Loading...
2018-07-11 Planning Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD MINUTES July 11, 2018 Chair Monroe called the meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 — 5' Avenue North. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Nathan Monroe, Chair Matthew Cheung, Vice Chair Alicia Crank Phil Lovell Daniel Robles Mike Rosen Carreen Nordling Rubenkonig BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Todd Cloutier (excused) READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Shane Hope, Development Services Director Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager Jerrie Bevington, Video Recorder BOARD MEMBER ROSEN MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF JUNE 27, 2018 BE APPROVED AS AMENDED. BOAD MEMBER REUBENKONIG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Eric Thuesen, Edmonds, cautioned that there can be both good and bad consequences when the codes are slackened to allow greater opportunities for housing. The changes can improve the housing situation in Edmonds, but people can also utilize the system to do things that are not good for Edmonds. He hopes the codes having to do with the differences between residential and multi -family housing are not changed. Developers of multi -family residential housing should be required to meet the current parking and utility requirements and design review should still be required. The community should be allowed to comment on these projects. Dave Cooper, Edmonds, voiced concern about the portions of the Housing Strategy that deal with homelessness. At the public hearing, a point was made that the Housing Strategy was intended to address Edmonds's residents who are homeless. When he asked for verification of that, he was told "absolutely not." This tells him that any homeless person can drive their car to Edmonds, park it on Main Street and expect the City to take care of them. He said he also asked if there would be any contingency plan for all the extra costs associated with setting up homeless housing. Homeless advocates indicate that this is only the tip of the iceberg, and the next step is what makes them homeless, which is heroin and/or alcohol addiction, mental health issues, criminal history, or flat-out refusal to work or follow the rules in the existing homeless shelters. If the Housing Strategy is adopted and it turns out to be a disaster, he asked if the City has an exit strategy to back out of it and make Edmonds what it was before it was turned into a disaster. He noted that there is nothing in the strategy to indicate how much it will cost to implement. There is nothing in the plan about how implementation will be funded. He asked if the City intends to raise property taxes or sales tax or if there will be a City income tax. Lastly, he commented that what is proposed in the Housing Strategy relative to homelessness is exactly the same thing that has been tried in Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles, but has never worked anywhere. He understands it is profitable for people who are getting paid to come up with plans to address homelessness, but the residents of Edmonds will be responsible to pay the taxes to implement the plan. He is dead set against it, and he does not believe it will work. Michelle Dotch, Edmonds, said she is unclear how the perception of a housing crisis came about. If there is such a crisis, she questioned why most citizens of Edmonds know nothing about the Housing Strategy, which proposes to fundamentally change the character of Edmonds from a unique, family -friendly town with green open spaces and the ability to know your neighbors. She pointed out that the main players in the Housing Strategy are those with a vested interest in low-income, government - subsidized, high -density housing, and the plan does not truly address the concerns of the residents of Edmonds. She urged the Board to listen to the citizens' concerns and strike the language in the plan that clearly needs more time to let the taxpayers decide how they want to move forward. She noted that most residents she has spoken to have no knowledge of the plan, and they need to know what is going on. Ms. Dotch said that, as a business owner in Shoreline, she knows firsthand how processes get sped up through the Planning Board while citizens are told not to worry because there will be plenty of time to review each part individually. This exact same cast of characters came into Shoreline to promote low-income housing, using an exempt church property that was large open acreage with trees, light and space across from single-family homes. Zoning laws were rewritten to allow an out of scale, 70-foot tall, high -density, low income housing project to be squeezed into an area where it would not previously have been allowed. Minimum parking requirements were reduced so cars spill out in front of her business and the single-family homes across the street where there are no safety features like sidewalks. Children waiting for the bus spill out into the street as there is no room for them to be contained on a dirt strip right next to the road. Traffic on the narrow, 25-MPH road increased with no City improvements made to handle the extra density. The proposed Housing Strategy will allow this same type of high - density development to occur at Westgate and Five Corners, and along Edmonds Way, 212' Street, 220' Street, 196t1i Street and 76r' Avenue. There is no room to widen the roads where this high -density development is proposed, and in many situations the roads have actually been narrowed due to removal of traffic lanes to accommodate bike lanes. A massive number of cars will come as a result of the plan, clogging the roadways and causing people to cut through formerly safe and peacefully neighborhoods to get where they are going. Ms. Dotch recalled that in his State of the City address in February, Mayor Earling commented that Edmonds would not become like Ballard. Yet anyone with eyes can see that the City's transformation is following this same path. Having an organic, natural population growth in Edmonds has served the City well. The City will continue to grow, but forcibly -engineered redistribution of high -density population will crush the current town into a City of ugly, out -of -proportion density with traffic backups and property taxes that crush established homeowners so they can't wait to leave. She concluded her remarks by asking if sitting in snarled traffic that is backed up from forced over density, allowing low -barrier drug activity right next to a daycare, looking from your deck onto a single-family lot that was cleared to accommodate tall, skinny houses, or allowing tiny homes that have common bathrooms and showers is what the Board Members would consider "an Edmonds kind of day." Teresa Hall, Edmonds, referred to the findings that Mr. Ramsey from Berk Consulting shared at the public hearing. The findings came from the Housing Consortium of Everett and Snohomish County, which is private company that is proposing to raise sales taxes, pass a county -wide levy, issue general obligation bonds, and allocate a portion of new construction property taxes to pay for their vision of how to correct a supposed housing crisis. While she does not dispute there are housing issues in Snohomish County, the lack of housing is usually caused by huge increases in population. Edmonds has seen some growth, but not as much as Seattle. According to the American Communities