2020-05-14 Citizens Housing Commission Packet1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
OF LU4to
o Agenda
VEdmonds Citizens Housing Commission
Hy° VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING
EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE,
HTTP://EDMONDSWA.IQM2.COM/CITIZENS/DEFAULT.ASPX, EDMONDS, WA
98020
MAY 14, 2020, 6:30 PM
HOUSING COMMISSION'S MISSION
DEVELOP DIVERSE HOUSING POLICY OPTIONS FOR (CITY) COUNCIL CONSIDERATION DESIGNED
TO EXPAND THE RANGE OF HOUSING (INCLUDING RENTAL AND OWNED) AVAILABLE IN
EDMONDS; OPTIONS THAT ARE IRRESPECTIVE OF AGE, GENDER, RACE, RELIGIOUS
AFFILIATION, PHYSICAL DISABILITY OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION" — FROM CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 1427
ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATEMENT
WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE ORIGINAL INHABITANTS OF THIS PLACE, THE SDOHOBSH
(SNOHOMISH) PEOPLE AND THEIR SUCCESSORS THE TULALIP TRIBES, WHO SINCE TIME
IMMEMORIAL HAVE HUNTED, FISHED, GATHERED, AND TAKEN CARE OF THESE LANDS. WE
RESPECT THEIR SOVEREIGNTY, THEIR RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION, AND WE HONOR THEIR
SACRED SPIRITUAL CONNECTION WITH THE LAND AND WATER." — CITY COUNCIL LAND
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
OPEN PUBLIC MEETING ACT*
SEE INFORMATION FOUND AT BOTTOM OF AGENDA.
CALL TO ORDER & AGENDA REVIEW
LAND ACKNOWLDEGMENT
ROLL CALL
HONORING JOHN REED AND RECOGNIZING CURRENT PANDEMIC
PUBLIC COMMENTS (SUBMITTED BY EMAIL TO HOUSING.PUB.COMMENTS@a EDMONDSWA.GOV)
AND COMMENTS BY COMMISSION ALTERNATES
APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 13 MEETING NOTES
Approval of February 13, 2020 Meeting Notes
POLICY COMMITTEE UPDATES
Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission Agenda
May 14, 2020
Page 1
A. CITY RESOURCES
B. INCENTIVES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR AFFORDABILITY
C. WAYS TO ENCOURAGE MORE HOUSING TYPES
D. ZONING STANDARDS - UPDATES
E. CITY PROCESSES OR PROGRAMS
Policy Committee Updates
8. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT - PHASE 2
Community Engagement
9. PROPOSAL FOR MORATORIUM ON ZONING CHANGES
Proposed Moratorium on Zoning Changes
10. NEXT MEETING
Next Meeting
11. WRAP UP AND ADJOURN
*OPEN PUBLIC MEETING ACT
MAY 14, 2020 MEETING OF THE CITIZENS' HOUSING COMMISSION (CHC) IS CONSIDERED
NECESSARY/ROUTINE UNDER GOVERNOR INSLEE'S PROCLAMATION. MEETING IS NECESSARY
DUE TO CHC DEADLINE OF DEC. 31, 2020 BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 1427. MAY 14
MEETING IS ROUTINE BECAUSE CHC ROUTINELY HOLDS PUBLIC MEETINGS AND THIS MEETING
IS INTRODUCTORY FOR POLICY IDEAS AND WILL NOT INCLUDE DECISIONS ON ANY
SUBSTANTIVE POLICY ISSUES.
Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission Agenda
May 14, 2020
Page 2
Citizens Housing Commission Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/14/2020
Approval of February 13, 2020 Meeting Notes
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Citizens Housing Commission
Prepared By: Debbie Rothfus
Background/History
N/A
Staff Recommendation
Approve the meeting notes.
Narrative
Meeting notes from the 2/13/2020 meeting are attached.
Attachments:
ECHC_Notes_2.13
Packet Pg. 3
6.a
EDMONDS CITIZENS' HOUSING COMMISSION
Meeting Notes — February 13, 2019
Brackett Room, City Hall - 3rd Floor
121 5th Ave N, Edmonds, WA 98020
6:30 — 8:30 PM
A recording of the meeting is available on the City website. Meeting materials can be found on
the Citizens' Housine Commission Webaaee.
ATTENDANCE
Commissioners
•
James Ogonowski, District 1
•
Karen Haase Herrick, District 1
•
Keith Soltner, District 2
•
Weijia (Vicky) Wu, District 2
•
George Keefe, District 3
•
John Reed, District 3
•
Michael McMurray, District 4
•
Nichole Franko, District 4
•
Tanya Kataria, District 5
•
Greg Long , District 5
•
Jess Blanch, District 6
•
Alena Nelson Vietmeier, District 6
•
Judi Gladstone, District 7
•
Will Chen, District 7
•
Bob Throndsen, At -large
Alternates
• Leif Warren, District 1
• Wendy Wyatt, District 2
• Eva -Denis Miller, District 3
• Kenneth Sund, District 4
• Rick Nishino, District 6
• Jean Salls, District 7
• Tana Axtelle, At -large
City Council Liaison
• Vivian Olson, Position 5
• Luke Distelhorst, Position 2
Project Staff
• Shane Hope, City of Edmonds
• Brad Shipley, City of Edmonds
• Amber Groll, City of Edmonds
• Gretchen Muller, Cascadia Consulting Group
• Kate Graham, Cascadia Consulting Group
*Indicates alternatives participating in the meeting on behalf of a Commissioner
AGENDA
1. ROLL CALL— Amber Groll
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS
I. Two attendees provided public comment
3. ALTERNATE COMMENTS
I. Three alternates provided comment
4. REVIEW OF AGENDA & MEETING NOTES
I. Commission member read the land acknowledgement
II. Commission approved January 9, 2019 meeting notes
• Amended to correct the spelling of Vivian Olson's name
5. POLICY FRAMEWORK
Packet Pg. 4
6.a
I. Commission voted to accept the proposed changes in pages 1-3 of the February 4 version of
the policy framework with the following amendments:
• Maintain item "C" in Policy Goals section
• Change the use of "should" to "shall" in the Analysis section
II. Commission tabled further discussion on the policy framework to next meeting
6. POLICY TOPIC OPTIONS
I. Commission members voted via sticky dots on their top priority policy topics. The five topics
selected to be the focus for policy committees were:
• Obtaining or investing City Resources
• Incentives & Requirements for Affordability
• Housing Types
• Zoning Standard Updates
• City Processes or Programs
II.Commission members and alternates were assigned to one of the five policy committees
based on interest.
7. OTHER BUSINESS
I. Commission created an Outreach Committee to advise future public engagement activities
II. Commission created a committee to advise on the March 24 Quarterly Report to Council
8. ADJOURN
Packet Pg. 5
Citizens Housing Commission Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/14/2020
Policy Committee Updates
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Citizens Housing Commission
Prepared By: Debbie Rothfus
Background/History
Five policy committees were designated at the Housing Commission's February 13 meeting to begin
working on policy ideas for the full Commission to consider.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
Five policy committees, with two to six members each, were designated at the Housing Commission's
February 13 meeting to begin working on policy ideas for the full Commission to consider.
After the February 13 Housing Commission meeting, the policy committees began working
independently on policy ideas to present to the full Housing Commission. This "policy idea" stage is an
opportunity for the Commission to identify some things to be considered further. Further consideration
will include public input. The policy ideas are simply that --ideas, not final recommendations.
