Loading...
2020-08-13 Citizens Housing Commission Packet1. 0 o Agenda Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission REGULAR MEETING VIRTUAL ONLINE MEETING EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WEB PAGE, HTTP://EDMONDSWA.IQM2.COM/CITIZENS/DEFAULT.ASPX, EDMONDS, WA 98020 AUGUST 13, 2020, 6:30 PM VIRTUAL MEETING INFORMATION LIVE STREAM: VIRTUAL MEETING BROADCASTED ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNELS 21 (COMCAST) AND 39 (FRONTIER) AS WELL AS THE CITY AGENDA PAGE WEBSITE (HTTP://EDMONDSWA.IQM2.COM/CITIZENS/DEFAULT.ASPX). DIAL -IN: THE CITY IS PROVIDING TEMPORARY DIAL -IN CAPABILITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO LISTEN BY PHONE. DIAL (712) 775-7270, ENTER ACCESS CODE 583224. HOUSING COMMISSIONS' MISSION DEVELOP DIVERSE HOUSING POLICY OPTIONS FOR (CITY) COUNCIL CONSIDERATION DESIGNED TO EXPAND THE RANGE OF HOUSING (INCLUDING RENTAL AND OWNED) AVAILABLE IN EDMONDS; OPTIONS THAT ARE IRRESPECTIVE OF AGE, GENDER, RACE, RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION, PHYSICAL DISABILITY OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION" — FROM CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 1427 ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATEMENT WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE ORIGINAL INHABITANTS OF THIS PLACE, THE SDOHOBSH (SNOHOMISH) PEOPLE AND THEIR SUCCESSORS THE TULALIP TRIBES, WHO SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL HAVE HUNTED, FISHED, GATHERED, AND TAKEN CARE OF THESE LANDS. WE RESPECT THEIR SOVEREIGNTY, THEIR RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION, AND WE HONOR THEIR SACRED SPIRITUAL CONNECTION WITH THE LAND AND WATER." — CITY COUNCIL LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OPEN PUBLIC MEETING ACT THE AUGUST 13, 2020 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 Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission Agenda August 13, 2020 Page 1 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (SUBMITTED BY EMAIL TO HOUSING.PUB.COMMENTS@EDMONDSWA.GOV) APPROVAL OF JULY 9, 2020 MEETING NOTES Approval of July 9, 2020 Meeting Notes 6. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT Public Engagement ROUND 2 POLICY IDEAS Round 2 Policy Ideas 8. ROUND 1 POLICY COMMITTEE UPDATES Round 1 Policy Committee Updates 9. WRAP UP, NEXT STEPS & ADJOURN Wrap -Up Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission Agenda August 13, 2020 Page 2 Citizens Housing Commission Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/13/2020 Approval of July 9, 2020 Meeting Notes Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Citizens Housing Commission Prepared By: Debbie Rothfus Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Approve the meeting notes. Narrative Meeting notes from the 7/9/2020 meeting are attached. Attachments: ECHC_Notes_7.9_v0 Packet Pg. 3 5.a EDMONDS CITIZENS' HOUSING COMMISSION Meeting Notes — July 9, 2020 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 Webaaee. ATTENDANCE Commissioners • James Ogonowski, District 1 • Karen Haase Herrick, District 1 • Weijia (Vicky) Wu, District 2 • Keith Soltner, District 2 • Eva -Denise Miller, District 3 • Nichole Franko, District 4 • Michael McMurray, District 4 • Tanya Kataria, District 5 • Greg Long, District 5 • Jess Blanch, District 6 • Alena Nelson-Vietmeier, District 6 • Will Chen, District 7 • Judi Gladstone, District 7 • Bob Throndsen, At -large AGENDA Alternates • Leif Warren, District 1 • Wendy Wyatt, District 2 • Kenneth Sund, District 4 • Rick Nishino, District 6 • Jean Salls, District 7 • Tana Axtelle, At -large City Council Liaison • Vivian Olson, Position 5 • Luke Distelhorst, Position 2 Project Staff • Shane Hope, City of Edmonds • Brad Shipley, City of Edmonds • Amber Groll, City of Edmonds • Gretchen Muller, Cascadia Consulting Group • Kate Graham, Cascadia Consulting Group • Brent Edgar, Cascadia Consulting Group 1. TECHNOLOGY 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 June 11, 2020 meeting notes Packet Pg. 4 5.a 5. ROUND 1 POLICY IDEA UPDATES I. Commission members provided short clarifications to the round 1 policy ideas moving forward for public input. 6. ROUND 2 POLICY IDEAS I. Each committee provided an update on the topics they are currently exploring for round 2 II. Reviewed list of unassigned topics remaining from February prioritization activity i. Commission members discussed and added ideas to the list III. Committees selected which of the remaining unassigned topics they would like to explore. The identified topics for each committee are: i. City Resources Committee: Homelessness prevention & housing insecurity and City partnerships ii. Incentives & Requirements Committee: Multifamily Tax Exemption (MFTE), Community Land Trust programs, and Possible requirement for inclusionary zoning when new housing is built, providing either: (a) some amount of low or moderate -income housing, or (b) developer contribution of in -lieu funds iii. Zoning Standards Committee: Cluster housing and/or cottage housing and Live/Work housing iv. Housing Types Committee: Street/sidewalk improvements, changes to existing comprehensive plan policies, barriers to housing access (focus on equity) v. City Processes & Programs Committee: Impact fees for transportation and/or parks, utility connection fees, childcare program, and opportunities for additional revenue IV. Committees will continue to meet and work on Round 2 ideas to present at the August meeting 7. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT I. Update on the upcoming online open house and planned disseminating activities i. Online Open House will be available from July 12 — August 9 at www.echcopenhouse.com ii. Commission members expressed interest in additional mailings and paper survey distribution 8. PROPOSAL FOR MEMO TO COUNCIL I. A Commission member brought forward a proposed memo to City Council asking them not to move forward on any non -necessary housing related policies until the Commission has made their recommendations II. The Commission voted in favor of sending the memo to council I. In favor: 7 II. Opposed: 5 III. Abstain:2 9. UPDATE FROM QUARTERLY REPORT TO COUNCIL I. Commission members shared reflections from the July 7 quarterly report presentation to City Council 9. ADJOURN Packet Pg. 5 Citizens Housing Commission Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/13/2020 Public Engagement Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Citizens Housing Commission Prepared By: Debbie Rothfus Background/History Public engagement is a very important part of the Housing Commission's work. Although COVID 19 has affected some of the ways that public engagement occurs, more emphasis has been placed on online activities, flyers, and mailings. Current activities include an online open house and survey. Postcards with information about this were mailed to about 3825 households. Paper copies of the survey were mailed to a random sampling of 600 households. In addition, press releases and social media announcements have been made. The survey was extended an additional week and closes on August 16. Staff Recommendation Vote to approve an extra meeting on September 17 to discuss results of the current survey. Narrative At the August 13 meeting, our community engagement consultant will provide an overview of the number of responses received so far and trends that seem to be rising to the top. A full analysis, along with the actual survey data itself, will be provided to the Housing Commission in early September after the results are in. We know that Commissioners are eager to learn of and discuss the community's input on the survey questions (in addition to the earlier survey). However, instead of having the Round 1 survey be the subject of the regular September 10 Commission meeting, we propose one week later --September 17. That's because the September 10 meeting needs to focus on deciding what Round 2 policy ideas will become part of the Round 2 survey. That way, the Round 2 survey can go forward for public input in October. (Note: Round 2 will not include ideas that were in the Round 1 survey, so it does not need to wait for the results of Round 1.) The additional week will also allow more time for Commissioners to review the detailed results prior to discussion. Packet Pg. 6 Citizens Housing Commission Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/13/2020 Round 2 Policy Ideas Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Citizens Housing Commission Prepared By: Debbie Rothfus Background/History The Housing Commission's Round 1 policy ideas from May and June were incorporated into an online open house and survey now being considered by the public. On July 9, the Commission's policy committees introduced intended topics and preliminary concepts to be considered for Round 2 of the public process. The status of these and any other ideas will be presented on August 13. Staff Recommendation Begin to identify questions and issues for draft Round 2 policy ideas. Narrative Since the Housing Commission's July 9 meeting, the policy committees have separately worked to develop Round 2 ideas for consideration by the full Commission. At the August 13 meeting, each committee will report on its Round 2 status and proposals. Commissioners will share their initial questions and comments after each committee presentation. (See the format below.) At the Commission's September 10 meeting, committees may present more information for discussion and Commissioners will be asked to select those Round 2 policy ideas for which community input will be sought. Session Format Each of the five policy committees will have up to 8 minutes for presenting their Round 2 policy ideas, followed by about 5 minutes of discussion by other Commissioners. The format for each committee would be: Policy lead could take 1-3 minutes to present each of the policy ideas from that committee. (If a specific proposal is not ready, the lead can simply update the Commission on the status of the committee's work and any conceptual ideas for Round 2. Other members of the same committee (not the lead) could take about 1 minute to comment on each idea. At the end of each committee's presentation, other Commissioners (not on that committee) would have about 5 minutes to ask questions or briefly point out issues. This may include: o Do you have any additional clarifying question(s) related to this policy idea? o What, if any, additional information would you like to know about this policy idea? o Are there things you like/don't like about this policy idea? If the meeting does not have enough time to get through the questions/comments, Commission Packet Pg. 7 members may submit their questions to the City's Development Services Director by August 17. These will be provided to the full Commission. The respective committees can then decide whether or how to factor in these points prior to the Commission's September 10 meeting. Policy Committee Status and Proposals Zoning Standards Committee The Zoning Standards Committee has developed several concepts for Round 2 consideration. Topics are: Cluster Housing (see attachment) Multifamily Design Standards (see attachment) Neighborhood Villages (see attachment). Each of the above proposals contains a goal and a concept, though not necessarily a simple policy statement. Housing Types Committee The Housing Types Committee previously expressed interest in developing one or more policy ideas for the following topics: Barriers to housing access (with focus on equity) Potential changes to existing Comprehensive Plan policies Street/sidewalk improvements. During the past month, the committee has focused on the first item above, i.e., barriers to housing access and resulting equity issues. A specific policy proposal has not yet been submitted. Processes & Programs Committee The Processes & Programs Committee has developed Round 2 policy ideas for the following topics: Zoning concessions vs. property tax exemptions Update to Transportation Element of City's Comprehensive Plan Childcare voucher program Ideas for the above three topics are contained in one combined document (see attachment). [Note: Some of the document's narrative for updating the Transportation Element refers to using traffic impact fees