The URL can be used to link to this page

2020-06-11 Citizens Housing Commission Packet1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. o Agenda VEdmonds Citizens Housing Commission ,HvREGULAR MEETING VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE, HTTP://EDMONDSWA.IQM2.COM/CITIZENS/DEFAULT.ASPX, EDMONDS, WA 98020 JUNE 11, 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 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 OPEN PUBLIC MEETING ACT THE JUNE 11, 2010 CITIZENS' HOUSING COMMISSION MEETING IS BEING HELD ONLINE AND WITHOUT A PHYSICAL MEETING PRESENCE, PER GOVERNOR INSLEE'S MOST RECENT PROCLAMATION REGARDING THE OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT. CALL TO ORDER & AGENDA REVIEW LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENTS (SUBMITTED BY EMAIL TO HOUSING.PUB.COMMENTS@EDMONDSWA.GOV) APPROVAL OF MAY 28 MEETING NOTES Approval of May 28 Meeting Notes UPDATES FROM POLICY COMMITTEES (15 MINUTES) Updates from Policy Committees SELECTION OF FIRST ROUND POLICY IDEAS FOR PUBLIC INPUT (60 MINUTES) Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission Agenda June 11, 2020 Page 1 Selection of First Round Policy Ideas for Public Input 8. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT - NEXT STEPS (15 MINUTES) Community Engagement - Next Steps 9. PROPOSAL FOR ALTERNATIVE MEMO TO CITY COUNCIL (5 MINUTES) Proposal for Alternative Memo to City Council 10. REFLECTIONS ON PROGRESS - CHECK -IN WITH COMMISSION (5 MINUTES) Reflections on Progress - Check -in with Commission 11. WRAP UP & ADJOURN Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission Agenda June 11, 2020 Page 2 Citizens Housing Commission Agenda Item Meeting Date: 06/11/2020 Approval of May 28 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 5/28/2020 meeting are attached. Attachments: ECHC_Notes_5.28_DR.docx Packet Pg. 3 5.a EDMONDS CITIZENS' HOUSING COMMISSION Meeting Notes — May 28, 2019 Zoom Virtual Meeting 6:30 — 8:30 PM Virtual meetings are broadcast on government access channels 21 (Comcast) and 39 (Frontier) .A recording of the meeting is available on the City website. Meeting materials can be found on the Citizens' Housine Commission Weboaee. ATTENDANCE Commissioners Alternates • James Ogonowski, District 1 0 Leif Warren, District 1 • Karen Haase Herrick, District 1 • Wendy Wyatt, District 2 • Weijia (Vicky) Wu, District 2 • Kenneth Sund, District 4* • Keith Soltner, District 2 0 Rick Nishino, District 6 • George Keefe, District 3 0 Jean Salls, District 7* • Eva -Denise Miller, District 3 0 Tana Axtelle, At -large* • Michael McMurray, District 4 • Tanya Kataria, District 5 City Council Liaison • Greg Long, District 5 0Vivian Olson, Position 5 • Jess Blanch, District 6 0Luke Distelhorst, Position 2 • Alena Nelson Vietmeier, District 6 Project Staff • Will Chen, District 7 0 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 • Brent Edgar, Cascadia Consulting Group *Indicates alternatives participating in the meeting on behalf of a Commissioner AGENDA 1. TECHNOLOIGY OVERVIEW— Gretchen Muller 2. ROLL CALL— Amber Groll 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS I. Public comments for virtual meetings may be emailed to housing.pub.comments@edmondswa.gov 3. ALTERNATE COMMENTS I. One alternate provided comment 4. REVIEW OF AGENDA & MEETING NOTES I. Commission member read the land acknowledgement II. Commission approved May 14, 2020 meeting notes Packet Pg. 4 5.a 5. POLICY COMMITTEE UPDATES I. Each Policy Committee presented any updates or clarifications made to their policy ideas since the May 14 meeting 6. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF ROUND 1 POLICY IDEAS I. The Commission had 5-8 minutes to discuss each Policy topic category: • SHB1406/SHB1590 Affordable Housing Sales and Use Tax • ADUs • Transition area and other housing options • Development fees • City Processes • City Programs • Design Guidelines • Neighborhood Improvements 7. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT— PHASE 2 I. Update on the upcoming Online Open House, online survey, and community mailing 8. JUNE 23 QUARTERLY REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL I. Commission members volunteered to support the upcoming Quarterly report to Council: Bob (if available), Keith, Will, and Leif. 9. ADJOURN Packet Pg. 5 Citizens Housing Commission Agenda Item Meeting Date: 06/11/2020 Updates from Policy Committees Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Citizens Housing Commission Prepared By: Debbie Rothfus Background/History The Housing Commission formed small policy committees in February, 2020. The policy committees met separately to develop policy ideas and bring the ideas forward to the full Commission for consideration. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative The Housing Commission held two meetings in May (May 14 and 28) to introduce, ask questions, and discuss policy ideas that had been developed separately by five committees. Some of the policy ideas seemed ready to be considered in the first round of policy development. Other ideas might need refining and could be more ready to consider in a second round of policy development. After the Commission's May 28 discussion, committees were reminded they could choose to meet and identify whether to add or change anything from their previous proposals -or identify new ideas they wanted to work on next. As the June 11 agenda packet was being assembled, updates had come in from four policy committees. One update was from the Processes and Programs Committee. (See Attachment 1.) Anther update was from the Zoning Standards Committee, which indicated that it wanted to hold its "Transition Area" ideas until Round Two discussion and had no changes to the committee's other ideas. A third update was provided from the Housing Types Committee. This update included further refinement to two ideas (regarding one option for single-family zones and another for multiple family zones). It also included information that the City of Kenmore has been considering about accessory dwelling units. (See Attachments 2, 3, and 4.) A fourth update was from the Resources Committee. This included three documents, which included updated language and a new idea (see Attachments 5, 6, and 7), and an example of another city's interlocal agreement with a housing agency (Attachment 8). These and any other committee updates may be presented at the Commission's June 11 meeting. Each policy committee is scheduled to have 3-5 minutes at the June 11 meeting to give updates about their policy ideas for the current round (i.e., Round One) -or about additional policy ideas that they plan to develop for the next round (Round Two). Committee updates will be presented in the following order (same as prior meeting): Resources Packet Pg. 6 Incentives and Requirements Housing Types Zoning Standards Processes and Programs. Committees that do not have an update may pass, of course. The committee updates will precede discussion of Round One policy ideas, which is the very next item on the Commission's June 11 agenda. Attachments: Updated Fee & Program Proposals_DR.docx General Policy Proposal- SFR Housing.docx General Policy Proposal- MF Housing Kenmore ADU information Feb 24 2020 Resources Committee Sales Tax Revenue Policy Proposal rev 06-2020 2020-06-11 Resources Committee 1590 Proposal Resources Committee HASCO ILA Policy Proposal Cooperatio n_Agreement HASCO_Lynnwood Packet Pg. 7 6.a Fee recommendations (Traffic impact) 1) Recommend City Council craft resolution that expands and define further uses and goals under the "Transportation Element" portion of Edmonds Comprehensive plan (2021). One idea is to recommend under the subcategory Transportation improvement Program (TIP), Transportation Benefit District (TBD), & Local improvement District is to define some additional long-term goals related to Traffic impacts and growth. One possible recommendation is to increase parking capacity in Edmonds to compliment and anticipate future residential and population expansion in and around Edmonds. One idea is to define a goal to build a low -profile parking garage structure, and/or acquire land to increase parking capacity in Edmonds. *If goals such as increasing parking capacity was defined in our Transportation Element under City of Edmonds Comprehensive plan, some proportional "Traffic impact Fees" collected could be allocated and/or directed towards these collective Traffic impact type of community projects and/ or plan. Additional possible funding sources and ideas under TIP's & TBD's could be utilized. *Gaining public momentum recently is considering to expand pedestrian only zones in Edmonds (Main Street & Sunset Avenue), eliminating some surface street parking capacity would be the result. A balanced approach is to plan to replace and expand those lost spaces with additional parking capacity in close proximity to Edmonds future and current attractions and destinations. *The new planned 8 acre Civic Park and 26,000 sq ft new senior center could utilize more parking capacity in the coming years as more residential density comes online around Edmonds and the surrounding communities of Lynnwood, Mountlake Terrace, & Shoreline. Utility Connection Fee's Recommend City Engineering department run a cost analysis in the future on various Utility fee's to see if increases are justified. 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 prototype ADU's to speed up the process and reduce cost (overlap with other sub committees). Packet Pg. 8 6.a City Programs 1) Explore establishment of a city -funded child care programs for families and workers in Edmonds in need. Proposed newly established Human Services Program Manager facilitate and define this program under City Council guidance. *Voucher program and/or establishment of goals to build actual facility is an idea. *By having subsidized childcare in Edmonds for people who live and/or work in Edmonds would attract workers to Edmonds and support local small businesses and their families. *By utilizing subsidizing childcare program, you could drastically reduce struggling family's expenditures that money saved could be redirected to afford or improve their living situation. *Money saved on childcare could directly result in making our community more affordable in a broader and more creative way. Packet Pg. 9 6.b Housing Commission Policy Proposal Date Names of Policy Committee Members: Jim Ogonowski, Judi Gladstone, Will Chen, Nicole Franko, Rick Nishino, Tana Axtelle Short title of Policy Proposal: MF Housing Purpose of policy being proposed: Expand housing types in MF areas. Specific proposed policy (What exactly is being proposed?): Increase MF along existing and future transit routes and adjacent to commercial zones, particularly triplex, fourplex, apartment courtyards, multiplex, and mixed use. 