Edmonds City Council Candidate Responses to 2021 ACE General Election Questionnaire
THE DEADLINE FOR GENERAL ELECTION BALLOTS TO BE COUNTED IS NOVEMBER 2nd. YOUR VOTE COUNTS. PLEASE VOTE.
Kristiana Johnson – Candidate and Incumbent – Position 1
1. What is your definition of “affordable housing”? Do you believe that an increase in housing stock in Edmonds will lead to more such affordable housing? Please provide details supporting your reasoning.
Affordable housing is housing which the occupant is paying no more than 30% of gross income for housing costs, including utilities, according to the US Dept. of HUD. Therefore affordable housing is a relative measure not an absolute measure. What is affordable to one family may not be affordable to another family.
An increase in housing stock in Edmonds will not necessarily lead to affordable housing for low and moderate income families. As land values and building costs increase so will housing costs. The free market conditions based on supply and demand will more likely determine the price of housing and the people who can afford that housing.
What the Growth Management Act calls for is a variety of housing types to accommodate a range of incomes. The City of Edmonds is on target to meet the growth management housing goals for 2035. We have steadily increased both our single-family housing stock and our multi-family housing stock.
Recently Edmonds adopted Multi- Family Tax Exemptions for the Westgate Mixed Use zoning area and Highway 99. This program requires that 20% of the multi-family units be affordable to low and moderate income households
Artificial means are usually necessary to subsidize housing for Federal, and State programs for low and moderate income housing. Such programs may target specific groups of people such as veterans, youth, and victims of domestic violence, refugees, homeless, or persons with drug or alcohol problems.
2. Citizens’ Housing Commission, Policy #6, Detached Accessory Dwelling Units, recommends eliminating the requirement for a conditional use permit, as follows:
“This policy makes it possible to develop detached accessory dwelling units without the added expense and trouble of a conditional use permit.”
Link to City of Edmonds Conditional Use Permit:
Conditional use permits require that the proposed structure meet four specific criteria (see link) and require that notice is given to surrounding property owners, providing them with an opportunity to state concerns about whether the proposed use meets the stated criteria. Do you support the elimination of the Conditional Use Permit as recommended by the CHC? Why or why not? Please be specific in stating your reasons.
There are two types of Accessory Dwelling Units under consideration in Edmonds. The first is the Attached Dwelling Unit (ADU) which is currently allowed and requires a Conditional Use Permit. They have specific criteria for the size, location, appearance, parking, duration of occupancy, number of residents, building compliance and inspections for building codes and safety. The second type of Accessory Dwelling Units is a Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (DADU). These are currently not allowed in Edmonds.
The Citizens Housing Commission recommendation would allow either an attached or detached accessory unit on any property in the Single Family Residential area, with development requirements under a standard permitting process, and would not require a Conditional Use permit.
The cost of review would be shifted from the applicant to the city. Today’s costs are based on the actual time and expense of review. Depending on who is reviewing the application, city staff or the Hearing Examiner, the cost is either $570 or $1,350. I do not support removing the Conditional Use permit fee because it is essentially a reimbursement for the time and expense of reviewing the permit. This is standard practice for cities to cover the cost of permit review.
The Conditional Use permit process is comprehensive and thorough to ensure that there is a proper notification process for adjacent property owners. I do not think that it is good public policy to allow the Conditional Use permit fee to be waived in order to encourage ADUs and DADUs throughout the City.
3. The Edmonds’ Comprehensive Plan states “growth management policies should ensure that as a residential community, Edmonds continues to be heralded as ‘The Gem of Puget Sound’.” How would you as a Council member promote the retention of the residential, small town atmosphere of Edmonds and protect it from the type of development that is detrimental to the community?
The City of Edmonds’ adopted Comprehensive Plan provides goals, policies, objectives and projects for future growth and development. The zoning code indicates where different types of land uses may occur and the Edmonds Community Development Code provides rules for development. As a Council Member and trained Professional Planner, I know the importance of these documents for the retention of our small town atmosphere and to protect it from the type of development that is detrimental to our community.