Each committee has a designated lead. Policy committees were asked to use a standard form to
prepare information for full Commission consideration. The committee leads have provided ideas and
information from their committees. (See attachments.) Some of these closely respond to specific
questions that were in the suggested standard form.
The five policy committees each have taken one topic related to housing, as follows:
1. City resources and investments (see Attachment 1 for committee materials)
2. Incentives and requirements for affordability (see Attachment 2 for committee materials)
3. Ways to encourage more housing types (see Attachments 3-5 for committee materials)
4. Zoning Update (related to existing housing types) (see Attachment 6 for committee materials);
or
5. City processes or programs (see Attachments 7-8 for committee materials).
At the May 14 meeting, each policy committee will report orally on progress --but for no more than 15
minutes total time per committee. (Note: Some committees may be proposing only one idea for
further consideration; others may have multiple ideas.) For each policy idea, committees have been
asked to report in the following way:
a) Committee lead to explain policy idea (up to 4 minutes);
Packet Pg. 6
b) Other members of that policy committee to provide additional perspective (about 1 minute);
c) Commissioners NOT on that committee to ask any clarifying questions and hear any committee
responses (up to 5 minutes).
Each committee may follow the above process for additional policy ideas that their committee has been
working on (as long as the committee's total time does not go beyond 15 minutes).
Next Steps
All ideas deserve time for good discussion. The May 14 meeting will introduce the ideas but does not
include time for robust discussion or for the Commission to decide which policy ideas to further
consider. That would be a topic for the following meeting, perhaps through a special meeting that could
be convened sooner than the Commission's regularly schedule June 11 meeting.
Note: A specific agenda item on May 14 includes options for the Housing Commission to have an extra
meeting.
Attachments:
Resources.Cmttee. Sales.Tx.Policy. Proposal
Gen.Policy.Proposal- DADUs V.2
Housing Types Committee Report Rev 4-18-2020
Housing Options diagram
Zoning.Changes.Cmttee.ADUs
Programs.Processes. Cmtee
Processes. Programs. Prstn
Incentives & Requirements Committee
Packet Pg. 7
7.A
Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission
April 2020
City Resources Policy Committee Policy Proposal
Names of Policy Committee Members: Jess Blanch, George Keefe, Weijia Wu
Short title of Policy Proposal: Use of City Resources to Support Affordable Housing
Purpose of policy being proposed: To leverage all available financial resources in order
to expand housing options in Edmonds.
Specific proposed policy (What exactly is being proposed?):
I. City Resources General Policies
A. Edmonds will actively conduct research on, and enact all available housing resource
programs
B. Edmonds will maximize per dollar impact on housing option expansion by
leveraging existing city and/or county infrastructure capacity and personnel when
implementing resource programs
C. Edmonds will conduct periodic reviews, at least annually, to provide:
1. Summary report on progress and effectiveness of existing resource programs
2. Update and action items on potential new resources for housing expansion
II. Currently Identified Resources
A. SHB 1406 / RCW 82.14.540: Affordable and supportive housing —Sales and use tax.
1. Proposal
We recommend the City of Edmonds pursue a coordinated regional effort, and
participate in collection of the sales and use tax credit for affordable and
supporting housing at the County level.
2. Background
The Washington State Legislature passed SHB1406, which enacted into law
Chapter 82.14 RCW effective July 28, 2019. SHB 1406 allows Cities and Counties
to claim a portion of the State's existing retail sales tax revenue to support
affordable housing. This does not create a new tax. It is a tax credit against the
State's sales tax, shifting revenue from the State to local jurisdictions.
Housing and services may be provided only to persons whose income is at or
below 60% of the median income of the city or county imposing the tax. Counties
over 400,000 population and cities over 100,000 population may use the
revenue for only the following:
a) Acquiring, rehabilitating, or constructing affordable housing, which may
include new units within an existing structure or facilities providing
supportive housing services under RCW 71.24.385 (behavioral health
organizations)
b) Funding the operations and maintenance costs of new units of affordable or
supportive housing.
For counties under 400,000 population and cities under 100,000 population, the
revenue may be used for the purposes above AND for providing rental assistance
to tenants. The estimated population is over 800,000 for Snohomish County,
and 42,000 for City of Edmonds.
Packet Pg. 8
7.A
Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission
April 2020
The bill sets a maximum tax rate of 0.0146%. The County is eligible to receive
the maximum tax rate of the taxable retail sales (TRS) in unincorporated
Snohomish County and could potentially receive 0.0073% or 0.0146% of TRS in
individual Cities. The amount the County could potentially receive through TRS
in Cities is dependent on each individual City and if they choose to participate or
not. WA Department of Revenue currently sets maximum annual capacity at
$1,343,274.791 for Snohomish County, and $71, 931.052 for City of Edmonds.
In order to access funds, local governments must pass:
a) A resolution of intent to use the funds by January 27, 2020
b) A local ordinance to enact the funding by July 27, 2020
Both City of Edmonds and Snohomish County have completed the above steps.
If Edmonds does not levy a qualifying local tax (QLT) by July 27, 2020, it will
receive 0.0073% of TRS ( $36,000 annually), and Snohomish County will
receive 0.073% of TRS for Edmonds. If Edmonds does levy a QLT, it will
receive 0.0146% of TRS ( $72,000 annually) and Snohomish County will not
receive any credit for revenue generated in Edmonds.
3. Implementation Options & Analysis
Options
Benefits
Considerations
Edmonds
-Ability to provide
-Regardless whether Edmonds implements a
implements
rental assistance to
qualifying local tax (QLT), there will be
SHB1406 at
low-income residents
insufficient annual revenue capacity (—$36 (no
city level
-More autonomous in
QLT)/—$72K (with QLT) to generate material
use of funds within the
impact on housing affordability
city
-Lean administrative capacity for
implementation
Edmonds
-Pooled funds and
-Due to population threshold at Snohomish
leaves funds at
coordinated regional
County (over 800K) vs. Edmonds (-42K), rental
county level for
efforts can generate
assistance is not an allowed use of revenue.
implementation
more material impact
-Effectiveness is tied to whether others would
and higher efficiency
also implement at county level
• City of Snohomish also passed both
SHB1406 resolution and ordinance
• Lynnwood passed resolution but not
ordinance
1 Source: Snohomish County representative via Shane Hope
2 Source: Washington State Department of Commerce http://www.commerce.wa.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2019/12/Affordable-and-Supportive-Housing-Report-2019.pdf
2
Packet Pg. 9
7.A
Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission
Apri12020
B. SHB 1590 / RCW 82.14.540: Affordable Housing Sales and Use Tax—Councilmanic
Authority
1. Proposal
We recommend the City of Edmonds advocate that Snohomish County use its
councilmanic authority to adopt the 0.1% sales and use tax for affordable
housing by the deadline of September 30, 2020.
2. Background
The Washington State Legislature passed HB 1590, enacted into law as RCW
82.14.530, will be effective June 11, 2020. HB 1590 allows Cities and Counties,
by councilmanic legislative authority to impose a tax of up to 0.1%, in addition to
any other taxes, provided that a minimum of 60% of the moneys collected is
used to construct affordable housing, to construct mental and behavioral health -
related facilities, and to fund their operations and maintenance. Such affordable
housing and facilities may only be provided to persons whose income is at or
below 60% of the median income of the county and who are persons with
behavioral disabilities, veterans, senior citizens, families who are homeless, at -
risk of being homelesss, unaccompanied youth or young adults, persons with
disabilities, or domestic violence survivors. The remainder of the moneys
collected may be used for the operation, delivery, or evaluation of mental and
behavioral health treatment programs and services or housing -related services.