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 in the MF area that can accommodate potentially low and moderate -income housing needs. This policy may impact current zoning designations. 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? • Effect on the supply of moderate -income housing? • Effect on the supply of housing for seniors or others groups with special needs? • Effect on property values? Packet Pg. 10 6.b Housing Commission Policy Proposal Date • Effect on the general tax burden of residents or property owners in Edmonds? • Effect on businesses and economic vitality? • Effect on transportation, traffic, or parking? • Effect on walkability or transit opportunities? • Effect on (or relationship to) to services, parks, shopping, or other amenities? • Effect on community livability or neighborhood character? • Effect on renters? On owners? • Effect on housing opportunities 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? • 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? Optional: • What other communities use this approach? • What other information is helpful to know about this proposal? • How would this policy be implemented? ON as a� E E 0 U 0 a E 0 N N Q. Packet Pg. 11 6.c Housing Commission Policy Proposal Date Names of Policy Committee Members: Jim Ogonowski, Judi Gladstone, Will Chen, Nicole Franko, Rick Nishino, Tana Axtelle Short title of Policy Proposal: MF Housing Purpose of policy being proposed: Expand housing types in MF areas. Specific proposed policy (What exactly is being proposed?): Increase MF along existing and future transit routes and adjacent to commercial zones, particularly triplex, fourplex, apartment courtyards, multiplex, and mixed use. 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 in the MF area that can accommodate potentially low and moderate -income housing needs. This policy may impact current zoning designations. 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? • Effect on the supply of moderate -income housing? • Effect on the supply of housing for seniors or others groups with special needs? • Effect on property values? Packet Pg. 12 6.c Housing Commission Policy Proposal Date • Effect on the general tax burden of residents or property owners in Edmonds? • Effect on businesses and economic vitality? • Effect on transportation, traffic, or parking? • Effect on walkability or transit opportunities? • Effect on (or relationship to) to services, parks, shopping, or other amenities? • Effect on community livability or neighborhood character? • Effect on renters? On owners? • Effect on housing opportunities 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? • 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? Optional: • What other communities use this approach? • What other information is helpful to know about this proposal? • How would this policy be implemented? ON as m r E E 0 U 0 a E 0 L N N r R Q. c .y 0 0 x LL CU 0 0 0. 0 a 0 a L a� a� a� E M U 0 r a Packet Pg. 13 $ENMORE City Council Business Agenda Item City of Kenmore, WA Subject/Topic: Accessory Dwelling Units For Council Meeting Agenda of. February 24, 2020 (ADUs) Policy Direction Department: Community Development Prepared by: Debbie Bent, Community Development Director Lauri Anderson, Principal Planner Initial &t Date Approved by Department Head: p& i�? 2p Proposed Council Action/Motion: Provide Approved by City Attorney: direction to staff on the ADU code amendments Approved by Finance Director: i recommended by the Planning Commission. Approved by City Manager: IL 3 16V Zb20 Exhibits/Attachments: 1. Planning Commission's recommended ADU amendments 2. Summary of pros/cons to alternative approaches. 3. Lot size scenarios 4. Summary of ADU requirements in other jurisdictions 5. Response to Councilmember question INFORMATION/BACKGROUND: On January 13, the Planning Commission presented their recommendations on possible amendments to the City's existing accessory dwelling unit (ADU) code (see Attachment 1). At that meeting, the Council raised several issues/questions. Additional information on these issues/questions is provided below. Issues identified by Council Issues raised by the Council included: • Owner occupancy requirement • Parking • Allowable number of ADUs • Smallest lot size for a detached ADU • Attached ADU size limit • ADU height • Door locations Policy direction is needed on these issues. Attachments 2 and 3 provide background information considered by the Planning Commission during their discussions. We've also included information from a survey of Kenmore ADU owners completed in 2019. Of the 29 owners contacted, feedback was received from 8 (28%) N N E 0 U v 0 a 0 d a Packet Pg. 14 1 6.d Questions raised by Council • What are other jurisdictions doing with ADUs, particularly around owner occupancy? Response: See Attachment 4 for a chart summarizing ADU requirements from other jurisdictions. • Has widespread developer -initiated conversion to duplex/triplex happened if there is no owner occupancy requirement? Response: See Attachment 5 for information from Portland. No local information is available. • Are utility fees impacted if there is no owner occupancy of one of the units? Response: Initial contacts with the Northshore Utility District (NUD), made last year, did not identify an) special standards related to owner -occupancy. The Building Code, however, does treat attached ADU projects differently if there is no owner occupancy. (Detached ADUs are not affected.) With the owner- 2 occupancy requirement in effect, an attached ADU can be granted single-family dwelling status as E opposed to two-family dwelling status. The main difference between the single-family and two-family o dwelling unit codes is that of fire separation requirements. The two-family building code requires a fire separation rating of 1 hr. "Dwelling units in two-family dwellings shall be separated from each other by 2 wall and floor assemblies having not less than a 1-hour fire -resistance rating..." This rating corresponds tc a° the fire -resistance of the materials separating the two units. The fire -resistance rating required by the o single-family building code is 1/2 hr. The Building Plans Examiner gave a rough ballpark estimate that the cost markup from single- to two-family building code may vary from $5,000 to $8,000 depending on the square footage of the unit. The Examiner also noted that enforcement of owner -occupancy to a establish qualification for the two-family exemption will be difficult if the owner -occupancy mandate is D revoked. Presently, the City requires that an owner -occupancy affidavit be filed and this is also used as o Building Code verification. N • How is the tree canopy preserved if a detached ADU is allowed? N Response: The Municipal Code presently contains an allowance for removing up to 2 trees per year on a single-family lot up to 10,000 sq.ft. The number of trees that can be removed gradually increases as lot r- size increases over 10,000 sq.ft. According to Development Services, these tree removal requirements .2 would apply if an ADU were proposed on a lot containing a single-family residence. E • If there is no owner occupancy requirement, should the impact fee exemption for ADUs be reconsidered? Response: Eliminating the impact fee exemption would increase the cost of building an ADU and potentially reduce the affordability of the unit. a • If there is no owner occupancy requirement, should the City require the hiring of a property manager for i an ADU? ° E Response: In no other circumstance does the City require the hiring of a property manager for a rental Y property. The decision of whether or not a property manager is needed is left to the discretion of the property owner. Next Steps Once the City Council provides direction to staff on policy approaches, the amendments will be finalized. Depending on the significance of any proposed changes, it may be necessary for the City Council to hold a public hearing. The Council may also wish to provide direction on the four non -regulatory approaches discussed by the Planning Commission: • Preapproved plans and expedited permit processing • Educational Efforts • Amnesty Program • Lending & Financial Assistance Options Packet Pg. 15 1 6.d If a majority of the Council is interested in entertaining any of these approaches, staff would prepare information on feasibility and a recommendation for each. Background ADUs are smaller dwelling units placed on the same lot as a preexisting single-family residence. The City's current regulations, which have been in place since incorporation in 1998, allow both attached and detached ADUs in the City, although detached ADUs are not permitted on lots smaller than 10,000 sq.ft. in size. Attached ADUs are those that are located inside the primary residence —for example, in a converted basement. Detached ADUs (sometimes called DADUs) are separate structures from the main house —sometimes built over a garage, in other cases as standalone structures. FISCAL CONSIDERATION: None. Staff and Planning Commission time were spent to work on this project. COUNCIL GOAUBUDGET OBJECTIVE BEING ADDRESSED: (From adopted 2019 Goals) Goal 3: Increase and preserve the options for affordable housing stock. Housing Strategy Plan A.3.c: Accessory dwelling units - i. Review current code provisions; ii. Review permitting process and fees / utility requirements; iii. Clemency program to legalize existing ADUs. N a� as E 0 U 2 0 a E 0 L d Packet Pg. 16 6.d Attachment 1 Planning Commission's Recommended Amendments to the ADU Regulations 18.73.100 Accessory dwelling units ADUs . A. Only eA maximum of two accessory dwelling units (ADUs), including only one attached ADU and only one detached ADU, aGGessery dweging is allewedq[p_p.�grrrfltted per primary single detached dwelling unit,-_ B. No minimum lot size is required for an attached ADU. A detached ADU shall not be permitted on a lot less than 4,500 square feet in size. 8C. On lots from 4,500 square feet to 5,399 square feet in size, when both a detached and an attached accessory dwelling unit are proposed, the attached -AR -accessory dwelling unit same bu#ding as shall not expand the pre-existing footprint of the primary dwelling unit ^^ a lot that ,� less than 10,000 square area, eF OR a iOt GeRtaiRing mere thaR GRe primary dwe44-4g.