4. Environmental issues, stormwater, housing density and infrastructure are closely interlinked and must be addressed holistically to reduce the likelihood of haphazard and undesirable outcomes for Edmonds. Serious flooding throughout Edmonds that causes property damage and damage to salmon bearing streams is an example of the interaction of these multiple issues. Citizens have observed that silo-based decision making by Edmonds government often occurs to the detriment of our quality of life. As a Council member, how would you ensure that all of these issues are included in your decision making to result in strategic and integrated plans for the future of Edmonds?
The City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan has many components that guide the City Council’s decision-making that result in integrated plans for the future of Edmonds. A Quick review of the table of contents illustrates the systematic approach for Land Use, Housing, Economic Development, Capital Facilities, Utilities, Urban Forest Management and Community Sustainability. Additional plans are adopted separately for Community Culture and Urban Design, Parks, Recreation and Opens Space, Streetscape and Street Trees and the Shoreline Master Program.
A Strategic Plan was recommended by the City’s Economic Development Commission and Planning Board in 2009. They proposed that the City Council commit to developing a strategic plan then review and update the plan every year to determine measurable progress.
The first Strategic Plan began in 2011. Public outreach was extensive. Approximately 2,500 people participated in surveys, charettes and focus groups over a two-year period. The Strategic Plan was adopted in 2013 and updated in 2015 but has remained untouched since then. I am going to recommend that the City Council provide for the update of the Strategic Plan in the 2022 budget. The value of this work is to involve the citizens of Edmonds to decide what is important for strategic and integrated plans. This can be adopted in 2023 and represent a 10 year update of the original strategic plan.
————————————————————————————————————————————-
Alicia Crank – Candidate – Position 1
1. What is your definition of “affordable housing”? Do you believe that an increase in housing stock in Edmonds will lead to more such affordable housing? Please provide details supporting your reasoning.
“Affordable Housing” has taken on a negative connotation of being “undesirable housing”. Instead, I focus on “Housing Affordability”. Affordability is different for every person. I view housing affordability as creating and retaining various entry points for renter and ownership opportunities. An increase in housing stock does not automatically lead to housing affordability on its own. If you don’t factor in zoning and development codes in creating affordability, all you will end up with is an increase in expensive housing.
2. Citizens’ Housing Commission, Policy #6, Detached Accessory Dwelling Units, recommends eliminating the requirement for a conditional use permit, as follows:
“This policy makes it possible to develop detached accessory dwelling units without the added expense and trouble of a conditional use permit.”
Link to City of Edmonds Conditional Use Permit:
Conditional use permits require that the proposed structure meet four specific criteria (see link) and require that notice is given to surrounding property owners, providing them with an opportunity to state concerns about whether the proposed use meets the stated criteria.
Do you support the elimination of the Conditional Use Permit as recommended by the CHC? Why or why not? Please be specific in stating your reasons.
I do not support eliminating the CUP. The CUP serves a very important role in not only ensuring that a detached ADU is sound in its planning and execution, but to also allow residents in the area to know what physical changes would be coming. That being said, I would be interested in a conversation around the fees. From an equity standpoint, the fee levels many be a hardship for some, so a discussion on sliding scale could be had.
3. The Edmonds’ Comprehensive Plan states “growth management policies should ensure that as a residential community, Edmonds continues to be heralded as ‘The Gem of Puget Sound’.” How would you as a Council member promote the retention of the residential, small town atmosphere of Edmonds and protect it from the type of development that is detrimental to the community?
This is a broad to answer without defining what “detrimental” means in this question. Some see a small, detached ADU on a large lot as detrimental, while others may not. The same could be said about additional density on Highway 99. I don’t believe in density for density’s sake. As a Council member, as I have on the Edmonds Planning Board, I would want to make sure we are looking at each project independently, take stock in whether it aligns with codes and neighborhood feel, along with gaining public input in decision making.