3. Implementation
We recommend Edmonds adopt a resolution to urge Snohomish County to
impose by September 30, 2020, the full 0.1% sales tax authorized by HB 1590 to
construct affordable housing.
However, given the economic crisis created by the global coronavirus pandemic
of 2020, we also recommend that the County consider exploring whether it is
possible to delay collecting this tax until the worst of the crisis is past and the
economy rebounds.
3
Packet Pg. 10
7.A
Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission
April 2020
How does the proposed policy relate to the Commission's mission "to expand the
range of housing (including rental and owned) available in Edmonds... irrespective
of age, gender, race, religious affiliation, physical disability or sexual orientation"?
The proposed policy encourages the City to prioritize the expansion of housing options,
especially housing affordable to households making less than 60% of the Area Median
Income, through efficient use of tax revenue resources.
According to Housing Underproduction in Washington State, "[from] 2000 to 2015
Washington state underproduced housing by approximately 225,600 units, or roughly
7.5% of the total 2015 housing stock. This underproduction has created a supply and
demand imbalance that is reflected in the housing and homelessness crisis playing out in
communities across the state." 3 The primary policy principle the report recommends is to
"increase and expand funding for affordable housing." 4
The Housing Snohomish County Project Reports recommends generating additional
funding to create more income -restricted homes, noting:
"Assuming current funding levels, Snohomish County affordable housing
developers will build 1,353 income -restricted homes for very low-income
households in the next 10 years. This would address less than 3% of the overall
need for these households.
"If all of our recommendations are fully adopted, we estimate that 7,838
income -restricted homes will be built over the next 10 years, including almost
3,400 for very low-income households — those earning less than half of area
median income. This would nearly triple the number of expected homes built
for very low-income households from the status quo."
The report further states "Local funding is a critical resource for developers,"6 making
projects with local funding resources much more competitive in winning additional funds
to leverage for affordable housing development.
Snohomish County and/or the City of Edmonds (depending on actions taken by either
jurisdiction) may issue bonds for the revenue that would be generated by 1406 and 1590
over the life of the taxes (20 years). This action would allow the leveraging of a greater up-
front investment than an annual collection. More housing would be created in a shorter
time -frame, and that housing will serve the community for decades to come.
3 Housing Underproduction in Washington State, Up for Growth, January, 2020, page 4
https://www.upforgrowth.org/sites/default/files/2020-01/HousingUnderproductionInWashingtonState2O2O-01-10.pdf
4 ibid, page 23
5 Housing Snohomish County Project Report, April, 2018, Executive Summary page v.
https://snohomishcountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/50837/Housing-Snoh-Co-Proj-Rpt_Final?bidld=
6 ibid, Appendix page x
4
Packet Pg. 11
7.A
Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission
April 2020
Key factors
• Effect on the supply of low-income housing?
o This policy could increase and/or preserve the supply of low-income housing
in Edmonds and Snohomish County.
• Effect on the supply of moderate -income housing?
o The public funding sources identified here impact the supply of housing
affordable to households that make at or below 60% of the Area Median
Income. Other resources could be identified by council that would serve
moderate -income households (generally defined as 80-120% AMI), but those
generally do not come from public (i.e. tax revenue) sources.
• Effect on the supply of housing for seniors or others groups with special needs?
o To the extent that senior or special needs residents qualify for the affordable
housing being built or preserved, this policy would increase/preserve the
supply for these populations.
• Effect on property values?
o N/A
• Effect on the general tax burden of residents or property owners in Edmonds?
o SHB 1406 does not introduce a new tax
o HB 1590 would introduce an additional 0.1% sales and use tax
• Effect on businesses and economic vitality?
o TBD
• Effect on transportation, traffic, or parking?
o N/A
• Effect on walkability or transit opportunities?
o N/A
• Effect on (or relationship to) to services, parks, shopping, or other amenities?
o N/A
• Effect on community livability or neighborhood character?
o N/A
• Effect on renters? On owners?
o The revenue generated by the identified sources (SHB 1406 and HB 1590)
are limited per their respective statutes to serve households at or below 60%
AMI. To the extent that affordable homeownership programs generally
require potential homebuyers to have incomes at 80% AMI or above, these
revenue sources would only serve to create or preserve rental housing, thus
increasing options for renters and having no effect on owners.
• Effect on housing opportunities for groups of people who have been discriminated
against in the past?
5
Packet Pg. 12
7.A
Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission
April 2020
o Additional financial resources to create and preserve affordable housing will
increase housing opportunities for people who have been discriminated
against in the past. Per Snohomish County's 2019 Analysis of Impediments to
Fair Housing Choice, "A shortage of affordable housing, low vacancy rates,
and waitlists for subsidized housing, have a disparate impact on access to
housing for people of color and people with disabilities, who are more likely
to be living below the poverty level, be housing cost burdened, eligible for
participation in subsidized housing programs, and overrepresented as
renters and in the homeless population."7
Could this tend to correct the results of past discrimination against any groups?
o Affordable housing in high opportunity areas can improve economic
mobility, helping people break the cycle of intergenerational poverty.
"Moving within one's metro area from a below -average to an above -average
neighborhood in terms of upward mobility would increase the lifetime
earnings of a child growing up in a low-income family by $200,000. Children
who grow up in better areas are also less likely to be incarcerated and are
less likely to have teen births."8
• What other benefits or impacts of this proposal seem likely?
If the proposal might have negative impacts related to a factor above, how could
such impacts be reduced or mitigated?
o According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, Washington
State has the most unfair state and local tax system in the United States.9
Lower- and middle -income people spend more of their household budgets in
tax than their wealthier neighbors. Increasing our reliance on sales and
property taxes for the funding of public services only makes this system
more regressive.
o Efforts at the state and local level to institute a more progressive tax system
would reduce the unfair burden on low-income people.
7 https://www.snohomishcountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/70454/Analysis-of-Impediments-to-Fair-
Housing-Choice
8 https://opportunityinsights.org/neighborhoods/
9 https://itep.org/washington/
Packet Pg. 13
7.B
Housing Commission
Housing Type Committee
Policy Proposal
May 6, 2020
Names of Policy Committee Members: Jim Ogonowski, Judi Gladstone, Will Chen,
Nicole Franko, Rick Nishino, Tana Axtelle
Short title of Policy Proposal: Detached Accessory Units
Purpose of policy being proposed: Expand housing types in SFR areas.
Specific proposed policy (What exactly is being proposed?):
Allow one detached accessory unit on a property, with clear and definitive
development guidelines, in SFR area.
(Policy agreed to by all committee members except Jim Ogonowski)
How does the proposed policy relate to the Commission's mission "to expand
the range of housing (including rental and owned) available in Edmonds...
irrespective of age, gender, race, religious affiliation, physical disability or
sexual orientation"?
Provides for additional type of housing that can accommodate special groups and
potentially low and moderate -income housing needs.
Key factors may include some or all of the following, depending on their relevance
to the topic. [NOTE: For any factors that do not apply, state "N/A". For any others,
briefly explain the Committee's assessment of the factor. If the Committee does not
have enough information to give an assessment, insert " TBD" (to be determined) or
"not sure".]
• Effect on the supply of low-income housing?
The effect on housing supply depends on the number of SFRs that add a
DADU. Since DADUs are small, and if rented out, the rent should be low, they
would be more affordable to low-income individuals. However, if they are
constructed for family members to live onsite, they will not necessarily
contribute to the supply of low-income housing.
