The URL can be used to link to this page

2023-11-29 Planning Board Packet1. 2. 3. 4. S. 6. 7. 8. 9. OV Bb�jG ti Agenda Edmonds Planning Board 1,00 SPECIAL MEETING BRACKETT ROOM 121 5TH AVE N, CITY HALL- 3RD FLOOR, EDMONDS, WA 98020 NOVEMBER 29, 2023, 7:00 PM MEETING INFORMATION This is a Hybrid meeting: The in -person portion of the meeting is at 7PM in the Brackett Room on the 3rd floor of City Hall. Zoom Link below for those attending online. https:Hedmondswa-gov.zoom.us/j/87322872194?pwd=WFdxTWJIQmxlTG9LZkc3KOhuSO14QTO9 Meeting ID: 873 2287 2194 Passcode: 007978 Or Telephone : US:US: +1 253 205 0468 LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES 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. CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Approve previous meeting minutes ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA AUDIENCE COMMENTS For topics not scheduled for a public hearing. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing on updates to Critical Aquifer Recharge Area code (AMD2023-0004) NEW BUSINESS A. Code Amendment for Implementation of Detached Accessory Dwelling Units in accordance with HB 1337 — "Expanding housing options by easing barriers to the construction and use of accessory dwelling units." UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Tree Code Amendments (AMD2022-0004) SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA A. November 29 Extended Agenda Edmonds Planning Board Agenda November 29, 2023 Page 1 10. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS 11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS 12. ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Planning Board Agenda November 29, 2023 Page 2 2.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/29/2023 Approve previous meeting minutes Staff Lead: Michael Clugston Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Michael Clugston Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Review and approve minutes from the November 8 meeting. Narrative November 8 draft meeting minutes attached. Attachments: November 8, 2023 Draft PB minutes Packet Pg. 3 2.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Hybrid Meeting November 8, 2023 Chair Gladstone called the joint hybrid meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board and the Economic Development Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. at Edmonds City Hall and on Zoom. LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES The Land Acknowledgement was read by Board Member Mitchell. Board Members Present Judi Gladstone, Chair Lauren Golembiewski Richard Kuehn (online) Nick Maxwell Jeremy Mitchell Emily Nutsch Board Members Absent Susanna Martini (excused) Beth Tragus-Campbell, Vice Chair (excused) Lily Distelhorst (student rep.) (excused) Staff Present Susan McLaughlin, Devt. Services Director Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Economic Development Commission Members/Representatives: Todd Tatum, Community Culture and Economic Development Director, staff liaison Nicole Hughes, Chair Kevin Harris, Vice Chair Natalie Seitz, Commissioner Jay Hoag, Commissioner Darrol Haug, Commissioner Matt Cox, Commissioner Nick Perrault, Commissioner Kevin Smith, Commissioner Allan Townsend, Commissioner David Preston, Port Commissioner, ex-ofcio READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MAXWELL, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25 AS PRESENTED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 8, 2023 Page 1 of 7 Packet Pg. 4 2.A.a ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Roger Pence, former Planning Board member/chair, gave some background on the Board's work on the vision statement which was crafted as a value statement. He thinks Joan Bloom's version of the vision statement is the most useful. He also noted there is an "information fire hose" on the agenda tonight with a 73-slide presentation. He hopes it does not then go into radio silence if the historical pattern of receiving big briefings and then not hearing more about the topics continues. He said he wished staff could figure out a way to keep the information flowing on a more rational basis. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS None NEW BUSINESS A. Joint Discussion with Economic Development Commission regarding existing conditions for Comprehensive Plan Update Director McLaughlin introduced the consultant team from VIA: Kate Howe, Dan Kennedy, Shreya Malu, and Brian Vanneman as well as Paul Sharman from Transpo who is working closely with the team. Director McLaughlin began the presentation with an overview of the Comprehensive Plan and what was heard from community conversations. Brian Vanneman discussed economic development including commuting patterns and employment data. He also presented goals from the 2020 Comprehensive Plan and solicited feedback on the goals. A. Foster a healthy business community B. Revitalize and enhance the city's business districts C. Diversify and grow the City's make-up D. Support and enhance the community's quality of life E. Expand and enhance the tourism sector Comments/questions on the goals: (B) Equity is a big thing that is missing. There is a disparate pattern going on right now where there are a lot of businesses and services in areas without a lot of nearby population and population growth areas that aren't necessarily close to those amenities and services. There should be more of a focus on equity in implementing the Growth Management Act (GMA) so that investments are consistent with the growth of the area. (D) Economic development in some cases, especially along Highway 99, has real health consequences especially regarding air quality. Is the City making investments to mitigate those impacts? There needs to be a focus on public health and infrastructure to support development. Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 8, 2023 Page 2 of 7 Packet Pg. 5 2.A.a • (E) Tourism is mainly felt in downtown Edmonds, but the actual amount of sales tax derived from downtown Edmonds in comparison to other areas of the city is quite low. The current economic development section doesn't ever really mention what the primary retail driver is which is the cars. There should be a more intentional focus on where they currently get their money from and where are they investing. • (C) Maybe expand C to point out the different business districts with the intention of the goal to grow those districts to the extent that residents want them grown in those areas. • There needs to be current numbers. He commented that the bowl produces more property tax than the homes on Highway 99. Additionally, car sales have plummeted during Covid. Also, working from home has changed tremendously. Additionally, the Amazon sales tax factor has spread throughout the city since 2020. • Are we talking about revenue from commercial development or property tax? This is an important distinction. • What kind of measurements are typical to help understand how well things are working? • Council has repealed the ordinance adopting the Highway 99 planned action. This was referred to in some of the background slides. What they have seen is much more residential than commercial development so far in that corridor. From the community renewal plan they have seen a lot of business concern about displacement. There should be some goals around understanding displacement pressures and trying to understand what the repeal of the ordinance now means. Is that whole corridor now going to be housing? • (B) should be the highest priority. Business districts are geographically dispersed very nicely. We should focus on growing and enhancing those districts which would resolve a lot of the other issues. • How can we look at the work -from -home change to make sure the business districts are meeting the needs and creating economic vibrancy for the work -from -home world. • Light rail is opening up in Lynnwood next year. It isn't directly touching Edmonds, but it is close and opens up opportunities to attract more people. How can we make Edmonds a place for people to go? How can we use that to improve the quality of life for people in Edmonds? • In terms of quality of life, a priority should be to create high -paying jobs in Edmonds so that the people that work here can also afford to live here. We should make sure we have the infrastructure to support professional services. • There should be a goal to come up with a cost-effective way to pay for fire services for all of Edmonds. There is a direct tie to economic development with this because there are two complexes on Highway 99 that are or have been burned out. Mr. Vanneman invited participants to email any further thoughts on this. Kate Howe continued to discuss existing land use, the future land use map, what is equitable land use policy, equitable housing policy, current Edmonds population, housing types, applying the Equity & Social Justice Framework, engaging with Community Champions, Climate Action planning, PROS (Parks Recreation Open Space) Plan. Paul Sharman from Transpo Group gave an overview of the state of the transportation system. He reviewed the pedestrian network, bike network, existing multiuse trail network, existing transit network, vehicular level of service (LOS) standards, transportation safety, Transportation Element next steps, and transportation concurrency. Comments/Questions: Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 8, 2023 Page 3 of 7 Packet Pg. 6 2.A.a • Will specific recommendations from the SR 99 EIS and the Community Renewal Plan be considered for the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Sharman replied they would. • Intended purpose and design of roads aren't necessarily indicative of actual use, especially in areas where there has been a lot of growth. Is this being considered? Mr. Sharman acknowledged this and replied they have a lot more information about this. The roadway design will be reflective of the goals of the City and how the roads are actually being used. • Was LOS analysis only done on intersections where there were letters on the map? Mr. Sharman replied that it was; 30 intersections were selected by the City. • Sidewalks are important in considering transportation. Kids have to walk to school if they live within a mile. Old people have to use the sidewalks near their homes and downtown. When they talk about mobility, they need to consider the demographics of the people that are doing these things. Mr. Sharman replied that sidewalks are a big focus as they are the primary means of pedestrians getting around the city. He expects there will be a lot of sidewalk construction projects on the project list. He noted that one of the big focuses in transportation design recently has been on the term "all ages and all abilities" meaning the infrastructure should be designed to be used by everybody. They definitely want kids to be able to walk to school safely. There is some state funding available to help with this. • When they are talking about bike planning, they need to make sure they are considering the changes that are happening with the increase in e-bikes. This includes safety concerns as well as opening the door to bicycling for a lot of people that couldn't do it previously. • The transit map shows local transit options, but if 95% of people are commuting elsewhere, they need to put a heavy emphasis on the regional network with Sound Transit. • There was so much emphasis on the intersections of Highway 99 that there was no evaluation of the traffic impact on the surrounding area as a result of what growth was supposed to be in that area. There needs to be some balance around where the major arterials are and impacts to the neighborhoods. • How do they systematically take all of the information presented in the other plans and consider downstream ripple effects and unintended consequences? Director McLaughlin explained that they need to balance honoring past planning documents that were adopted by elected officials. To do due diligence they will layer all of the planning documents to consider gaps, obsolete items, and opportunities. Dan Kennedy explained they would be working closely with Transpo to align transportation and land use approaches. He discussed existing capacity, meeting 2044 growth targets, affordable housing targets, and state level single-family zone housing actions (HB 1110 and HB 1337). Ms. Howe summarized that they need to accommodate more housing in the city as well as some more jobs. This is a great chance to rethink the transportation network and activity centers. She proposed some topics for imagining economic growth such as: building on Edmonds' unique strengths; enhancing core areas of stability like established job clusters; grabbing the opportunity for placemaking and revitalization around Downtown and Waterfront given cancellation of Edmonds Crossing project; connecting the downtown and waterfront economic centers; and positioning the Highway 99 medical district for success. The listening sessions will be an opportunity to listen to people's ideas about their vision for Edmonds on topics such as equity and environmental sustainability; livability and housing; building on Edmonds' assets (arts, healthcare, strategy, and innovation); and integrating the Highway 99 Plan, 15-minute city ideas, and neighborhood centers and hubs. Questions/Comments: • 500 jobs need to be created. Does this need to be a certain type of job? Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 8, 2023 Page 4 of 7 Packet Pg. 7 2.A.a • Prior to the 2017 up zone, the Census Tract 509 was already designated as an area with a moderate risk of displacement. It is a historically disadvantaged community which has gotten worse in terms of what people are making versus what it costs to live there. The bubbles overlying the transit places to up zone are the exact same locations that would trigger the other part of that House Bill around anti -displacement strategies. How are the anti -displacement strategies for that community going to be developed. Director McLaughlin replied this is something that is high on their radar but it is too early to be able to answer it. The group recessed for five minutes from 8:53 to 8:57 p.m. while the Economic Development Commission members left the meeting. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement Review Director McLaughlin thanked the subcommittee for taking a look at this. She commented that they honored the commonly used words while modifying it modestly so it is still consistent with community feedback. She spoke to the importance of acknowledging Student Representative Distelhort's concerns. Chair Gladstone explained that unfortunately Student Rep. Distelhorst was not able to participate in the discussion. In order to do this in a timely fashion they had to do it via email. She presented a draft to the group which attempts to convert this from a part vision/part value statement to a vision statement. She thinks that a vision statement is important for the Comprehensive Plan because the community is expecting it and because it sets the stage for policy to come. A vision statement should be forward thinking and aspirational. She reviewed the process taken to convert the statement to a vision statement encompassing the responses from the engagement survey. She invited discussion regarding Student Representative Distelhort's concerns about "small town feel" conjuring up something of the past and not of the future. Chair Gladstone explained that "small town feel" was included because it had 211 hits in the community responses. There was also a comment from Ron Eber mentioning access to natural beauty, and not just the fact that it exists. Board Member Maxwell said he thought he understood what people meant by "small town feel" but Student Representative Distelhorst's comment made it clear that there are other interpretations. She is concerned that a small town could become synonymous with suburban. To him it is related to grid streets, easy walkability, and short buildings not more than three stories tall. Board Member Golembiewski agreed but noted that it is hyper -focused on the bowl. Using it to describe Edmonds as a whole, and so early in the vision statement, re-emphasizes that the bowl is where they are focusing their priorities. She thought it would be inaccurate to list "small town" in the vision statement for Edmonds as a whole. Chair Gladstone said she felt comfortable having it in there because it relates to the walkability, the interconnectedness, and the shorter buildings. She lives near Highway 99 and isn't sure that having 75-foot buildings everywhere is what they want to aim for either. She was fine with striking it but noted that if they tried to put something else in there, they would be moving away from reflecting some of the language in the responses. Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 8, 2023 Page 5 of 7 Packet Pg. 8 2.A.a Board Member Kuehn expressed appreciation for Board Member Distelhorst's comments. He noted that "small town feel" was something that was continuously brought up in the responses. He thinks this is more a character of the city itself and a lot of the neighborhoods or communities. A lot of areas within the city have characteristics of their own that have that kind of feel. Also, a lot of people are drawn to Edmonds because of that small town feel within it. He doesn't want to get away from that characteristic because it is one of the things they consistently heard from the respondents. Board Member Mitchell commented that from an urban planning perspective, they could still plan from that term. It could mean things like smaller streets, larger public realms, etc. You can still have a small town feel in a densified area. Director McLaughlin commented that the phrase might be challenging for non-English speakers. She also thought that the fact that people need to explain what they mean by it also raises some concerns. Board Member Nutsch commented that what it seemed like they were trying to get at is that Edmonds is a place you want to live and where you want to be, not just where you have your address. Chair Gladstone asked if there was any other word they would want to include if they drop that phrase. There was agreement to strike the phrase, "that has a small town feel". Chair Gladstone asked for feedback about the suggestion to include "access to" the natural beauty of the community. There was general agreement to include this. She read the revised proposed vision statement as follows: Edmonds is a welcoming city offering outstanding quality of life for all with vibrant and diverse neighborhoods, safe streets, parks, and a thriving art scene, shaped in a way to promote healthy lifestyles, climate resiliency, and access to the natural beauty of our community. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MAXWELL, TO RECOMMEND THE ALTERNATIVE VISION STATEMENT AS READ TO THE CITY COUNCIL. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA • November 29 meeting - Private property tree code recommendations from the work group, CARA public hearing, and introduction of detached ADUs. • The December 5 City Council meeting report will be pushed out to January because of the City Council schedule. • December 13 meeting — Detached Accessory Dwelling Units. • Some adjustments will need to be made to the extended agenda for everything beyond November 29. • Chair Gladstone requested more specificity as they move forward on which elements of the Comp Plan will be addressed and when they will be addressed. Director McLaughlin agreed. • Commissioner Maxwell asked about the process of making land use changes that are reflected in the Comprehensive Plan. Director Mclaughlin explained that the Comprehensive Plan is first adopted and that leads code development. Subsequent to adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, staff will work to Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 8, 2023 Page 6 of 7 Packet Pg. 9 2.A.a make sure that the zoning code is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Some zoning changes may be done concurrently. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Golembiewski said she was happy to see the Landmark project still alive. Chair Gladstone agreed and added that they need to make room on the extended agenda for reports. Director McLaughlin noted that November 18 will be the second community meeting on that. Board Member Kuehn said he didn't see anything on the calendar for the November 29 meeting. He enjoyed tonight's meeting. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Gladstone said she really enjoyed meeting with the Economic Development Commission. She reported that it looks like she will be winning the position for the Commissioner for Olympic View Water and Sewer District. She also stated that the Transportation Advisory Committee has selected Board Member Martini to be their representative on their committee. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes November 8, 2023 Page 7 of 7 Packet Pg. 10 5.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/29/2023 Public Hearing on updates to Critical Aquifer Recharge Area code (AMD2023-0004) Staff Lead: Mike Clugston Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Michael Clugston Background/History Critical aquifer recharge areas (CARAs) are established to protect public groundwater drinking supplies from potential contamination and to ensure adequate groundwater availability. The proposed code amendment would revise Chapter 23.60 ECDC to regulate CARAs in the City of Edmonds, based on the identification of CARAs in proximity to aquifers used by the Olympic View Water and Sewer District (OVWSD). The Planning Board has held several meetings on the topic (links to meeting media and packets are included and meeting minutes are included as Attachment 2): 1. May 24, 2023 -Introduction to the CARA code amendment 2. July 12, 2023 - Work session 3. July 26, 2023 - Public hearing #1 (held open to August 23 and then to September 13 but ultimately closed to allow time for additional work, primarily regarding stormwater) 4. October 25, 2023 - Work session 5. November 29, 2023 - Public hearing #2 Amendments to Chapter 23.60 ECDC are a Type V legislative decision, with the Planning Board holding a public hearing before making a recommendation to the City Council, who will then hold a separate public hearing to consider adoption of the code amendment by city ordinance. As required by ECDC 20.80.020(B), a notice of public hearing (Attachment 3) was published and posted on November 9, 2023, with public comments accepted through November 29. As of November 21, no public comments have been received. Consistent with ECDC 20.15A, a SEPA Determination of Non significance was issued with the notice of public hearing (Attachment 3). As of November 21, no SEPA-related comments or appeals have been received. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Board take public testimony on the updated draft CARA code language in Attachment 1 and forward a recommendation to the Council to adopt the proposed code language, with any requested modifications. Board direction is still needed on whether the use of greywater should be prohibited in the CARA or whether some greywater reuse could be appropriate in certain locations. Greywater options were discussed on July 26. Packet Pg. 11 5.A No additional information has been received about the feasibility of requiring pollution liability insurance for certain uses in CARAs. The Board could recommend that the topic be further addressed during Council discussions on the proposed amendments. Narrative Since the July 26 public hearing, the draft language in Attachment 1 has been updated in a variety of ways to make the regulation more protective based on feedback from the Olympic View Water and Sewer District, the Department of Health, the Planning Board, and the public: 1. Stormwater. The proposed approach to stormwater regulation relative to the CARA chapter and stormwater addendum was reviewed on October 25. 2. Scope in ECDC 23.60.010. Minor changes to clarify the purpose and intent of the regulations. 3. Administration in ECDC 23.60.020. Minor clarifying changes are proposed together with what is required for a hydrogeologic report. 4. Regulated Activities in ECDC 23.60.030. Added a requirement for a hydrogeologic report for facilities handling and storing hazardous materials. Added general requirements for regulated activities. 5. Definitions in ECDC 23.40.005. Updated several definitions to better reflect a more robust CARA code, including: buffer, critical aquifer recharge areas, mitigation, qualified critical area consultant, underground injection control well, wellhead protection area. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Draft Code Amendments to ECDC 23.60 Attachment 2 - Planning Board meeting minutes May - October 2023 Attachment 3 - CARA SEPA Determination and Noticing May 24, 2023 Agenda packet May 24, 2023 Media July 12, 2023 Agenda packet July 12, 2023 Media July 26, 2023 Agenda packet July 26, 2023 Media October 25, 2023 Agenda packet October 25, 2023 Media Packet Pg. 12 5.A.a Draft Edmonds CARA Update 2023 Chapter23.60 CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREAS Sections: 23.60.010 Scope. 23.60.020 Administration. 23.60.030 Regulated Activities. 23.60.010 Scope. Critical aquifer recharge areas (CARAs) are those areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water as defined by WAC 365-190-030(-23). CARAs have prevailing geologic conditions that create a high potential for contamination of ground water resources or contribute significantly to the replenishment of ground water. GARAs aFe FE)te-.+ d as rwt4ral ..dprth IN �; + c+ + �.,.wth M@Ra ..,m eRt Ae-+. The Growth Management Act requires cities to adopt regulations to protect CARAs. The purpose of this chapter is to establish critical aquifer recharge area (CARA) and groundwater protection standards to protect aquifers from degradation and depletion. The intent is to minimize loss of recharge quantity, to maintain the protection of &uqqW-w-es#e JgUbl ^ dFOR R9 water -public drinking water sources, and to prevent contamination of groundwater. draft Edmonds CARA ECDC 23.60 v5 11.29.23 Commented [CM1]: Proposed changes in this sec based on Olympic View feedback. Grey highlighted i Packet Pg. 13 5.A.a Draft Edmonds CARA Update 2023 23.60.020 Administration. A. Mapp44gDesignation. Olympic View Water and Sewer District (Olympic View) has two Commented [CM2]: Rewording suggested by Doi wellhead protection areas in Edmonds: Deer Creek Springs and the 228th Street Wellfield. Deer Creek Springs itself is located west of Edmonds in the Town of Woodway while the 228th Street Wellfield is located in Esperance (unicorporated Snohomish County), which is surrounded by Edmonds. Both areas have been mapped and modeled using best available science and include four travel time zones (6 month, 1 year, 5 year, and 10 year) plus an additional buffer, ` h'eh '" the eRt*r , 7ARP A f r.ARtr*h- A R fAr th wellhead + ,. 0ei;arpa Commented [MC3]:'Buffer' definition expanded An area of exposed highly sensitive soils (Qva aquifer) is also mapped. include CARA reference B. Classification. CARAs are classified using the following criteria: 1. Class 1 CARAs include those mapped areas located within the 6 month, one (1) and five (5) year capture zones of a wellhead protection area. 2. Class 2 CARAs include those mapped areas located within the ten (10) year capture zone of a wellhead protection area. 3. Class 3 CARAs include those mapped areas in the wellhead ^FE)tee eP -•^a critical aquifer recharge area buffer. Commented [MC4]: As above draft Edmonds CARA ECDC 23.60 v5 11.29.23 Packet Pg. 14 5.A.a Draft Edmonds CARA Update 2023 C. Applicability. The provisions of this chapter apply to regulated activities occurring within Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3 CARAs as identified in the City of Edmonds GIS, which may be updated as new information becomes available. D. Local consultation. The City of Edmonds will notify Olympic View when new development applications are submitted within the mapped CARAs. Typical applications will include but not be limited to: single family/multifamily/commercial building permits, and short/formal subdivisions. E. Hydrogeologic report. A hydrogeologic report is required for activities as noted in the table ECDC 23.60.030.C. The report must contain the following information: 1. The surface location of all critical aquifer rechar>e areas located on site or immed adjacent to the site, and the permeability of the unsaturated zone; 2. Groundwater depth, flow direction, and gradient based on available information; 3. Currently available data on wells and springs within one fourth mile of the site; 4. Currently available information on the location of surface waters within one fourth mile of the site; 5. Historic water quality data for the area to be affected by the proposed activity or use compiled for at least the previous five-year period; 6. Discussion of the effects of the proposed project on the groundwater quality and quantity, including: a. Predictive evaluation of eroundwater withdrawal effects on nearbv wells and surface water features; b. Predictive evaluation of contaminant transport based on potential releases to groundwater; c. Recharge potential of the site including permeability and transmissivity; and d. If water use is proposed for the development activity, a description of the groundwater source of water to the site or a letter from an approved water purveyor stating the ability to provide water to the site; 7. Best management practices relevant to the proposed activity or use; 8. Provisions to monitor the groundwater quality and quantity; 9. A spill plan that identifies equipment and structures that could fail, resulting in an impact to the critical aquifer recharge area. Spill plans shall include provisions for regular inspection, repair, and replacement of structures and equipment with the potential to fail; 10. An assessment of how the development activity meets the protection standards established in ECDC 23.60.030.D; draft Edmonds CARA ECDC 23.60 v5 11.29.23 Commented [MCS]: (E) is a new subsection with detail per DoH guidance Packet Pg. 15 5.A.a Draft Edmonds CARA Update 2023 11. If the hvdroeeoloeic report identifies impacts to critical aquifer recharee areas. the project applicant will be required to: a. Identify and provide an analysis of alternatives by which such impacts could be avoided or prevented; and b. Provide a detailed mitigation plan for any unavoidable impacts. The mitigation plan should include preventative measures, monitoring, process control and remediation and a contingency plan, as appropriate; 12. Recommendations for implementation and operation of activities, including size limitations, monitoring, reporting and best management practices (BMP); and 13. Anv other information necessary to determine compliance with this chapter. 23.60.030 Regulated Activities. A. Stormwater. 1. The use of stormwater infiltration best management practices (BMPs) including those that qualify as a Class V Underground Iniection Control well (UIC), are prohibited for all land uses within all wellhead protection areas (WHPAs), including the buffer, associated with Olympic View Water and Sewer District's (OVWSD) 228th Street Wellhead. 2. Within all WHPAs, associated with Olympic View's Deer Creek Springs, including the buffer, the following shall apply: a. All new bored. drilled. or driven shaft UICs for stormwater management purposes are prohibited. b. All other new stormwater infiltration BMPs that are not bored, drilled, or driven shaft UICs shall be regulated by: i. Chapter 173-218 WAC, that meet that chapter's definition of a Class V UIC well. The UIC regulations are implemented by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). ii. The requirements of ECDC 18.30 (stormwater Management), including the Ecology stormwater manual adopted by ECDC 18.30, and the current Edmonds Stormwater Addendum. c. In addition, these requirements shall apply to the following allowed activities: i. All new UICs that replace any existing UIC that has reached its useful life. ii. Any area that proposes connecting to an existing City -owned and operated UIC. d. These requirements shall apply until Ecology approves a subsequent version of its stormwater manual that is more protective of the aquifers than the above requirements. At that time, the more protective requirements shall apply. B. Table 23.60.030.1, CARA Prohibited and Restricted Uses, establishes land uses and related activities that are prohibited and restricted within a specific CARA classification and applies draft Edmonds CARA ECDC 23.60 v5 11.29.23 Packet Pg. 16 5.A.a Draft Edmonds CARA Update 2023 to any new use or activity proposed after [MONTH DAY], 2024. New land uses or activities that pose a hazard to the Citv's groundwater resources, resulting from storing, handling, treating, using, producing, recycling, or disposing of hazardous materials or other deleterious substances, are prohibited in Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas 1 and 2. Some uses are prohibited in all CARA classes. Uses and activities lawfully established prior to [MONTH DAYI, 2024, are not considered to be legal nonconforming uses subject to Chapter 17.40 ECDC, and may continue to operate within the scope of the existing use. Table 23.60.030.1. CARA Prohibited and Restricted Uses All mineral resource uses RA and in exposed OVa soils in Class 3 CARA. A RA Cemeteries Imanaeement OPMI are reauired for the use in Class Hazardous liquid transmission pipelines Hazardous waste storage and/or Hazardous waste s treatment facilities and/or processing, or as defined by Chap disposal of radioactive substances �in all CARA classes. leauipment and/or material and medical waste. ubstances or hazardous wastes with orimary and draft Edmonds CARA ECDC 23.60 v5 11.29.23 5 Packet Pg. 17 5.A.a Draft Edmonds CARA Update 2023 h dro eolo is report is required for the use in Class 3 CARA outside of the area of exposed QVa. Automotive uses Wrecking yards are prohibited in all CARA classes. Vehicle towing ards that store vehicles on permeable surfaces are also prohibited. Service stations are prohibited in Class 1 and 2 CARA as well as in exposed QVa soils in Class 3 CARA. In Class 3 CARA outside of the area of exposed QVa, vehicle repair and servicing must be conducted indoors over impermeable pads. For underground storage tanks UST with hazardous substances applicants must demonstrate that the facility complies with federal and state laws. Dry cleaning DrV cleaning using chlorinated solvents or using solvent perchloroeth lene is prohibited in all CARA classes. Large on -site sewage systems, as defined Prohibited in all CARA. in Chapter 246-272 WAC Solid waste landfills Prohibited in all CARA. Solid waste is defined in WAC 173 304-100. Solid waste transfer stations Prohibited in all CARA. Solid waste is defined under WAC 173-304-100. Petroleum refinement processes, including any related reprocessing or Prohibited in all CARA. storage Bulk storage facilities where flammable or Prohibited in all CARA. combustible liquids, solids, or gels are received by pipeline or tank vehicle, and are stored or blended in bulk for the purpose of distributing such substances by pipeline, tank vehicle, portable tank, or container Chemical manufacturing, including but not Prohibited in Class 1 and 2 CARA as well as in limited to organic and inorganic chemicals, plastics and resins, pharmaceuticals, cleaning compounds, exposed QVa soils in Class 3 CARA. A h dro eolo is report is required for the use in Class 3 CARA outside of the area of exposed QVa. Applicants must paints and lacquers, and agricultural demonstrate that the facility complies with federal chemicals and state laws. draft Edmonds CARA ECDC 23.60 v5 11.29.23 Packet Pg. 18 5.A.a Draft Edmonds CARA Update 2023 Primary and secondary metal industries Prohibited in all CARA. that manufacture, produce, smelt, or refine ferrous and nonferrous metals from molten materials Commercial wood preserving and wood Prohibited in all CARA. products preserving Mobile fleet fueling operations Prohibited in all CARA. "Mobile fleet fueling" means the practice of filling fuel tanks of vehicles from tank vehicles. Mobile fleet fueling is also known as wet fueling and wet hosing. Mobile fleet fueling does not include fueling at construction sites. Permanent dewatering of the aquifer Prohibited in all CARA. when done as part of remediation action that is approved by the Department of Ecology Irrigation and infiltration of greywater Prohibited in all CARA. Reclaimed or recycled water use with the Prohibited in all CARA. exception of uses that discharge to the sanitary sewer Rainwater collection and use Allowed in all CARA. Hydrocarbon extraction Prohibited in all CARA. Metal recycling facilities with outdoor Prohibited in Class 1 and 2 CARA as well as in storage and handling activities exposed QVa soils in Class 3 CARA. A hydrogeologic report is required for the use in Class 3 CARA outside of the area of exposed QVa. C. Regulation of facilities handling and storing hazardous materials. Commented [MC6]: SnoCo DOH provided guidan discussed by the PB on July 26. PB needs to determ whether to prohibit greywater outright or allow for some circumstances. Activities may only be permitted in a critical aquifer recharge area if the applicant can show, through providing a hydrogeologic report prepared by a qualified professional, that the Commented [CM7]: Requirement for a study per or000sed activitv will not cause contaminants to enter the groundwater by comoliance with guidance the best management practices (BMPs) for handling and storing hazardous materials. The City may impose development conditions in accordance with BMPs to prevent degradation of groundwater. 