4. Environmental issues, stormwater, housing density and infrastructure are closely interlinked and must be addressed holistically to reduce the likelihood of haphazard and undesirable outcomes for Edmonds. Serious flooding throughout Edmonds that causes property damage and damage to salmon bearing streams is an example of the interaction of these multiple issues. Citizens have observed that silo-based decision making by the Edmonds government often occurs to the detriment of our quality of life. As a Council member, how would you ensure that all of these issues are included in your decision making to result in strategic and integrated plans for the future of Edmonds?
I agree that that all of these issues have to be addressed holistically, We have plans and policies in place to factor in all of these issues. I’ve exercised my ability to do this on both the Edmonds Planning Board as well as the Snohomish County Airport Commission, where we are currently working on the airport master plan. It’s important to make sure to take in new information as well as utilizing what’s already been written. This will come from being transparent with reports and information along the way and soliciting citizen input based on what their experiences have been. In addition, I believe a review of existing issues, such as Perrinville Creek, need to be prioritized and acted upon.
————————————————————————————————————————————-
Janelle Cass – Candidate – Position 2
1. What is your definition of “affordable housing”? Do you believe that an increase in housing stock in Edmonds will lead to more such affordable housing? Please provide details supporting your reasoning.
The US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines affordable housing generally as “housing on which the occupant is paying no more than 30 percent of gross income for housing costs, including utilities”. It should be noted that this can only be furthered defined by what the gross income of the individual or family is. In other words, what is affordable for one family may not be affordable for another and choices and priorities are made by individuals.
While normal economic principals of supply and demand dictate that the more supply there is of one thing, such as housing, the costs should go down. However, the market forces are far more complex in the Edmonds area right now. We have skyrocketing demand for land, material costs are at an all-time high, and mortgage interest rates are at a record low. The local Edmonds government has very little power to reduce housing costs. Even if zoning changes were made, any new construction or addition of new houses or duplexes in single-family residential zoned areas will cost more than the original older homes on that property. We don’t have to look much further than recent housing developments in Edmonds. Ten new homes when in where there were once just four large lot older homes. The brand-new homes sold for $1.4 million. As for the concept that new duplexes or town homes would help reduce housing costs, one can look at projects in Shoreline or Ballard to see that these too sell for significantly more than the homes that were demolished to build them.
2. Citizens’ Housing Commission, Policy #6, Detached Accessory Dwelling Units, recommends eliminating the requirement for a conditional use permit, as follows:
“This policy makes it possible to develop detached accessory dwelling units without the added expense and trouble of a conditional use permit.”
Link to City of Edmonds Conditional Use Permit:
Conditional use permits require that the proposed structure meet four specific criteria (see link) and require that notice is given to surrounding property owners, providing them with an opportunity to state concerns about whether the proposed use meets the stated criteria. Do you support the elimination of the Conditional Use Permit as recommended by the CHC? Why or why not? Please be specific in stating your reasons.
While I am not opposed to finding efficiency in the permitting department, I believe it would be a mistake to eliminate the conditional use permit process for detached accessory dwelling units. This is a needed process to allow for adjacent property owners to be aware and comment on structures and changes in use that could have a negative impact to their property. Furthermore, immediate neighbors tend to have valuable, location specific insights for proposed projects.
3. The Edmonds’ Comprehensive Plan states “growth management policies should ensure that as a residential community, Edmonds continues to be heralded as ‘The Gem of Puget Sound’.” How would you as a Council member promote the retention of the residential, small-town atmosphere of Edmonds and protect it from the type of development that is detrimental to the community?
My top priority as a council member, and a key tenant of my campaign is to protect the charm of Edmonds. Protecting the small-town charm starts by protecting single family residential zoning by voting against any policies that would change this zoning. I would add to that, business district zoning needs to be protected because small unique businesses contribute to the character of Edmonds. Recently, during the public hearing for zoning modification to allow unit lot subdivisions in the downtown business district, I spoke out against this change. I believe that a zoning change like this would affect Edmonds charm by reducing retail commercial space in our downtown core.
As a council member, I will advocate for robust community outreach during the update to the Comprehensive Plan. The Comp Plan is a valuable tool to capture a shared vision by Edmonds residents and thus a road map to preserving the charm of Edmonds.