for parking facilities. While state law prohibits using impact fees for parking facilities, other resources could be used in place of impact fees and this limitation does not affect the basic proposal.] City Resources Committee The City Resources Committee has been considering Round 2 policy ideas for the following topics: (a) Homelessness prevention and housing insecurity; and (b) Partnerships. Two specific proposals have been prepared for the first topic: Homelessness Prevention Programs (see attachment) Eviction Reduction Measures (see attachment). Incentives & Requirement Committee The Incentives & Requirements Committee has developed policy ideas for two topics: Multifamily tax exemption (see attachment) Mandatory housing affordability (see attachment). While multifamily tax exemption has been discussed at several previous Commission meetings, the topic of mandatory housing affordability is relatively new to the full Commission. Next Steps Following the August 9 meeting, each policy committee will separately work to develop or clarify its Round 2 ideas. These ideas will be further discussed at the Commission's September 10 meeting and some will be selected by the full Commission to move forward for more public input, including a community survey in October. A decision on selecting Round 2 ideas by September 10 is important to Packet Pg. 8 the schedule. After receiving community input on the Round 2 policy ideas, the Commission will review the input from both Round 1 and Round 2, and consider whether to keep, revise, or drop any of the ideas for its policy recommendations. The intent is to do this during October and early November so that the Commission's draft policy recommendations can be circulated one more time before finalization in December. Attachments: Cluster Housing (Final) MF.Design.Standards.drft Neighborhood Village Proposal Process. Progams.Proposal.Round2 Homelessness. Prevntn.Programs.Rounc12 (002) Just.Cause. Eviction.Proposa1.Rounc12 MFTE.Proposal.Round2 Mandatory.AFfdbl.Housing.Proposal Packet Pg. 9 7.a Zoning Standards Policy Committee Round 2 Policy Idea For Cluster Housing Goal of Policy Idea: To add cluster housing as an option to traditional single-family housing in Edmonds. Cluster housing is a flexible approach to land development that can provide more affordable homes, especially to those in middle -income ranges. Concept: Currently, for Edmonds, clustered or clustering of housing units is mentioned primarily in ECDC 20.35 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT [PRD]. The policy idea being proposed would create another single-family zoning type called Cluster Housing for certain Edmonds areas where terrain would not be self-limiting. 1. Cluster housing offers an alternative to conventional lot -by -lot development that is achieved by allowing departures from lot dimension and setback requirements. 2. This option allows a more independent living standard for adults that are elderly or have disabilities since caregivers can reside in the same cluster development. 0 a. N 0 W 3. Housing units are often limited to one-story units and are smaller in size. The units can also be developed in ways to support individuals with unique mobility needs. 4. Homes are clustered together in ways that can maximize open space, create common areas, limit traffic flow to ensure safe play areas for children, and encourage the development of trails and walkways through the cluster development. These trails and walkways can link to off -site trails and walkways and to off -site activity centers. 5. Allowing site development in clusters may also allow for less infrastructure development thus further lowering costs. This design option can maximize open space and natural site features. This will minimize stormwater run-off and erosion which also lessens the burden on the City Storm Sewer system. 6. Developing a single-family zoning type of cluster housing would allow developers a more direct permitting process and eliminate the more costly PRD process to develop cluster housing. This may lower overall costs for the housing. 7. Cluster housing could be incentivized for builders by allowing them a density bonus for projects of smaller sizes and/or built as affordable housing. Packet Pg. 10 7.a 8. Cluster housing advantages include no through traffic and the ability to integrate related green spaces both existing landscaping and/or part of the development landscaping. 9. Additionally, cluster housing could be used in proximity to Neighborhood Villages to increase the housing capacity, enhance the livability, and encourage walking between the housing and the Neighborhood Village. 10.As an example, cluster housing could be developed near Swedish Edmonds medical complex to offer smaller, affordable housing for seniors and/or employees. >, 0 a N C 3 O W Packet Pg. 11 7.b ZONING MULTI -FAMILY DESIGN STANDARDS DRAFT Goal of Policy Idea: Enhance current design standards of new multi -family dwellings, especially those with low to middle income housing, to maintain and enhance the unique characteristics of the Edmonds community. Building types would include mixed use buildings, small multi- family buildings and larger multi -family buildings. A. Multi -Family suggested additives to the City of Edmonds design standards: This summary is a supplement to zoning design standards: (16.30.030.B, 20.10, 20.11 and 20.35) a. Building visual interest i. Vertical and horizontal modulation. 