Survey, Edmonds population increased by only .56% in 2013, .40% in 2014, 1.05% in 2015, 1.32% in 2016 and 1.2% in 2017. She noted that Edmonds currently has a 6.6% vacancy rate and should not be lumped in with the rest of the County. She recalled that Mr. Ramsey indicated that 70% of households in Edmonds are two or fewer, but the American Communities Survey indicates that the average size of households is 2.33 persons. Mr. Ramsey mentioned the City's aging population several times, but the American Communities Survey shows the median age is 47. Planning Board Minutes July l 1, 2018 Page 2 Ms. Hall recalled that the Housing Consortium has identified that the major cause of homelessness is economic factors, but all of their statistics are based on 2013 to 2016 numbers and 2017 and 2018 have been stellar years in terms of unemployment. The number for 2017 is 2.8%, and anything below 5% is considered full employment. However, there is an issue that needs to be dealt with right now. According to the American Communities Survey, there are 114 homeless students in Edmonds living in shelters, 23 who are unsheltered, and 71 who are living in motels. That's a total of 208 students. The City does not need government agencies or higher taxes to solve this problem. She referred to a fantastic non-profit organization based in Seattle called Mary's Place, which shelters homeless women and children. Rather than reinventing the wheel, she suggested this model should be used to provide the City's homeless with the care and facilities they need. Scott Shriever, Edmonds, voiced concern that the Housing Strategy could bring a lot of chaos to the City and does not represent what he believes a plan should be. It is too vague and he is concerned about how it is being rammed through without adequate public input. Edmonds is one of the last places on the west side of the freeway that is not overrun with homeless encampments. He expressed his belief that the plan is set up to bring Seattle's problems to Edmonds, and he does not want that to happen. Mike Hanning, Edmonds, said he has lived in Edmonds for 47 years and understands what "an Edmonds kind of day is." Crime has gotten progressively worse in recent years, and it appears that the proposed Housing Strategy is an attempt to bring even more problems to Edmonds with subsidized and homeless housing. Taxes will have to be raised in order to provide subsidized housing. Nothing is free in this world, and some people are willing to work harder than others in order to live in Edmonds. It's a matter of choice. Nothing in the proposed strategy limits it to Edmonds residents. It is just too vague, and he urged the Board to recommend denial. Mindy Woods, Edmonds, said she is a United States Navy Veteran of the Persian Gulf War and a mom in Edmonds. She has been homeless twice in Edmonds due to economic eviction. Prices have gone up so far that many people cannot afford to rent, and house prices have gone up, as well. She said she appreciates that people do not want the problems of Seattle in Edmonds, but affordable housing is not the same thing as the drug/opioid addiction issue. While in some cases they overlap, affordable housing is about people who are hard working and want to stay in the community and continue to be neighbors. If it weren't for her Section 8 Voucher, she would not be able to afford to live in Edmonds. She is working very hard to get off the voucher, but she would like to have the opportunity to stay in the community where she raised her son. She understands community fears, and she also gets that the strategy is just a plan. It is not set in stone, and there will an opportunity for the community to work together to develop it further. She asked that people open their minds and understand housing issues better. She works a lot with homeless people in the community, including over 700 students in the Edmonds School District. About 95% of homeless people stay within the same zip code they became homeless in. They are not proposing to ship people in from other places. She understands concerns about drug abuse, but that is a separate issue. They need to provide housing options for people who are not able to afford the average home price of $667,000 or average rent of $1,300 for a one -bedroom unit. Leslie Hahn-Marmion, Edmonds, asked if there is a law in the State of Washington that says any specific community must provide low-income housing. People can have compassionate hearts, but they must also look at the reality. She asked who came up with the idea to create the Housing Strategy. She questioned if the Board's time has been wasted because there is no law that says the City is required to provide low-income housing. She pointed out that citizens were not adequately notified of the process and invited to participate and provide feedback. The plan is too vague and she felt there are better ways to help people in need via churches and other non-profit groups. Tax burdens are already high and people have had to work hard to be able to live in Edmonds. Now the citizens are being asked to accept the plan without having an opportunity to vote on whether or not they support it. Every taxpayer in Edmonds should be given an opportunity to vote before the plan is approved. Jim Carroll, Edmonds, said he was shocked to hear that the City was even considering the draft Housing Strategy. He questioned how low-income housing would be paid for; through government subsidies or increased taxes? Will it be similar to Obamacare where his company -sponsored healthcare plan costs him more to fund someone else who didn't have health care? He has worked for everything he has and no one has a right to live in Edmonds. The only right you have is a right to work. If you work hard enough, you can earn enough money to live wherever you want. To him, low-income housing equals crime. He asked why the Housing Strategy is being decided by the mayor and City Council. It should be an initiative on the ballot that gets decided by taxpayers, particularly if it is to be funded by tax dollars. He asked how a person can apply for low-income housing and who decides who qualifies. As a landlord, it is not the City's business to decide what rents will be. It should be Planning Board Minutes July l 1, 2018 Page 3 based on the market, either you can afford to live in Edmonds or you can't. He said he would like to see statistics that quantify pros and cons of low-income housing. If low-income residents are brought into the City, crime rates will rise. Jeannette Shriever, Edmonds, voiced concern that bringing more people into Edmonds will flood the school system. She learned from a current teacher that the schools are so overwhelmed with students now that that they have to use portable buildings. While this is an option for providing the needed classroom space, there are not enough teachers and staff to take care of the kids while they are in school. She also knows of mothers who come to Edmonds from as far away as Bothell, Queen Anne, Mountlake Terrace, Everett, etc. They love Edmonds but can't afford to live here. They are hard-working people but have to live elsewhere. Why can't it be that way for others who can't afford to live in Edmonds? Living in Edmonds is not a right; it's a privilege from working hard. She has family living in low-cost housing, and they report that there are problems every night with crime, etc. This is not what they want in Edmonds. Michelle Goodman, Edmonds, said