the Periodic Review Checklist
o Edmonds Marsh Study
■ Update Shoreline Inventory and Characterization
■ Potential recommendations for buffers in the UMU IV shoreline jurisdiction
o ECDC 24.80.100 — Public Hearings
■ Shoreline substantial development permit may begin as a Type II staff decision, and change
to a Type III decision before the hearing examiner by a written request during comment
period
■ Clarification on this process should be added
■ Staff is recommending something similar to the Critical Area Contingent review process
detailed in ECDC 23.40.195
CAO Amendments
o Part of the periodic review is to insure consistency with City plans and regulations
o City has two sets of wetland regulations, one for shoreline jurisdiction and a second that applies
outside of shoreline jurisdiction
o How'd we got there:
■ CAO update completed in May 2016
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 15, 2018
Page 15
Packet Pg. 116
8.A.e
• June 2016, Ecology issued Wetland Guidance for CAO Updates (Publication No. 16-06-
001)
■ SMP incorporated updated wetland guidance in ECDC 24.40.020.E, and excepted the
wetland provisions in the CAO
o SMP adopts specific version of CAO
o Proposal is to update those wetland sections in the CAO specifically excepted by ECDC
24.40.020.C.2:
• ECDC 23.50.010(B), Wetland Ratings.
• ECDC 23.50.040(F)(1), Standard Buffer Widths.
■ ECDC 23.50.040(F)(2), Required Measures to Minimize Impacts to Wetlands.
• ECDC 23.50.040(K), Small, Hydrologically Isolated Wetlands.
o Adopt updated CAO by reference in SMP
o Added benefit: CAO allowed activities section updated by Ordinance No. 4106
• Work plan and optional joint review with Ecology
o Draft work plan developed with timeline to complete periodic review by June 30, 2019 deadline
o Optional Joint Review
• Combines local and state comment periods
■ Requires initial determination from Ecology
• Ecology will take final action after local adoption
- Since comment periods combined, Ecology does not have to hold a second comment
period and revised SMP will become effective sooner
• Resolution
o Adopts the scope of review, work program, and public participation plan for the SMP periodic
review
o Does not approve any changes to code language
o SMP (and CAO) code changes will reviewed by the Planning Board with final approval before
City Council
o Following approval of scope and work program, staff will apply for $20,000 SMP periodic
review grant
Council President Pro Tern Buckshnis thanked Mr. Lien for answering her emailed questions. She did not
support approving the resolution tonight because it talks about approving the work plan and establishing a
tentative schedule. Noting that some things are very easy, she suggested doing those and discussing the
more in-depth changes such as a joint process with Ecology. She suggested it may be advantageous to have
a work session. She noted there are issues with the CAO dating back as far as 2007 and while some are
fine, some will require discussion. For example, in 2007 the legislature clarified options for defining
floodways; she asked how that impacts the CAO. Mr. Lien said there are no floodways in Edmonds, only
floodplains. He reiterated any code changes would come to the City Council for final approval. A scope of
work needs to be approved in order to submit the grant application. Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis
suggested staff review the checklist with Council next week.
Mayor Earling pointed out the $20,000 grant application is due by the end of June. He was aware that
Council President Nelson wants to delay approval of the resolution until next week and suggested
Councilmembers identify questions for staff.
Councilmember Mesaros recalled the Public Safety, Personnel and Planning Committee had a presentation
on this last week. He pointed out staff is asking the Council to approve the scope of review, work program,
and public participation plan for the SMP periodic review and decisions will be made over the next 13
months.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas said she had no problem with taking more time to review this.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 15, 2018
Page 16
Packet Pg. 117
8.A.e
Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis asked whether the Port's new marine facility falls under other review
elements. Mr. Lien explained the Port's marine retail building already received a Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit; that section identifies when a public hearing is required. If a public hearing is
otherwise required for another part of the project, it goes to the Hearing Examiner. The Port marine retail
building triggered SEPA and required a public hearing before the ADB, therefore, it goes to the Hearing
Examiner for a decision. The first Type II shoreline permit was the pump station 2 project.
Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis commented the resolution establishes a timeline; she would prefer
to have more than two months for the CAO review and suggested June, July and August. Mr. Lien said the
dates are not set in stone other than the deadline of June 30, 2019.
With regard to a joint local state comment period with Ecology, Council President Pro Tem Buckshnis said
the Council should hold its own public hearing and provide the document to Ecology who can have their
public comment period. Mr. Lien said the resolution does not require the optional review process; he
highlighted it as an option for Council to consider.
3. CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE BIANNUAL REPORT
Environmental Program Manager Kernen Lien reviewed:
• Critical Areas Biannual Report #3
o ECDC 23.40.055: The director will provide a report to the city council during the first and
third quarter each year, summarizing critical area decisions that have been made since the
previous report. The report will include information such as the number and type of critical
area decisions that have been made, including information on buffers and enhancements
approved for each applicable decision, a description of each approved restoration project, and
other information specifically requested by the council following the previous report.