• Effect on the supply of moderate -income housing?
Same effect as low-income housing.
Packet Pg. 14
7.B
Housing Commission
Housing Type Committee
Policy Proposal
May 6, 2020
Effect on the supply of housing for seniors or others groups with special
needs?
Potentially large impact, depending on the number of SFRs that add a DADU.
DADUs can allow seniors to age in place, with family members close by.
DADUs can also be helpful with special needs populations, although the
DADUs would need accommodations for some groups or classes,
• Effect on property values?
This requires an assessor's view. In Seattle, DADUs have increased property
values. It would also depend on how the property is maintained. In that way
it may be no different than any other housing in the neighborhood,
recognizing that rentals properties may not be maintained to the same extent
as owner -occupied property.
Effect on the general tax burden of residents or property owners in
Edmonds?
Unknown. Requires an assessor's view
• Effect on businesses and economic vitality?
This will depend on the number of SFRs that add a DADU. With higher
population density there would likely be more economic activity, but the
extent to which DADUs would be developed or how they are regulated may
dampen the impact.
0 Effect on transportation, traffic, or parking?
Possible additional cars parking in the same amount of area, depending on
code requirements for parking. May also result in some increased traffic,
depending on the extent to which SFRs add a DADU.
• Effect on walkability or transit opportunities?
Unknown
• Effect on (or relationship to) to services, parks, shopping, or other amenities?
Unknown
Packet Pg. 15
7.B
Housing Commission
Housing Type Committee
Policy Proposal
May 6, 2020
• Effect on community livability or neighborhood character?
Allowing DADUS would change what is allowed in single family zoning.
Having more than one building on a lot would increase density to the extent
to which SFRs add DADUs. However, the development/design guidelines
required by this policy intend to manage how a DADU fits into the
neighborhood character.
• Effect on renters? On owners?
DADUs provide more opportunity for renters by allowing for a rental on a
property that may be otherwise owner -occupied. While property owners
who choose to construct a DADU on their property will experience costs for
building, insuring and maintaining another building on their property, the
DADU also offers owners financial means to stay in their home.
• Effect on housing opportunities for groups of people who have been
discriminated against in the past?
The extent to which housing for middle -lower income households is made
available, this policy may provide for groups of people who have been
discriminated against in the past.
Could this tend to correct the results of past discrimination against any
groups?
Same response as the last question.
• What other benefits or impacts of this proposal seem likely?
• If the proposal might have negative impacts related to a factor above, how
could such impacts be reduced or mitigated?
To allay concerns about the nature of an SFR development, guidelines need
to be well -thought out with public input to avoid unintended consequences
such as creating an environment in which rental agencies are encouraged to
"invest" in Edmonds by adding another unit to each investment property in
order to increase their rental income. One possible development guideline
could be to require that the owner needs to live on the property, if allowable
by law.
Packet Pg. 16
7.B
Housing Commission
Housing Type Committee
Policy Proposal
May 6, 2020
Optional:
• What other communities use this approach?
Seattle is one community that allows DADUs. However, their policies are
more permissive than what is being proposed here. Portland also allows
DADUs in SFR areas.
What other information is helpful to know about this proposal?
— * DADU investment opportunities:
https://crosscut.com/2019/07/will-wall-street-invade-seattles-
single-family-neighborhoods-not-likely-experts-say
— **2019 Seattle DADU legislation:
http:Ilwww.seattle.gov/councilImeet-the-council/mike-
ob ri en/b ackyard- cottages -an d-b as ement- units
• How would this policy be implemented?
4
Packet Pg. 17
7.0
May 2020
Housing Types Committee Report
Housing Types Preferences
The committee looked at a range of housing types and discussed how each might fit in with expanding
housing type opportunities in the Single Family Residential (SFR) Zones or Multifamily Residential (MFR)
Zones. Those identified for MFR area are already allowed. Following are the conclusions.
1. Attached Accessory Dwelling Unit- all agree with current inclusion in SFR zone.
2. Detached Dwelling Unit- disagree on whether it should be in a SFR area.
a. Favored because:
m
i. Can meet special needs populations like seniors, who can live independently
Q-
with other family members or help them stay in their home by generating extra
income.
E
ii. Preserves the existing home, which is good environmentally and helps maintain
o
character of neighborhood by preserving existing home
v
iii. Can have clear development guidance for them to ensure neighborhood
2
compatibility.
a
b. A minority believes it is inconsistent with the character of a single family area.
c
N
3. Houseboat communities- no one supports these as a real alternative.
N
4. Mobile Homes- mixed feeling about these
a. There was a general sense to not increase the numbers of these in the city, with a
4
m
minority in the committee seeing these as similar to detached dwelling units.
b. There was also some discussion about the possibility of having policies to protect
°a
existing mobile home parks from being displaced.
5. "Apodment"- not addressing since market will take care of it in MF area.
6. Mixed Use- all agree these are good in commercial areas
E
7. Live/work- all agree that these can work in a commercial or MF area
o
8. Multiplex- MFR area only
N
9. Townhouse- views varied based on size.
a. Two unit homes attached, whether townhouse or duplex would be ok in SFR area.
~
a�
b. Larger than two units would need to be in MF area.
N
10. McMansions
o
a. General interest in avoiding these
x
b. Potential for policy that might direct redevelopment to townhouse or duplex on a lot
c
E
rather than one big single family house.
11. Bungalow court/cottage houses- not a type of housing the committee addressed.
Q
a. This intentional community was viewed by a minority of the committee to be like mobile
homes parks.
b. Since there would likely be more than two homes, the committee wasn't sure if it would
be appropriate in a SFR area, but the size of the homes would be dwarfed in a MF area.
12. Courtyard apartments- MFR due to numbers
13. Triplex/fourplex- MFR due to numbers
14. Duplex- covered in townhomes.
Packet Pg. 18
7.0
May 2020
Policy Recommendations
1. Increase MFR along existing and future transit routes and adjacent to commercial zones,
particularly triplex, fourplex, apartment courtyards, multiplex, and mixed use.
2. Allow duplexes and two -unit townhouse buildings in SFR area.
3. Allow one detached accessory unit on a property, with clear and definitive development
guidelines, in SFR area.
a. Minority view is to not have detached accessory units.
Policv Recommendations for Consideration by Another Committee
1. Provide development guidance or incentives that encourage duplex or two -unit townhouse
buildings in lieu of one large single family house.
2. Prioritize enhancing neighborhoods through street and sidewalk improvements and
housing code enforcement.1
Staff Research on: impact of property value from detached accessory dwelling units
(DADUs).
Community engagement question: How do you feel about DADUs being allowed in single family
residential area zones?
Packet Pg. 19
Houseboat
Attached ADU
A small structure with a separate
entry sharing a common wall with a
primary single-family home.
Duplex
A small- to medium-sized structure that
consists of two dwelling units, one next
to the other, both of which face and are
entered from the street.
Triplex or Fourplex
A medium structure that consists of
threeor four units: typically two on the
ground floor and two above with a
shared entry.
Detached ADU
A small structure with studio -like
features on a single-family lot
Mobile Home
A floating, permanently
moored small dwelling unit.
o
�nptions
-�
ous g _
1— DUPLEX
DETACHED
A prefabricated dwelling unit on
an attached mobile chassis.