- For new construction on a lot of this size, when both a detached and an attached ADU are proposed, the combined floor area of the primary dwelling unit, including attached garage and attached ADU, shall not exceed 2,500 square feet. SD. The primary dwelling unit or the accessory dwelling unit shall be owner occupied.; 9E. Maximum ADU sizes shall be as follows: 1. Attached ADU. theAn attached accessory dwelling units shall not exceed a floor area of 1,000 square feet or 558PeFGeR t of the living area of the primary resideRGe, Wh'nheyer is „ ter• an,l_ The city manager may grant an exception to this limitation for the efficient use of pre-existing floor area. 32. Detached ADU. UPit WhiGheyer ;s IessThe following floor area limitations shall apply to detached accessory dwelling units:; Packet Pg. 17 6.d Attachment 1 Lot size Maximum Floor Area for a Detached ADU Lots with an area equal to or greater than 1,000 square feet 10,000 square feet Lots with an area of 5,400 to 9,999 square feet 800 square feet Lots with an area between 4,500 and 5,399 Maximum building footprint is 10% of the lot square feet area. Total floor area shall not exceed 600 square feet. Note limitations in KMC 18.73.100.0 when both an attached and a detached accessory dwelling unit are proposed on a lot of this size. 2F. For an attached ADU, only one entrance may be located on each streetside of the building unless the ADU entrance is clearly secondary to the primary entrance as determined by the city manager.,- G. The maximum height for a detached ADU shall be 35'; however, the detached ADU may not exceed one story over a detached garage or two stories if built at ground level. €H. One additional off-street parking space shall be provided for each ADU on a lot; €l. The accessory dwelling unit shall be converted to another permitted use or the dwelling unit or its kitchen facilities shall be removed if the property owner no longer resides in one of the dwelling units Geases te be owneF GGGY i . The city manager may consider an exception to this rule for up to one year in cases where: 1. One of the dwelling units will be occupied by a spouse, parent or adult child of the property owner who will act in his/her stead to manage and maintain the property; or 2. There is a documented need, supported by evidence, for the owner -occupant to leave the Premises due to business requirements, health or family issues, or other similar circumstances.; Packet Pg. 18 6.d Attachment 1 If an exception is granted, the property -owner and person responsible for the property -owner's dwelling unit shall both sign a property management agreement prepared by and submitted to the City describing management and maintenance responsibilities over the term of the property -owner's absence and providing contact information. Gj. An applicant seeking to build an accessory dwelling unit shall file a notice approved by the department with the King County recorder's office which identifies the dwelling unit as accessory. The notice shall run with the land. The applicant shall submit proof that the notice was filed before the department shall approve any permit for the construction of the accessory dwelling unit. The required contents and form of the notice shall be set forth in administrative rules; HK. The total number of occupants in the principal dwelling unit and the accessory dwelling unit combined shall not exceed the maximum number established for a single-family dwelling as defined in KMC 18.20.1010. Other code sections needing amendment: 18.20.820 Dwellinq unit, accessory. "Accessory dwelling unit" means a separate, complete dwelling unit attached to or contained within the structure of the primary dwelling; or contained within a separate structure that is accessory to the primary dwelling unit on the premises. 18.20.218 Attached accessory dwelling unit. "Attached accessory dwelling unit" means an accessory dwelling unit attached to or contained within the structure of the primary dwelling_ 18.20.705 Detached accessory dwelling unit. "Detached accessory dwelling unit" means an accessory dwelling unit contained within a separate structure that is accessory to the primary dwelling unit on the premises. A detached accessory dwelling unit shall be separated from the primary dwelling unit by a minimum of 5'. 18.20.2103 Pre-existing footprint. "Pre-existing footprint" means the footprint of the primary dwelling unit prior to any permitted attached accessory dwelling unit. Packet Pg. 19 6.d Attachment 1 18.30.230 Setbacks — Projections and structures allowed. Provided that the required setbacks from regional utility corridors of KMC 18.30.200, the adjoining half - street or designated arterial setbacks of KMC 18.30.220 and the sight distance requirements of KMC 18.30.240 are maintained, structures may extend into or be located in required setbacks, including setbacks as required by KMC 18.21.060(B), as follows: Q. In a rear setback in the R-4 and R-6 residential zones, the following structures are permitted if it is determined by the city manager that they will not have any substantial detrimental effect on abutting properties or the City as a whole; and provided, that they shall be no closer than five feet to the rear lot line: 1. Children's play structures not otherwise regulated by this title; 2. No more than one storage shed or similar use, limited in height to eight feet for a flat roof or 10 feet for a pitched roof, with a maximum dimension of 15 feet on any side and a total area not exceeding 200 square feet; 3. An arbor, not attached to a building and limited in height to eight feet, with a maximum footprint of 100 square feet, including eaves. If latticework is used, there shall be a minimum opening of two inches between crosspieces. R. In a rear setback in the R-4 and R-6 residential zones, an accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted; provided, that the accessory dwelling unit shall be no closer than ten feet to the rear lot line. All of the other standards for accessory dwelling units specified in KMC Chapter 18.73 shall be met. Packet Pg. 20 Attachment 2 6.d Pros/Cons considered by the Planning Commission Owner occupancy Current Kenmore rule: Owner occupancy of either the primary residence or ADU required. Planning Commission recommendation: Owner occupancy of either the primary residence or ADU required, but an exemption is available for up to one year if criteria are met. Pros for removing the owner occupancy requirement: • In a study of secondary housing in the Bay area, 90% of which was illegal, 53% of the landlords lived on -site (Chapple, 2012). This suggests that even if owner occupancy requirements are removed many if not most units will still be characterized by owner occupancy. • Allows both the primary residence and ADU's rent values to be capitalized in appraisals, resulting in higher estimated market values, thereby making financing more accessible (Brown, M. and Watkins, T., 2012). • Banks may be more willing to finance ADU developments because should the lot be foreclosed both properties could be rented out (Durning, 2018). • ADUs will be able to be developed by homeowners with more confidence because if owner occupancy in the future is no longer possible, the ADU will not be required to convert to another use. • Homeowners who do not wish to live in either residence can now develop an ADU. This ought to expand the potential market for ADUs. • After permitting, owner occupancy is hard to monitor. The Department of Development Services has expressed that it has had suspicions on several occasions as to whether owner occupancy was satisfied, and owner -occupancy affidavits sometimes provide a different address for contact purposes than the address of the ADU or primary unit. • Kenmore's survey of residents who have built an ADU found that eight of eight respondents wanted the revision of the requirement that, "The owner must occupy either the ADU or the primary residence." Cons for removing the owner occupancy requirement: • ARCH's preliminary recommendation, based on the discussions of the interjurisdictional staff committee, is that "owner occupancy of the primary or accessory unit reduces risks of poor property maintenance and bad behavior by tenants, which are important neighbor concerns" (Preliminary ARCH Paper 'Key ADU Regulations and Recommendations', 2018). • Owner occupancy limits the opportunities for developers to build what are essentially duplexes in single-family neighborhoods. • Developer -initiated conversion could result in displacement. • There are increased building -code compliance costs for units that are not owner -occupied. • Very few local jurisdictions have removed the owner -occupancy requirement. Additional options regarding owner occupancy considered by the Planning Commission: The owner or an immediate family member must occupy the primary unit or the ADU for at least six -months out of the year. 1 Packet Pg. 21 Attachment 2 6.d • Owner occupancy of either the primary unit or the ADU must be achieved forth e first year of ADU ownership. Parking Current Kenmore rule: One parking space required per ADU. Planning Commission recommendation: One parking space required per ADU. Pros for removing the one stall per ADU parking requirement: • Inhabitants of ADUs are less likely than traditional homeowners to own a car; "23% have zero cars, versus 17% of households overall" (Chapple, 2012). • In the Bay Area "Of the 62% reporting at least one unit on their block, nearly two-thirds say that there is no negative impact from the secondary unit(s)" (Chapple, 2012). And this despite 90% of these ADUs being illegal and therefore not subject to requirements for additional parking. • City of Santa Cruz officials indicate that the "liberalization of parking restrictions" was the single most important policy implemented in enhancing ADU development (Chapple, 2012). • The reduced parking requirement may result in lessened development costs. This may result in downward pressure on the market prices of ADU rentals. • Single-family residences in Kenmore already must provide two parking spaces, typically in a garage. In most cases, the driveway to the garage is adequate to park an additional two vehicles. • City of Kenmore planning staff surveyed the attitudes towards existing ADU regulations of Kenmore residents who have successfully built an ADU. Three of eight respondents asked for the revision of the requirement that, "An additional parking spot must be provided for an ADU to be built" in order to "make building an ADU easier". Cons for removing the parking requirements: • ADU parking requirements are drafted to ensure that ADUs don't exhaust the supply of on - street parking. The removal of these requirements may result in increased parking congestion to the extent that residential parking capacity is exceeded. • In the study of Bay Area residents living on a block with an ADU, the most common complaint was that a neighboring ADU increased parking congestion — 38% of