she has researched strategies for addressing homelessness, and most vary from the proposed plan. Strategies include making social services available and providing lists to identify the opportunities. She encouraged the City to look at other options instead of implementing the same strategies that have failed in Seattle and other communities. Chris Brevick, Edmonds, reminded the Board that Edmonds is not Seattle, and it shouldn't be treated like Seattle. There is not a housing crisis in Edmonds. If the City Council adopts the Housing Strategy, he will do everything in his power to vote them out. Peter Gibson, Edmonds, reported that a homeless man who was panhandling on Highway 99 on July 4' followed a gentleman home to his housing complex and beat him with a rock. He reviewed that the City Council recently released its wish list, but very few of the projects were infrastructure related. One wish was the "bridge to nowhere" to help emergency responders get over the train tracks. Earlier last year the City Council reduced fire staffing by three firefighter positions. He questioned why the City Council is proposing to move forward with the train track overpass if there are no resources available. The City needs to have the needed infrastructure in place before it can grow. Darrel Marmion, Edmonds, questioned why Edmonds, as a City, needs to take on the issue of homelessness and create further obligation for taxpayers. There are federal and state programs in place to help people with affordable housing, and churches and community organizations help people, as well. He suggested that energy should be focused on these existing programs rather than creating another government infrastructure in small-town Edmonds that is modeled after the big -heart feeling of Seattle, San Francisco, and other disastrous scenarios of how people with good intentions have led a City astray and "into the toilet." He said he would like to learn more about why Edmonds needs to do anything other than potentially review codes on where there could be some relief on types of housing. He does not want the City to start new programs that will further increase his taxes that have literally doubled in the last five years. Members of the audience voiced concern that most people in Edmonds do not know about the proposed Housing Strategy. Chair Monroe agreed it is a difficult situation. The Board's agendas are published in a variety of newspapers, as well as other locations. A member of the community suggested that important news that could have a significant impact on the community, such as the Housing Strategy or the stackable containers that are proposed for the church property, should be published in the newspapers in prominent locations. Another member of the community pointed out that she couldn't find information about the Housing Strategy on the City's website, either. Mr. Lien illustrated the location of the link to the Edmonds Housing Strategy via the City's website. A member of the audience explained that, as a busy mom, she doesn't have time to read the newspaper or search the web to find out what the City Council is doing. The only way she can learn about proposals such as the Housing Strategy is for the City to send her a letter. When the City is proposing changes of this magnitude, there should be a rule about sending out notice in the mail. It was also noted by a gentleman that the City needs to do a better job of providing timely notifications on its website. Another gentleman indicated that he signed up at the public hearing to receive email notice of future meeting dates, but the City did not follow through. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD There were no comments regarding the written Development Services Report. Planning Board Minutes July l 1, 2018 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION ON DRAFT HOUSING STRATEGY Director Hope explained that the Comprehensive Plan includes a goal that the City develop a Housing Strategy by 2019 to increase the supply of affordable housing for a range of income levels and to meet diverse housing needs. The Planning Board has had housing issues on its agenda 35 times between 2015 and early 2018, not counting the draft Housing Strategy, itself These discussions provided substantive input that shaped the draft strategy. A Housing Strategy Task Force was also formed and was composed of primarily housing professionals who could provide some recommendations about specific strategies for the Planning Board and City Council to consider. Public outreach included a housing forum in the spring of 2017, which was cosponsored by a local housing group, several press releases, articles and columns in the local media, a dedicated webpage, Facebook postings, official posted notices and publications in the newspapers, a public open house on May 21 St, a public hearing on June 131, and posting of specific Planning Board agendas (May 231, June 27' and July 111). Director Hope recalled that the data and statistics that were put together by the consultant relative to the current housing needs were presented at a previous meeting and included in the draft Housing Strategy. She summarized that about 6,000 households in Edmonds could currently be considered cost burdened, and many are having a difficult time remaining in their homes. About 4,000 are low-income households in Edmonds right now. She explained that low-income does not necessarily mean extremely low-income or homeless people. Because the City's median income level is fairly high ($98,000), low-income includes those who are earning $50,000 to $60,000 per year. She said there are about 11,000 people working in Edmonds, and 60% are paid less than $40,000 per year. In addition, many of them have long commutes. About 70% of the households have only one or two members, yet a significant number of the existing housing units have more than two bedrooms. She introduced Kevin Ramsey from Berk Consulting, who was present to talk about the draft Housing Strategy. Kevin Ramsey, Berk Consulting, provided a brief overview of the housing statistics that were analyzed as part of the process of creating the draft Housing Strategy. He explained that the goal was to identify the housing needs that are unique to Edmonds, as well as the appropriate strategies for addressing them. His research looked at the existing housing supply and how well it matches the existing household needs, as well as rent levels and how well they align with the wage levels amongst the Edmonds workforce. As the statistics show, there is a misalignment in that market rate units are not at a level that the local workforce can afford. Mr. Ramsey said the Housing Strategy focuses on housing needs or a variety of household types, recognizing there is no single solution. It talks about workforce housing for both younger workers, as well as families. It also addresses the aging population that is expected to grow and recognizes that seniors can have unique housing needs. In addition, the strategy addresses people who are struggling with homelessness or are in vulnerable housing situations. The strategy includes six different objectives, and each has a set of recommended actions for the City to explore and study in more detail. It also identifies the next steps to work towards implementation and studying some of the potential impacts of the actions to see if they are appropriate for the City. The strategy also includes a number of appendices. One focuses on homeless services and resources in Edmonds, including input from the Police Department and social workers to understand what is already being provided in Edmonds and what partnerships have been made with other regional and county agencies. The glossary provides details about the terminology used in the plan, and a matrix looks at the full range of tools that were considered. Mr. Ramsey reviewed the six strategies and their associated actions as follows: 1. Increase the supply of market -rate multifamily housing. These action items are things the City could do to encourage the market -rate multifamily housing to have greater variety to serve more types of households and address the high demand for housing in the City. 2. Expand the diversity of housing in the "missing middle." These action items focus on middle -income households that cannot afford single-family homes in Edmonds but are looking for some way to move on from an apartment. Currently, there is not a large supply of townhomes and other small -format, single-family housing. 