• Critical Area Determinations
o Exhibit 1 contains spreadsheet of critical area determinations since September 2017
0 142 applications for critical area determinations since September
■ 68 "Waivers" Determinations
• 71 "Study Required" Determinations
■ 2 Void
■ 1 Pending
o Study Required
■ 65 —Geo Hazard (erosion, landslide, and seismic)
■ 21 —Stream
■ 11 —Wetland
■ 1 —Frequently Flooded
• Critical Area Development Review
o Projects on site with a "Study Required" determination requires review for consistency with
critical area regulations
o Exhibit 2 contains critical area determinations on projects since the September 2017 report
o Far right column contains details on the critical area review
0 70 project reviews associated with a study required since September 2017
■ Hazard Tree Removals
■ Frequently Flooded Areas Determination
■ Two Interrupted Buffer Determinations
• Hazard Tree Removal
o Allowed activity pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220.C.8.2
o Hazard documentation required
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 15, 2018
Page 17
Packet Pg. 118
8.A.f
developed right-of-way, he asked the actual width of the right-of-way in that area. Mr. Williams offered to
research. Councilmember Mesaros commented the City's ability to respond depends on the actual width of
the right-of-way.
Council President Nelson asked when the traffic calming program criteria was established and who
established it. Mr. Hauss answered the criteria was developed as part of the 2009 Transportation Plan. The
criteria includes the 85" percentile; whether there is a sidewalk on one side, both sides or no sidewalk; the
ADT; pedestrian generator; etc. Pine Street did well on the criteria related the pedestrian generators but not
well with regard to the 85'" percentile.
Council President Nelson asked whether there was a mechanism in place whereby a neighborhood that was
repeatedly denied traffic calming because it was an enforcement rather than an engineering issue, their
concerns were routed to the Police Department. Mr. Hauss said anytime there are speeding issues or lack
of stopping, staff usually informs the Police Department and they monitor it based on their ability. Council
President Nelson commented there is currently one traffic enforcement officer for the entire City on any
given shift which he felt was not enough. Clearly more enforcement is needed if drivers feel they can run a
stop sign and not get a ticket.
COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON. TO
PLACE APPROVAL OF THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN ON THE CONSENT
AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
8. ACTION ITEMS
1. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW
Environmental Program Manager Kemen Lien recalled last week he provided the Council an overview of
the Periodic Review and noting how it differed from the recently completed comprehensive update. The
Periodic Review Checklist in Attachment 2 identifies items for consideration during the Periodic Review;
most are clarifications and do not change buffer setbacks, etc. Passage of the resolution does not approve
any specific amendments, it only approves the intended scope of the update. The Work Program in
Attachment 3 provides a rough timeline to complete the update by the statutory deadline June 30, 2019. He
identified a minor amendment to the Work Program, expanding the CAO update with regard to bringing
the wetland regulations into compliance with the 2016 Guidance from June to August.
Mr. Lien recalled Council comments regarding the joint review with ecology. It is an option for the City;
staff's intent is to follow the standard review process unless the Council directs staff to do the joint review
process. The City is eligible for a $20,000 grant to complete the update and there is a June 30, 2018 deadline
for the application; he needs direction from Council that they are satisfied with the scope and intent
identified in the Work Program, the public participation plan and the checklist.
Councilmember Buckshnis thanked Mr. Lien for taking into account the changes she requested last week.
She suggested changing the notes section related to Windward Environmental's analysis as they will only
be beginning their analysis in May -June 2018.
COUNCILMEMBER BUCKSHNIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TIBBOTT, TO
ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 1411, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS ADOPTING
THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN AND WORK PROGRAM FOR CONDUCTING THE
LEGISLATURE'S MANDATED 2019 SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM PERIODIC REVIEW
UPDATE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. CONSIDERATION OF STUDY OF POTENTIAL CHANGES TO BDI 15' GROUND:
FLOOR HEIGHT REQUIREMENT
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
May 22, 2018
Page 15
Packet Pg. 119
9.A
Planning Board Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 06/27/2018
Review Planning Board Extended Agenda
Staff Lead: N/A
Department: Planning Division
Prepared By: Diane Cunningham
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
The Board's current extended agenda is attached.
Attachments:
06-27-2018 PB Extended Agenda
Packet Pg. 120
of EbAf
U� O�6
9.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
PUNKNO BOARD
M/p,
Extended
June 27, 2018
Meeting Item
JUNE 2018
June 27 1. Discussion on Draft Housing Strategy
2. Introduction to SMP Periodic Review
JULY 2018
July 11 1. Public Hearing on Critical Area Update
2. Discussion on Draft Housing Strategy
July 25 1. SMP Periodic Review
2. Public Hearing on Rezone from RS-8 to RM-1.5 (File No.PLN20160044)
(Tenatative)
3. Public Hearing on Code Update for Permit Decision Making
AUGUST 2018
August 8 1.
August 22 1. SMP periodic Review
SEPTEMBER 2018
September 12 1.
September 26 1.
OCTOBER 2018
October 10 1.
October 24 1.
r
a
Packet Pg. 121
9.A.a
Items and Dates are subject to change
Pending 1. Community Development Code Re -Organization
2018 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 1. Annual Adult Entertainment Report (January -February as necessary)
Topics 2. Election of Officers (Vt meeting in December)
3. Parks & Recreation Department Quarterly Report (January, April, July,
October)
4. Quarterly report on wireless facilities code updates (as necessary)
Packet Pg. 122