respondents cited a complaint (Chapple, 2012). • Single family residences with an ADU have on average 0.8 more vehicles than non-ADU possessing households (Chapple, 2012). This does not conflict with the finding that ADU inhabitants are less likely than traditional homeowners to own a car but means that the primary residence household has more vehicles. • ADU parking requirements would be less than for an apartment, regardless of size. Additional options regarding ADU parking regulations considered by the Planning Commission: • Provide"exemption" from off-street parking requirement for: o ADUs within 0.5 mile of defined business districts and neighborhood centers and/or transit service; Packet Pg. 22 Attachment 2 6.d o ADUs with fewer than 2 bedrooms. A 2018 Portland survey found that 82% of ADUs were either one bedroom or studios (Accessory Dwelling Units in Portland — VY Report, 2018). o ADUs with only a studio. The 2018 Portland survey found that 39% of ADUs were a studio. ADU height Current Kenmore rule: Height limit the same as the underlying zoning district (typically 35'). Planning Commission recommendation: 35' permitted, but ADU can only be 2 stories if built at ground level and only one story over a garage. Pros for regulating the 35' height limit: • A 35' height limit allows for a DADU that could overlook a neighboring property, potentially creating privacy concerns (although this was to be mitigated in the Planning Commission's view by limiting the number of stories allowed). • Allowing a 35' tall DADU could result in a DADU taller than the existing primary residence, reducing the impression that the DADU unit is "secondary." Cons for regulating the height limit: • The 35' height limit allows for a larger, multi -story ADU, potentially accommodating more residents. • A taller DADU could achieve the same floorspace as a shorter DADU by reducing the building footprint, potentially saving open space on the lot. • A DADU over a detached garage might benefit from the higher height limit. • Consistent height regulations in a zone streamline the permit review process. Allowable number of ADUs Current Kenmore rule: Only one ADU (either attached or detached) allowed per primary residence. Planning Commission recommendation: Two ADUs permitted, but only one attached and one detached. Pros for allowing more than 1 ADU on a lot: • May generate additional affordable housing. Seattle's 2018 EIS found that the preferred legislation, which included allowing two ADUs per lot, would significantly increase ADU production by over a factor of two (1,970 ADUs produced in ten years under existing regulations vs. 4,430 produced through the preferred alternative) (City of Seattle, Environmental Impact Statement, 2018). • Enhances revenue potential of single-family lots. Seattle's Office of Planning & Community Development arrived at a Determination of Non - Significance in their SEPA review of adverse impacts that might result from allowing two ADUs per residential lot among other code changes. The department concluded that the ADU code changes would have "minimal impacts on both the natural and the built environment" (City of 3 Packet Pg. 23 Attachment 2 6.d Seattle — Determination of Non -Significance, 2016). This finding was upheld as adequate by the City's Hearing Examiner (City of Seattle — Environmental Impact Statement, 2018). Newer houses may be large enough to easily accommodate an attached ADU. According to AARP analysis, in 1950 the average square footage of new single-family homes was 983, whereas this has increased to 2,571 in 2017 despite a reduction in average household size from 3.8 to 2.5 (AARP, 2019). Three of eight Kenmore ADU owners when surveyed cited their opinion that more than one ADU should be allowed on a single lot. Cons for allowing more than 1 ADU: • May increase strain on street -parking if there are no parking requirements. • May stimulate the speculative potential of ADU development. • Presumably puts a greater stress on a neighborhood's preexisting character than do single ADU allowances. • Only one other local jurisdiction (Seattle) has allowed more than one ADU on a lot, although Kirkland is considering this option. • This particular code change was perhaps the most contentious of all those considered in Seattle Homeowners associations in Seattle led by Queen Anne have been especially opposed to it for fear that it will result in multiple teardowns with uniform three -unit replacement developments Seattle does not, however, require owner occupancy. Additional options considered by the Planning Commission: • Requirement that a property -owner demonstrate -continuous ownership for a year before building a second ADU. Seattle considered adding this requirement as part of its ADU code - revision to mitigate anxieties about excessive development. Builders would be prevented from purchasing and immediately demolishing older houses to be replaced with a new primary unit coupled with two ADUs. • Seattle requires that the second ADU meet green building standards and be offered exclusively to "income eligible households" at affordable rates for a period of 50 years. Smallest lot size for a detached ADU (DADU) Current Kenmore rule: Minimum of 10,000 square feet required for a detached ADU. Planning Commission recommendation: Minimum of 4,500 square feet required for a detached ADU (with additional restrictions on footprint size for smaller lots). Pros for reducing or eliminating the DADU minimum lot size: Kenmore has the most restrictive minimum lot size for a DADU of any Washington city considered. Most east King County cities have no minimum lot size for ADUs. (Bellevue doesn't allow DADUs.) Numerous lots which are now prohibited from constructing a DADU would be able to after this reform. 4 Packet Pg. 24 6.d Attachment 2 If the goal for establishing a minimum lot size for a DADU is to preserve open space, it should be noted that under existing rules a single-family dwelling could take up most of the space on a lot —constrained only by setbacks and the impervious surface coverage requirements. Cons for reducing or eliminating the DADU minimum lot size: • Some lots may be too small to accommodate both a DADU and a single-family residence without adversely impacting perceptions of density and open space. Several scenarios, assuming a 600- 800 sq.ft. ADU and a 2,500 sq.ft. house, were modelled for the Planning Commission. Those scenarios --for 4,000 sq.ft., 4,500 sq.ft. and 5,400 sq.ft. lots —are included as Attachment 3. The scenarios also model the impact of restricting the footprint of an ADU on a smaller lot to a maximum of 10% of the lot area. • Development Services has provided several examples of recent construction on lots between 4,000 and 5,400 square feet (these smaller lots were permitted before incorporation). Given the large size of houses on those lots (more than the 2,500 sq.ft. modeled), it is likely that detached ADUs would not be feasible even if permitted. • Increased density may be objectionable to nearby residents. Attached ADU size limit Current Kenmore rule: Greater of either 1,000 sq.ft. or 50% of the living area of the primary residence. Planning Commission recommendation: Maximum of 1,000 sq.ft., but may be larger to take advantage of pre-existing floorspace). Pros for the recommended attached ADU size limit: • Other cities' maximums range from 800-1,500 sq.ft. • An ADU is supposed to be "accessory," which generally means a smaller size than the primary residence. Cons for the attached ADU size limit: • Larger ADUs allow more occupants, including families. • Physical lot configurations and the location and size of the existing residence naturally control the feasibility of ADU development on a smaller lot, and setback requirements and maximum impervious surface standards already limit total building size. Detached ADU size limit Current Kenmore rule: Lesser of either 50% of the primary dwelling unit or 10% of the existing lot size. Planning Commission recommendation: Maximum of 600 to 1,000 sq.ft., depending on lot size. Pros for the revised size limit for detached ADUs: Packet Pg. 25 Attachment 2 6.d • Portland's 2018 survey uncovered a median ADU size of between 500 and 600 sq. ft. (Accessory Dwelling Units in Portland 1st Report, 2018). Portland prescribes floor area maximums of 800 sq. ft. for both AADUs and DADUs. • The proportionate size limit keeps the unit "accessory" relative to the primary residence. • Smaller detached ADUs on smaller lots allow for more yard space. However, as noted above, under existing rules a single-family dwelling could take up most of the space on a lot — constrained only by setbacks and the impervious surface coverage requirements. • A study by Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) found that smaller housing units produce fewer negative environmental impacts. Cons: • Other cities' maximums generally are from 800 to 1,000 sq.ft. • A flat maximum floor area limit for detached ADUs may be more supportive of the creation of pre -approved ADU construction plans. • Larger unit sizes would allow more occupants, including families. • Kenmore's survey of ADU owners recorded two of eight ADUs as being built in excess of 1,000 square feet. Some previously built Kenmore ADUs could become nonconforming. Door locations Current Kenmore rule: Cannot have entrance to primary residence and ADU on same streetside. Planning Commission recommendation: Doors may be on same streetside if ADU door is clearly "secondary". Pros for continuing to address door locations and appearance: Placing design requirements (such as location of entrances) on ADUs is a way to address compatibility with the neighboring community. Most local jurisdictions regulate door placement. Cons of design standards, generally: • Complying with design standards may add additional expense to ADU building, potentially resulting in upward pressure on market rents. • Design review adds an additional administrative burden on City staff. • Design standards may not address unique characteristics of the existing residence on a property being considered for an ADU. • Door location requirements were not specifically asked about the ADU owner survey, but three respondents stated their disagreement with the current door restriction in the section prompting open-ended feedback on Kenmore's ADU code. • The absence of a street -facing door to an ADU may make the provision of deliveries and services confusing. N. Packet Pg. 26 6.d 4005 SF Lot & 1 Story DADU analysis 4005 SF Lot 2 Floor Primary Unit Footprint — 1,170 SF Total SF — 2,340 SF 1 Floor DADU Footprint — 405 SF Total SF — 405 SF SF of Impervious Surfaces 1170 (Primary Unit) + 405 (DADU) + 400 (Parking Pad)=1,975 SF