3. Support the needs of an aging population. These strategies focus on the unique needs of the aging population, which will continue to grow in Edmonds. Planning Board Minutes July l 1, 2018 Page 5 4. Increase the supply of income -restricted affordable housing. They do not expect the market to provide for the needs of the full spectrum of households that live and work in Edmonds right now, and the strategy identifies the roles the City could play to help facilitate increasing the supply of housing targeted at lower income levels. The actions include participating in South Snohomish County strategies to reduce homelessness, participating in regional strategies and partnerships, and providing protections for low-income tenants. The action strategies focus on transit -oriented development in corridors that are already well served. These areas have the infrastructure and services in place to support development at greater densities. The actions include: • Greater design flexibility, particularly in multi -family zones and greater flexibility in parking requirements, particularly when associated with transit -oriented development. • Density bonuses for market rate developers who provide income -restricted units. • Greater flexibility for townhome, cottage housing, small -lot single-family homes, etc. • Making it easier for single-family property owners to develop accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and backyard cottages. This option provides an existing homeowner an opportunity to create an additional income stream or provide space for an additional family member to live on site. • Participating in partnerships to support the aging population. As people grow older, many want to stay part of the community and are looking for ways to feasibly "age in place." • Support opportunities for shared housing arrangements. • Help facilitate and increase transportation, recreation and social service opportunities in partnership with other agencies. • Look for ways to reduce costs via property tax and utility rate relief, particularly to low-income senior households. • Consider code changes that reduce barriers to retire homes, assisted living and other senior home environments. For example, they may not need the same level of parking as a regular apartment building because more of the residents would not use cars. • While the strategy is not suggesting that the City become a provider of affordable housing, it could play a role by surveying available public or non-profit lands that might be suitable for affordable housing and helping to facilitate a project that is built by a non-profit organization. It could also allocate city funds to support projects that are targeted at the very low income. This could help a non-profit become more competitive to receive state and local grants by providing a local match that is just a small fraction of the actual cost. • Expand the Multi -Family Tax Exemption (MFTE) to make the development of new multi -family housing more economically feasible. Often this includes requirements for affordable housing. • Explore inclusionary zoning that includes incentives or requirements for developers to put affordable housing on site when they build. 5. Participate in South Snohomish County strategies to reduce homelessness. These actions focus on exploring regional partnerships, as well as reducing local barriers to providing housing. They include looking at what role the City can play to help support and facilitate acquiring and operating transitional housing facilities, as well as permanent supportive housing; looking at other types of formats such as single -room occupancy housing that can work well ask transitional housing for people struggling with homelessness; identifying and amending codes that create barriers to these options; and looking at ways to support the expansion of winter shelter programs and emergency shelters. 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. Director Hope clarified that none of the elements of the plan presuppose that the City would build housing or supply housing or collect new taxes for housing. There are already agencies in the region that work on housing, and perhaps the City could partner with them better and help coordinate their efforts. The City belongs to the Alliance for Housing Affordability and provides a small amount of money that is shared amongst the entire region, and this contribution can continue. These are the kinds of things that the draft Housing Strategy is all about. Planning Board Minutes July l 1, 2018 Page 6 Director Hope recalled that at their June 271 meeting, the Planning Board provided feedback and requested clarifications and changes to the draft Housing Strategy. She reviewed the revisions that were made as follows: • Language was added to specifically note that Edmonds is an "inclusive" community and not an exclusive one that keeps everyone else out. (Pages 9 and 17) • Additional language was added to emphasize the need for housing opportunities for all household sizes and special needs such as seniors and assisted living. (Pages 9-17) • Language was added about the plans relevance to people who already live in the community. It specifically lists some of the issues that people in the community are already experiencing, as well as some of the tools that can be helpful for them. (Pages 11-16) • Language was added to list options for innovative tools, including financing tools using new technology. (Page 25) • Staff consulted further with the Police Department for additional input relative to homeless issues, and this input was included. (Pages 29-30 and 49-50). • Language was added about the context of the Strategy as a broad policy guide, which is subject to more public input for specific actions later (Page 10). These future actions might include budget amendments, code amendments, etc. • A new example was provided of someone who could benefit from more attainable housing options in Edmonds (Page 13). • New language was added to explain the wage data (Page 13) and a further definition was provided in the glossary. • The image of "tiny homes" was removed from the cover page (front cover) because the Board believed it implied that was something coming to Edmonds. Director Hope clarified that there is a section about some tools that could be used to work with people who are homeless for a variety of reasons. However, the plan does not propose