Loading...
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