Impervious Surface Limits R-4(55% of Lot) — 2,202.75 SF R-6 (70% of Lot) — 2,803.5 SF Scenario 1 6.d 4500 SF Lot & 1 Story DADU analysis 4500 SF Lot 2 Floor Primary Unit Footprint - 1,224 SF Total SF - 2,448 SF 1 Floor DADU Footprint - 456 SF Total SF - 456 SF SF of Impervious Surfaces 1,224 (Primary Unit) + 456 (DADU) + 400 (Parking Pad) = 2,080 SF Impervious Surface Limits R-4 (55% of Lot) - 2,475 SF R-6 (70% of Lot) - 3,150 SF Scenario 2 Packet Pg. 28 6.d 4500 SF Lot & 2 Story DADU analysis 4500 SF Lot 2 Floor Primary Unit Footprint - 1,224 SF Total SF - 2,448 SF 2 Floor DADU Footprint - 300 SF Total SF - 600 SF SF of Impervious Surfaces 1,224 (Primary Unit) + 300 (DADU) + 400 (Parking Pad) = 1,924 SF Impervious Surface Limits R-4 (55% of Lot) - 2,475 SF R-6 (70% of Lot) - 3,150 SF . Ir Scenario 3 Packet-Pg. 29 6.d 5400 SF Lot & 1 Story DADU analysis 5400 SF Lot 2 Floor Primary Unit Footprint — 1,248 SF Total SF — 2,496 SF 1 Floor DADU Footprint — 800 SF Total SF — 800 SF SF of Impervious Surfaces 1,248 (Primary Unit) + 800 (DADU) + 400 (Parking Pad) = 2,448 SF Impervious Surface Limits R-4 (55% of Lot) — 2,970 SF R-6 (70% of Lot) — 3,780 SF ,+�- 100, Scenario 4 Packet Pg. 30 Attachm s.a Y Q Packet Pg. 31 6.d Y Q Packet Pg. 32 N O N r E E O U v O IL E O L d yd Q 0 N O N N O U- r_ O R E L O 4- a L O E d Y r c m E t r r Q Packet Pg. 33 6.d Attachment 5 City Council Question: "Has widespread developer -initiated conversion to duplex/triplex happened if there is no owner occupancy requirement?" (For purposes of this question, a house plus attached ADU was considered a "duplex;" adding a detached ADU along with an attached ADU was considered a "triplex.") Response: The best data we have is from Portland, where the owner -occupancy requirement for ADUs was eliminated in 1997 (Chapple, 2018). Portland allows only one ADU per lot, so this data does not directly address the question of "triplexes." Timeline of ADU Permitting in Portland: 700 r 1997 Reforms: revision of minimum square footage and 600 owner ocupancy ( requirements 500 W 400 va E 300 (V cL 200 100 ■ M 0 C7 r-t N M C 0 0 C) Q 0 r2004 Reforms: allowed city-wide, garage conversions, no on -site parking, relaxed design stan- dards Relaxed design , and setback standards , STRs officially allowed in ADUs1 r. Educational efforts ' r-SDC Fee �t cr1 Q0 r- W M O �-+ N IN N N N N . IN N N Figure 2. ADU permitting and reforms in Portland. Waivers d' in t0 r-I .-q t-s C) C) 0 Revocation of owner occupancy by itself did not result in much new ADU development. Of much greater impact was the waiver of Systems Development Charges (SDCs). SDCs are "one-time fees charged to help pay for the facilities (such as streets, parks and sewer systems) required to meet growth -related needs for the city [Portland]." SDCs, then, are in some ways like Kenmore's impact fees, although they can be used for a greater variety of municipal services. Officially allowing Short Term Rentals (STRs) in ADUs and relaxing design and setback standards also combined to increase production. a� a� r r E E 0 c) 2 0 a- 0 m a 0 Packet Pg. 34 6.d Attachment 5 Portland has issued about 3,464 ADU permits in total (AccessoryDwellings.org, 2019). In 2017 and 2018 a total of 1,248 ADU permits were issued, accounting for about 36% of the total ADU permits issued. "Of the 1,248 new ADUs permitted, 150 of the ADUs were developed in conjunction with a new primary - dwelling (12%)" (Accessorydwellings.org, 2019). These 150 projects are the form of development that is thought to align with speculative developmental practices, i.e., the [possible] teardown of old homes to be replaced by a new home with an ADU. It is unknown how many of the 150 new construction primaries/ADUs were preceded by a teardown. It is also unknown whether they were built by developers that intended to retain ownership and profit through rents, by developers that intended to sell the property through the traditional housing market, or by developers that were hired for a custom build project by clients that requested an ADU. The 150 newly constructed residences with an ADU were built by 91 applicants, of whom only ten developed more than two ADUs in the two-year span for which we have data (Accessorydwellings.org, 2019). A permit and zoning analysis by Citylab records that less than 2% of Portland properties eligible for an ADU have one (Citylab, 2018). As in Kenmore, the ADUs are distributed throughout the City. Spatial Distribution of ADUs in Portland: Where are ADUs being bunt? �. Packet Pg. 35 6.e Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission April 2020, Revised June 2020 City Resources Policy Committee Policy Proposal [June 2020 revisions in red] 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. a) Due to what was considered an error in 1406's bill drafting, Edmonds' 1406 sales tax credit will expire in July 2020 and all revenue from this credit will revert to the County. EHB 2797 was passed by both houses in the 2020 session to correct the error, however Governor Inslee vetoed it on April 3 with a number of other bills, citing the need to prepare for the economic impacts of Covid-19. b) Because of the current economic and public health impacts of Covid-19, the committee recommends that the City use the revenue from 1406 to provide rental assistance to tenants impacted by Covid-19. c) Furthermore, the committee recommends that the City coordinate with other municipalities in southwestern Snohomish County Districts 3 and 4 (Bothell, Brier, Lynwood, Mill Creek, Mountlake Terrace and Woodway), the Snohomish County Alliance for Housing Affordability (of which all but Bothell and Brier are members), and with the County in order to coordinate regional efforts to generate greater impact and higher efficiency. According to MRSC's revenue estimates, our seven cities could generate $14.8 million over 20 years.' If bonded against this revenue could immediately contribute to the preservation or construction of hundreds of long-term affordable homes. 1 MRSC Revenue Forecasting Worksheet, http://mrsc.org/getmedia/4d953acc-4e81-450d-9b57- 2973b690c83c/SHB-1406-revenue-estimates.aspx Packet Pg. 36 6.e Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission April 2020, Revised June 2020 2. Background The Washington State Legislature passed SH131406, 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 forSnohomish County, and 42,000 for City of Edmonds. 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 $1,343,274.792for Snohomish County, and $71, 931.053 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. 2 Source: Snohomish County representative via Shane Hope 3 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. 37 6.e Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission April 2020, Revised June 2020 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 3 Packet Pg. 38 6.e Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission April 2020, Revised June 2020 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. a) See attached proposal memo for June 11, 2020 Commission meeting 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. 4 Packet Pg. 39 6.e Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission April 2020, Revised June 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." 4 The primary policy principle the report recommends is to "increase and expand funding for affordable housing." 5 The Housing Snohomish County Project Report6 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,"7 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. 4 Housing Underproduction in Washington State, Up for Growth, January, 2020, page 4 https://www.upforgrowth.org/sites/default/files/2020-01/HousingUnderproductionlnWashingtonState2O2O-01-10.pdf 5 ibid, page 23 6 Housing Snohomish County Project Report, April, 2018, Executive Summary page v. https://snohomishcountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/50837/Housing-Snoh-Co-Proj-Rpt_Final?bidld= 7 ibid, Appendix page x 5 Packet Pg. 40 6.e Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission April 2020, Revised June 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? o Additional financial resources to create and preserve affordable housing will increase housing opportunities for people who have been discriminated C, Packet Pg. 41 6.e Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission April 2020, Revised June 2020 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."8 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."9 • 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.10 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. 8 https://www.snohomishcountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/70454/Analysis-of-Impediments-to-Fair- Housing-Choice 9 https://opportunityinsights.org/neighborhoods/ io https://itep.org/washington/ 7 Packet Pg. 42 6.f Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission City Resources Policy Committee Proposal from Committee to Commission June 11, 2020 Summary The Committee recommends that the Edmonds City Council advocate that Snohomish County adopt a resolution to impose the one -tenth of one percent sales tax authorized by SHB 1590 to construct affordable housing. Although the Commission's policy recommendations to Council are due by December 31, 2020, the County must impose the tax rate by September 30, 2020. Accordingly, the Committee requests the Commission to recommend that the City Council advocate that the County impose the tax authorized by SHB 1590 for affordable housing by the deadline of September 30, 2020. Among the recommendations to be presented to Council by December 31, the Committee further recommends that the City coordinate with other municipalities in southwestern Snohomish County Districts 3 and 4 (Bothell, Brier, Lynwood, Mill Creek, Mountlake Terrace and Woodway), the Snohomish County Alliance for Housing Affordability (of which all but Bothell and Brier are members), and with the County in order to coordinate regional efforts to generate greater impact and higher efficiency. Should the County not act, the Committee does not recommend imposing the one -tenth of one percent tax at the City level for several reasons: 1) the amount collected would be inadequate to accomplish enough, 2) it would put local businesses at a competitive disadvantage, 3) the technical expertise may not be available, and 4) the administrative burden would be excessive. Background The Washington State Legislature passed SHB 1590, which enacted into law Chapter 82.14.530 RCW effective June 11, 2020. SHB 1590 allows Cities and Counties, by Councilmanic legislative authority to impose a sales tax of up to one -tenth of one percent, in addition to any other taxes, provided that a minimum of 60% of the money 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 money collected may be used for the operation, delivery, or evaluation of mental and behavioral health treatment programs and services or housing -related services. The revenue generated by implementing SHB 1590 is restricted to serve households at or below 60% of the Area Median Income (AMI). To the extent that affordable homeownership programs generally require potential home buyers to have income at 80% AMI or above, the revenue from SHB 1590 would only serve to create or preserve rental housing, accordingly increasing opportunities for renters, and have no effect upon owners. Implementation However, given the economic crisis created by the global coronavirus pandemic of 2020, we further 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. Packet Pg. 43 6.g Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission April 2020, Revised June 2020 City Resources Committee Policy Proposal Names of Policy Committee Members: Jess Blanch, George Keefe, Weijia Wu Short title of Policy Proposal: Edmonds-HASCO Interlocal Agreement Purpose of policy being proposed: Increase housing affordability by allowing the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) to operate within the boundaries of Edmonds city limits. Specific proposed policy (What exactly is being proposed?): Execute an interlocal agreement (ILA) with HASCO allowing HASCO to operate within Edmonds geographic boundaries. 