that Edmonds become a place of specialized homeless facilities. It does propose that the Council consider participating in strategies for the region in addressing some of the homeless issues. The homeless section is different than the other sections. It talks specifically about a separate study the City is currently pursuing about homelessness that is not part of the draft Housing Strategy. The Housing Strategy recognizes this study, as well as some of the ideas that are being considered in the region to address the problems. However, the bulk of the Housing Strategy is about market -rate solutions and not the City paying for them. Director Hope recommended that the Board forward the draft Housing Strategy to the City Council with a recommendation of approval as is or with specific changes as identified by the Board. Assuming the Planning Board can forward a recommendation to the City Council tonight, the City Council could begin its review as soon as July 241 and hold a public hearing on August 71. The Council could have more discussion on August 21 st and potentially take final action as soon as September 71. She emphasized that adoption of the strategy would not result in any specific action or change. Board Member Crank commented that she appreciates the changes that were made to the strategy since the last meeting, specifically the language around prioritizing Edmonds residents within the process. She is glad that the recommendations in the draft document were made in the context of strategies rather than a specific plan. She explained that there is a difference between a strategy and a plan. Right now, they are simply trying to identify some potential strategies to address the problems and not all of the strategies will be implemented. Even if the Planning Board recommends denial of the draft Housing Strategy, it will still go forward to the City Council for discussion. She strongly suggested that citizens show up to the City Council public hearings because they will make the final decision. The Board has heard their concerns and done their best to reiterated in their comments what they heard, but they are not the final decision makers. Again, she encouraged them to submit written comments and attend the public hearing before the City Council. Board Member Crank stressed the need for a strong education piece if the City Council decides to adopt the draft Housing Strategy and move forward with its implementation. She pointed out that low-income in Edmonds is almost $50,000 a year, which means that affordable housing would not be serving derelict people who do not want to work. She understands the concerns of those who moved to Edmonds because of the great school district, but it is important to keep in mind that their child's favorite teacher is making less than $50,000 and driving to work from somewhere else because they can't afford to live in the community. It is important to put faces to the issues. She recommended that the Board forward a recommendation to the City Council tonight so the document can move forward and the community can express their concerns to the City Council. The Board has gone as far as it can, and the City Council will make the final decision. Planning Board Minutes July l 1, 2018 Page 7 Board Member Robles commented that there are a lot of financial forces and money traveling around the world in the form of real estate investment trusts, and the objective is to buy up properties in neighborhoods that can no longer afford to live together and build large complexes in nice little cities like Edmonds. This external money provides great returns to stockholders and the same economic forces that keep the City exclusive are the same economic forces that allow them to come to Edmonds. Having no plan is not a plan at all. Improving and putting constraints on the process is important, and the most important thing is giving the citizens the same exact economic advantage as they have given to large corporations. The proposed strategy is brilliant in that it identifies a set of solutions that satisfy many different problems: affordable housing options for teachers, firemen and others who need to work in Edmonds; kids who want to raise children in the same city they grew up in; parents who are aging and want to let their kids come back to live with them; people who want to rent out a portion of their larger home to provide supplemental income, etc. The strategy gives the citizens of Edmonds the same tools that everyone else has to take advantage of the beautiful community. He suggested that the best solution for addressing the housing crisis is to provide options for single-family property owners to retain their properties and get more income. Once again, he pointed out that there are financial tools that allow people to lend money to each other (crowd sourcing, crowd funding, etc.), but they must reinstate the social fabric that has somehow been lost. They need to talk to each other more and the only way to do that is to stay in the community. He felt the strategy represents a balanced approach and he appreciates the work the staff and consultant have done based on the constraints they had to work under. Economic growth will continue and the only thing the City can do is help make sure it is done correctly. Board Member Lovell said he was not at the last meeting but he has read through the minutes, as well as additional information provided by Director Hope relative to the changes and revisions made to the strategy in response to the Board's June 27' discussion. While he has heard the public comments, if the citizens really want to make an impact they should attend the City Council hearing. If they don't like the decision made by the City Council, they can exercise their disappointment during the next election. He suggested that the introductory statement could be changed to reflect that the City "could" rather than "should" implement the strategies and actions identified in the document. He recalled that when the Board considered a rezone proposal for the Firdale Village property, which was never redeveloped primarily because the City Council took the Board's recommendation and changed the terminology from "could" to "shall" and "should." He cautioned that they need to be careful about tailoring the language to be too prescriptive. For example, the first full paragraph on Page 10, could be changed to read, "While these steps show progress, more actions are potential. The 2016 Edmonds Comprehensive Plan committed the City to develop and implement a Housing Strategy by 2019. .. " He suggested that this change, along with several other small edits could help ameliorate some of the impact of the strategy and set a platform that makes it clear that a lot has to happen and that the document is not a plan but a list of potential strategies the City could undertake if the commitment, funding, land, community support, etc. is available to support implementation. An entirely new and separate approval process would be required for each action item. Board Member Lovell suggested it would be helpful to provide an example that helps the public understand the process that would be required to implement any of the strategies or actions. It is important for the public to understand that changes do not happen simply because the strategy is adopted as something the City could do. A lot of steps must take place to make implementation happen. Board Member Rosen said regardless of the