Apodment
Extra -small apartments
with a shared kitchen
11 l MID -RISE
LM e .0 LIVEIWORK
MULTIPLEX
TOWNHOU5E
4GALOW COURT
51NGLE-FAMILY _ _ - - - I IC,C, NC ` 'IDDLF
HOMES ------------ - MULTI -FAMILY ZONING
SNGLE-FAMILY �_____----_--
ZONING
Courtyard Apartment
TRIPLEX!
FOURPLEX
A medium to large structure consisting
of multiple side -by -side and/or stacked
dwelling units accessed from a court-
yard or series of courtyards. Each unit
may have its own individual entry, or up
to three units may share a common
anfry
Bungalow Court
This type consists of a series of small,
detached structures, providing multiple
units arranged around a shared court.
The shared court takes the place of a
private rear yard and is an important
community -enhancing element.
Townhouse
A small to medium structure, consisting
of usually two to eight attached single
family homes placed side by side.
Mixed Us
r,- 7.D
Dwellings above retail.
Live/Work
m
m
E
0
0
a
E
A small to medium attached or
detached structure consisting of
dwelling unit above or behind a
flexible ground floor space for
rn
residential, service, or retail use;
0
Both the primary ground -floor fle
a
space and the second unit are ov
p
by one entity.
0
Multiplex
o
-owl
x
A medium structure that consists of
five to 10 side -by -side and/or stacked
dwelling units, typically v
shared entry or individLI Packet Pg. 20
the front.
Q
7.E
Zoning Subcommittee
Edmonds Citizen Housing Commission
Auxiliary Dwelling Unit - Working Draft Version 1.0
Proposal Form
For Policy Committees
Names of Policy Committee Members:
Karen Haase Herrick, Greg Long, Keith Soltner, Ken Sund, and Leif Warren
Short title of Policy Proposal:
Changes to Auxiliary Dwelling Unit (ADU) Policies
Purpose of policy being proposed:
The following policy changes are recommended:
1. ADUs should be deemed a secondary use. ADUs should not require a special
use permit.
2. ADUs should not be required to be attached to the primary dwelling, but they
can be.
3. Reference 20.21.030: Criteria for accessory dwelling units shall remain the
same.
4. One on -site, non -covered parking space should be required for each ADU.
5. Utilize current setbacks, with exception that a 1-story detached ADU could be
built within 5 feet of an adjacent alley or on top of a prior existing accessory
building such as a garage.
Specific proposed policy (What exactly is being proposed?):
This proposal is aimed at making the process less costly, time-consuming, and
burdensome for the homeowner to build small secondary housing units in single-
family zoned areas. The development of more ADUs is one part of the on -going
efforts around the United States and Canada to create more small, low, and
moderate priced housing in urban and suburban areas. Many states and cities are
re-examining and revising their policies regarding ADUs to help resolve the housing
shortages their citizens are facing.
An accessory dwelling unit is a small, self-contained residential unit located on the
same lot as an existing single-family home. They usually range from 300-1,000 sq. ft.
An ADU has all the basic facilities needed for day-to-day living independent of the
main home, such as a kitchen, sleeping area, and a bathroom. As the term
"accessory" implies, ADUs are generally defined to be smaller in size and
prominence than the main residence on the lot. An ADU may be created as a
separate unit within an existing home (such as in an attic or basement), an addition
to the home (such as a separate apartment unit with separate entrance), or in a
separate structure on the lot (such as a converted garage) or free standing unit.
Currently, the City of Edmonds requires a special use permit for the building of an
ADU. A special use process costs an additional $1,000 and a three-month public
comment period. The special use permit process is burdensome enough that people
in surveys around the country report not wanting to develop ADUs for this reason.
Auxiliary Dwelling Unit - Working Draft Version 1.0
Packet Pg. 21
7.E
Zoning Subcommittee
Edmonds Citizen Housing Commission
Key factors may include some or all the following, depending on their relevance to
the topic. [NOTE: For any factors that do not apply, state "N/A". For any others,
briefly explain the Committee's assessment of the factor. If the Committee does not
have enough information to give any assessment, insert' TBD" (to be determined) or
"not sure".]
• Effect on the supply of low-income housing?
Some people with low incomes might live in ADUs depending on the cost of
rent. ADUs would create additional lower cost rental units, creating more
housing options. The cost per square foot of building ADUs is the same as
new home construction costs, less the cost of purchasing additional land.
Research around the country shows that ADUs tend to rent below market
rate. Research suggests that ADUs should be considered moderate to low cost
housing. Typically, ADUs receive no subsidized funding and obtaining
building loans can be difficult.
In a 2013 study of ADUs in three cities in Oregon, the average rent was
$852/mo. with a maximum of $1,800 and a minimum of $375. In this study,
98% of the ADUs were occupied by 1 or 2 adults. In the same study, less than
10% of the occupants were under 18.
• Effect on the supply of moderate -income housing?
More ADUs would increase the supply of moderate -income housing and offer
additional housing options. ADUs are usually used for single or two person
families for they have only one or two bedrooms.
The building of ADUs around the county has not grown as dramatically as
advocates had hoped. Mercer Island has been a leader in King County with
respect to ADUs. The city has almost 40% of the ADUs permitted across East
King County, even though it makes up just 6% of the total housing units.
• Effect on the supply of housing for seniors or other groups with special
needs?
Many families want to build ADUs so grandparents or adult children or
relatives with disabilities can live in the units. Families are then more able to
provide necessary supports for these individuals. ADUs also give aging
owners the option to downsize out of the house while continuing to live on
the same lot, in the same neighborhood. Owners who no longer need all the
space in their house but do not want roommates either can move into an
ADU that provides them a private space, while it frees up the main house to
generate rental income.
Auxiliary Dwelling Unit - Working Draft Version 1.0 2
Packet Pg. 22
7.E
Zoning Subcommittee
Edmonds Citizen Housing Commission
In the 2013 study of three cities in Oregon, 22.5% of the ADUs were occupied
by people 55 and older. 42% of ADUs were occupied by people 25-34.
• Effect on property values?
Studies are unclear on the effect on property values. For the specific
property, the property value should increase for an ADU that offers the
option of rental income coming to the property owner. People express
concerns that the development of ADUs in a neighborhood will decrease the
property values in the neighborhood. The design parameters currently in
place should negate any decrease in property values.
• Effect on the general tax burden of residents or property owners in
Edmonds?
Property taxes will go up on the residences that are put in ADUs reflecting
the increased value of the property. The renters in the ADUs will pay
additional sales taxes on their purchases in the community.
• Effect on businesses and economic vitality?
The addition of more ADUs will increase the number of people shopping
locally which should enhance the local businesses and the city's economy.
• Effect on transportation, traffic, or parking?
By mandating an additional onsite parking place for each ADU, the impact on
parking in each neighborhood should be minimized. In the Oregon Study,
17.7% of ADU occupants had no cars, 62.3% had one car and 14.7% had two
cars. There will be a slight increase in traffic on the community roads.
Concerns are often expressed that people living in ADUs will have parties
attracting many cars and creating loud noises. ADUs are small dwellings and
thus not conducive to large parties. If ADU residents are not considerate of
neighbors by blocking roadways or creating public disturbances, the police
should be called. A measure addressing short-term rentals could be brought
before the public to determine if it is an acceptable use of ADUs. A minimum
stay of 120 days would be suggested to promote "long-term" housing options
for the citizens of Edmonds.
• Effect on opportunities to use transit?
Depending on the location of the ADU, the occupants may be more likely to
use public transit.