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"? This policy will allow HASCO to acquire and build affordable housing in Edmonds, ensuring nonprofit management and the affordability of the housing in perpetuity. From HASCO's Websitel HASCO's mission is to meet the diverse needs of Snohomish County residents by expanding housing opportunities that promote stability, strengthen community and provide affordability. HASCO was established in 1971 to provide affordable housing, enhance quality of life, and build safer and stronger communities. HASCO has helped a significant number of people in its 40-year history. Guided by a six -member board of commissioners and staffed by 73, the Housing Authority owns and manages more than 2000 units of subsidized and affordable housing. The Housing Authority also directs dozens of innovative programs that enhance the quality of people's lives and creates a more strongly knit community. Today state and local governments are taking the lead for meeting the housing needs of their communities. In recognition of declining federal funds and an affordable housing stock that is not growing fast enough to meet the needs of Snohomish County citizens, HASCO has moved beyond its original mission of serving very low-income households to also assist working families who are being squeezed by stagnant wages and increasing housing costs. 1 https://hasco.org/about-hasco/ Packet Pg. 44 6.g Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission April 2020, Revised June 2020 Key factors may include some or all of the following, depending on their relevance to the topic. • Effect on the supply of low-income housing? o Maintain or increase • Effect on the supply of moderate -income housing? o Maintain or increase • Effect on the supply of housing for seniors or others groups with special needs? o Maintain or increase • Effect on property values? o N/A • Effect on the general tax burden of residents or property owners in Edmonds? o None • Effect on businesses and economic vitality? o N/A • 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 Increased affordable options for renters. • Effect on housing opportunities for groups of people who have been discriminated against in the past? o Improve ON Packet Pg. 45 6.g Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission April 2020, Revised June 2020 Could this tend to correct the results of past discrimination against any groups? o Yes What other benefits or impacts of this proposal seem likely? o Private property owners who want to support housing affordability with the disposition of their property would be able to sell or donate to HASCO, thereby providing a community benefit through permanently affordable housing. If the proposal might have negative impacts related to a factor above, how could such impacts be reduced or mitigated? o N/A Optional: • What other communities use this approach? o Lynnwood is one such example, with an ILA executed in 1995. See attached. • What other information is helpful to know about this proposal? • How would this policy be implemented? Packet Pg. 46 CITY OF LYNNWOOD I 6.h I P.O. BOX 500B LYNNWOOD. WA 06046.6008 PHONE (206) 775.1971 May 17, 1995 �;; ,.. € .. r}=;,.f ,,:.�Etor �. Snohomish County Housing Authority M,`' E o Bob Davis, Executive Director f �j U 3425 Broadway Everett, WA 98201 EVERETT, WA 0,821101 a Dear Mr. Davis: ,° to Here are the two original Interlocal Agreements for the Snohomish County Housing Authority. Please sign both and return one to me for my files. I've also enclosed a 0. D copy of the resolution for your file. a Thank you, CITY OF LYNNWOOD ,.Ce /KIL W)cZb Irene Mock Clerk Specialist/Records g CITY HALL / COUNCIL CHAMBERS FIRE DEPT. HEADQUARTERS POLICE/MUNICIPAL COURT i9100 44TH AVENUE WEST W800 44TH AVENUE WEST 19321 44TH AVFNUE WEST FAX (206) 771.6144 FAX (206) 771-7977 POLICE FAX (208) 672.6935 COURT FAX (205) 774.7I}39 PIECREATION CENTER 1800 44TH AVENUE WEST FAX 1/1 I:W'-!i Packet Pg. 47 6.h INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY TO FUNCTION WITHIN THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD This Interlocal Agreement is made and entered into effective on the 9th day of May , 1995, between the SNOHOMISH COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY, hereinafter referred to as "the Authority", and the City of Lynnwood, hereinafter referred to as "the City", upon the following terms and conditions: The City recognizes the need for a housing authority to function within the City and provides for an Interlocal Agreement for such services with the Authority by City Resolution No. 95-4 The Authority is willing to, and is desirous of, functioning within the boundaries of the City. Pursuant to RCW 35A.11.040 and RCW 35.82.270, the City and the Authority, respectively, may enter into Interlocal Agreements as authorized by Chapter 39.34 RCW, the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act. In consideration of the foregoing and the mutual promises set forth below, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Authority to Function. The Authority is granted power to function within the geographic boundaries of the City as if created pursuant to RCW 35.82.030 and may exercise all powers set forth in RCW 35.82.070. 2. Planning, Zoning and Building Ordinances. All housing projects of the - Authority shall be subject to the comprehensive plan of the City and to all planning, zoning, sanitary and building laws, ordinances and regulations of the City unless otherwise waived in whole or part by resolution. 3. Coordination. The Authority shall keep the City informed as to contemplated projects and as to the status of development and operations of projects located within the City. In the planning and location of any housing project, the Authority shall take into consideration the relationship of such project to the comprehensive plan and long-range planning programs enacted by the City. Nothing herein shall be construed as authorizing the City to become involved in operation of housing projects by the Authority or determination of rentals and tenant selection. Interlocal Agreement Page 1 w\chint-Im.agm - 1:33pm osroaros (w) Packet Pg. 48 6.h 4. Contract Administration. This Interlocal Agreement shall be administered by the representative of each party specified below. Any written notice required by terms of this Agreement shall be served or mailed as follows: If to the City: Mayor City of Lynnwood 19100 44th Avenue West P.O. Box 5008 Lynnwood, WA 98046-5008 If to the Authority: Executive Director Snohomish County Housing Authority 3425 Broadway Everett, WA 98201 5. Indemnification. The Authority shall indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers, agents, and employees or any of them from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any act, negligent act, or omission of the Authority, its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, relating to or arising out of the performance of this Interlocal Agreement; and if final judgment be rendered against the Authority, and its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, or jointly against the City and the Authority shall satisfy the same to the extent that such judgment was due to the Authority's negligent acts or omissions. The City shall indemnify and hold harmless the Authority and its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any act, negligent act, or omission of the City, its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, relating to or arising out of the performance of this Interlocal Agreement; and if final judgment be rendered against the City, and its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, or jointly against the Authority and the City and their respective officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, the City shall satisfy the same to the extent that such judgment was due to the City's negligent acts or omissions. 6. Termination of Contract. This Interlocal Agreement, and performance hereunder, may be terminated by either party by the service or mailing of written notice of such termination, specifying the extent and effective date thereof, but not sooner than sixty (60) days from date of such notice. Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, termination of this Agreement shall not terminate the power of the Authority to continue to operate existing housing projects and to complete new projects under development pursuant to prior approval, until such time that the City or a separate Housing Authority assumes such projects by agreement and pursuant to law. 7. Construction and Venue. This Interlocal Agreement shall be construed in accordance with laws of the State of Washington. In event of any litigation regarding the Interlocal Agreement Page 2 WkIvMterbc.agm 1:99pm 05/04/95 (w) Packet Pg. 49 6.h construction or effect of this Interlocal Agreement, or the rights of the parties pursuant to this Interlocal Agreement, it is agreed that venue shall be Snohomish County, Washington. 