Board's decision, there are philosophical differences on the grand level. There are also misunderstandings in multiple directions. He believes there is a significant lack of opportunity to both understand and voice an opinion about the draft document. He suggested that public survey or a very well publicized open house/hearing would benefit the discussion. Board Member Rubenkonig said she listens to what everyone says and tries to understand what matters to them. They don't have to see things the same way, but they are in this together. She pointed out that all of the Planning Board meetings are recorded and broadcast on public television, and the City Council Members watch the recordings and read the Planning Board minutes. The public concerns are getting through to them. She appreciates that people attended the meeting and made their voices heard. She reviewed that the Board has discussed housing issues at least 35 times, and it was also the group that raised some of the issues relative to housing based on personal experiences. Board Member Rubenkonig said she can appreciate the citizen comment that "they worked hard to be able to live in Edmonds." She recalled her first apartment in Baltimore, Maryland, which was in a condemned building on top of a funeral home. Since that time, she has worked hard for her housing dollars; and every time she moved out of a unit, she left it cleaner than when Planning Board Minutes July l 1, 2018 Page 8 she moved in. Many of Edmonds' citizens are the same; they reflect well on the community and keep their homes and properties in good shape. She defended the citizens when it came to looking at the tree regulations and felt they weren't giving enough respect to homeowners who were putting a lot of money into keeping their trees in good shape and taking care of their real estate. In turn, that is what the citizens are saying about the draft Housing Strategy; they want to keep their homes and properties in good stead for their own economic use and for the enjoyment of the community. What she really heard from the public is that any action plan should be an initiative the people can vote on. Board Member Rubenkonig commented that a report such as the draft Housing Strategy marks a place in time and makes observations using reliable data tempered by practitioners in the field of housing. The Mayor appointed the task force to provide a benchmark study of what is going on now. Many of the facts that came up shocked the task force and the Board. The draft document is a response to concerns raised by citizens, non-profit groups, city staff, Economic Development Commission and Planning Board. The City Council will determine the merits of the study and future action plans for the City will hinge on the Council's decision. Future action plans will be subject to yet another process, as explained by Director Hope. However, the draft Housing Strategy is not limited to City interests. Businesses, banking, non -government groups, faith -based institutions, and real estate developers are but a few of non -city establishments with a stake in addressing affordable housing. Gathering and sharing reliable information is essential to the health of the community and by no stretch of the imagination can the City government be solely responsible to resolve the current predicament. Board Member Rubenkonig reviewed a list of private sector programs that have started to address housing: • In Europe, McDonalds has started offering free housing for their workers. • Toyota has a history of providing dormitories and houses to employees. • Taco Bell Corporation has a host of incentives and discounts to augment its employees' salaries. • Hospitals are providing free housing, free tuition and other incentives to stabilize staffing. • It is found that providing temporary housing to the homeless can reduce health care costs. • The University of Washington and Children's Hospital has the first employer -sponsored housing developments in the City since the early 20r' century. They have partnered together to provide housing for their employees. • Compass Housing has completed two affordable housing developments in Broadview of Seattle and the Ronald House in Shoreline. They are in the beginning stages of planning a new building on the Edmonds Lutheran Church site. • Henry Ford from the Ford Motor Company thought it was very important to provide housing for his employees. Board Member Rubenkonig summarized that pertinent information relative to housing in Edmonds can be found in the draft Housing Strategy. The report provides a benchmark in time. Once it is adopted, the City can decide what to do with it. The actions proposed in the report are intended to give an idea for this moment in time as to what could happen. She said she likes the report, but she understands the citizens' concerns about their community. She believes the report gives a good understanding of what is taking place in the Edmonds community, and she will support moving it forward to the City Council. Vice Chair Cheung explained that the Planning Board is made up of volunteers that represent a cross section of the entire population of Edmonds. They represent both homeowners and renters, people who have kids and those who don't, people who are working and those who are retired. The Board Members wanted to have an opportunity to represent their community and express their viewpoints. They meet every two weeks to discuss various topics. They've been hearing about and discussing housing concerns and the changes that are coming to Edmonds for quite some time. They are constantly reviewing information so they can provide good input to help shape policies. The Board Members are not elected officials and they do not have the ability to change policies or plans. They simply provide input to the City Council. Based on public testimony earlier in the meeting and at the hearing, Vice Chair Cheung said it appears that many believe that adoption of the strategy will result in changes. Over the last few years people have been moving into Edmonds and housing prices are going up. As housing prices go up, taxes increase, and that affects people in different ways. The Board's intent is to address the changes that are coming in the future no matter what. The strategy is not intended to be a plan to address homelessness or create subsidized housing. It's a large toolbox that provides a number of strategies to address the existing and anticipated issues. There are some actions that the Board Members would not even consider for Edmonds, but the consultant was asked to provide a full range of options. He agreed with Board Member Lovell that the introductory statement should be changed to say the strategies and actions are tools the City "could" implement in the future. Implementing any of the strategies Planning Board Minutes July l 1, 2018 Page 9 or actions will require additional review by the Planning Board and City Council, and there will be additional opportunity for public input before any changes are implemented. Vice Chair Cheung emphasized that the draft Housing Strategy did not come out of an imminent crisis. It came out of information presented to the Board as they discussed how the City can accommodate the additional people that are anticipated to move to Edmonds over the next few years. Housing costs continue to rise and property values have doubled in less than a decade. These increases have affected people differently. For