1. This condition is important for larger scale buildings ii. Site and Building Landscaping 1. Ground level: a. At entry b. In courtyards, if any 2. Landscaping integrated into the building: a. Stepped modulation on decks of units and in common area decks i. Free-standing or hanging pots ii. Built-in platforms or planters b. In common areas i. Roof decks ii. Modulation step -back decks b. Step-backs/Incentives: street and alley sides i. Maintain the current 3-story height limit 1. Step -back the upper floors 2. Stepping back the 3rd Floor provides the developer the opportunity to increase income from creative use of space that may increase building costs. The higher income from the use of creative space will help offset affordable housing income on the lower floors. c. Further Incentives would include a partial 4th Floor (not within view corridors) i. Step -back all sides ii. Combination of common and private areas for the 4th Floor iii. This 4th Floor reward provides a developer another opportunity to increase income from the above items that will result in building cost increases and to offset affordable housing loss of income. d. Height exception: Elevators and Stairwells e. Color and material variations can be used to complement modulation DRAFT Packet Pg. 12 7.c Zoning Standards Committee July 14, 2020 DRAFT NEIGHBORHOOD VILLAGES Goal: To provide an expanded concept of clustered small commercial and housing mixed use buildings with public spaces in designated neighborhoods, often in the current BN zoning. Supplemental changes to zoning design standards 16.30.020.131; 20.10; 20.11 and 20.35 should be coordinated to allow Neighborhood Villages. Concept: Provide neighborhoods in the City of Edmonds with clustered small commercial areas accessible by vehicular traffic, bike lanes and connected walkways. 2 0 a Many of the areas zoned "Business Neighborhood" (5 Corners, Perrinville, gas N station by Firdale Village, gas station by Edmonds Elementary, etc.) already exist as smaller commercial hubs. These areas and the surrounding properties are W_ prime locations to pursue the development of Neighborhood Villages. F5 These Neighborhood Villages would offer unique areas of Edmonds that are on or close to transit lines. The existing smaller commercial hubs could be configured as live/work spaces. The Neighborhood Village area itself would include a variety of housing option segments, such as transitional areas, cluster housing and artist housing, apartments, or condominiums. Development of these segments could be incentivized so that nearby single-family neighborhoods have separation from thriving business hubs. These Neighborhood Villages would have comprehensive design guidelines to ensure they are developed in a way that enhances and reinvigorates the surrounding communities." Types of businesses: • Boutique shops • Coffee shops • Small restaurants • Specialty supermarkets • Specialty sandwich shops • Food shops • Gift shops • Professional services • Bookstores • Art galleries • Small private wellness centers Neighborhood Village Policy Idea DRAFT Packet Pg. 13 7.c The above types of businesses should be clustered independently and on the ground floor of multiple residential buildings, with the following features: a. The center of the village should be a plaza for social activities which may include, but not limited to, landscaping, bench seating, fountains, bike racks and items for the enjoyment of the general public. b. Multiple residential buildings may include duplex, triplex and four-plex buildings which would be limited to two stories above commercial spaces. c. Multiple residential units of larger capacity, not to exceed 20 units in two stories above commercial spaces could also be a part of the Neighborhood Village. Modulation of these buildings should meet current N and revised design standards.' d. Parking should be landscaped at the perimeter and between rows of parking. Capacity could be determined by a percentage of the total lot •o area. Parking for Neighborhood Villages could be separate from, but a N integrated into, the residential parking area. e. In proximity to Neighborhood Villages it would be beneficial to have a c variety of housing options as allowed within the designated City Zones. W 1. This committee encourages the use of live -work spaces, cluster housing, transition housing of duplex, triplex, four-plex and multiple residential buildings within and adjacent to Neighborhood Villages. This will provide an enriched array of housing types transitioning to single family neighborhoods, enhancing livability for all. 2. The inclusion of live/work spaces will provide an option for affordable housing for Edmonds artists. f. New buildings should also comply with the modulation and design standards referenced in (c.) above. g. Neighborhood Village development is suggested to be a response to site conditions such as but not limited to site contours, existing natural vegetation such as large trees. 1. The development should respond to adjacent properties and existing developments including site access points to maximize traffic flow in and around Neighborhood Villages. ' Revised design standards are developed by the zoning committee as a separate standard summary. Neighborhood Village Policy Idea DRAFT Packet Pg. 14 7.d Policy Proposal (Round 2) Policy Committees on Changes to City processes or programs, which may include, Permitting fees, Ability to make permitting process more efficient, impact fees, Utility connections fees, Revenue streams, and other City programs. Committee Members: Michael McMurray, Wendy Wyatt Revenue Policy Idea: "Affordable Housing developments: incentives based on zoning concessions, not property tax exemptions" Purpose: Incentivize developers to develop more attainable affordable units and collect property tax to support general funds and local school district. If no children move into an MFTE building, no taxes are collected from the housing portion for our local schools where we all benefit. Policy• *Recommend Future affordable housing developments and/or entities (AHA) that desire to operate/develop in Edmonds be required to pay property Tax related to their developments. Council/City could craft new zoning incentives such as offering additional stories/floors when applicable and acceptable in our community. In exchange for material zoning concessions such as additional stories/floors, the developer would offer percentage of Packet Pg. 15 7.d units created be designated as affordable that would exceed current MFTE guidelines. Traffic impact fee Policy Idea: "Update Comprehensive plan to include "Parking Solutions" as a goal in Transportation Element section" Purpose: Current Traffic Impact fees assessed by city to new developments currently do not involve parking solutions as a possible allocation for these funds. The