Laserfiche WebLink
Comment #012 <br /> 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 />