example, senior citizens living on a fixed income have experienced a dramatic increase in property taxes. One option to consider is allowing property owners to create ADUs to supplement their income. Adoption of the Housing Strategy will not implement code changes to allow ADUs, but it will identify ADUs as a potential option for the City to consider at some point in the future. At that time, the citizens will have an opportunity to voice their opinions both pro and con. The intent is to keep the door open for future discussions. Vice Chair Cheung said he wished the narrative in the draft strategy had been presented differently, and he understands the concerns that were raised by the citizens. The strategy is intended to address a lot of the issues that are known in the area and provides a list of potential solutions for future consideration. He concluded that they already know that the population is changing, and a lot of households in Edmonds have two or fewer people but many of the housing units have three or more bedrooms. There is not a wide variety of housing options in Edmonds. While some people are opposed to allowing townhome development, others might be in favor of the option. Having more apartments, condominiums or smaller homes will provide more alternatives to meet the needs of a wider range of people. The intent is to provide a wider range of housing rather than focusing specifically on low-income or homeless housing. Chair Monroe reviewed the six strategies outlined in the draft Housing Strategy. He said he has not heard a lot of concern about Strategies 1, 2, 3 and 6. The turmoil seems to be focused on Strategies 4 and 5, which talk about increasing the supply of income -restricted affordable housing and participating in South Snohomish County strategies to reduce homelessness. He suggested they consider passing the draft Housing Strategy on to the City Council with strong reservations about Strategies 4 and 5. Board Member Robles suggested the Board make note of Strategies 4 and 5, but he would not be in favor of the City pulling out of the South Snohomish County Task Force. The City must participate with this group if they want to have any affect on the subject of homelessness. Board Member Crank clarified that rather than saying the Board has strong reservations about Strategies 4 and 5, the Board could note there are strong reservations from the community about these topics. Chair Monroe suggested the Board accept Board Member Lovell's recommendation that more information and examples about the process for implementing the strategies and actions should be provided in the document. He also suggested the Board accept Board Member Lovell's recommendation to use less prescriptive language (could instead of should). He also supports Board Member Rosen's suggestion that there be additional opportunity for information gathering and public input prior to the City Council's final decision. The remainder of the Board concurred. Board Member Rubenkonig disagreed with making note of Strategies 4 and 5. She expressed her belief that the report stands well on its own. They are items the task force felt needed to be addressed, and now the information is in the report to move into the future. The record will show the interests of those who spoke to the Board and submitted written comments. She reminded the Board that there were also letters in support of the report. She suggested the Board should stay focused on the facts provided in the draft Housing Strategy, which includes reliable data to support Strategies 1 through 6. It is up to the City Council to determine their own interpretation and how their decision will be influenced by the community. The Board's responsibility is to review the report and identify missing elements. The Board even had an opportunity to influence the content of the report, so there were no surprises. Chair Monroe expressed his belief that the Board's responsibility is to do more than check the report for facts and to be spell checkers. The Board Members must also synthesize what they hear from the public, as well as their own input, and put that forward to the City Council. The Board will do the City Council a disservice if they don't highlight the passion they heard from the public, as well as the passion expressed amongst themselves. They do not have the power to throw out Strategies 4 and 5, but they can advise the City Council to have an in-depth discussion about the merits of the two items to make sure they are appropriate and that public input has been taken into consideration. Vice Chair Cheung clarified that the idea is not for the Board to express reservations about Strategies 4 and 5 but to highlight that many citizens have expressed opposition. This will give the City Council a heads up to solicit public input on these particular strategies. Board Member Crank agreed it is important to highlight specific issues of concern for the City Council so they do not have to start from scratch. Planning Board Minutes July l 1, 2018 Page 10 Board Member Robles expressed his belief that the public might be misunderstanding Strategies 4 and 5 and an additional education component might be appropriate to better communicate their intent. In his opinion, the best way to deal with homelessness and crime is to have social workers and police officers who can live in the community. Board Member Rosen supported Chair Monroe's recommendation relative to Strategies 4 and 5 but felt the Board should go further to encourage a better forum for public input, perhaps with a combination of open house and public hearing. Director Hope agreed it would be helpful to provide an example of the process for implementing a strategy or action, but she recommended that it not become part of the actual draft Housing Strategy. Chair Monroe clarified that Board Member Lovell's recommendation would add an explanation of the public process that would be required before the action items under each of the strategies could be implemented. This additional information would make it clear that the document is a strategy plan and not an action plan. Director Hope said the strategy mentions that public processes would be required before any code amendments could occur. Chair Monroe agreed, but suggested that the language should walk through the actual steps that will be required. Rather than providing the process for every single action item, one example would be sufficient. CHAIR MONROE MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE DRAFT HOUSING STRATEGY TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES AND OBSERVATIONS: • ADD AN EXPLANATION AND EXAMPLE OF THE PROCESS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT ANY CODE CHANGES ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACTION ITEMS. • MAKE THE LANGUAGE LESS PRESCRIPTIVE (REPLACE SHOULD WITH COULD). • ENCOURAGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO DO MORE PUBLIC OUTREACH VIA A PUBLIC HEARING, PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE AND/OR PUBLIC SURVEY. • THERE IS STRONG PUBLIC CONCERN RELATIVE TO STRATEGIES 4 AND 5. BEFORE MAKING ANY DECISIONS, THE BOARD ENCOURAGES THE CITY COUNCIL TO SEEK ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR FURTHER CITIZEN INPUT, DIALOGUE AND EDUCATION. BOARD MEMBER CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. The Board took a short break at 9:08 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:15 