Auxiliary Dwelling Unit - Working Draft Version 1.0 3
Packet Pg. 23
7.E
Zoning Subcommittee
Edmonds Citizen Housing Commission
• Effect on (or relationship to) to services, parks, shopping, or other
amenities?
Open spaces on private property would likely be reduced while public spaces
would likely see an increase in use.
• Effect on community livability or neighborhood character?
Most homeowners will not want or be able to afford developing an ADU in
Edmonds so it is likely that only a limited number of these units would be
added to the housing stock. Mercer Island has probably been the most
successful community in east King County and 3% of its housing is in ADUs.
Mercer Island had 236 ADUs in 2017. Many communities around the country
are struggling to encourage homeowners to develop ADUs as one way to
create more low and moderate cost housing.
Neighborhoods can be preserved by having reasonable regulations such as
ADU should be required to be of similar design, materials/construction, and
color (or complementary color) to the primary dwelling. Detached ADUs
might be only allowed behind the primary dwelling. Some communities
require that the ADU's front door be secondary to the primary residence or
not visible from the front of the property. Some cities require that the
property owner live in either the primary dwelling or the ADU.
• Effect on renters? On owners?
The creation of more ADUs gives more options to renters. In a competitive
market, more options should moderate rental prices. Some owners want the
option of having an ADU. It gives additional flexibility on how their homes
can be used to house extended family members and friends. It also gives the
option of an additional revenue stream generated by their property.
• Effect on housing opportunities for groups of people who have been
discriminated against in the past?
The development of more ADUs would create more rental options so there
would be competition for renters which should reduce the ability to
discriminate. Many ADUs are "granny apartments" and are specifically
designed to accommodate the needs of older people. ADUs could also be
designed to meet the needs of people with physical disabilities.
• What other benefits or impacts of this proposal seem likely?
One major benefit of ADUs is that it allows homeowners to generate a
monthly income from a property they already own. 43% of the ADU owners
Auxiliary Dwelling Unit - Working Draft Version 1.0 4
Packet Pg. 24
7.E
Zoning Subcommittee
Edmonds Citizen Housing Commission
in the Oregon Study say their primary reason for building an ADU was for
additional income.4
Older owners can use ADUs for people to provide the homeowners support
such as house cleaning, cooking or yard work.
Some citizens are concerned that ADUs may be turned into short-term
rentals (Air B & Bs). This would bring more strangers in neighborhoods with
little investment in the community. The Oregon Study indicates that
currently 4.2% of the ADUs are used for short-term housing. 4 The owners in
this study indicate that only 14.4% are thinking of doing short-term rentals
sometime in the future.4 Requiring the owner to live on the site might reduce
neighbors' concerns about short-term rentals.
• If the proposal might have negative impacts related to a factor above,
how could such impacts be reduced or mitigated?
During the February Open Public Forum, some participants complained
about the noise coming from ADUs that are currently being used as short-
term rentals. The Zoning Standards Committee discussed adding in a
requirement that ADUs be used only for long-term rentals of greater than 90
days. The Committee also contacted city staff to see if noise complaints are
considered an issue and received a negative reply. The committee feels that
keeping the requirement that either the ADU or the primary residence be
owner -occupied is the best mitigating factor at this time to address the noise
issue raised in the public forum. The Committee also decided that, as more
ADUs are built, should noise become problematic to other homeowners, the
issue can be re -visited by city staff.
Optional:
• What other communities use this approach?
Hundreds of communities around the nation have a variety of regulations for
ADUs. Mukilteo, Lynnwood, Kirkland, and Redmond all do not require special
use permits and allow detached ADUs. Redmond does mail a notice to
residents within 500 ft of the property: public comment is allowed; however,
it is a permitted use. Most communities seem to be loosening the zoning
requirements on ADUs.
• What other information is helpful to know about this proposal?
Communities across the US are looking at loosening their regulations on
ADUs to increase the availability of moderate to low cost, small housing in
urban and suburban areas. There is a growing literature and some research
on ADUs in these communities.
Auxiliary Dwelling Unit - Working Draft Version 1.0 5
Packet Pg. 25
7.E
Zoning Subcommittee
Edmonds Citizen Housing Commission
• How would this policy be implemented?
The City Council would need to go through the processes to amend the
zoning regulations. The Planning Department, Building Department and
Public Services Department should review and make
recommendations/modifications on these proposed zoning changes and
their impact on city services, water, sewers, etc.
City of Edmonds should consider developing a pamphlet describing
(marketing) the advantages and disadvantages, including guidance in
determining a "break -even -point" of building an ADU at your home.
Recommended Resources (Municipal Research and Service Center)
i. Seattle Planning Commission: A Guide to Building Backyard
Cottages (2010) - Detailed guidance for building detached ADUs in Seattle
2. Urban Land Institute:. Jumpstarting the Market for Accessory Dwelling
Units: Lessons Learned from Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver (2018) - Study
examining best practices from Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver BC
3. AccessoryDwellings.org - Portland, OR -based website maintained by
volunteers provides current ADU news, articles, project examples, and other
resources, including a Model Code for Accessory Dwelling Units
4. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality: Accessory Dwelling Unit
Survey for Portland. Eugene. and Ashland (2013) - Includes data on ADU use,
occupancy, construction, energy use, and demographics
s. MRSC: Accessory Dwelling Units Issues and Options (1995) - Detailed
publication created after the 1993 Washington Housing Policy Act discusses
benefits, regulatory issues, and zoning regulations for ADUs.
Auxiliary Dwelling Unit - Working Draft Version 1.0 6
Packet Pg. 26
7.F
May 2020
Policy Committees on Changes to City processes or programs, which may include,
Permitting fees, ability to make permitting process more efficient, impact fees, utility connections fees,
and other City programs.
Committee Members: Michael McMurray and Wendy Wyatt
Policy recommendations:
Transportation impact fees:
1) Expand the available uses of Traffic impact fees collected.
2) Expand possible additional uses of Traffic impact fees to benefit community.
3) Recommend City Council craft resolution that expands and defines further Traffic impact fees
available uses within the confines of Washington State RCW.
4) Growth and development within the city create additional demands and needs for public
facilities. A proportionate share of the cost for these facilities shall be mitigated through the
payment of transportation impact fees. Chapter 3.36
Utility connection fees
1) Recommend to Increase Sewer GFC per ERU to $6,000.00 from $4,417.00
2) Would help bring in additional funds to enterprise account that is limited on funding by facility
fees and utility payments by end users.
3) Increased fees collected by property developers would contribute to less rate increases to end
users.
4) Stabilizing utility enterprise account would reduce likelihood of larger and more rate increases
on residences. Contributing to more affordable community.
Citv Processes (Some Staff & Public recommendation
• Simplify zoning regulation. Use diagrams, pictures, and tables in place of text where
applicable. Use plain language where text is necessary.
• Reduce the number of conditional uses to streamline the permit process.
• Work with architects to provide pre -approved protype accessory dwelling units to speed up
the process and reduce cost.
City Programs
1) Explore establishment of a city -funded child care programs for families in need
2) By having subsidized childcare in Edmonds for people who live and/or work in Edmonds could attract
workers to Edmonds and support local small businesses and their families.
3) By subsidizing childcare program you could drastically reduce struggling families expenditures that
money saved could be redirected to afford or improve their living situation.
4) Money saved on childcare could directly result in making our community more affordable in a
broader and more creative way.