4. Environmental issues, stormwater, housing density and infrastructure are closely interlinked and must be addressed holistically to reduce the likelihood of haphazard and undesirable outcomes for Edmonds. Serious flooding throughout Edmonds that causes property damage and damage to salmon bearing streams is an example of the interaction of these multiple issues. Citizens have observed that silo-based decision making by Edmonds government often occurs to the detriment of our quality of life. As a Council member, how would you ensure that all of these issues are included in your decision making to result in strategic and integrated plans for the future of Edmonds?
As some one with a degree in Civil/Environmental engineering, I have decades of experience analyzing the environmental impacts of infrastructure projects. A crucial component, to effectively implementing the State Environmental Policy Act, is to evaluate the results of cumulative impacts. This means that you must take into account how impacts of actions that occur in proximal locations and time add up and effect the environment. Considering how actions are connected is a way of thinking that is ingrained in how I make decisions. As a city council member, I would require stringent environmental analysis that includes a hard look at cumulative impacts before making decisions.
———————————————————————————————————————————
Will Chen – Candidate – Position 2
1. What is your definition of “affordable housing”? Do you believe that an increase in housing stock in Edmonds will lead to more such affordable housing? Please provide details supporting your reasoning.
We have spent a lot of time debating the definition of “affordable housing” so that it fits one narrative versus another. Instead, we need to be developing workable solutions to a problem that we know exists and if we do nothing, will only get worse in the future. Whether we like it or not, we must plan for future growth if we hope to maintain the character of our neighborhoods while also providing housing options for people who work in Edmonds to be able to live in Edmonds. We will all benefit if we find ways for a new generation of residents to become homeowners here in our beautiful city.
Or course, a narrow approach focused only on increasing the city’s housing stock isn’t the right answer to address the challenge of housing affordability. For example: Highway 99 corridor, with its proximity to local and regional transit options, can support increased housing density. With proper planning and stakeholder input, we can encourage construction of additional housing, without sacrificing the unique character of our single-family neighborhoods.
In addition, we can create innovative ways to comingle businesses development alongside cultural and recreational facilities, so that those who want to live in a vibrant Edmonds can do so outside of the bowl or the waterfront. An Uptown Edmonds District would be a tremendous addition to our community and could be planned in ways to address concerns about growth, while adding more housing options across multiple income ranges.
If I am elected to the Council, I will make sure that developers have reasonable incentives that guarantee a portion of new housing stock will be priced for middle-income buyers. Such incentives should also include also green design elements and environmental oversight so that such development mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and prevent stormwater runoff from polluting our waterways, wetlands and the Puget Sound.
2. Citizens’ Housing Commission, Policy #6, Detached Accessory Dwelling Units, recommends eliminating the requirement for a conditional use permit, as follows: “This policy makes it possible to develop detached accessory dwelling units without the added expense and trouble of a conditional use permit.”
(Link to City of Edmonds Conditional Use Permit
Conditional use permits require that the proposed structure meet four specific criteria (see link) and require that notice is given to surrounding property owners, providing them with an opportunity to state concerns about whether the proposed use meets the stated criteria. Do you support the elimination of the Conditional Use Permit as recommended by the CHC? Why or why not? Please be specific in stating your reasons.
I support the recommendation to allow Detached Accessory Dwelling Units where they make sense, but only when coupled with citizen and neighborhood input. As a member of the Housing Commission, I supported such a recommendation — but only if it comes with specific criteria to allow for consideration on a case-by-case basis.
The recommendation to remove the Conditional Use Permit has been met with significant public outcry and I believe we need to listen to residents’ concerns. When City Council members consider this recommendation, they must do so with the benefit of input from the community and specific data on how and where such DADUs would be sited.
This proposal has been one of the most divisive topics in this election cycle, and I believe that continuing the inflame the controversy merely further divides our community. Let’s put this proposal before the voters, so that we can move forward to deal with the many other issues that affecting our quality of life in Edmonds, such as roads, sidewalks and parking.
3. The Edmonds’ Comprehensive Plan states “growth management policies should ensure that as a residential community, Edmonds continues to be heralded as ‘The Gem of Puget Sound’.” How would you as a Council member promote the retention of the residential, small-town atmosphere of Edmonds and protect it from the type of development that is detrimental to the community?