current policy seems to lack greater flexibility and rewards for our local community. Simply updating the language in our Comprehensive plan would allow flexibility for some of these Traffic impact funds to be allocated for parking solutions more efficiently if deemed prudent by our community. Examples of parking solutions: leasing parking lots, shuttle services, Trolley services, purchasing land for parking lots, and low profile parking structures. Policy• *Recommend council adopt LANGUAGE that includes Parking Solutions as a goal defined in our Transportation Element under The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. Simply injecting language into the Transportation Element portion of the plan stating Parking Solutions as a long-term Goal could lead to a wider or greater benefit to our city planning efforts. Growing residential development and density aspirations will generated lasting traffic impacts to our community. Packet Pg. 16 7.d City Programs "Childcare Voucher program under the direction of newly established Human Service manager." Purpose: The Challenges of Edmonds being a small seaside town of only 8 square miles and its high desirability is some of many factors that contribute to Edmonds affordability challenges. We as a community can be more creative and make Edmonds a more desirable place to work and perhaps make it more achievable to afford to live for some. By offering some form of Child care voucher program for people who work and live here could help bridge the gap of affordability by reducing one of families largest expenses. Policy: *Recommend Council explores Childcare Voucher program for people who work and/or live in Edmonds under the direction of the newly established Human Services manager. Packet Pg. 17 7.e Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission August 2020 City Resources Policy Committee Policy Proposal (DRAFT) Names of Policy Committee Members: Jess Blanch, George Keefe, Weijia Wu Short title of Policy Proposal: Develop Programs for Homelessness Prevention Purpose of policy being proposed: To assist low-income homeowners in Edmonds Specific proposed policy (What exactly is being proposed?): N R A. We recommend the City of Edmonds review and consider programs that provide up to ($5,000) financial assistance, in grants or below -market -rate loans, for emergency home repairs to homeowners who are elderly or have special needs and whose o incomes are below (50%) AMI. N 1. Overview ' 0 Emergency home repairs correct housing conditions that threaten homeowners' safety, such as failing septic systems, dangerous heating systems or rotten floors. N Home repair costs, beyond home insurance coverage, typically can be covered by bank issued Home Equity Loan or Line of Credit issued. However, banks may reject loan applications due to bad credit or lack of income. City sponsored emergency home repair loans would specify the following: a) Loan amount; b) Interest rate; c) Max loan length; d) Payment frequency. 2. Considerations Funding of the program may adversely impact other Edmonds residents and competing community service projects. The program requires review of applicant's financial situation, loan payment calculations/collections, which may result in additional staffing. 1 Packet Pg. 18 7.e Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission August 2020 Key factors • Effect on the supply of low-income housing? o Policy aims to preserve low-income housing • Effect on the supply of moderate -income housing? o N/A: Policy ideas target to solve low-income housing for homelessness prevention • 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 programs, the policy would increase/preserve the supply for these populations. • Effect on property values? 0 (L o N/A CN • Effect on the general tax burden of residents or property owners in Edmonds? 0 o TBD W • Effect on businesses and economic vitality? N CD c o TBD N • Effect on transportation, traffic, or parking? c c o N/A 0: u) • Effect on walkability or transit opportunities? o N/A o • Effect on (or relationship to) to services, parks, shopping, or other amenities? a r o N/A L • Effect on community livability or neighborhood character? : o TBD a c • Effect on renters? On owners? U) a o Policy aims to assist low-income homeowners E • Effect on housing opportunities for groups of people who have been discriminated against 0 = in the past? o Policy should benefit economically disadvantaged and/or underserved groups of E people U • Are there other benefits or impacts of this proposal? a o TBD 2 Packet Pg. 19 7.f Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission August 2020 City Resources Policy Committee Policy Proposal (DRAFT) Names of Policy Committee Members: Jess Blanch, George Keefe, Weijia Wu Short title of Policy Proposal: Eviction Prevention Measures Purpose of policy being proposed: Prevent homelessness by increasing housing stability. Specific proposed policy (What exactly is being proposed?): We recommend Edmonds adopt eviction prevention measures such as: • Just Cause Eviction Ordinance: limiting the grounds upon which a landlord may evict a tenant to a "just cause" or valid business reason 2 • Prohibiting retaliatory evictions ° a • Prohibiting evictions based upon the tenant's status as a member of the military, first responder, senior, family member, health care provider, or educator W • Prohibiting retaliation and discrimination in lease renewal actions N • Adopting penalties for violation and procedures to protect the rights of landlords and tenants ,° Background: Landlords are not required to provide a reason for an eviction of tenants without leases ("month -to -month" or verbal agreements) or at the end of a tenant's lease term. "Just cause" or "good cause" eviction policies require a landlord to provide a valid business reason for eviction. These can include: non-payment of rent, violation of lease terms, creation of a nuisance, and owner's intent to occupy or sell the unit, among other examples. Research shows eviction is one of the leading causes of homelessness.' Eviction records make it extremely difficult for prospective renters to qualify for housing, increasing the likelihood that they become or remain homeless. Eviction prevention measures increase housing stability for tenants, preventing displacement and homelessness, ensuring community continuity, and allowing people to stay close to jobs, schools, and services. 