Laserfiche WebLink
Easton Subarea Plan — Public Comment <br />9. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THE EASTON SUBAREA PLAN <br />In addition to the Type 3 LAMIRD development standards addressed above, I am submitting the <br />following comments on other sections of the Easton Subarea Plan. These comments address <br />gaps in the plan's treatment of housing, economic development, wastewater infrastructure, and <br />wildfire mitigation, areas where the plan needs stronger, more actionable language to serve this <br />community. <br />9.1 Housing: The Plan Must Be Specific About Affordable and Workforce <br />Housing <br />The Housing section of the Subarea Plan (Section 3) acknowledges that Easton's population is <br />aging, that renter -occupied units have declined by 55%, and that the community has expressed <br />strong interest in affordable housing for young families and first-time buyers. However, the <br />plan's goals and policies remain too general to produce results. The plan references "affordable <br />housing options" and "property improvements" without defining what affordable means in the <br />Easton context, without identifying specific housing types, and without committing to <br />measurable targets. <br />The community's own comments are specific: they want starter homes, affordable single-family <br />homes for first-time buyers, ADUs on R-5 lots, and protections against outside investment <br />driving up prices. The plan should match that specificity. I recommend the following additions: <br />a. Define "affordable housing" in the plan using a standard benchmark: housing that <br />costs no more than 30% of the area median household income. The plan should state <br />this threshold explicitly so that future policy decisions can be measured against it. <br />b. Include workforce housing as a distinct category. Workforce housing serves the <br />people who work in the community, teachers, fire district staff, service workers, school <br />employees but cannot afford to live here. The plan should explicitly commit to creating <br />housing options for households earning between 60% and 120% of area median <br />income. <br />c. Set a measurable housing target. Based on the plan's own data showing 408 <br />residents and an aging population, the community should set a goal of 20-40 new <br />affordable and workforce housing units within ten years within the Type 1 LAMIRD, tied <br />to wastewater infrastructure capacity (see Section 9.3 below). <br />d. Add short-term rental protections. Community members specifically raised concerns <br />about outside investors driving up prices and short-term rentals overtaking housing <br />stock. The plan should include policy language directing the county to regulate or limit <br />short-term rentals within the LAMIRD to protect the community's housing supply for full- <br />time residents. <br />e. Identify specific grant programs for affordable housing development in the <br />recommended actions, including the Washington Housing Trust Fund, USDA Multi - <br />Family Housing Direct Loans (up to $50M for rural communities under 35,000 <br />population), and HUD Community Development Block Grants through Washington <br />Commerce. <br />Page 5 <br />