Packet Pg. 27
7.G
Policy Committee on
rocesses or
rogra ms,
which may include: Permitting fees; ability to make permitting
process more efficient impact fees, utility connection fees,
other City processes or programs
Committee Members: Michael McMurray & Wendy Wyatt
Packet Pg. 28
CU
E
0
U
0
L
E
M
O
L
ci
O
L
r-
d
E
ci
r
Q
Transportation Impact Fee's
7.G
E
E
O
a
L
L
FEW KEY NOTES FROM CODE: o
a
-These fees cannot be used to mitigate existing shortfalls of the park system or street system.
O
-These fees can and will only be applied to projects resulting from city-wide development grou �h
-To ensure that adequate facilities are available to serve new growth and development
Source://www.codepublishing.com/WA/Edmonds/htm
I/Ed monds03/Ed monds0336. htm 1
w
a
Packet Pg. 29
7.G
• 3.36.100 Use of funds.
• A. Pursuant to this chapter, impact fees:
• 1. Shall be used for public improvements that will reasonably benefit new development; and
• 2. Shall not be imposed to make up for deficiencies in public facilities serving existing developments; and
Cu
• 3. Shall not be used for maintenance or operations.
E
• B. Impact fees may be spent for public improvements, including, but not limited to, planning, engineering, 0
surveying, land acquisition, right-of-way acquisition, site improvements, necessary off -site improvements,
construction, architectural, permitting, financing, and administrative expenses, applicable impact fees or
mitigation costs, and any other expenses which can be capitalized.
• C. Impact fees may also be used to recoup public improvement costs previously incurred by the city to the
extent that new growth and development will be served by the previously constructed improvements or
incurred costs.
• D. In the event that bonds or similar debt instruments are or have been issued for the advanced provision of
public improvements for which impact fees may be expended, impact fees may be used to pay debt service
on such bonds or similar debt instruments to the extent that the facilities or improvements provided are
consistent with the requirements of this section and are used to serve the new development. [Ord. 4048 § 1,
2016; Ord. 4037 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3934 § 1 (Exh. A), 2013].
Packet Pg. 30
History of Traffic Impact Fees Collected
A. PRE ENYA714ON QF T11E TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE .ANN 7AL REP RT
_'ity Eng-1nccr Rob Engi ish reviewed:
+ 20 18 Renort
0
inn ing Balance
S$551,215
-Beg
Inx aye t Fees
$ 01,348
-Expenditures
0' St Loan payment
l P` loan paid off 2022 & 2' loam paid off2024)
f$40,, 1
71 2 12" Intersection
$43# 7
76 '/ 0'' Intersection
$ 3
-Ending Balance
$613,E 17
History of Traffic Impact Fees
wear
ranjj Iact Fees
004-200
,772
2010
$554,772
201
3 9 73
'mil}
fry? t 2
2012
$307,679
2013
$15 , 52
2014
0t4
$202,2:5
2015
$,3 34
2016
$139.031
0 t 7
$372,481
2018
4201,34
Total
$2,055,430
7.G
a�
E
E
0
U
v
0
a
c
L
Q_
E
L
0
L
d
N
N
ci
0
L
r
i
d
E
t
ci
R
Q
*2018 is a typo should be $201,348
Packet Pg. 31
Future Projects will bring a
windfall of capital to Edmonds
Impact fee account. Just this on
project alone will almost equal
CU
years of Traffic Impact Fee's
collected.
E
E
O
U
v
0
a
TENW Estimate of Traffic Impact Fees
22326 Highway 99 Apartments - Edmonds, WA
Proposed Uses
ISize
I Unit
I
Fee Per Unit I
impact Fee Estimate
[Apartment - ITE Land Use Code 7-20
192
chovelfing Unit
I S
-4,092.36
785.7
(City of t-M-torld Fates F-ttectIve as of January 1. 2019)
TENW Estimate of Traffic Impact Fees
22326 Highway 99 Apartments - Ed-monds, WA
Proposed Uses I size
Apartment - ME Land Use Cade 221 1 192
(City of Edmond Rates Effective as of January 1. 201-9)
Trip Length I
Trips Fse Per Trip Factor Impact Fee Estimate
83 PM Peak 5,530.2i 1.20 550.808.92
Packet Pg. 32
7.G
Policy recommendation to be consider by HC
• Transportation impact fee's
• Expand the available uses of Traffic impact fee's collected.
• Expand possible additional uses of Traffic impact fee's to benefit
community.
• Recommend City Council craft resolution that expands and defines further
Traffic impact fee's available uses within the confines of Washington State
RCW.
• Growth and development within the city creates additional demands and
needs for public facilities. A proportionate share of the cost for these
facilities shall be mitigated through the payment of transportation impact
fees. Chapter 3.36
CU
E
0
U
Packet Pg. 33
7.G
General FacilityZUtility Charges
• Sewer Utility - charges by Equivalent Residential Unit. Sewer GFC per ERU = $4417.00
• A Single Family Residence = 1 ERU
• A Multifamily Residence = 0.67 ERU per dwelling unit
• Contact an Engineering Technician for additional estimates
• Refer also to Edmonds City Code 7.30.035
Stormwater Utility - charges by Equivalent Service Unit. Storm GFC per ESU = $799.00
• A Single Family Residence = 1 ESU unless the SFR includes 5,000sf or more new, replaced or
combination thereof, in which case the GFC is calculated per the ratio below.
• All developments other than SFR and SFR with over 5,000sf impervious surface area as
described above shall pay GFC's at a ratio of one ESU per 3,000sf of new, replaced, or new
plus replaced impervious surface area.
• Refer also to Edmonds City Code 7.50.070
• Park Impact Fees
• Single-family house: $2,734.05 per dwelling unit
• Multi -family residential housing: $2340.16 per dwelling unit
• Non-residential development: $1.34 per square foot.
• Refer also to Ordinance 3934 Establishing Park Impact Fees
E
O
U
v
0
a
Packet Pg. 34
7.G
Policy recommendation to be consider by HC
• Utility connection fee's
• Recommend to Increase Sewer GFC per ERU to $6,000.00 from
$4,p417.00
• Would help bring in additional funds to enterprise account that is
limited on funding by facility fee's and utility payments by end users.
• Increased fee's collected by property developers would contribute to
less rate increases to end users.
• Stabilizing utility enterprise account would reduce likely hood of
larger and more rate increases on residences. Contributing to more
affordable community.
CU
E
0
U
0
L
O
O
L
r-
d
E
w
a
Packet Pg. 35
7.G
City Processes (Staff & Public
recommendations
• City Processes (Some Staff &Public recommendations
• Simplify zoning regulation. Use diagrams, pictures, and tables in place
of text where applicable. Use plain language where text is necessary.
• Reduce the number of conditional uses to streamline the permit
process.
• Work with Architects to provide pre -approved protype ADU's to
speed up the process and reduce cost (already in the works at State
level).
a
Packet Pg. 36
7.G
City Programs
• City Programs
• 1)Explore establishment of a city -funded child care
in nee
CU
E
E
O
U
rograms for families
• 2) By having subsidized childcare in Edmonds for people who live and/or
work in Edmonds could attract workers to Edmonds and support local small
businesses and their families.
• 3) By subsidizing childcare program you could drastically reduce struggling
families expenditures that money saved could be redirected to afford or
improve their living situation.
• 4) Money saved on childcare could directly result in making our
community more affordable in a broader and more creative way.