1 Losing Home: The Human Cost of Eviction in Seattle. A Report by the Seattle Women's Commission and the Housing Justice Project of the King County Bar Association. https://www.kcba.org/Portals/0 /pbs /pdf/Losing%20Home%202018.Rdf The State of Evictions: Results from the University of Washington Evictions Project https://evictions.study/washington/ Packet Pg. 20 7.f Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission August 2020 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? Provides more stability for low-income renters • Effect on the supply of moderate -income housing? Provides more stability for moderate -income renters • Effect on the supply of housing for seniors or others groups with special o needs? a N Provides more stability for seniors and those with special needs 0 • Effect on property values? W N/A • Effect on the general tax burden of residents or property owners in Edmonds? N/A • Effect on businesses and economic vitality? N/A • Effect on transportation, traffic, or parking? N/A • Effect on walkability or transit opportunities? N/A • Effect on (or relationship to) to services, parks, shopping, or other amenities? N/A • Effect on community livability or neighborhood character? N/A • Effect on renters? On owners? Promotes stability for both renters and owners. ON Packet Pg. 21 7.f Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission August 2020 Effect on housing opportunities for groups of people who have been discriminated against in the past? Because marginalized communities face the highest likelihood of eviction, this proposal would improve opportunities for these communities to maintain housing stability. Could this tend to correct the results of past discrimination against any groups? This policy could help to reduce conscious and unconscious bias and discrimination, which has impacted generations of minority and marginalized communities. • 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? Seattle has had a lust Cause Eviction Ordinance since 1980. Federal Way and Burien have more recently enacted eviction protection legislation, and a statewide bill was proposed in the 2019-2020 legislative session. What other information is helpful to know about this proposal? More information about just cause eviction protections can be found at Local Housing Solutions and PolicyLink'sAll-In Cities Initiative How would this policy be implemented? The City would have to determine what types of units and landlords (e.g. small vs. large) should be regulated in this way. The City would also have to determine what reasons would constitute a just cause eviction. Examples can be found in the links to other communities' approaches, above. a� 0 a N c 0 W Packet Pg. 22 7.g (Draft only... July, 2020) CHC Incentives & Requirements Committee -August, 2020 Proposed Policy recommendations: Edmonds Multi -Family Tax Exemption (MFTE) Edmonds adopted the Multi -Family Tax Exemption (MFTE) as a tool to help create more low/moderate income housing units. The mission of the Edmonds Citizens Housing Commission is to help create more opportunities for low and moderate income housing to meet the needs of this diverse and growing community. As of July, 2020, only two Edmonds multi -family housing developments currently qualify under the provisions of the MFTE: • The 91-unit apartment complex at Westgate; • The 200-unit project under construction at 234t" & Highway 99. The Housing Commission's Incentives & Requirements Committee' has researched the MFTE and recommends several policy changes to strengthen the program to help meet the future needs of Edmonds. Proposed policy changes to Edmonds MFTE: The Housing Commission recommends to the City Council that: 1) MFTE tenant income categories for low/moderate income housing units be expanded. • Currently, developers, building multi -family apartment complexes of 20 or more units who qualify for the MFTE program must, by contract, set aside: o 10% of all units as 'low income' • for tenants whose monthly income is no more than 80% of the county median income. o and another 10% of units as 'moderate income' • for tenants whose monthly income is no more than 115% of the county median income. o Total - 20% of the units are low/moderate income. Packet Pg. 23 7.g ➢ The committee recommends the creation of a third tier of 'set aside' units based on income: o an additional 5-10% of units. o for a total of 25-30% of all units in an MFTE complex. o for lower income tenants whose income is no more than 65% of the county median income. */** *65% is just one example. The city may use other percentages "For median income and family size data, see Snohomish County Median Income attachment at the end of the document. o The goal of MFTE housing units, envisioned by the state legislature, is that persons/families seeking affordable housing should not have to pay more than 30% of their monthly income on rent. o These additional 5-10% of lower income units would help meet that legislative intent. ➢ The MFTE law already gives Edmonds the authority to set lower income qualifications to reflect the economic reality of this community. ➢ That law already gives the city the authority to 'set aside' as much as 30% of an MFTE qualified project for low/moderate income tenants. ➢ As an incentive for developers, the city should consider permitting either additional units or an additional floor to a project that accepts the amended 30% low/moderate income unit numbers, as long as it is consistent with city zoning. 2) The Housing Commission recommends that more 2 bedroom and larger units be included in any MFTE project. • In existing MFTE projects in the state, 75% of all such apartments are either studio or 1-bedroom.* *2019 report of the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee • The median family size in the state is 2.6 people.