1. Best Management Practices for Handling and Storing Hazardous Materials. draft Edmonds CARA ECDC 23.60 v5 11.29.23 Packet Pg. 19 5.A.a Draft Edmonds CARA Update 2023 Any facility, activity, or residence in the City in which hazardous materials or other deleterious substances are present must be operated in a manner that ensures safe storage, handling, treatment, use, production, and recycling or disposal of such materials and substances and prevents their unauthorized release to the environment. Businesses, cemeteries and schools that store and/or handle hazardous materials must, at a minimum, comply with the following BMPs: a. Waste disposal and record keeping of disposal and use activity; b. Spill containment supplies and an emergency response plan; c. An emergency response training plan for all employees; d. Hazardous materials must be stored using secondary containment measures at all times; e Periodic monitoring of the storage areas and methods used for containment must be reviewed: i. On a regular basis; ii. Whenever business practices change regarding hazardous materials; and iii. As required by laws and regulations; f. In no case may hazardous materials or other deleterious substances be stored, handled, treated, used, produced, recycled, or disposed of in a way that would pose a significant groundwater hazard within the City. 2. Hazardous Materials Inventory (HMI). The HMI statement is intended reflect all current and anticipated types and quantities of hazardous materials that will be stored, handled, treated, used, produced, recycled, or disposed of at a facility. The HMI must always be kept on site. New and existing commercial land uses. schools and cemeteries located in Class 1 and Class 2 CARAs must submit an HMI statement: a. Within 1 year of the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter; b. With any new land use or building permit application; c. With a new business license; and d. At periodic intervals as needed to keep up with changing business practices. 3. Hazardous Materials Management Plan (HMMP). Hazardous materials quantities correspond to the aggregate total of all hazardous materials, not individual chemicals. Facilities that use aggregate quantities of hazardous materials equal to or greater than draft Edmonds CARA ECDC 23.60 v5 11.29.23 Packet Pg. 20 5.A.a Draft Edmonds CARA Update 2023 20 gallons or the equivalent of 200 pounds, or that use hazardous materials that may be a potential risk to the WHPA, are reviewed to determine the potential risk to the groundwater and the need for an HMMP. Commercial land uses and activities using aggregate quantities of hazardous materials equal to or greater than 50 gallons or the equivalent of 500 pounds, or that use hazardous materials that are considered to be a potential risk to the groundwater in lower quantities, must submit an HMMP to the CitV. a. The City requires an HMMP based on the type and aggregate quantity of inventoried material. The following are exempt from an HMMP: i. Retail sale of containers 5 gallons or less in size when the business has fewer than 500 gallons on the premises at anV one time; and ii. Hazardous materials of no potential risk to the wellhead protection areas. b. HMMPs must demonstrate implementation of BMPs. An HMMP must be completed by the facility operator and must always kept on site and include: i. A description of the facility including a floor plan showing storage, drainage and use areas. The plans must be legible and approximately to scale; ii. The plan must include and identify all hazardous materials containers, sizes, storage locations and methods of secondary containment of the hazardous materials; and iii. The plan must, at a minimum, include how the facility implements the BMPs as identified in this code. 4. Inspections. The City has the right to inspect a facility at reasonable times for the purpose of determining compliance with this chapter. Inspections may include, but are not limited to: a. Visual inspections of hazardous materials storage and secondary containment areas; b. Inspections of HMMP; and c. Sampling of soils, surface water and groundwater. 5. Third -Party Review. The City may employ a hydrogeologic consultant licensed in Washington State at the applicant's expense for third -party review for compliance with the BMPs, the HMI and the HMMP. 6. Enforcement. Whenever a person has violated any provisions of this chapter, the Planning and Development Director, in consultation with the Public Works Director as necessary, may take code enforcement action based on the nature of the violation including, but not limited to, abatement, inlunction, mitigation, fines and penalties as set forth in Section 18.30.100 ECDC, Stormwater Management. draft Edmonds CARA ECDC 23.60 v5 11.29.23 9 Packet Pg. 21 5.A.a Draft Edmonds CARA Update 2023 D. General requirements. 1. A project applicant must make all reasonable efforts to avoid and minimize impacts to critical aquifer recharge areas according to the requirements of this section, in the following sequential order of priority: a. Avoiding impacts altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; or when avoidance is not possible; b. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps, such as protect redesign, relocation, or timing, to avoid or reduce impacts; and c. Mitigation for the impacts to the critical aquifer recharge area. 2. Any activity or use specifically listed in this chapter must comply with the best management practices and mitigation plan identified in the hydrogeologic report. 3. All development activities must comply with the groundwater quality standards contained in WAC Chapter 173-200 and RCW Chapter 90.48. 4. Where the Director determines that an activity or use not specifically listed in this chapter has the potential to harm water quality or quantity within critical aquifer recharge areas, the applicant must apply best management practices and all known and available reasonable technologv MART) aaaroariate to Drotect critical aauifer recharge areas. draft Edmonds CARA ECDC 23.60 v5 11.29.23 10 Commented [MC8]: Adapting general critical are, 'mitigation' requirements to CARA per DoH guidanc Packet Pg. 22 5.A.a Draft Edmonds CARA Update 2023 23.40.005 Definitions pertaining to critical areas. For the purposes of this chapter and the chapters on the five specific critical area types (Chapters 23.50, 23.60, 23.70, 23.80 and 23.90 ECDC) the following definitions shall apply: "Adjacent" means those activities located on site immediately adjoining a critical area; or distance equal to or less than 225 feet of a development proposal or subject parcel. "Alteration" means any human -induced action which changes the existing condition of a critical area or its buffer. Alterations include, but are not limited to: grading; filling; dredging; draining; channelizing; cutting, pruning, limbing or topping, clearing, relocating or removing vegetation; applying herbicides or pesticides or any hazardous or toxic substance; discharging pollutants; paving, construction, application of gravel; modifying for surface water management purposes; or any other human activity that changes the existing landforms, vegetation, hydrology, wildlife or wildlife habitat value of critical areas. "Aquifer" means a body of soil or rock that contains sufficient saturated material to conduct groundwater and yield usable quantities of groundwater to springs and/or wells. Best Available Science. See ECDC 23.40.310. "Best management practices" means a system of practices and management measures that: 1. Control soil loss and reduce water quality degradation caused by nutrients, animal waste, and toxics; 2. Control the movement of sediment and erosion caused by land alteration activities; 3. Minimize adverse impacts to surface and ground water quality, flow, and circulation patterns; and 4. Minimize adverse impacts to the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of critical areas. "Buffer" means the designated area immediately next to and a part of a steep slope or landslide Commented [MC9]: DoH recommended change hazard area and which protects slope stability, attenuation of surface water flows and landslide hazards reasonably necessary to minimize risks to persons or property; or a designated area immediately next to and part of a stream or wetland that is an integral part of the stream or wetland ecosystem. For critical aquifer recharge areas, the buffer is that area outside of the WHPA time of travel zones established by WAC 246-290, which defines the entire zone of contribution for the CARA. "Chapter" means those sections of this title sharing the same third and fourth digits. "City" means the city of Edmonds. City Council or Council. See ECDC 21.15.030. draft Edmonds CARA ECDC 23.60 v5 11.29.23 11 Packet Pg. 23 5.A.a Draft Edmonds CARA Update 2023 "Class" or "wetland class" means descriptive categories of wetland vegetation communities within the wetlands taxonomic classification system of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Cowardin, et al., 1979). "Clearing" means the act of cutting and/or removing vegetation. This definition shall include grubbing vegetation and the use or application of herbicide. "Compensation project" means an action(s) specifically designed to replace project -induced critical area or buffer losses. Compensation project design elements may include, but are not limited to: land acquisition procedures and detailed plans including functional value assessments, detailed landscaping designs, construction drawings, and monitoring and contingency plans. "Compensatory mitigation" means replacing project -induced losses or impacts to a critical area, and includes, but is not limited to, the following: 1. "Creation" means actions performed to intentionally establish a wetland at a site where it did not formerly exist. 2. "Reestablishment" means actions performed to restore processes and functions to an area that was formerly a critical area, where the former critical area was lost by past alterations and activities. 3. "Rehabilitation" means improving or repairing processes and functions to an area that is an existing critical area that is highly degraded because one or more environmental processes supporting the critical area have been disrupted. 4. "Enhancement" means actions performed to improve the condition of existing degraded wetlands so that the functions they provide are of a higher quality. 5. "Preservation" means actions taken to ensure the permanent protection of existing high - quality wetlands. "Creation" means a compensation project performed to intentionally establish a wetland or stream at a site where one did not formerly exist. "Critical aquifer recharge areas (CARAs)" ^ s that ^ a^t^....:^^a to hayp a .,fi^ � are areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water, including areas where an aquifer that is a source of drinking water is vulnerable to contamination that would affect the potability of the water, or is susceptible to reduced recharge, as "identified in t4e-C+• ,�. These areas are identified on the City's GIS using information provided by Olympic View Water and Sewer District, as periodically updated. "Critical areas" for the city of Edmonds means wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, and fish and wildlife habitat draft Edmonds CARA ECDC 23.60 v5 11.29.23 12 Commented [MC10]: DoH recommended change WAC 365-190-030(3) Commented [CM11]: OV to provide City updated mapping Packet Pg. 24 5.A.a Draft Edmonds CARA Update 2023 conservation areas as defined in Chapters 23.50, 23.60, 23.70, 23.80 and 23.90 ECDC, respectively. "Deleterious substances" include, but are not limited to, chemical and microbial substances that are not classified as hazardous materials per this chapter, whether the substances are in usable or waste condition, that have the potential to pose a significant groundwater hazard, or for which monitorine reauirements or treatment -based standards are enforced under Chaoter 246- 290 WAC. "Development proposal" means any activity relating to the use and/or development of land requiring a permit or approval from the city, including, but not limited to: commercial or residential building permit; binding site plan; conditional use permit; franchise; right-of-way permit; grading and clearing permit; mixed use approval; planned residential development; shoreline conditional use permit; shoreline substantial development permit; shoreline variance; short subdivision; special use permit; subdivision; flood hazard permit; unclassified use permit; utility and other use permit; variance; rezone; or any required permit or approval not expressly exempted by this title. "Director" means the city of Edmonds development services director or his/her designee. "Division" means the planning division of the city of Edmonds development services department. "Enhancement" means an action taken to improve the condition and function of a critical area. In the case of wetland or stream, the term includes a compensation project performed to improve the conditions of an existing degraded wetland or stream to increase its functional value. "Erosion" means the process in which soil particles are mobilized and transported by natural agents such as wind, rain, frost action, or stream flow. Erosion Hazard Areas. See ECDC 23.80.020(A). Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas. See Chapter 23.90 ECDC. "Floodplain" means the total area subject to inundation by a "100-year flood." "100-year flood" means a flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. "Footprint of existing development" or "footprint of development" means the area of a site that contains legally established: buildings; roads, driveways, parking lots, storage areas, walkways or other areas paved with concrete, asphalt or compacted gravel; outdoor swimming pools; patios. Frequently Flooded Areas. See Chapter 23.70 ECDC. "Functions" means the roles served by critical areas including, but not limited to: water quality protection and enhancement; fish and wildlife habitat; food chain support; flood storage, draft Edmonds CARA ECDC 23.60 v5 11.29.23 13 Packet Pg. 25 5.A.a Draft Edmonds CARA Update 2023 conveyance and attenuation; ground water recharge and discharge; erosion control; wave attenuation; aesthetic value protection; and recreation. These roles are not listed in order of priority. Geologically Hazardous Areas. See Chapter 23.80 ECDC. "Geologist" means a person licensed as a geologist, engineering geologist, or hydrologist in the state of Washington. For geologically hazardous areas, an applicant may choose a geologist or engineering geologist licensed in the state of Washington to assess the potential hazard. "Geotechnical engineer" means a practicing geotechnical/civil engineer licensed as a professional civil engineer in the state of Washington who has at least five years of professional employment as a geotechnical engineer in responsible charge including experience with landslide evaluation. "Grading" means any one or a combination of excavating, filling, or disturbance of that portion of the soil profile which contains decaying organic matter. "Habitats of local importance" means areas that include a seasonal range or habitat element with which a given species has a primary association, and which, if altered, may reduce the likelihood that the species will maintain and reproduce over the long term. These might include areas of high relative density or species richness, breeding habitat, winter range, and movement corridors. These might also include habitats that are of limited availability or high vulnerability to alterations such as cliffs, talus, and wetlands. In urban areas like the city of Edmonds, habitats of local importance include biodiversity areas and corridors, which are characterized by a framework of ecological components which provides the physical conditions necessary for ecosystems and species populations to survive in a human -dominated landscape. "Hazardous materials" means any material, either singularly or in combination, that is a physical or health hazard, whether the materials are in usable or waste condition; and any material that may degrade surface water or groundwater quality when improperly stored, handled, treated, used, produced, recycled, disposed of, or otherwise mismanaged. Hazardous materials also include: all materials defined as or designated by rule as a dangerous waste or extremely hazardous waste under Chapter 70A.300 RCW and Chapter 173-303 WAC; hazardous materials also include petroleum or petroleum products that are in liquid phase at ambient temperatures, including any waste oils or sludges. "Hazardous materials inventory (HMI)" is an inventory of all current and anticipated types and quantities of hazardous materials that will be stored, handled, treated, used, produced, recycled, or disposed of at a facility as required in ECDC 23.60.030.C.2, Hazardous Materials Inventory (HMI). "Hazardous materials management plan (HMMP)" is a plan completed by the operator that demonstrates how the facility implements required BMPs as required in ECDC 23.60.030.C.3, Hazardous Materials Management Plan (HMMP). draft Edmonds CARA ECDC 23.60 v5 11.29.23 14 Commented [MC12]: Hazardous Waste Manager Packet Pg. 26 5.A.a Draft Edmonds CARA Update 2023 "In -lieu fee program" means a program which sells compensatory mitigation credits to permittees whose obligation to provide compensatory mitigation is then transferred to the in - lieu program sponsor, a governmental or nonprofit natural resource management entity. Landslide Hazard Areas. See ECDC 23.80.020(B). "Mitigation" means the use of any or all of the following actions for activities and development on sites containing critical areas, except critical area aquifer recharge areas, which are listed in descending order of pFefeFe riorit : 1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; 2. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology or by taking affirmative steps such as project redesign, relocation, or timing to avoid or reduce impacts; 3. Rectifying the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, and habitat conservation areas by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the historical conditions or the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project; 4. Minimizing or eliminating the hazard by restoring or stabilizing the hazard area through engineered or other methods; 5. Reducing or eliminating the impact or hazard over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; 6. Compensating for the impact to wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, frequently flooded areas, and habitat conservation areas by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and 7. Monitoring the hazard or other required mitigation and taking remedial action when necessary. "Native vegetation" means vegetation comprised of plant species which are indigenous to the Puget Sound region and which reasonably could have been expected to naturally occur on the site. "Native vegetation" does not include noxious weeds as defined by the state of Washington or federal agencies. "Normal maintenance of vegetation" means removal of shrubs/nonwoody vegetation and trees (less than four -inch diameter at breast height) that occurs at least every other year. Maintenance also may include tree topping that has been previously approved by the city in the past five years. draft Edmonds CARA ECDC 23.60 v5 11.29.23 15 Commented [MC13]: Change per DoH guidance Packet Pg. 27 5.A.a Draft Edmonds CARA Update 2023 "Noxious weeds" means any plant that is highly destructive, competitive or difficult to control by cultural or chemical practices, limited to those plants on the state noxious weed list contained in Chapter 16-750 WAC. "Planning staff" means those employed in the planning division of the city of Edmonds development services department. "Qualified critical areas consultant" or "qualified professional" means a person who has the qualifications specified below to conduct critical areas studies pursuant to this title, and to make recommendations for critical areas mitigation. For geologically hazardous areas, the qualified critical areas consultant shall be a geologist or engineering geologist licensed in the state of Washington to assess the potential hazard. If development is to take place within a geologically hazardous area, the qualified critical areas consultant developing mitigation plans and design shall be a professional engineer licensed in the state of Washington and familiar with landslide and slope stability mitigation. For wetlands and streams, the qualified critical areas consultant shall be a specialist in botany, fisheries, wetland biology, and/or hydrology with a minimum of five years' field experience with wetlands and/or streams in the Pacific Northwest. Requirements defining a qualified critical areas consultant or qualified professional are contained within the chapter on each critical area type. For critical aquifer recharge areas, the qualified professional must be a currently licensed Washington State geologist holding a current specialty license in hydrogeology. "Reasonable economic use(s)" means the minimum use to which a property owner is entitled under applicable state and federal constitutional provisions in order to avoid a taking and/or violation of substantive due process. "Recharge" means the process involved in the absorption and addition of water from the unsaturated zone to groundwater. "Redeveloped land(s)" means those lands on which existing structures are demolished in their entirety to allow for new development. The director shall maintain discretion to determine if the demolition of a majority of existing structures or portions thereof constitute the redevelopment of a property or subject parcel. "Restoration" means the actions necessary to return a stream, wetland or other critical area to a state in which its stability, functions and values approach its unaltered state as closely as possible. For wetlands, restoration as compensatory mitigation may include reestablishment or rehabilitation. Seismic Hazard Areas. See ECDC 23.80.020(C). "Species of local importance" means those species that are of local concern due to their population status, their sensitivity to habitat manipulation, or that are game (hunted) species. (See ECDC 23.90.010(A)(4).) draft Edmonds CARA ECDC 23.60 v5 11.29.23 16 Commented [MC14]: DoH recommended langua Packet Pg. 28 5.A.a Draft Edmonds CARA Update 2023 "Storm Water Management Manual" means the storm water manual specified in Chapter 18.30 ECDC. "Streams" means any area where surface waters produce a defined channel or bed which demonstrates clear evidence, such as the sorting of sediments, of the passage of water. The channel or bed need not contain water year-round. This definition is not meant to include irrigation ditches, canals, storm or surface water runoff devices (drainage ditches) or other entirely artificial watercourses unless they are used by salmonids or used to convey streams naturally occurring prior to construction of such watercourse. Streams are further classified into Categories S, F, Np and Ns and fishbearing or nonfishbearing 1, 2 and 3. (See ECDC 23.90.010(A)(1).) "Title" means all chapters of the city of Edmonds Development Code beginning with the digits 23. "Undeveloped land(s)" means land(s) on which manmade structures or land modifications (clearing, grading, etc.) do not exist. The director retains discretion to identify undeveloped land(s) in those instances where historical modifications and structures may have existed on a property or subject parcel in the past. "Underground Infection Control Well" as defined in Chapter 173-218 WAC and associated guidance documents. "Wellhead protection area (WHPA)" means protective areas associated with public drinking water sources established by water systems and approved or assigned by the state Department of Health. the ;;Pd ;-_-hSidPf;;ce ;;Pp—;; swicFewnding a we." A.F v.xpll field that supplies a Public wateF system ..h which r ntAmi..AntI; A a likely to pass a Rd eye Rtua!l., r aGh the ...;t.,r ..,Ills\ as deriRn ate d. --in d. er the [Peal., ral !'L, aa.. %Voter A G t. "Wetland functions" means those natural processes performed by wetlands, such as facilitating food chain production; providing habitat for nesting, rearing and resting sites for aquatic, terrestrial or avian species; maintaining the availability and quality of water; acting as recharge and/or discharge areas for ground water aquifers; and moderating surface water and storm water flows. "Wetland mitigation bank" means a site where wetlands are restored, created, enhanced, or in exceptional circumstances, preserved expressly for the purpose of providing compensatory mitigation in advance of authorized impacts to similar resources. "Wetlands" means those areas that are inundated or saturated by ground or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass -lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands draft Edmonds CARA ECDC 23.60 v5 11.29.23 17 Commented [MC15]: New definition related to stormwater in CARAs Commented [MC16]: DoH recommended changE WAC 365-190-030(23) Packet Pg. 29 5.A.a Draft Edmonds CARA Update 2023 created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street or highway. However, wetlands may include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from nonwetland areas created to mitigate conversion of wetlands if permitted by the city (WAC 365-190-030(22)). Wetlands are further classified into Categories 1, 2, 3 and 4. (See ECDC 23.50.010(B).) [Ord. 4026 § 1 (Att. A), 2016; Ord. 3952 § 1, 2013; Ord. 3931 § 2, 2013; Ord. 3527 § 2, 2004. Formerly 23.40.3201. draft Edmonds CARA ECDC 23.60 v5 11.29.23 18 Packet Pg. 30 5.A.b Board Member Golembiewski also thought more clarity was needed around the consequences of lack of payment. She asked if there is a fee for using other city utilities such as electricity or water. Deputy Director Burley replied there is not but some coordination is needed to make sure everything is ready. Board Member Golembiewski asked if the indemnification agreement is for the individual signing it or if they are signing it on behalf of the organization. Deputy Director Burley explained she had asked the attorney to ensure that the definitions clarify the role of the organizer, the person filling out the application, as a representative of the entire organization and that the indemnification clause was representative of the entire organization and that the City was indemnified. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell referred to the decision to not include the hours of operation because they are subject to change and requested that an explanation of that be included. Deputy Director Burley agreed. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell summarized that staff would work on additional clarifications for when payment is due and the consequences of when payment is not received. She also suggested a line item in the introductory document that this is not for large special events; for large special events there is a separate process. Deputy Director Burley indicated she would also clarify about running events in November and parks closing. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER KUEHN, TO SUPPORT THIS DOCUMENT WITH THE SUGGESTED CLARIFICATIONS AS DISCUSSED TONIGHT. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. B. Introduction to Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Code Amendment Senior Planner Mike Clugston explained that critical aquifer recharge areas (CARAs) are established to protect public groundwater drinking supplies from potential contamination and to ensure adequate groundwater availability. They are required by and treated as critical areas under the Growth Management Act (GMA). The current Edmonds code from 2016 states that there are no CARAs in the City. In 2022, the City learned there were two CARAs in Edmonds (Olympic View Water & Sewer District wellhead protection areas) that need to be regulated. Senior Planner Clugston reviewed maps showing the Olympic View Water & Sewer District service area and wellhead protection areas for Deer Creek Springs and the 228"' Street Wellfield. Regulations being considered would integrate with existing stormwater codes; prohibit land uses with the most potential for contamination (auto wrecking yards, dry cleaners using chlorinated solvents, cemeteries, underground hazardous material storage and pipelines); and regulate new and existing facilities handling and storing hazardous materials. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell asked if there can be a plan to phase in changes to warehousing requirements for existing facilities. Senior Planner Clugston affirmed that there could be. He also noted that the goal is to make sure they are using best management practices, not to say that the materials can't be there. Senior Planner Clugston explained that the draft code is being reviewed by stormwater staff and Olympic View now. It could return to the Planning Board for an additional work session if desired or go to a public hearing. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell recommended that the Board should see the draft code before it goes to a public hearing. Board Member Golembiewski asked about requiring pollution liability insurance for certain uses in these areas. Planning Manager Levitan and Senior Planner Clugston replied that they had not seen any jurisdictions do this Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 24, 2023 Page 3 of 5 Packet Pg. 31 5.A.b but indicated they could look into it. Board Member Golembiewski replied that is where all the money for cleanup comes from these days. She also recommended that metal plating uses be added to the list of uses with potential for contamination. Board Member Maxwell asked clarification questions about the intention for regulations inside CARAs versus outside them. He asked if they expect to prohibit certain uses and how that would impact existing businesses. Planning Manager Levitan explained that still needs to be worked out. There are issues with uses that have long- term leases, displacement, economic disparities, etc. Staff will be getting feedback from the stormwater team and Olympic View about the draft code and will be welcoming feedback from the Planning Board as well. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell commented that it looks like most of the impact is going to be with commercial uses in the CG zone. What kind of changes are they looking at for residential areas? Planning Manager Levitan explained that most of the language addresses the commercial uses but they will also be looking at impacts of various residential uses. They can look at what other cities have done with regard to residential uses. Board Member Martini asked if staff feels that ideally all commercial uses would be vacated in these areas. Planning Manager Levitan explained that they are balancing a lot of competing interests including economic development needs of the city as well. Some of these areas spill out onto Highway 99 which is an incredibly important commercial corridor. There are a lot of factors to consider. This is basically another layer to the critical areas inventory that is considered when regulating specific land uses. There are going to be uses that will be prohibited in those areas. Board Member Golembiewski asked if the code gets more prohibitive the closer you get to the well. Senior Planner Clugston replied that generally, in other codes, the closer you are the higher the level of regulations. Board Member Golembiewski noted that maps like these seem a little arbitrary because something might be allowed in one location and then a hundred feet away not be allowed. How do they intend to handle land use issues like that. Senior Planner Clugston explained that the intent is to have different regulations in different areas (10-year, 5-year, 1-year, 6-month, etc.). Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell asked how often the science gets updated to make these maps. Planning Manager Levitan replied that it would get updated periodically. He thought perhaps when the critical areas ordinance is being updated would be a good opportunity to look at updated science. Board Member Mitchell asked if other jurisdictions are required to adopt Edmonds' regulations when the areas on the map branch into adjacent jurisdictions. Senior Planner Clugston replied they are not; they have their own regulations. Board Member Mitchell asked if it would be worthwhile to look at what adjacent jurisdictions are doing to try to align the regulations. Senior Planner Clugston replied that the four different jurisdictions he looked at were wildly different in what they were looking at. The City of Issaquah's ordinance seemed like a reasonable place to start. Board Member Maxwell noted that if Olympic View had located the well further west, they could have avoided having the CARA overlap with the commercial district on Highway 99. He asked if the City had considered other locations that would be less likely to bump into businesses that would be disrupted. Planning Manager Levitan was not sure about the types of discussions there were and what kinds of interagency and inter urisdictional discussions they had. Board Member Maxwell said he just wanted to be explicit that the issue existed. He added that no matter what they do now the businesses that are currently on Highway 99 are going Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 24, 2023 Page 4 of 5 Packet Pg. 32 5.A.b to pollute the water for the next ten years. Olympic View must have been okay with that when they selected that site. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell did not think staff should spend their time looking into the question of the well selection process for this issue. She would prefer that staff s limited time be spent elsewhere. She suggested it would be reasonable for the City to express that if in the future Olympic View decides they want to put another well in that could potentially impact the City of Edmonds, the City should have a seat at the table to help with that placement. Planning Manager Levitan wasn't sure what the interlocal agreement with the water district related to this looks like, but he thought it would be fair to have some opportunity for commenting because it does impact Edmonds' land use regulatory framework. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA Mr. Levitan reviewed the extended agenda. Discussion followed. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell asked staff to discuss the opportunity for an Economic Development Commission liaison. Planning Manager Levitan explained that in the past there was a Planning Board member who served as an ex oficio member. If someone is interested in serving in that role, the Board has the ability to appoint that position. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell thought it would be great for the Board to be able to fill that role provided that somebody has the time to do so. There was no one available, but Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell recommended bringing it up again later to see if someone can handle it in the future. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Maxwell requested the results of the tree survey and the vision survey. Planning Manager Levitan replied that staff could provide those. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell expressed appreciation for everybody's thoughts and feedback. She thanked staff for their hard worked and commended Deputy Director Burley for her incredible work putting together the athletic field use and reservation policy. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes May 24, 2023 Page 5 of 5 Packet Pg. 33 5.A.b None UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Draft Code Language for Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Code Amendment (AMD2023-0004) Senior Planner Mike Clugston made the PowerPoint Presentation. He reviewed what was covered in the introduction of this topic back in May and discussed the draft Critical Aquifer Recharge Area CARA code as contained in attachment 4. CARAs are a required element of the Growth Management Act (GMA) and are established to protect public groundwater drinking supplies from potential contamination and to ensure adequate groundwater availability. The current code (from 2016) states that there are no CARAs in Edmonds. Last year, the City learned that there are actually two CARAs in Edmonds (Olympic View Water & Sewer District Wellhead protection areas — 228d' Street Wellhead and Deer Creek Springs). The City has been working with Olympic View Water & Sewer District to make refinements to the initial draft code amendment. Several Olympic View concerns have been addressed in the draft code. These include codification of a local consultation process; use restrictions and prohibitions; and hazardous material handling. The stormwater code is also being looked at now for potential updates. The use of UICs will be part of this review. Chair Gladstone asked if there is any reason UIC wells regulations could not be incorporated into the draft CARA code. Director Leviton stated they could be referenced or mentioned. Chair Gladstone thought they should discuss how specifically it gets referenced in this code. She said when she looked at the list of things being prohibited or managed, UIC wells is the one area in which there is the biggest problem. Having to go look at another code feels disjointed. Planning Manager Levitan indicated they could incorporate a revised version that would be presented at the public hearing. Board Member Maxwell suggested still having a link to the other code, but saying clearly here what is being talked about. Mr. Levitan agreed. Because they are still making changes to the other code, they need to come up with something that will sufficiently cover anything that should or should not be prohibited in the interim. Chair Gladstone commented that the deep UIC wells have been the most problematic for water sources in general. This was an issue for Issaquah who had a serious problem with their UIC wells that were contaminated with PFAS (per fluorinated alkylated substances) as a result of firefighting foam getting into the stormwater and seeping into the aquifer. She pointed out that PFAS and firefighting foam are not on the list of things that are being controlled in any fashion. Mr. Clugston reviewed draft code sections: • Purpose and Intent — Establish CARAs and groundwater protection standards to protect aquifers from degradation and depletion. The intent is to minimize the loss of recharge quantity, maintain the protection of supply wells for public drinking water, and prevent contamination of groundwater. • Administration — Mapping; classification (Class 1 — 6 months, 1 year, and 5 years; Class 2 —10 years; Class 3 — Buffer); applicability; and local consultation process with Olympic View of certain City projects in CARAs. • Regulated Activities — Table of Restricted and Prohibited Uses: Existing uses can continue; many new uses listed as prohibited will never occur in Edmonds anyway due to existing zone and parcel sizes. Should they be included? Hazardous materials facilities will have to apply Best Management Practices Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 12, 2023 Page 2 of 7 Packet Pg. 34 5.A.b (BMPs); provide a Hazardous Materials Inventory; and Hazardous Materials Management Plan. He reviewed existing zoning and uses in the CARAs and discussed the possibility of requiring pollution liability insurance (PLI) for certain uses in certain locations. • Definitions for CARAs Board Questions and Feedback: Board Member Maxwell referred to regulations regarding wood preserving products and asked for clarification that this is referring to commercial activities. Mr. Clugston indicated they could clarify this. Board Member Maxwell wondered about the grey water because his understanding is that it is environmentally helpful. Mr. Clugston explained this was in both Issaquah's and Olympic View's codes. Board Member Maxwell asked staff to look into this. Since we don't get a much rain for 3-6 months of the year, it would be helpful to try to preserve water. Chair Gladstone explained that grey water can contain contaminants. Board Member Maxwell agreed but noted that as it goes through the ground it gets processed. Chair Gladstone asked for clarification if the irrigation and infiltration of gray water and the reclaimed or recycled water use language is intended to be commercial also. Board Member Maxwell clarified he was not talking about the kind of quantities that one would have for a commercial use. Board Member Maxwell referred to reclaimed or recycled water and also was curious if this refers to commercial use only. He hopes that collecting rain would be allowed in residential uses in the CARA. Chair Gladstone agreed that this could use more clarification. Board Member Mitchell referred to the matrix and asked if it could be tied to IBC occupancy classifications. Mr. Clugston stated they could look into that. Board Member Golembiewski referred to the Administrative section. There are two Group A Wellhead Protection areas but she doesn't see a definition of Group A. She also referred to the definition for class under Definitions and asked if that is different than the City's Class 1, 2, and 3. Chair Gladstone explained that Group A is a Department of Health reference for the type of water system it is. She didn't think she had seen it apply to wellhead protection areas before and wasn't sure it needed to be in there. Mr. Clugston indicated they could look into eliminating the Group A verbiage. Mr. Clugston replied that the Class 1, 2 and 3 refer to the classification of CARAs. Wetlands are defined by class as well. The defined term class is specifically talking about wetlands. Chair Gladstone asked about regulating firefighting foam because it is a big source of PFAS. She thought it would be good to see how Issaquah handled this in their code because their water sources were contaminated by it. She asked if Edmonds currently has a source control program. Mr. Clugston replied that there is source control through the Stormwater Program. Staff doesn't feel it would be too time intensive. Chair Gladstone asked if there is a downside to including the things that seem like they would never happen in Edmonds because zoning codes change. Mr. Levitan didn't think there was a downside. Chair Gladstone commented that in the world of water supply they are extremely risk averse because they go on the premise of protection, protection, protection because once it is contaminated it is really hard and expensive to clean up. She noted that it sounds like staff has been having really good conversations with Olympic View. She expressed appreciation for this collaboration. Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 12, 2023 Page 3 of 7 Packet Pg. 35 5.A.b Board Member Maxwell recommended keeping the verbiage from the old Introduction explaining what CARAs are. He thinks that should be used at the beginning of 23.60.10. Board Member Golembiewski spoke in support of speaking with the City Attorney about the PLI to see if this is something that could be added to regulated uses. Board Member Maxwell agreed. B. Comprehensive Plan Update and Highway 99 Proposed Approach Mr. Levitan gave an update on the Comprehensive Plan scope and contract. He reviewed the consultant RFP and selection process and reported that the interview panel unanimously selected VIA Architecture Team. The City negotiated the scope of work, budget, and schedule including Highway 99, waterfront issues, environment and natural resources, economic development plan, and scale of community outreach. VIA's proposal includes production of the Comprehensive Plan document, including EIS; additional focus on the Highway 99 subarea, including dedicated community outreach, potential plan/code refinements, and SEPA review; development of an Economic Development Plan; an illustrative waterfront vision; a heavy focus on inclusive engagement and graphic -rich materials; and numerous touchpoints with boards/commissions and the public. Mr. Levitan stressed that all the work from the visioning statement done last summer and fall will be carried forward in this process as an important resource. Staff is committed to having the community vision tie back into the Comprehensive Plan update. He discussed the decision to do a complete EIS in order to get a comprehensive look at all of the inputs that go into an EIS such as land use, transportation, natural resources, and environmental protection. This will enable the City to better address the growth targets and the number of units they are going to need to provide. He discussed how the consolidated approach will allow them to identify specific issues of concern within the subarea and analyze that within one single EIS document; however, staff is still exploring options and working this out. Chair Gladstone asked if the consultant is talking about doing another alternative to analyze as part of the whole Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Levitan explained that as part of the whole Comprehensive Plan they have proposed the no -action alternative and then at least two additional alternatives citywide, but that would include specific assumptions within different parts of the city. Board Member Maxwell asked if the body of work that would be the Highway 99 SEIS would be covered in the comprehensive citywide EIS. Mr. Levitan confirmed it would. Board Member Maxwell thought some of the concerns of the public were because they thought the Highway 99 SEIS was not going to happen. Instead, it appears to him that it is being expanded. Mr. Levitan concurred. Board Member Maxwell also commented that another concern people had about this was thinking that money budgeted for the Highway 99 SEIS was being taken away. In reality that money is part of what is covering the citywide plan. Mr. Levitan agreed and added that it is basically the same level and amount of work they would do if they were scoping a Highway 99 specific SEIS. Board Member Maxwell encouraged staff to make it clear to the public that they are not taking away the SEIS but just incorporating it into the citywide EIS. Mr. Levitan agreed and noted there were other areas of confusion that need clarification. He stressed that they are not looking to eliminate any of the analysis that people want done in this area, but they want to do it in the most comprehensive and most streamlined way. Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 12, 2023 Page 4 of 7 Packet Pg. 36 5.A.b ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS A. Parks, Recreation & Human Services Department — 2023 Q2 Accomplishments Chair Gladstone said she had submitted an email with several questions to Planning Manager Levitan who will provide a response to everyone. There were no other questions raised. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Public Hearing on updates to Critical Aquifer Recharge Area code (AMD2023-0004) Senior Planner Clugston made the staff presentation regarding the proposed Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) code amendment. He discussed the definition of a CARA and the need for the code amendment to address two wellhead protection areas in the Olympic View Water and Sewer District. He reviewed proposed changes that had been made since the last meeting as reflected in Attachment 1. He noted that there were still several unresolved items that need further research and refinement, either by the Planning Board or by City Council during their review of the code amendment. These are related to: • Stormwater management — Discussions are ongoing with Olympic View Water and Sewer District (OVWSD). • Greywater — Need to re-evaluate in light of information provided by Snohomish County Department of Health. The County allows greywater reuse for irrigation during the dry season. Should the City continue prohibition of all greywater or allow some flexibility? Firefighting foam — Staff is waiting for confirmation that the fire district doesn't use PFAS (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) foam. Pollution Liability Insurance requirements — Staff is waiting for a response from the city attorney. Board Member Golembiewski asked if the prohibited and restricted uses are limited to commercial uses or if they include residential uses as well. Senior Planner Clugston explained that many of the uses, just by definition of the uses, are commercial. Board Member Golembiewski asked about things like the storing of hazardous materials and greywater. Senior Planner Clugston stated that staff could clarify this. Board Member Golembiewski asked if septic systems are allowed in CARAs. Senior Planner Clugston said he thought they were, but they could check with OVWSD. He wasn't sure if there were any onsite septic systems in the City of Edmonds anymore. Any new development would require connection to sewer. Board Member Maxwell expressed some concerns about allowing greywater although he had raised the initial question. Public Testimony: The public hearing was opened at 7:33 p.m. and public comments were solicited. Lora Petso commented as an individual. She recommended not passing this on until staff has a chance to complete their work and get input on it from the Planning Board. She would like to see a provision that this chapter would apply to all land use and development proposals on parcels entirely within the area and that the protections contained herein would not be subject to waiver, variance, mitigation, or any other exceptions provided in the city codes. She also expressed concern about the time of travel structure and explained that it is not based on the Best Available Science. She discussed the hazards of PFAS which are extremely toxic and Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 26, 2023 Page 2 of 7 Packet Pg. 37 5.A.b don't degrade. Regarding greywater, she stated that it is all going to contain PFAS because it's in soaps, lotions, detergents, cosmetics, etc. She recommended not allowing greywater or rainwater at all because of this, noting that PFAS are now even in the rain. Additionally, since the science is evolving rapidly, the City is required to use the precautionary principle and err on the side of being overprotective. Finally, she recommended making the ordinance as self -updating as much as possible by using language that gives staff authority to impose restrictions to protect the drinking water sources including, but not limited to, those that are listed in the chapter. Bob Danson, General Manager, OlMpic View Water and Sewer District, thanked the City for working with them to try to protect our community's drinking water resources and by updating the City's CARA code. He explained the importance of protecting the watershed wellhead protection areas which are the source of the community's drinking water. He also discussed the hazards of PFAS and the need to protect the system from them. OVWSD is looking forward to continuing to work with staff on the stormwater piece to find a solution that best protects the drinking water aquifers. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MAXWELL, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR TRAGUS- CAMPBELL, TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC COMMENT TIME TO ALLOW THE PARTICIPANTS TO ELABORATE IF DESIRED. MOTION PASSED WITH CHAIR GLADSTONE ABSTAINING. Lora Petso discussed other ways to make the ordinance self -updating such as referring to OVWSD mapping so that when OVWSD updates its maps, it is automatically recognized in the CARA code or to have a provision to recognize the State's Stormwater Manual so that when the state updates the manual it's automatically recognized in the CARA code. They should have a provision that in the event of conflicting requirements, the requirements most protective of the drinking water source shall apply. She also urged them to put all the stormwater protections and land use protections into the CARA ordinance so they can more easily prohibit things in the CARAs that they would want to allow elsewhere. Finally, she encouraged them to ban the use of recycled tire products, recycled asphalt, impervious parking lots and roads, and new infiltration facilities in CARAs. She thanked the Board for the additional time. The public comment period was closed at 7:48 p.m. Discussion: Board Member Maxwell said he was surprised to hear that PFAS were being found in rainwater. If that is the case, he recommended not allowing rain barrels and encouraging people to get their rain into the stormwater system as much as possible. Board Member Martini noted that so far, the water has been in good shape. They need to figure out what they are doing right to keep the drinking water clean and continue with that. Senior Planner Clugston thought it has to do with the land use. Single-family residential zoning is the biggest land use in both of those areas so there is not a lot of intense industry and heavy uses. Chair Gladstone noted that there are still some significant outstanding issues with this code. She proposed tabling this until those issues have been addressed. She was particularly concerned about stormwater and how the UIC (Underground Injection Control) wells are handled in the CARA. It would be good for the Planning Board to send a recommendation to Council that they feel confident about. Senior Planner thought there might Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 26, 2023 Page 3 of 7 Packet Pg. 38 5.A.b be another meeting on Friday with Olympic View, but it is unknown if that will lead to a resolution. The project is tentatively scheduled for Council review at their first meeting in September. Board Member Golembiewski asked for others' opinions about recommending this with a pending stormwater issue. There was discussion about options for moving forward and potential timelines. MOTION MADE BY CHAIR GLADSTONE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MAXWELL, TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL THE MAJOR ISSUES WITH THE OLYMPIC VIEW WATER DISTRICT ARE RESOLVED AND STAFF IS ABLE TO COME BACK WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. Board Member Golembiewski asked if they were making a recommendation to postpone this until the stormwater is resolved. She wondered if they would want to entertain making a recommendation in lieu of stormwater since that typically wouldn't be in their purview anyway. MOTION MADE BY CHAIR GLADSTONE, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI, TO AMEND THE ORIGINAL MOTION TO POSTPONE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL AUGUST 23 AND SEEK AN UPDATE ON THE STORMWATER CODE AS PART OF THE CONTINUATION. Board Member Maxwell said he hoped that staff would seriously consider Ms. Petso's comments. Planning Manager Levitan indicated staff would follow up on this along with the stormwater code. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. None NEW BUSINESS A. Introduction to Site -Specific Rezone Proposal at 9530 Edmonds Way (PLN2023-0024) Amber Brokenshire, Planner, introduced the rezone from RM-EW to BC-EW at 9530 Edmonds Way. She gave the site context and rezone criteria. The rezone would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It would not require a SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) review at this point in the process. The zoning analysis shows that it would allow for increased densities, reduced setback, a smaller floor area ratio, and an increased height to 40 feet, if it met specific site development standards. Also, at least 3 public benefit measures must be incorporated into the building or site design within the BC-EW zone: sustainable building techniques (LEED Gold), inclusion of housing units affordable to persons at low/moderate income, public amenities, and low impact development (LID) techniques. She reviewed a map showing the uses and zoning of the surrounding area. Site specific rezones are a Type IV (legislative) permit, with the Planning Board holding a public hearing and making a recommendation to City Council. The Planning Board hearing is preliminarily scheduled for August 23. The City Council will hold a separate public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance to change the zoning. Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 26, 2023 Page 4 of 7 Packet Pg. 39 5.A.b improvements to the existing park and if this would change that. Director Feser replied that it would not change the timeline for improvements which will occur this year and next year. Chair Gladstone said this is an exciting opportunity for the City, and she hopes the City will still be very aggressive in looking for the next acquisition to be in the park desert that exists on the west side of Highway 99. Board Member Martini asked that they make it as accessible as they did with the new Civic Park. Board Member Kuehn was also excited about the park. MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR TRAGUS-CAMPBELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER KUEHN, THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL IN SUPPORT OF THE ACQUISITION OF THE MEE PROPERTY. BOARD MEMBER MAXWELL PROPOSED AN AMENDMENT THAT THIS WOULD BE CONTINGENT ON APPROVAL OF THE GRANT BY THE COUNTY. Board Member Kuehn noted that there is money already allocated in the budget even if the grant falls through. THE MOTION TO AMEND DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. B. Discussion about the Transportation Advisory Committee representative request Chair Gladstone discussed a request she received to have a representative from the Planning Board serve on the advisory committee for the 2024 Transportation Plan. She reviewed the scope of the committee and the expected commitment. Board Members Martini and Nutsch both expressed interest. Chair Gladstone indicated they could forward both names. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL, TO NOMINATE BOTH BOARD MEMBERS MARTINI AND NUTSCH TO THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Discussion of updates to draft Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) code (AMD2023-0004) Stormwater Engineer Jerry Shuster explained that Mike Clugston was supposed to do part of the presentation but he was out ill. Mr. Shuster presented information on the stormwater management requirements in the proposed CARA updates. He explained the purpose of stormwater regulations in the CARA are to minimize loss of recharge quantity, to maintain the protection of supply wells for public drinking water, and to prevent contamination of groundwater. They also provide flood protection for Edmonds residents and businesses and help meet the Department of Ecology Stormwater Permit requirements. Olympic View Water and Sewer District (OVWSD) has two groundwater sources that require protection — Wellhead Protection Areas (WHPAS). These are the 228th Street Wellfield and the Deer Creek Springs area. He discussed how stormwater Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 2023 Page 3 of 8 Packet Pg. 40 5.A.b is managed in Edmonds and explained what Underground Injection Control (UIC) wells are. The intent of UIC wells is to take water from the surface and put it into the ground. There are two types of UIC wells — a bored, drilled, or driven shaft and a subsurface fluid distribution system (Stormwater Infiltration System). Risk factors to consider for stormwater management in WHPAs include land use, the type of stormwater control, and the Vadose Zone treatment capacity. The Vadose Zone is the zone from the ground surface to the top of the water table or the aquifer. There are parts of Olympic View's WHPAs that have zero Vadose Zone treatment capacity. The CARA proposal uses a risk -based approach for managing stormwater in WHPAs. Mr. Shuster summarized that the 228th Wellfield is a high -risk area due to the land use. All UICs will be prohibited here. All other stormwater infiltration BMPs will also be prohibited. They are able to do this because they have other feasible means of managing stormwater. Deer Creek Springs area is low risk due to the land use. All new bored, drilled, or driven shaft UICs will be prohibited because they are high risk. Low risk stormwater controls such as infiltration trenches with pipes (UIC) will be allowed. The stormwater must be treated to stricter levels than in the current Department of Ecology Manual before infiltrating. There are no other feasible means of managing the stormwater in this area. The basis of these regulations is the 2019 Ecology Stormwater Management Manual. The result is that the proposed requirements for infiltrating stormwater in WHPAs are more restrictive than the Manual and meet the intent of the CARA ordinance. Board Member Maxwell referred to the treatment that would be necessary when allowing UICs and asked if that would be able to handle forever chemicals (PFAS). Mr. Shuster replied that PFAS chemicals are everywhere. No matter how restrictive the City is with the regulations, they will not be able to stop PFAS. The only way to keep those out of the aquifer or stormwater is to stop using the products that contain them. Chair Gladstone referred to Deer Creek Springs and asked what kind of treatment would be stricter than per Ecology Stormwater manual before infiltrating. Mr. Shuster replied that would depend on the treatment capacity of the soil in the area. At one end of the spectrum, you might have a catch basin with some sort of solid settling device. At the other end of the spectrum, a higher level of treatment would be a cartridge filter which would take out the solids and some of the dissolved contaminants before it is put in the ground. Chair Gladstone asked if most of these stormwater trenches are on private property or city property. Mr. Shuster replied that in southwest Edmonds it is a mix. Chair Gladstone commented that Ecology is currently revising the Manual. The 2019 Manual was inadequate with respect to UIC wells, and this is being remedied with the current update. Should the language in the stormwater code cite whatever Stormwater Manual is current rather than the 2019 Stormwater Manual? Mr. Shuster agreed with this. He noted there is a statement in the CARA that says if Ecology should update the requirements in the next Stormwater Manual, they will be adopted automatically if they are more protectives than the proposed ones. Chair Gladstone was glad to hear this but thought the language in the code should also be clear that it refers to the most current version and not just the 2019 Manual. Mr. Shuster indicated they could look into that. Board Member Golembiewski asked if designating different areas of the CARA as a "class" is an industry standard or something that Edmonds has chosen to do. She wondered if it would make more sense to call them zones. Mr. Shuster explained there are different kinds of UIC wells. The Class 5 UIC is a Stormwater Injection Well. Regarding the zones, he recommended speaking to Mike Clugston about that. Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 2023 Page 4 of 8 Packet Pg. 41 5.A.b Greywater reuse: Mr. Shuster explained that greywater reuse was a question that Mr. Clugston was going to address. Chair Gladstone asked if greywater referred to stormwater runoff or water coming from inside the home. Mr. Shuster commented that stormwater runoff is not considered greywater. He thought it was from inside the home. Chair Gladstone thought this would be problematic, particularly in the Deer Creek Wellfield area or if there are shallow infiltration wells, because greywater is apt to carry PFAS. Mr. Shuster agreed. He said he would not recommend infiltrating greywater. He shared slides related to this that Mr. Clugston was going to talk about on the topic. Board Member Maxwell recalled that the Board had previously discussed this and decided against using greywater and also against allowing rain barrels or allowing people to water their lawns with water from their roofs. Chair Gladstone concurred and noted the draft is not reflective of their discussion. Mr. Shuster explained that one of the slides lists greywater tiers and options; this is something the Board will need to talk with Mr. Clugston about when he returns. Chair Gladstone explained there will be another presentation at the public hearing. She requested that Mr. Clugston bring back the areas that were unaddressed. They can also request information from the OVWSD as part of that discussion. She will work with Mr. Clugston on this. The Board thanked Mr. Shuster for the informative presentation. B. Tree Code Amendments (AMD2022-0004) Susan McLaughlin, Development Services Director, explained the intent of this item was to let the Board discuss the subcommittee recommendations. She noted that Urban Forest Planner Deb Powers had provided feedback in the draft code of instances where staff may have concerns or conflicts. She explained that staff has paused tree code amendments for the time being in order to understand the implications or outcomes of those regulations in relation to an overall city policy on tree canopy loss. Chair Gladstone asked about the work they will be doing to determine the tree canopy target. Director McLaughlin said she didn't think it would take long, and they intend to get started right away. She thought they would be able to pick the tree code up again in Q1 2024. Chair Gladstone asked how the work is going to get done since the department is understaffed. Director McLaughlin noted they just hired a senior planner who will be working on the Comprehensive Plan through 2024 and who has some capacity. Board Member Golembiewski asked if they have any idea what a good target is. If they are at 34% tree canopy now, is that near where they want to be or are they way off base? Director McLaughlin explained determining that would be the first task in the process. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell expressed concern that the citizens of Edmonds have been waiting on this for a year. She feels like the Planning Board should continue rather than allowing the tree code amendments to be pushed down the line. She was concerned that if they are not working on it and actively showing progress, they will be failing in their j ob. Director McLaughlin explained that progress for her is looking at the overall outcome. She is concerned about the potential for a cumulative tree canopy cover loss of 3-6% on an annual basis with two trees per lot being removed. Board Member Martini asked what has happened with the tree canopy in Edmonds in the last 15 years. Ms. Powers explained they have had tree canopy assessments every five years since 2005. Even though there was Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 2023 Page 5 of 8 Packet Pg. 42 5.A.c CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION `nc. 1,6911 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Planning Board will hold a public hearing on proposed amendments to Chapters 23.40 and 23.60 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) regarding critical aquifer recharge areas at a special meeting on November 29, 2023. NAME OF APPLICANT: City of Edmonds FILE NO.: AMD2023-0004 COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: November 29, 2023 Any person may comment on this application until the public hearing is closed. Relevant materials can be reviewed by visiting the City's website at www.edmondswa.gov (under the applicable Meeting Agenda or Public Notices), or by contacting the City contact noted below. Comments may be mailed, emailed, or made at the public hearing. Please refer to the application file number for all inquiries. PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: A hybrid public hearing will be held by the Planning Board on November 29, 2023 at 7 p.m. The physical location is Edmonds City Hall, 121 5th Avenue N, 3rd Floor, Brackett Room. Or join the Zoom meeting at: https://edmondswa- Rov.zoom.us/I/87322872194?pwd=WFdxTWJIQmxlTG9LZkc3KOhuS014QT09 Or via phone by dialing 253-205-0468 Meeting ID: 873 2287 2194 Password: 007978 SEPA DETERMINATION: Notice is hereby given that the City of Edmonds has issued a Determination of Nonsignificance under WAC 197-11-340 for the above project. DATE OF ISSUANCE: November 9, 2023 PROJECT LOCATION: This is a non -project action. SEPA COMMENTS: Any comments regarding the SEPA determination are due November 29, 2023. SEPA APPEAL: This SEPA determination may be appealed by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for appeal with the required appeal fee no later than December 6, 2023 by 4:00 p.m. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.06.020 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal to the Hearing Examiner. CITY CONTACT: Mike Clugston, AICP, Acting Planning Manager michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov 425-771-0220 Packet Pg. 43 5.A.c 4 of EDA, 0 s CITY OF EDMONDS r, ig�o 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: Amendments to Chapters 23.40 and 23.60 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) regarding critical aquifer recharge areas. Proponent: City of Edmonds Location of proposal, including street address if any: This is a non -project action. Lead agency: City of Edmonds The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030 (2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. The City of Edmonds has determined that the requirements for environmental analysis and protection have been adequately addressed in the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW 43.21C.240 and WAC 197-11-158 and/or mitigating measures have been applied that ensure no significant adverse impacts will be created. There is no comment period for this DNS. This DNS is issued after using the optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-355. There is no further comment period on the DNS. X This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by November 29, 2023. Project Planner: Mike Clugston, AICP, Acting Planning Manager Responsible Official: Mike Clugston, AICP, Acting Planning Manager Contact Information: City of Edmonds 1 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 1 425-771-0220 Date: November 9, 2023 Signature: XX You may appeal this determination to Mike Clugston, Acting Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for the appeal with the required appeal fee no later than December 6, 2023. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Mike Clugston to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted on November 9, 2023, at City Hall and the Edmonds Public Safety Building. Published in the Everett Herald. Uploaded to the Department of Ecology's SEPA records portal. XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies below. The SEPA Checklist, DNS, and associated documents can be obtained online at https://www.edmondswa.gov/services/public involvement/public notices/development notices under permit number AMD2023-0004, by emailing the project planner(michael.clugston@edmondswa.gov), or by calling the City of Edmonds at 425-771-0220. Page 1 of 2 AMD2023-0004 SEPA DNS FOR CARA CODE AMENDMENT 11/9/23.SEPA Packet Pg. 44 Distribution List: This DNS and SEPA checklist were distributed to the following: 5.A.c ❑ Applicant ❑ Parties of Record ❑ US Army Corps of Engineers ❑ US Fish and Wildlife ❑ Puget Sound Energy ❑ Snohomish PUD ❑X Olympic View Water & Sewer ❑ Alderwood Water District ❑ Edmonds School District ❑ Port of Edmonds ❑X South County Fire ❑ Swedish Hospital ❑ Community Transit pc: File No. SEPA Notebook ❑X Dept. of Ecology ❑ Dept. of Ecology - Shorelands ❑ Dept. of Natural Resources ❑X Dept. of Commerce ❑ WSDOT ❑ WSDOT— Ferries ❑ Dept. of Fish & Wildlife ❑X Dept. of Health — Drinking Water ❑ Dept. of Arch. & Historic Pres. ❑ Dept. of Parks and Rec. Commission ❑ Puget Sound Clean Air Agency ❑ Puget Sound Regional Council ❑ Puget Sound Partnership ❑X Tulalip Tribe ❑ City of Everett ❑ City of Lynnwood © City of Mountlake Terrace ❑ City of Mukilteo © City of Shoreline © Town of Woodway ❑ Snohomish Co. Public Works ❑X Snohomish Co. PDS © Snohomish Co. Health Dept. ❑ KingCounty-Transit ❑ King County— Environ. Planning ❑ Other Page 2 of 2 AMD2023-0004 SEPA DNS FOR CARA CODE AMENDMENT 11/9/23.SEPA Packet Pg. 45 5.A.c SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checklist Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization, or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal. Instructions for applicants This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use "not applicable" or "does not apply" only when you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision -making process. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Instructions for lead agencies Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B, plus the Supplemental Sheet for Nonproject Actions (Part-W. Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for non -projects) questions in "Part B: Environmental Elements" that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 1 of 19 Packet Pg. 46 5.A.c A. Background Find help answering background questions 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Critical Area Ordinance Update for Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (CARAs) 2. Name of applicant: City of Edmonds 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Mike Clugston, Acting Planning Manager City of Edmonds Planning Division 121 51h Ave. N Edmonds, WA 98020 4. Date checklist prepared: November 9, 2023 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edmonds 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): The Edmonds City Council is expected to consider the adoption of new critical aquifer recharge regulations in early 2024. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. Critical area regulations must be updated at regular intervals consistent with state law. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. • Olympic View Water and Sewer District Wellhead Protection Area Delineation — Deer Creek Springs and 228th Street Wellfield (August 2018) • Washington State Wellhead Protection Program Guidance Document (DOH 331-018, January 2017) • Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Guidance, Department of Ecology Publication 05-10-028 (March 2021) • Critical Areas Handbook v3.0, Department of Commerce (2023) SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 2 of 19 Packet Pg. 47 5.A.c 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. We do not know of other pending proposals that affect the same geographic area requiring concurrent evaluation. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. The proposed critical area regulations need the following approvals: • Review of this checklist and issuance of a threshold determination under the State Environmental Policy Act for non -project actions; and • Adoption by the Edmonds City Council; 11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) The City of Edmonds completed a comprehensive review of its critical area ordinance (CAO) as required by the Growth Management Act in May 2016 with the adoption of Ordinance No. 4026. At that time, there were no known critical aquifer recharge areas in Edmonds and hence no substantive regulations in the Edmonds Community Development Code to protect such areas. In 2022, Edmonds became aware of the presence of CARAs within the City's jurisdiction when the Olympic View Water and Sewer District (OVWSD) appealed the City's SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) for a stormwater code update. While OVWSD's appeal was denied by the hearing examiner, staff committed to updating its code to reflect the presence of CARAs within city boundaries. OVWSD provided mapping of their wellhead protection areas to the City, which were added to the City's geographic information system (GIS). This code update is a follow-up to that work and would establish local regulations for those areas consistent with the GMA in RCW 36.70A.020 and RCW 36.70.330. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The critical aquifer recharge area regulations would apply within the mapped wellhead protection areas and buffers of the Olypmic View Water and Sewer District's Deer Creek Springs and 2281h Street wellheads. The Deer Creek wellhead is in the adjacent Town of Woodway while most of the wellhead protection area and buffer are in the City of Edmonds. The 2281h Street wellhead is located in Esperance, SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 3 of 19 Packet Pg. 48 5.A.c a portion of unincorporated Snohomish County that is within Edmonds's designated Urban Growth Area. A portion of the wellhead protection area and buffer of the 2281h Street wellhead are located in Edmonds. B. Environmental Elements 1. Earth Find help answering earth questions a. General description of the site: The City of Edmonds is located in south Snohomish County on the western shores of Puget Sound approximately 14 miles north of Seattle. Situated within the urbanized Puget Sound region, the city encompasses approximately 8.9 square miles (5,700 acres) in area, including 5 lineal miles (26,240 feet) of marine shoreline. Roughly triangular in shape, the city is bounded by Puget Sound on the west; Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace on the east; unincorporated Snohomish County on the north; and the town of Woodway, unincorporated Snohomish County (the Esperance area), and King County on the south. The area that would be covered by the proposal is that portion of the City of Edmonds shown within the attached wellhead protection area and buffer maps. Circle or highlight one: Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: Topography varies throughout the City of Edmonds. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Greater than 40%. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them, and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. Hydrostratigraphic Unit Hydrogeologic Classification Unit Description Younger Alluvium (Qyal) Aquifer (when in direct Fluvial sands and gravels with lesser organic contact with Qva) material. Thin and limited lateral extent. For modeling purposes, this unit is grouped with the Qva aquifer when it is in direct contact with Qva materials. Vashon Recessional Aquifer (when in direct Sands and gravels with lesser clay and silt. For Outwash (Qvr) contact with Qva) modeling purposes, this unit is grouped with the Qva aquifer when it is in direct contact with Qva materials. Vashon Till (Qvt) Confining Unit Dense, unsorted clay -through gravel- and cobble -size material. This is the most extensive surficial deposit in the study area. It SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 4 of 19 Packet Pg. 49 5.A.c has a low permeability, is upwards of 100 feet thick, and forms a protective cap over the Qva aquifer. Vashon Advance Aquifer Sands with lesser gravel. Laterally extensive Outwash (Qva) across the study area with thicknesses ranging from 100 to 150 feet. This unit is partially saturated and considered an unconfined aquifer system. Transitional Beds (Qtb) Confining Unit Low permeability sequence of layered clay - through find sand -size material. This unit is relatively thick across the model area and forms the base of the model. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. There are no known unstable soils within the CARAs. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which will not require grading. f. Could erosion occur because of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which will not cause erosion. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which will not create new impervious surfaces h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any. The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which will not cause erosion and, consequently, will not require erosion and sediment control. 2. Air Find help answering air questions a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which will not create air emissions. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 5 of 19 Packet Pg. 50 5.A.c The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which will not be affected by any off -site emissions or odors. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any. The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which will not lead to air impacts. 3. Waxer Find help answering water questions a. Surface Water: Find hela answering surface water auestions 1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The Deer Creek CARA includes Deer Creek Springs and Deer Creek in the Town of Woodway, which flows into Puget Sound. Several small wetlands exist near the Madrona K-8 School, which are located within the Deer Creek CARA buffer. The 228th Street CARA includes Halls Creek at the easternmost extent of the CARA buffer, which flows into Lake Ballinger (not in the CARA). 2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which will not require work near water. 3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which does not involve any fill or dredge. 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give a general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which does not propose surface water withdrawals or diversions. 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No portion of a 100-year floodplain in Edmonds is within either the Deer Creek or 228th Street CARAs. The 228th Street CARA buffer overlaps a portion of the Halls Creek floodplain north of Lake Ballinger within the City of Mountlake Terrace. 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action. The purpose of the new regulations is to establish CARAs together with groundwater protection standards to help protect aquifers from degradation and depletion to minimize loss of recharge quantity, to help protect supply wells for public drinking water, SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 6 of 19 Packet Pg. 51 5.A.c and to help prevent contamination of groundwater as much as is currently feasible. b. Ground Water: Find hela answering ground water auestions 1. Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give a general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would not withdraw groundwater. Olympic View Water and Sewer District has two existing drinking water wells in/near Edmonds — Deer Creek Springs and 228th Street. No change to the District's wells would result from the updated CARA regulations, except to the extent that the proposal's regulations would protect those wells. 2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action that would not discharge waste material. There are no industrial or agricultural land uses within either CARA. It is unknown whether there are any remaining residential septic systems in the CARAs but the majority of both areas are served by public wastewater systems operated by the City of Edmonds or Olympic View. c. Water Runoff (including stormwater): 1. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. The source of the runoff will not change with this proposal. Runoff comes from precipitation falling on existing surfaces and being conveyed to existing on -site stormwater management systems or, where properties are connected, to the City's existing stormwater management system. New hard surfaces will be managed per item 4 below. 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. The risk of waste materials entering ground or surfaces waters will not change with this proposal, except to the extent that the proposal reduces the likelihood of waste materials entering ground or surface waters. The land use restrictions in the proposed CARA, as well as managing the surface water runoff per item 4 below, are designed to help reduce the likelihood of waste material entering ground or surface waters. 3. Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. This proposal will not alter or change drainage patterns, except to the extent that the proposal reduces SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 7 of 19 Packet Pg. 52 5.A.c the likelihood of drainage entering ground or surface waters. 4. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any. The City will continue to enforce the provisions of its stormwater discharge permit issued by the Department of Ecology (Western Washington Phase 11 Municipal Permit) and associated vetted documents such as the 2019 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts. The City will maintain compliance with any future permits requirements and use future vetted documents to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 8 of 19 Packet Pg. 53 5.A.c 4. Plants Find help answering plants questions a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: ® deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other ® evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ® shrubs ® grass 0 pasture 0 crop or grain ❑ orchards, vineyards, or other permanent crops. ® wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ❑ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other ❑ other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which will not lead to alteration of plants and vegetation. c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. No threatened or endangered plant species are known to be located within the City of Edmonds. Washington State Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage site data do not show any rare, threatened, or endangered plant species in the City of Edmonds. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any. The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which is not related to plants and vegetation e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. This is a not a site specific project; however, it is assumed that some noxious/invasive plants listed on the Snohomish County noxious week list exist within the City of Edmonds. 