Packet Pg. 37
7.G
Polar approves this message...
cu
E
E
O
U
v
0
a
w
Q
Packet Pg. 38
7.H
Edmonds Housing Comm. Committee Proposal — 51812020
Policy Proposals --"Incentives & Requirements Committee"
Names of Policy Committee Members:
• Bob Throndsen
• Tanya Kataria
• Jean Salls
• Alena Nelson-Vietmeier
• Denise Miller
Areas of Policy Proposals:
Our committee was tasked with two issues:
• Incentives for low/moderate income housing
• Multi -family tax exemptions/density bonuses
(Another committee is exploring financial issues, so we
dropped this issue.
1--Detached Accessory Dwelling Units - DADU
Purpose of policy being proposed:
To permit changes to city regulations to allow and incent the
construction of Detached Accessory Dwelling Units (DADU), with
appropriate regulations, that may increase low/moderate income
housing in Edmonds.
Edmonds currently does not allow Detached Accessory Dwelling
Units. Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace and Shoreline do have such
policies.
Under our proposed policy, DADU's would be permitted if:
• They conform to the architectural style of the main building.
• They may not exceed 40% of primary residence (still studying
smallest size, but they may not exceed 800 square feet).
• Owner must reside in main building or in DADU.
N
N
a
E
E
0
U
v
0
a
Packet Pg. 39
7.H
• One off-street parking space in addition to the two currently
required for the main building.
• Unit access - Minimum of one exterior door.
• Plumbing/wiring regulations - to be determined.
• Zoning: nonconforming structures may not be used. All zoning
requirements must be met.
2--Community Land Trusts - (CLT)
More than 300 Community Land Trusts exist nationwide. They are
non -profits, that through purchase or donation of land, or by
renovation of existing home stock, provide permanent housing for
low/moderate income singles/families/senior/those with disabilities.
South Snohomish County has one fledgling CLT. We are soliciting
additional information from them -still in progress.
One model, the Methow Land Trust of Okanogan County provides the
underlying basis for this approach.
• The Trust retains ownership of the underlying land. Each home is 900-1100
sq. feet and includes 2-3 bedrooms.
• The homes are sold for $140, 000 and can be financed. The Trust wants
owners to spend no more than 35% of income for housing.
• Owners may live in them as long as they wish. When they sell, the Trust has
a formula for appreciation: 1.5016/year, to keep housing costs from rising too
far, too fast. So, the seller sees some rise in value; and a new buyer can still
afford this housing.
• It is also possible for a Land Trust to acquire small
existing homes and take a "scattered site" approach to
preserving affordable housing.
o This would likely be the approach for the city of Edmonds.
We have older housing stock scattered throughout most
neighborhoods.
o A CLT would require non-profit status.
o It needs a source of capital, either donation/grant, etc.
o It would need zoning changes.
o It needs community partners, including 'in -kind' skills.
r
a
a�
a�
r
E
E
0
U
0
a
Packet Pg. 40
7.H
3—Senior Housing/ADA housing/family group home housing
This part of our assignment is still in development.
4-Work with Edmonds Architectural Review Board in housing plans
This part of our assignment is still in development.
r
CL
r
r
E
E
0
U
v
0
d
Packet Pg. 41
Citizens Housing Commission Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/14/2020
Community Engagement
Staff Lead: {enter Staff Lead or "N/A" here}
Department: Citizens Housing Commission
Prepared By: Debbie Rothfus
Background/History
Community engagement is part of the Housing Commission process. Phase 1 of this engagement
included mailings, website information, press releases, several public meetings, an open house, a
survey, newsletters to a large email list, flyers, and other outreach.
Staff Recommendation
N/A
Narrative
Phase 2 of the community engagement process can be a way to get public involvement on draft
concepts that the Housing Commission is considering, as well as possible new ideas.
The Commission's Community Engagement Committee has discussed an approach to Phase 2
community engagement. Highlights of the discussion will be presented at the May 14 Commission
meeting.
No decisions are required at this time.
Packet Pg. 42
Citizens Housing Commission Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/14/2020
Proposed Moratorium on Zoning Changes
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Citizens Housing Commission
Prepared By: Debbie Rothfus
Background/History
The Housing Commission was created by the City Council to make policy recommendations for
expanding the range of housing options in Edmonds. A Housing Commission member is proposing that
the Council enact a resolution to postpone any changes to current housing -related codes.
Staff Recommendation
Be cautious about adopting
Narrative
A Housing Commissioner has proposed that the City Council adopt a resolution to postpone enactment
of any changes to housing -related codes. (See attachment.)
At the same time, the City Council has requested that staff move forward with minor code clean-ups and
prepare for more major updates in the future. However, the code issues that are expected to be
considered this year are not directly related to "expanding the range of housing" or altering the
composition of zoning districts in Edmonds. In fact, the City Council has also cautioned the Planning
Board to not work on new options for accessory dwelling units until the Housing Commission finishes its
work. Likewise, the City Council deferred making a decision on how to use the sales tax credit, which it
adopted a few months ago for housing purposes, until the Housing Commission had a chance to make a
recommendation.
Ultimately, of course, the City Council is the body that decides on whether to make to make any code
changes.
Attachments:
DRAFT Moratorium.Proposal_J.Ogonowski
Packet Pg. 43
9.a
DRAFT PROPOSAL
From Commissioner Ogonowski
For Housing Commission Consideration on March 12
I'm specifically asking our Housing Commission to recommend to the City Council that they enact a
resolution which postpones enactment of any changes to current housing related codes or ordinances
(i.e. a moratorium) until after the Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission completes our work and
provides housing policy recommendations to the City Council. The intent of this motion is to provide the
Housing Commission the time to complete our work with an unaltered landscape of current codes and
ordinances and to prevent the City Council from unintentionally enacting legislation or setting a
precedence which may be contrary or counter -productive with our final recommendations. Once our
policy recommendations are presented to the City Council, they will then have better visibility to make
well-informed decisions on housing related issues, including codes and ordinances.
Packet Pg. 44
Citizens Housing Commission Agenda Item
Meeting Date: 05/14/2020
Next Meeting
Staff Lead: Shane Hope
Department: Citizens Housing Commission
Prepared By: Debbie Rothfus
Background/History
Meetings of the Citizens' Housing Commission are normally scheduled for the second Thursday of each
month, starting at 6:30 pm.
Staff Recommendation
Vote to hold an extra meeting on Thursday, May 28
Narrative
Due to health and safety requirements resulting from the COVID-19 crisis, the Housing Commission,
along with other City boards and commissions, did not meet in either March or April. However, during
this time, small committees of the Housing Commission were able to meet independently and begin
discussing ideas to bring back to the full Commission.
The Housing Commission's regularly scheduled meeting on May 14 is being held online, consistent with
emergency amendments to the Open Public Meetings Act. The emergency amendments will be in effect
through at least June 1. They require public meetings to be held remotely (not where people can
gather physically) and for the public to be able to listen. Also, during this time, public meetings are to be
conducted only for issues that are deemed "necessary and routine."
Because the Housing Commission's work is subject to a tight schedule, with a deadline for making
recommendations to the City Council by the end of 2020, it is important to return to a schedule of public
meetings where the Commission can decide how to move forward and the public can observe and
provide input, all prior to the December 30 deadline.
With two months of Commission meetings missed due to COVID-19 limitations and with important work
left to do, an extra meeting seems necessary. May 28-the fourth Thursday -is proposed as the next
public meeting date. With COVID restrictions in place, the meeting would be conducted online. After
that, the Housing Commission may be able to get back to a once -a -month schedule.
At the May 14 meeting, the Commission may make a decision about having an extra meeting and
identifying a specific date.
Packet Pg. 45