* *pg. 6, 2019 JLARC report Packet Pg. 24 7.g ➢ The Commission recommends that a proportionate number of larger units (2 or more bedrooms) be included in the total percentage of METE units in each project. 3) The Housing Commission recommends that Edmonds increase the number of 'residential target areas' or 'urban center areas' to accommodate additional MFTE developments. • Currently, only two areas in Edmonds are designated as MFTE development zones: o The Westgate Mixed Use (WMU) zone o Highway 99 Subarea y The Commission recommends that the citv desianate other areas as 'residential target areas' or 'urban center areas o Those areas could be included in 'Transition zones' that the Commission is recommending in other policy changes. 4) The Commission recommends that the city encourage the redevelopment/renovation of existing multi -family complexes to include MFTE eligible apartments. o The existing MFTE law is intended to stimulate development of new or rehabilitated multiple -unit housing.'* o 'MFTE can also apply to rehabilitating existing properties and redeveloping vacant or underused properties."* *(Pg. 1, Puget Sound Regional Council Multifamily Tax Study & JLARC Legislative report) o Examples of such projects may include motels, hotels, older housing complexes along the Highway 99 urban growth area, and in other areas designated by city current/future zoning. The Commission recommends that the city create incentives for property owners/developers to redevelop/renovate existing multi -family complexes to include MFTE eligible apartments. Packet Pg. 25 7.g 5) The Commission recommends that the city lobby the legislature to pass legislation to extend the MFTE beyond the current 12-year limit. o The Commission's research indicates that at the end of the 12 year MFTE exemption, developers/owners are more than likely to increase the price of low/moderate apartments to market value. o That decreases affordable housing for low/moderate income tenants. ➢ The Housing Commission recommends the city lobby the leciislature to extend the METE beyond the current 12-year limit as a part of Edmonds stated mission to develop more diverse onnortunities for housing for low/moderate income persons. 6) The Housing Commission recommends that the city implement a policy to 'partner' to increase low/moderate income housing opportunities throughout the South County. o Partnership opportunities may include neighboring communities, the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASOC), Community Land Trusts, non-profit and for -profit agencies and organizations. o They could include creating a South County regional group to develop design and construction standards for MFTE complexes. o The city could partner with builders/developers to create incentives for them to create MFTE complexes through new construction and/or renovation. Submitted by the Incentive & Requirements committee of the Edmonds Citizen Housing Commission. Tanya Kataria Eva Denise Miller Alena Nelson-Vietmier Jean Salls Bob Throndsen Packet Pg. 26 7.g MFTE attachment - Snohomish County Median Family Incomes City of Edmonds 1 Planning Division Snohomish County MFI (FY2020) $103,800 Median family income (MR) is calculated using data from the American Community Survey (table B19113). Familiy Size Percent of Area Median Income 65% 80% 115% 1 Person $47,229 $58,128 $83,559 2 Persons $53,976 $66,432 $95,496 3 Persons $60,723 $74,736 $107,433 4 Persons $67,470 $83,040 $119,370 5 Persons $72,868 $89,683 $128,920 Packet Pg. 27 7.h Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission August 2020 Draft Policy Proposal Names of Policy Committee Members: Alena Nelson-Vietmier Bob Throndsen Eva Denise Miller jean Salls Tanya Kataria Short title of Policy Proposal: Mandatory Housing Affordability N Purpose of policy being proposed: • increase supply of affordable housing • increase funding for affordable housing development 0 a. Specific proposed policy: c Require new developments in Edmonds (that are above a certain size) to provide a 0 percentage of affordable housing units (80% AMI or lower) or require in lieu of fees that will go towards funding Affordable housing elsewhere in the city. N 0 0. Key factors: o We are proposing that Mandatory Housing Affordability be applied to areas of Edmonds where MFTE is not enforced. This will ensure that developers are not discouraged by too many stringent requirements and their developments can still be profitable. Additionally, this will ensure that new, affordable units will not just be created in isolated MFTE zones, but throughout the city. If not units, there will be contributions towards creating Affordable units. • The fees will be calculated based on the use and square footage of the building. The proceeds will be collected in a housing fund that can be used according to local needs and priorities (such as create new affordable units, rent assistance, upgrade of older units, etc.) • Participation in this program would be mandatory, as opposed to MFTE which is voluntary. • This policy could also offer additional height bonus in certain areas where up -zone is in the works. • This policy could increase the supply of low- and moderate -income housing across Edmonds. The inclusion of mixed income housing can provide for increased community livability or neighborhood character and provide better outcomes for children and families. • Since it would be funded by developers, this program would require no additional city investment. • Several neighboring cities such as Federal way, Redmond, Issaquah and Seattle utilize this program. Packet Pg. 28 Citizens Housing Commission Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/13/2020 Round 1 Policy Committee Updates Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Citizens Housing Commission Prepared By: Debbie Rothfus Background/History The Housing Commission's policy committees separately drafted policy proposals that were presented to the full Commission. From these, the full Commission voted on which policy ideas should go forward (with any refinements) to the public for input, but also recognizing that the ideas are still in the preliminary stage. Staff Recommendation