Actions speak louder than words. I have stepped up when our community has needed it through volunteering to help maintain our parks, the marsh and our neighborhoods. I’ve championed support for our Chamber of Commerce to help our city’s small business owners stay afloat during the pandemic. I have hosted rallies and town hall meetings and brought cultural diversity to various events throughout the city.
I have demonstrated that I will listen to proponents on both sides the issues, including those who may not agree with me on certain positions. What will ensure that Edmonds continues to be The Gem of the Puget Sound is taking on the hard work of understand the impact of policy decisions before they’re enacted, rather than rushing to take sides in partisan debates.
Keeping a small-town atmosphere also involves how we interact with and treat each other when developing polices, whether we’re protecting against irresponsible overdevelopment or planning for the inevitable population growth we know is coming.
Unfortunately, it is difficult right now to even discuss options to deal with these issues without provoking a fight. But if I am elected to serve on the Council, I promise the people of Edmonds that I will always listen to your concerns, actively seek your input and address the challenges we face by ensuring that every decision I make protects the unique character and enduring spirit of our beloved city.
4. Environmental issues, stormwater, housing density and infrastructure are closely interlinked and must be addressed holistically to reduce the likelihood of haphazard and undesirable outcomes for Edmonds. Serious flooding throughout Edmonds that causes property damage and damage to salmon bearing streams is an example of the interaction of these multiple issues. Citizens have observed that silo-based decision making by Edmonds government often occurs to the detriment of our quality of life. As a Council member, how would you ensure that all of these issues are included in your decision making to result in strategic and integrated plans for the future of Edmonds?
This issue, while important, has been addressed innumerable times. People are tired of seeing the polarization on City Council. They’re tired of seeing policy discussion turn into political theater.
For me, the way forward is simple: I will approach every decision the perspective of what accomplished the most good for the most people. I will proactively solicit input from residents; I will connect with experts on that issue; and I will collect and analyze the best possible data to understand the issue. I will pose the difficult questions related to cost and benefits, of balancing available resources versus projected expenditures.
I will collaborate with all my colleagues on the Council, including those with a difference of opinion. And finally, I will bring the best, most promising proposals back to the public for comment to ensure they understand what is being proposed, how much it will cost and exactly what benefits to the community are projected. Only then will I make my decisions and I’ll be transparent as to why I chose that approach. Respectful dialogue focused on how we work together to make our community safe, welcoming and prosperous for all residents is how we overcome our differences. That is who I am, that is what I believe, and that is my promise to the voters.
———————————————————————————————————————————
Neil Tibbott – Candidate – Position 3
1. What is your definition of “affordable housing”? Do you believe that an increase in housing stock in Edmonds will lead to more such affordable housing? Please provide details supporting your reasoning.
I subscribe to the definition of affordable housing used by Snohomish County Tomorrow which states housing affordability requires a household to spend no more than 30 percent of its annual income on housing. As housing prices soar, finding affordable housing throughout the region is becoming more and more difficult.
An increase in housing stock can add to affordable housing, depending on the type of housing. Traditionally multi family and smaller single family homes are more affordable, but less attractive for developers due to lower profits. Land in Edmonds is expensive making development of affordable housing in much of Edmonds impractical. State programs do exist to help offset costs for affordable housing and cities can take some measures to help improve the desirability of building such homes. Our challenge is to find available land and, along with other Snohomish County cities, encourage private development of more affordable units.
There are many factors affect the shortage of housing in our area. Available land, cost of development, transportation, and more. As I’ve always said, “Housing affordability is a regional problem and Edmonds is NOT going to solve it on our own.”
2. Citizens’ Housing Commission, Policy #6, Detached Accessory Dwelling Units, recommends eliminating the requirement for a conditional use permit, as follows:
Do you support the elimination of the Conditional Use Permit as recommended by the CHC? Why or why not? Please be specific in stating your reasons.
I do not support the elimination of a CUP. There are many reasons for reviewing ADUs, not the least of which is the location on a particular property which impacts water run off, parking, city services, etc..