8. Merger and Amendment. This Interlocal Agreement contains the entire understanding of the parties with respect to the matters set forth herein and any prior or contemporaneous understandings are merged herein. This Interlocal Agreement shall not be modified except by written instrument executed by all parties hereto. CITY OF LYNNWOOD Tina Roberts, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Interlocal Agreement wXc1Unlcr1w.agm 1:33pm 05/04/95 (nr) SNOHOMISH COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY B y Executive Director Page 3 Packet Pg. 50 CITY OF LYNNWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 95-4 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON, AUTHORIZING THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY TO FUNCTION WITHIN THE CITY SUBJECT TO AN - INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR APPROPRIATE NOTICE, COORDINATION AND PROJECT APPROVALS. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lynnwood recognizes that there are privately held buildings within the City that have large low income populations; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lynnwood understands that private property owners have been offering these properties to the Snohomish County Housing Authority; and WHEREAS, based on representation of the Snohomish County Housing Authority, the City Council of the City of Lynnwood believes that it is in the public interest for these private property owners to sell these properties to a housing sponsor that will operate the developments on a non-profit basis; and WHEREAS, Chapter 35.82 RCW permits counties and cities to create separate public bodies known as the "Housing Authority" of the county or city, with all powers granted by RCW 35.82.070; and WHEREAS, the Snohomish County Housing Authority has long been established and has been functioning in the interest of public health but, pursuant to RCW 35.82.070(13), can not function within the City absent a Resolution declaring need for such functions; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.11.040 and RCW 35.82.270, the City and Snohomish County Housing Authority, respectively, may enter into Interlocal Agreements as authorized by Chapter 39.34 RCW, the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act; and WHEREAS, the City Council concludes there would be community benefits for Snohomish County Housing Authority to function within the City, for reasons of providing a supply of safe and sanitary dwelling accommodations within the City available to persons of low income at rentals which they can afford, and to ensure availability of safe and sanitary dwellings, apartments, mobile home parks, or other living accommodations available for senior citizens; gh\roao1uUon\hoasing.aut PaRe 1 1:33pm 05/04/95 (gm) Packet Pg. 51 90 6.h NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby declares there is a community benefit for a housing authority to function within the City of Lynnwood and the Mayor is authorized to enter into an Interlocal Agreement, on behalf of the City, with the Snohomish County Housing Authority, generally in conformity with the form of the agreement attached to this Resolution, to permit the Snohomish County Housing Authority to operate and function within the boundaries of the City will all powers granted by statute, subject, however, to appropriate requirements of notice to and coordination with the City, and subject to termination upon advance notice. PASSED this 8th day of May , 1995, and signed in authentication of its passage this 9th day of May , 1995. 0- R. W. N9ACK, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: V JOHN P. WATTS, City Attorney TINA ROBERTS, Mayor N tV tv E E 0 U 0 a E 0 L 4 a gh\resol ution\hou sing. aut 1:33pm 05/04/95 (gm) Page 2 Packet Pg. 52 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY RESOLUTION NO. 597 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF LYNNWOOD A Resolution of the Commissioners of the Housing Authority of Snohomish County authorizing the Executive Director to execute an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Lynnwood authorizing the Housing Authority to operate in the City of Lynnwood and providing for appropriate notice; coordination and project -approvals. WHEREAS, the Housing Authority of Snohomish County and the City of Lynnwood recognize that there are privately held buildings within the City that have large low income populations; and WHEREAS, the Housing Authority has made the City of Lynnwood aware that private property owners have been offering these properties to the Snohomish County Housing Authority; and WHEREAS, the City of Lynnwood believes that it is in the public interest for these private property owners to sell these properties to a housing sponsor that will operate the developments on a non- profit basis; and WHEREAS, Chapter 35.82 RCW permits counties and cities to create separate public bodies known as the "Housing Authority" of the county or city, with all powers granted by RCW 35.82.070; and WHEREAS, the Snohomish County Housing Authority has long been established and has been functioning in the interest of public health but, pursuant to RCW 35.82.070 (13), can not function within the City absent a Resolution declaring need for such functions; and WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35A.11.040 and RCW 35.82.270, the City and Snohomish County Housing Authority, respectively, may enter into Interlocal Agreements as authorized by Chapter 39.34 RCW, the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act; and WHEREAS, the Lynnwood City Council" has determined that a need exists for the Housing Authority of Snohomish County to operate within the City. NOW, THEREFORE, HE IT RESOLVED, that the Executive Director is authorized to execute the attached Interlocal Agreement with the City of Lynnwood. ADOPTED by the Hoard of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of Snohomish County at a regular open public meeting thereof this 17th day of May 1995. Commissioner Quincy moved that the foregoing resolution be adopted as introduced and read, which motion was seconded by Commissioner Davis 102 Packet Pg. 53 6.h AYES NAYS Commissioner Bruland Commissioner Davis Commissioner Quincy The Chairperson there upon declared said motion carri resolution adopted. SEAL ATTEST: Secretary -Treasurer Leo Gebe,-7QWi�rpetson and said N d d E E 0 U a0 E 0 L 4 Q 103 Packet Pg. 54 6.h HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY 3425 Broadway • Everett, Washington 98201 (206) 259-5543 or (206) 743-4505 TDD (206) 259-4233 • FAX (206) 258-1314 May 12, 1995 Mayor Tina Roberts City of Lynnwood P.O. Box 5008 Lynnwood, WA 98046-5008 Dear Tina: Thank you for your support on the Whispering Pines project and the interlocal agreement. The Housing Authority appreciates your support and the resolution passed by the City Council. I take very seriously my responsibility to keep the City informed on any activity the Housing Authority would consider carrying out in Lynnwood. I believe the successful execution of the Whispering Pines project will build on the long and successful relationship between the City and the Housing Authority. Once again thank you for supporting affordable housing initiatives in Lynnwood. Sincerely yours,. Robert E. Davis Executive Director Equal Housing Opportunity Packet Pg. 55 CITY O F LY N N WOOD N.O. E30x 5PH NE (20 IUd(7, WA 96U46-5008 PHONE tz06) 775• i 9T 1 May 9,1995 ECIIrIN3 AUTt''-!a',-,'TV OF sf4J€:%Ji i WUNTY Robert E. Davis, Executive Director 142D, (3F 0AD1l y Snohomish County Housing Authority EV, EF.ETT, WA 201 3425 Broadway Everett, WA 98201 Dear Bob: I was pleased to see the resolution and interlocal agreement pass last night and will get signed copies to you as soon as they are available. I really believe in your program, and am confident that the Whispering Pines redevelopment is going to be an asset to the City. However, the concern the Council had about this being a "blanket'' agreement still exists and will continue to be an issue. In the spirit of cooperation and communication, I am asking that we be contacted whenever a HASCO project comes up in the City. Keeping us informed will settle some of the Council's concerns about future projects. I look forward to working with you, Bob. Thank you again for your input at our Council meetings. Sincerely, CITY OF LYNNWOOD e A ROBEIRTS Mayor TR8 178 Xi CITY HALL 1 COUNCIL CHAMBERS FIRE (}LPT. HLADQUARTERS POLICE f MUNICIPAL CUUHT 19100 44TH AVENUL WES 1 19800 44TH AVENUE WEST 19321 44TH AVENUE WEST FAX (206) 771-6144 FAX (200) 771.7977 POLICE FAX (206) 672-6835 COURT FAX (206) 774-7D39 RECREATION cLNTER 18900 441 H AVENUE WE, FAX (206) 771-171�' Packet Pg. 56 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY 3425 Broadway • Everett, Washington 98201 (206) 259-5543 or (206) 743-4505 TDD (206) 259-4233 • FAX (206) 258-1314 March 2, 1995 Mayor Tina Roberts City of Lynnwood 19100 44th Avenue W. Lynnwood, WA 98036 Dear Mayor Roberts; Thank you for taking the time to meet with me. I enjoyed our visit. I want to continue the positive relationship that the Housing Authority and the City established in 1979. I hope you found the data that I provided on the programs we operate within the City informative. As we discussed, Lynnwood, like most jurisdictions in western Washington, has a large number of privately held multi -family developments with large populations of low income families. In recent years owners of these properties have been offering them for sale to Housing Authorities. In the past few years the Snohomish County Housing Authority has purchased two such projects, one in the County and one in Marysville. King County and Pierce County Housing Authorities have purchased several projects each. There are a number of benefits to non-profit, Housing Authority ownership. The Housing Authority can slow the increase in rents. Rents increase based on cost rather than market conditions. The Housing Authority will stop any physical deterioration of the buildings. The Housing Authority does not have to deal with the conflict between profit and funding needed repairs. The development does not become a totally very low income project. The Housing Authority has demonstrated that it is capable of managing buildings that primarily house low income working households. The Housing Authority has been receiving proposals from property owners in the City of Lynnwood. The Housing Authority.would like to -seriously consider these proposals. The Housing Authority utilizes tax exempt revenue financing to purchase these buildings. The City's credit is not involved. The Housing Authority could purchase these buildings without notice to. the City. However, I do not want to recommend any purchases to the Board of Commissioners unless the City feels there is merit to the program. To that end I have attached a draft resolution for your consideration. Equal Housing Opportunity Packet Pg. 57 6.h We are currently involved in discussions with Washington Mutual on the potential,purchaseof the Whispering Pines development. It is a severely troubled project that we believe we can turn around. I would appreciate an opportunity to discuss our plans for the project with you at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, r Robert E. Davis Executive Director N d d E E 0 U c2 0 a E 0 L 4 Q Packet Pg. 58 Citizens Housing Commission Agenda Item Meeting Date: 06/11/2020 Selection of First Round Policy Ideas for Public Input Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Citizens Housing Commission Prepared By: Debbie Rothfus Background/History The Housing Commission formed five policy committees in February, 2020. The policy committees met separately to develop policy ideas and bring them to the full Commission for consideration. The ideas were considered and discussed at the May 14 and May 28 meetings. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative Each committee's full written set of policy ideas was provided in the Commission's May 14 and May 28 meeting packets. At the May 14 meeting, it became clear that some of the committees' ideas overlapped with each other. To help make discussion of the ideas easier at the May 28 meeting„ the policy proposals were organized by overarching topic --with eight overarching topics in all --and displayed in a chart. (See attachment.) Some topics had two ideas; others had more. Policy ideas are still not recommendations. They are meant simply as ideas that the Commission is considering and for which community feedback is desired before the Commission makes any decision about recommendations to the City Council. Ongoing community engagement is a goal of the Housing Commission. At the June 11 meeting, further discussion of the policy ideas may precede the Commission's selection of Round One policy ideas to bring to the public for input. To get through all eight of the overarching topics on June 11, each idea on the attached chart would have a brief discussion, followed by the Commission's selection of whether the idea should go forward for public input in Round One. Any idea not selected this time could still be considered for the next round. NOTE: The Zoning Standards Committee has indicated it wants to hold off the "Transition Area" idea (which appears on the chart) from Round One discussion and have it be part of Round Two instead. Packet Pg. 59 Selected policy ideas for Round One would be the subject for an online open house and a community survey. Round Two policy ideas could be circulated for community input soon after Round One. Further discussion of community engagement is also planned as a separate agenda item on June 11. Attachments: Chart.Status.Policy. Ideas.TopicaI Packet Pg. 60 7.a . Citizens' Housing Commission Policy Committee Recommendations SHB1406/SHB1590 Affordable Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Housing Sales and Use Tax 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. Allow one detached accessory unit on a property, with clear and definitive development guidelines, in SFR area. Advocate that Snohomish County ADUs should be deemed a secondary use. use its councilmanic authority to ADUs should not require a special use adopt the 0.1% sales and use tax permit. for affordable housing by the deadline of September 30, 2020. ADUs should not be required to be attached to the primary dwelling, but they can be. Reference 20.21.030: Criteria for accessory dwelling units shall remain the same. One on -site, non -covered parking space should be required for each ADU. May 14, 2020 Transition Areas & Other Housing Options Increase MFR along existing and future transit routes and adjacent to commercial zones, particularly triplex, fourplex, apartment courtyards, multiplex, and mixed use. Allow duplexes and two -unit townhouse buildings in SFR area. Provide development guidance or incentives that encourage duplex or two -unit townhouse buildings in lieu of one large single family house. Development Fees Expand the available uses of Traffic impact fees collected. Increase Sewer GFC per ERU to $6,000.00 from $4,417.00. City Processes 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 prototype accessory dwelling units to speed up the process and reduce cost. City Programs Design Guidelines Neighborhood Improvements Explore establishment of Require a Prioritize enhancing a city -funded child care percentage of larger neighborhoods programs for families in (3-4 bedroom) units through street and need. in new multi -family sidewalk projects. improvements and housing code enforcement. Establish a Community Require a certain Land Trust (CLT) to percentage of ADA preserve affordable accessible units in housing. new multi -family projects. Develop multi -family design guidelines. Packet Pg. 61 7.a SHB1406/SHB1590 Affordable Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Transition Areas & Other Development Fees City Processes City Programs Design Guidelines Housing Sales and Use Tax Housing Options 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. Allow detached accessory dwelling units. Develop pre -approved plans for ADUs. May 14, 2020 Neighborhood Improvements Packet Pg. 62 Citizens Housing Commission Agenda Item Meeting Date: 06/11/2020 Community Engagement - Next Steps Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Citizens Housing Commission Prepared By: Debbie Rothfus Background/History The Housing Commission has held monthly public meetings, except that the March and April meetings had to be canceled due to the coronavirus pandemic. One additional meeting was held in May. All Commission meetings have been live -streamed and video -recorded; they are available on the City website. Besides the video streaming/recording of each Commission meeting, outreach has included: Dedicated City website City press releases Social media notices Business cards for distribution by Commission members In -person open house Survey Flyers Numerous "Housing News Memos" to about 470 addresses Staff Recommendation Hold online open house and reach out in other ways Narrative An online open house is being planned. It is proposed to feature information and a survey about policy ideas that committees have proposed. The online open house may also show Commission members talking about their ideas. The Housing Commission's Community Engagement Committee has been working with the Community Engagement Specialist, who has been contracted by the City for this effort. After the online open house, additional engagement opportunities will be sought. This may include activities that have physical presence (not just online), consistent with the applicable Governor's recovery order. This aspect can be discussed at the July Commission meeting. More information about the immediate steps for community engagement will be discussed at the Commission's June 11 meeting. Packet Pg. 63 Citizens Housing Commission Agenda Item Meeting Date: 06/11/2020 Proposal for Alternative Memo to City Council Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Citizens Housing Commission Prepared By: Debbie Rothfus Background/History At a recent Housing Commission meeting, the Commission considered a motion to request that the City Council adopt a "moratorium" on any changes to the City's zoning code prior to the Housing Commission making its recommendations. The motion was narrowly voted down. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative Although the Housing Commission recently voted against formally requesting that the City Council have a "moratorium" on any changes to the City's zoning code prior to completion of the Housing Commission's recommendations, an alternate suggestion has been offered by a Housing Commissioner. The alternate suggestion from Commissioner Bob Throndsen is to send a memo from the Housing Commission to the City Council. His draft memo is attached. For this item, the Commission may decide to: 6 Not act on June 11 regarding the draft memo; 6 Move, second, and vote whether to approve the draft memo; 6 Defer any action to the following Commission meeting; or 6 Take some other action. Attachments: Proposed. Memo. FromCHC Packet Pg. 64 9.a Proposed Memorandum from CHC to City Council: This is a draft only. Date may be inserted, as appropriate, Memorandum: From: the Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission To: the Edmonds City Council June, 2020 The Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission reaffirms its commitment to fulfill the mission given it by the Edmonds City Council and Mayor: AlkMission: Develop diverse housing policy options for 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." In researching and developing such policy options, the Commission is aware that some options may involve proposals to change or incorporate new zoning regulations. We want Council members and city staff to know that our deliberations may have significant impact on the future of our community. We realize fully that the Council will make the final decisions on what policy options to approve and any possible zoning changes. We understand that the Council routinely considers future zoning issues and that additional changes may be coming to the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan within the next year. Our mission is to look at Edmond's housing future; to see how we can maintain the character and livability unique to Edmonds and assure that we remain a city with the vision to incorporate housing options that expand the range of housing available..." to meet the needs of this diverse community. Thank you for your consideration. Packet Pg. 65 Citizens Housing Commission Agenda Item Meeting Date: 06/11/2020 Reflections on Progress - Check -in with Commission Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Citizens Housing Commission Prepared By: Debbie Rothfus Background/History The Citizens' Housing Commission was established in 2019 by City Council Resolution. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative The early part of the Housing Commission's work (September through January) involved learning together about housing issues, laws, local needs, and opportunities. In February, the Commission moved into a committee phase whereby small committees worked on policy ideas to bring back to the whole group. While the Commission's March and April meetings were canceled due to COVID impacts, the month of May saw two Commission meetings. Both May meetings focused on policy ideas that had been developed by the committees. At the June 11 meeting, Commissioners may want to check in about how this is going and their sense of the progress being made. Packet Pg. 66