Hear from any committees that have updates on their Round 1 policy ideas. Narrative Results of the Round 1 survey are not yet final, so it may be too early for the Commission to consider changes to the Round 1 ideas. On the other hand, some committees may have additional information or thoughts about Round 1 ideas that would be good to know. Each committee lead who has updates on Round 1 ideas will provide a brief summary and other members of that committee may add to the information. We expect this to take no more than 5 minutes per committee. Note: Some committees will not have any Round 1 updates and need not make a report to the full Commission. In particular, the Zoning Standards Committee has refined its Round 1 policy idea for Transition Areas, per the attached two documents --a narrative and a map. Note: The Housing Types Committee previously proposed a different approach to the Transition Area policy idea. Both approaches are included in the survey questionnaire. Ultimately the Commission will need to decide whether it prefers one approach over the other but that can occur later. Attachments: Transitional Areas Addendum v2 Open Street Map All Edmonds_modified_v2.0 (2) Packet Pg. 29 8.a Zoning Standards Policy Committee Additions to Transitional Area Policy Idea The following are revisions/additions to the original policy idea detailed as Transitional Areas: 1. The original Residential Single Family 8,000sgft (RS-8) zoning criteria for Transitional Areas was expanded to all Residential Single Family (RS) zoning to provide diverse housing options across the entire city of Edmonds. 2. Transitional Areas can include RS zones adjacent to or near larger arterials. These Transitional Areas could include single family residences but would allow the development of duplexes, triplexes, and quadruplexes in any combination. Transitional Areas could also be located adjacent to Business Neighborhood (BN) zones; schools; medical centers and smaller commercial centers providing the following advantages: a. Easier access and a closer proximity to essential services. b. A shorter commute to nearby centers of employment. c. A reduced need for personal vehicles paired with the increased accessibility of other means of transportation such as walking, biking and public transit. d. Traffic would be minimized while housing options across the City increases. e. An overall increase in housing affordability for the citizens of Edmonds. f. Neighborhood Villages developed in conjunction with Transitional Areas housing could provide a self-sustaining neighborhood, better quality of life and economic vitality. 3. A modified Open Street Map of Edmonds [v.2] contains an expanded look at potential sites for Transitional Areas than reflects the modifications detailed above. [included as a separate attachment] Transitional Areas - Working Draft Version 1.3 Packet Pg. 30 _o 55 - N - W Wq Map shows sample areas (highlighted in red) where single- family zoning could be converted to special low -density multifamily zoning to create transition areas. Other areas could be identified for transition if the idea has adequate public input and is approved. c�oJca� � r-- �w © OpenStreetMap� contributors Leif R. WarrenIL �- i, -1 " 8.b Packet Pg. 31 Citizens Housing Commission Agenda Item Meeting Date: 08/13/2020 Wrap -Up Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Citizens Housing Commission Prepared By: Debbie Rothfus Background/History For the Commission to provide recommendations to the City Council by the end of the year, the schedule is tight but do -able. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative The meeting facilitator will provide a recap of next steps and a look ahead at Fall 2020, including an extra Commission meeting in September and probably also in October. (See "Proposed Timeline Fall 2020". attached.) Additional action items and "homework" may be identified. The Housing Commission's next regular meeting is Thursday, September 10. Attachments: Proposed Timeline Fall 2020 Packet Pg. 32 9.a Edmonds Citizens' Housing Commission Proposed Timeline Fall 2020 Date Action Items Responsible August 16 Round 1 policy ideas survey closes N/A August 13 Present Round 2 policy ideas + Committee leads preliminary discussions to identify information gaps/need for clarification Snapshot of emerging themes/trends from public input on Round 1 policy ideas August 17 Provide additional input on Round 2 Commission policy ideas via email to Shane August 17-Sept 4 Revise Round 2 policy ideas Committees Sept 4 Send Round 1 open house summaries and Kate raw data Sept 10 Update on Round 2 policy idea revisions; Commission discussion; decisions about whether policy idea moves forward for public input Sept 11 - 16 Film Round 2 Policy Videos Kate + Committees Sept 17 "Extra Commission meeting" to discuss Commission input received from public engagement on Round 1 policy ideas Sept 17-Oct 9 Further refinements to Round 1 policy Committees ideas based on public input Sept 21— Oct 12 Round 2 Online Open House & Survey Oct 8 Reach general agreement on level of Commission detail for policy recommendations and begin discussion about policy recommendations Snapshot of emerging themes/trends from public input on Round 2 policy ideas Oct 12 — Nov 6 Refinements to Round 2 policy ideas Committees based on public input Oct 22 "Extra Commission meeting" to discuss Commission input received from public engagement on Round 2 policy ideas Nov 11 Policy recommendations Commission discussion/selection • Committees refine draft ideas (included in Commission meeting packet) • Commission votes on whether idea will be refined into draft recommendation • If yes, Committee drafts idea into recommendation (with support from Edmonds staff) Week of Nov 30 Public Engagement — virtual event with All breakout rooms Dec 17 (propose moving date from Policy recommendations Commission Dec 10) discussion/selection • Draft recommendations included in Commission meeting packet • Commission votes on draft recommendations *** Please note that proposed dates are subject to change. a D a 0 N 0 N a_ a� c E a� 0 a 0 a c m E R .r a Packet Pg. 33