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING ON CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE UPDATES TO SPECIFIC WETLAND REGULATIONS Mr. Lien reviewed that the City completed the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Update in May of 2016, and the Department of Ecology (DOE) issued new guidance on wetlands in June of 2016. At that time, the City was in the process of doing a comprehensive update of the Shoreline Master Program (SMP), and the Council wanted it to include the most recent regulations, so certain wetland sections of the CAO were excepted from the SMP. This means they do not apply in the shoreline jurisdictions. Wetland sections consistent with the new guidance were provided to replace the excepted sections. As a result, the City now has two versions of wetland regulations; one that applies within the shoreline jurisdiction and a second that applies outside of the shoreline jurisdictions. Mr. Lien advised that the City is required to complete a periodic review of the SMP by June of 2019. In order to provide consistent regulations throughout the City, the work program for the SMP update will include updating the CAO wetland provisions excepted from the SMP to be consistent with the most recent guidance. 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. He referred the Board to the DOE's new wetland guidance (Attachment 1), as well as the draft amendments to the CAO, which are outlined in Attachment 2. He reviewed that, as proposed, the following sections would be amended to match what is currently in the SMP: • ECDC 23.50.010.13 — Wetland Ratings • ECDC 23.50.040.F.I — 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 Planning Board Minutes July l 1, 2018 Pagel l Mr. Lien explained that once these sections have been updated, the SMP will be amended to reference the CAO. The result would be one set of regulations that apply throughout the City. In addition to updating the four sections listed above, staff is proposing changes to ECDC 23.50.020.E to remove an older reference that should have been deleted when the CAO was last updated and a new section was added having to do with development within the footprint of development. In addition, ECDC 23.50.040.G.3.d would be amended to correct a scrivener's error. He summarized that the proposed changes are straightforward, basically adopting the regulations that are already in the SMP into the CAO. The amendments to the CAO will be adopted into the SMP as part of the periodic update. Mr. Lien recommended the Commission forward the proposed amendments to the CAO to the City Council with a recommendation of approval. Board Member Rubenkonig asked Mr. Lien to share information about his new position and his background and experience relative to SMP and CAO issues. She also asked Mr. Lien to share whether or not the proposed amendments are consistent with the DOE's process for adopting revisions. Lastly, she commented that none of the proposed amendments would alter the City Council's previous tailored approach to buffers. Mr. Lien said his new title is Environmental Programs Manager, and he has been working in planning and environmental regulations for close to 20 years. He has worked on two or three complete CAO updates and has been with the City of Edmonds for about 10 years. During that time, he has worked on comprehensive reviews of both the CAO and SMP. His current responsibilities include a mix of current and long-range planning. He is well versed in the City's code and processes and how the code provisions are applied on the ground. Mr. Lien explained that the SMP is under the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the CAO is under the Growth Management Act (GMA). The two documents do not play together. Within the shoreline jurisdiction, the SMP and the SMA rule and outside of shoreline jurisdiction the GMA and CAO rule. Updating the CAO is not a DOE process and the DOE does not have to approve it. However, they must follow the regular code update process, which involves a public hearing by the Planning Board, a recommendation from the Planning Board to the City Council, a notice to the Department of Commerce, etc. The City Council will make the final decision regarding the proposed amendments. The SMP periodic review process is outlined by the DOE, and the City's process is consistent. This public hearing is strictly related to the CAO. Mr. Lien said Board Member Rubenkonig's third comment is more related to the SMP than the CAO, particularly as it pertains to the Urban Mixed Use 4 shoreline environment. The proposed amendments would not change the SMP or the Urban Mixed Use 4 shoreline environment. However, the overall intent is to do the CAO update in conjunction with the SMP period review so they can readopt the CAO and have one set of regulations that apply throughout the City as opposed to two. No one in the audience indicated a desire to participate in the public hearing, so the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. BOARD MEMBER CRANK MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE CITY OF EDMONDS CRITICAL AREAS WETLAND REGULATIONS BE UPDATED CONSISTENT WITH THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PUBLICATION NUMBER 16.06.001. VICE CHAIR CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Monroe announced that the July 251 agenda will include a presentation on the SMP periodic review, a public hearing on a proposed rezone from RS-8 to RM-1.5 (File No. PLN20160044), and a public hearing on a code update for permit decision making. He reminded the Board that the public hearing for the rezone application will be quasi-judicial. He asked that a discussion about the Board's retreat also be placed on the July 25' agenda. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Monroe did not provide any additional comments. Planning Board Minutes July 11, 2018 Page 12 PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Robles commented on the new sign that is being installed on SR-104. The applicant has presented a design to the City Council, and it is receiving mixed reviews. Many are in favor of a traditional look with a lot of artistic elements. However, this has been ill advised given that it will be located in a high-speed traffic area. The Washington State Department of Transportation has also voiced concerns about using a concrete structure for safety reasons. He referred to numerous public comments that were submitted to THE EDMONDS BEACON. Board Member Lovell thanked Board Member Rubenkonig for filling in for him at the June Economic Development Commission meeting. He recalled her report at the last meeting that liaisons would be invited to report on what is going on in their respective groups, but this has been the case for the past three years. Board Member Rubenkonig said the intent is that the liaisons would still be invited to provide a brief update, but periodically, they would also be asked to provide a more amplified report with more detail. Board Member Crank announced that an open house for the blockable housing project will be on July 12' at the Lutheran Church. The intent is to start with a question and answer session, and a tour of the unit will come later. She also announced that she was elected to serve as Vice Chair of the Paine Field Airport Commission, and their first official meeting is scheduled for July 26'. ADJOURNMENT The Board meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Planning Board Minutes July 11, 2018 Page 13