Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Affordability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews affordable housing feasibility study outlining tools to reach deeper affordability
Summary
Consultants presented a feasibility study framework examining tools — from inclusionary zoning revisions to modular construction and potential fees — aimed at producing units affordable at 50% AMI and below; councilors pressed for specifics on partnerships, subsidies, two‑ and three‑bedroom units and timelines for preliminary findings.
City staff and consultant Kevin Ramsey of BERC Consulting presented an affordable housing feasibility study framework to the Shoreline City Council on May 18, outlining a short list of policy tools and a timeline for analysis intended to produce more deeply affordable housing in the city.
Bethany Wahlberg Dunn said the council previously approved one‑time funding for the study and staff want council feedback on goals and which tools to prioritize. Kevin Ramsey described the study approach: review prior plans and data, interview developers and other jurisdictions, model prototypes and pro formas, and produce a final report by December with preliminary findings in the fall.
The presentation enumerated tools under consideration: modifying the city’s inclusionary zoning program to target units at or near 50% of area median income (AMI); expanding the Multifamily Tax Exemption program to be available for homeownership prototypes; fee reductions and waivers for ownership projects; creating new revenue streams for the housing trust fund; evaluating a fee on large new single‑family homes to fund affordable housing (not currently used by Shoreline but adopted in nearby Kirkland); municipal subsidies for nonprofit‑led permanently affordable homeownership; encouraging manufactured/modular construction; legalizing tiny homes on wheels as permanent accessory dwelling units where feasible; and a marketing/incentives program to increase developer participation.
Council discussion highlighted several tradeoffs and next steps. Council member Scully urged the consultants to model partnership options with the King County Housing Authority (which owns and retains permanently affordable properties nearby) rather than attempting to do everything locally. Several councilors pressed for modeling that prioritizes two‑ and three‑bedroom units (family‑sized housing) rather than primarily studios and one‑bedroom units. Council member Ademasu recommended prioritizing off‑site modular construction as a cost‑effective approach and asked staff to include subsidy estimates needed to reach specific AMI tiers (51%–80%). Council members also raised questions about fee waivers’ fiscal impacts, liability and cost for proposed childcare if CityWise or similar programs expand, and whether a fee on new single‑family homes would have the unintended effect of increasing housing costs overall.
Kevin Ramsey said the study will use developer interviews and pro forma modeling and will produce preliminary findings in September–October and a final set of recommendations by December. Staff also said they will convene developer roundtables (scheduled for June 25) to solicit specific operational input.
The council recessed into an executive session near the end of the meeting for a legal discussion; no action on the housing study was taken at this session.
(Quotes in this article are from the consultant’s presentation and council discussion as recorded in the meeting transcript.)