One factor that is often overlooked when considering the desirability of Detached ADUs is that can either be an asset that appreciates with the rest of the property OR a depreciating asset that falls apart over short period of time. The last thing we want to see in Edmonds is quickly added, poorly constructed, and environmentally hazardous housing units haphazardly placed around the city. CUPs help govern that process.
3. The Edmonds’ Comprehensive Plan states “growth management policies should ensure that as a residential community, Edmonds continues to be heralded as ‘The Gem of Puget Sound’.” How would you as a Council member promote the retention of the residential, small town atmosphere of Edmonds and protect it from the type of development that is detrimental to the community?
I would emphasize more, not less of the community features that add to a “small town atmosphere” like: Walkability, Neighborhood Business Zones, Parks, Youth Sports and Activities, Homeownership, protecting the waterfront and the Marsh.
Our regional population is growing and Edmonds will grow with it. However, I expect our historic trends to continue with incremental growth. Most of the population will be added in nearby cities closer to transit hubs and with greater housing affordability, further from the waterfront. The most likely area for such growth in Edmonds is along Highway 99, as outlined in the Highway 99 revitalization plan adopted by Council in 2018. I support this plan, and the encouragement of housing along the corridor. The greatest opportunity for future residents will be access to transit and commercial amenities within walking distance of their home.
4. Environmental issues, stormwater, housing density and infrastructure are closely interlinked and must be addressed holistically to reduce the likelihood of haphazard and undesirable outcomes for Edmonds. Serious flooding throughout Edmonds that causes property damage and damage to salmon bearing streams is an example of the interaction of these multiple issues. Citizens have observed that silo-based decision making by Edmonds government often occurs to the detriment of our quality of life. As a Council member, how would you ensure that all of these issues are included in your decision making to result in strategic and integrated plans for the future of Edmonds?
I believe it is important to seek input and listen to advice from experts in the field, weighing that with the needs and desires of our community. There is a gentle balance between preserving our way of life, economic stability and protecting what we all love about Edmonds.
As Chair of the Parks and Public Works Committee, I always asked for projections on the capacity of our new infrastructure improvements before recommending a contract to the council. I wanted to ensure that we could depend on excess capacity in the short-run in order to accommodate growth in the long-run.
We live in a city with aging infrastructure, much of it is due for replacement in coming years. User Fees for city services (Utility Tax) have increase dramatically in recent years as well as taxes on developers seeking to build in our city. These fees must be reviewed annually and realistically assess future needs as we plan accordingly.
As a Council Member, I was and will be committed to improving infrastructure that serves our city now and into the future. Without replacement and improvement, our environment, livability and sustainability will be adversely affected. ACE Survey – Neil Tibbott 2021
5. [Bonus Question for Council Position #3 candidates. This Position was not contested in the August primary.]
Rank the following issues in order of your priority for Edmonds. Detail your ideas about how to address each of the top three. Please be specific.
_5_Affordable Housing
_4_Equity and Inclusion
_2_Protection of the Environment
_3_Economic Development
_1_Public Safety
Addressing the top three produces positive results in the bottom two. Public Safety and Environmental Protection is improved through tracking where needs are the greatest and applying solutions that have worked well in other parts of our city or country. For example, improving public safety with connected walkways helps people enjoy their neighborhoods more. These are among the most equitable solutions we provide as we roll them out in every part of the city.
I also think we need to look beyond the Puget Sound region for affordability options. While Edmonds is unique in that most of the land is already developed, and our downtown core is already densely populated. We can learn from places where adding more housing worked well and started with similar conditions as Edmonds. Sometimes those improvements begin with a refurbished business center that becomes a hub for creating new housing anchored by new amenities. These transition zones become desirable for kinds of housing than those that previously existed. Continued Economic Development will be facilitated by protecting and enhancing our commercial zones while mobilizing to increase opportunities that come from emerging trends like working from home, tourism, and recreation.
———————————————————————————————————————————-
Adrienne Fraley-Monillas – Candidate and Incumbent – Position 3
Did not respond to the candidate questionnaire.