5. Animmic Find help answering animal questions a. List any birds and other animals that have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: • Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: • Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: • Fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action. However, numerous fish and wildlife species depend on the Edmonds shoreline and adjacent shoreland habitats for either part or all of a life stage SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 9 of 19 Packet Pg. 54 5.A.c Shellfish resources include clams, mussels, crab, and shrimp. Eight species of salmonids use nearshore areas of Puget Sound at some point in their life cycle. These include Chinook, chum, coho, sockeye, and pink salmon and sea -run cutthroat, steelhead, and bull trout. Birds with priority habitats that occur within the City include bald eagle, purple martin, and great blue heron. b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action. However, several federally listed, threatened, or endangered species that may inhabit marine waters or adjacent habitats within the City are identified in the State database The threatened marbled murrelet are observed intermittently in inland Puget Sound waters; winter and summer surveys by WDFW conducted near Edmonds found no murrelets in winter and only a few birds in the Edmonds area in summer. Federally listed threatened fish species that may occur in or in the vicinity of Edmonds, including Puget Sound Chinook salmon and bull trout. Federally listed marine mammals (Steller sea lion and Puget Sound orcas) may be present in the Edmonds shore zone, but are not commonly observed. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. The shoreline of Puget Sound provides a migratory route for salmon and the City of Edmonds is located within the Pacific Flyway, which is a flight corridor for migrating waterfowl and other birds. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any. The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which does not require measures to preserve or enhance wildlife. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which will not impact animals. 6. rnergy and Natural Resources Find help answering energy and natural resource questions a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which is not related to energy and natural resources. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which is not related to solar energy. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 10 of 19 Packet Pg. 55 5.A.c The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which does not involve energy conservation. 7 Gn%i;rr%nr"gnn+nI "d 1+h Find help with answering environmental health questions a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur because of this proposal? If so, describe. 1. Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which would not lead to any environmental health hazards. The proposed code includes specific protections to ensure future environmental health hazards are limited within the CARAs. a. Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. According to the National Pipeline Mapping System (https://www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/), there are no existing hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines within the CARAs. The proposed code includes specific restrictions against locating future hazardous liquid pipeplines within the CARAs. b. Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which would not lead to any storage of hazardous chemicals. The proposed code includes specific requirements for chemical storage and monitoring within the CARAs in the future. c. Describe special emergency services that might be required. The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which would not lead to the need for special emergency services other than those that already exist. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any. As noted above, the proposed code includes specific protections to ensure future environmental health hazards are limited within the CARAs. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 11 of 19 Packet Pg. 56 5.A.c b. Noise What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which would not lead to noise impacts. 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site)? The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which would not lead to noise impacts. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any. The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which would not lead to noise impacts. 8. Land and Shorelines US4 Find help answering land and shoreline use questions a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. Land use within the Deer Creek Springs CARA is almost entirely single family residential (RS-8 zoned, approximately 1,100 parcels), together with associated uses like schools and a cemetery. There are approximately ten parcels zoned and developed with multifamily uses and ten parcels zoned and developed with business or commercial uses. The majority of the 228th Street CARA is located in Esperance and therefore under Snohomish County's zoning jurisdiction. The portions of the 228th Street CARA in Edmonds are a mix of single family residential parcels (RS-8 zoned, approximately 130), with approximately ten multifamily zoned and developed sites. Highway 99 runs through the eastern portion of the 228th Street CARA and is zoned for and developed with commercial uses (General Commercial zone, approximately 30 parcels). The CARA code amendment would restrict and prohibit certain higher intensity uses in order to better protect Olympic View's supply wells for public drinking water and to prevent contamination of groundwater. b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses because of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? 1. Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how? SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 12 of 19 Packet Pg. 57 5.A.c c. Describe any structures on the site. Nearly all parcels are built out with single family residences and appurtenences in the Deer Creek CARA, except for the few parcels zoned and developed for business/commercial. The 2281h Street CARA contains a mix of residential and commercial buildings. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which would not lead to the demolition of any structures. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The CARA areas in Edmonds's jurisdiction are zoned mostly Single Family Residential (RS-8), with a small number of parcels zoned Multifamily Residential (RM), Neighborhood Business (BN), Westgate Mixed Use (WMU), and General Commercial (CG). f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The CARA areas in Edmonds's jurisdiction are mostly designated Single Family Urban 1, with a small number of parcels designated Multi Family— High Density, Neighborhood Commercial, Edmonds Way Corridor, and Highway 99 Corridor. g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? The CARAs are not in the shoreline jurisdiction. h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. The critical aquifer recharge areas subject to the proposed code amendment are critical areas in accordance with Title 23 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which would not affect number of people living and working in the CARAs. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which would not lead to displacement. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any. The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which would not lead to displacement. I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 13 of 19 Packet Pg. 58 5.A.c The critical area regulations are intended to protect critical areas in accordance with the Growth Management Act and through the application of best available science, as determined according to WAC 365-195-900 through 365-195-925 and RCW 36.70A.172. It is not the intent of the critical area regulations to make a parcel of property unusable by denying its owner reasonable economic use of the property nor to prevent the provision of public facilities and services necessary to support existing development. m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any. The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action. Edmonds has no areas of agricultural or forested areas. 9. Housing Find help answering housing questions a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which would not impact housing. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which would not impact housing. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any. The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which would not impact housing. 10. At!bU t!UCS Find help answering aesthetics auestions a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which would not impact aesthetics. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which would not impact aesthetics. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any. The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which would not impact aesthetics. 11. Light and Glare Find help answering light and glare questions a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which would not create light or glare. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 14 of 19 Packet Pg. 59 5.A.c b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which would not create light or glare. c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which would not create light or glare. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any. The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which would not create light or glare. 12. Recreation Find help answering recreation questions a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which would not impact recreation. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which would not impact recreation. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any. The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which would not impact recreation. 13. Historic and r.,ltiirnI Droccrwation Find help answering historic and cultural preservation questions a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers? If so, specifically describe. There are numerous buildings through the City of Edmonds that are over 45 years. The City has a local historic register with 20 sites on the register. b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. According to Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation's WISAARD tool, there are no known archeological sites within the CARA areas. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 15 of 19 Packet Pg. 60 5.A.c The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which would not impact historic sites. d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which would not impact historic sites. 14. Transportatio Find help with answering transportation questions a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which would not impact transportation. b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which would not impact transportation. c. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle, or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which would not impact transportation. d. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which would not impact transportation. e. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed projector proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which would not impact transportation. f. Will the proposal interfere with, affect, or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which would not impact transportation. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any. The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which would not impact transportation. 15. Public Serwirr Find help answering public service questions a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 16 of 19 Packet Pg. 61 5.A.c police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which would not increase the need for public services. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which would not increase the need for public services. 16. Utilities Find help answering utilities questions a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other: The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which would not impact utilities. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. The proposal is a non -project, non -site -specific action which would not trigger the need for additional utilities. C. Signature Find help about who should sign The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Type name of signee: Mike Clugston Position and agency/organization: Acting Planning Manager, City of Edmonds Date submitted: 11/9/2023 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 17 of 19 Packet Pg. 62 5.A.c D. Supplemental sheet for nonproject actions Find help for the nonproiect actions worksheet IT IS NOT REQUIRED to use this section for project actions. Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; pro- duction, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? The proposal would not directly increase discharges to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise. The updated critical aquifer recharge area regulations would provide additional protections to Olypmic View's two drinking water supplies in Edmonds by reducing the potential for groundwater contamination. • Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: Since increased impacts are not anticipated, there are no specific measures are proposed. 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? The critical aquifer recharge area regulations would provide additional protections to Olypmic View's two drinking water supplies in Edmonds by reducing the potential for groundwater contamination. The additional protections would likely have a positive affect on fish and marine life over time as water quality is maintained and potential pollution avoided. • Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: Since increased impacts are not anticipated, there are no specific measures are proposed. 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposed critical area regulations would not result in the depletion of energy or natural resources. • Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: Since no depletion of energy or natural resources is anticipated, no specific measures are proposed. 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection, such as parks, SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 18 of 19 Packet Pg. 63 5.A.c wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? The updated regulations would provide additional protections for the two critical aquifer recharge areas in Edmonds — the Deer Creek Springs and 2281h Street wellhead protection areas and buffers operated by the Olympic View Water and Sewer District. This is consistent with the Growth Management Act. • Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: Since no negative impacts are anticipated to the CARAs are the result of the proposed regulations, no specific measures are proposed. 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The updated CARA regulations would not apply within the shoreline jurisdiction in Edmonds. They would apply as an overlay to existing zoned areas and would restrict more intense land uses within the CARAs that have a greater potential for contamination and groundwater degradation. All other uses permitted by the underlaying zones would still be allowed. • Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: Since no negative impacts are anticipated to the CARAs as a result of the proposed regulations, no specific measures are proposed. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? The proposed critical area regulations would not increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities. More robust critical aquifer recharge area requirements would provide additional protections to Olympic View's drinking water supplies but not increase demand for those supplies. • Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Since increased demands are not anticipated, no specific measures are proposed. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. The critical area regulations are intended to protect critical areas in accordance with the Growth Management Act and through the application of the best available science, as determined according to WAC 365-195-900 through 365-195-925 and RCW 36.70A.172, and in consultation with state and federal agencies and other qualified professionals. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) January 2023 Page 19 of 19 Packet Pg. 64 5.A.c Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State ofWashington } County of Snohomish } ss Michael Gates being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH987156 AMD2023-0004 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of I issue(s), such publication commencing on 11/09/2023 and ending on 11/09/2023 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount of e fee for sucl publication is $79.12. Subscribed and sw Fn fore me on this day or Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. City orl —nds Mw1op —o S—c" I S6031703 NI ICIIALL CLUNI ON Linda Phillips Notary Public State of Washington My Appointment Expires 8/29/2025 Commission Number "17 Packet Pg. 65 5.A.c Classified Proof CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Planning Board will hold a public hearing on proposed amendments to Chapters 23.40 and 23.60 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) regarding critical aquifer recharge areas at a special meeting on November 29. 2023. NAME OF APPLICANT Cily of Edmonds FILE NO.: AM02023.0004 COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: November 29, 2023 Any person may comment on this application until the public hearing is closed. Relevant materials can be reviewed by visiting the City's website at www.edmondswa.gov (under the applicable Meeting Agenda or Public Notices), or by contacting the City contact noted below. Comments may be mailed, entailed, or made at the public hearing. Please refer to the application file number lot all inquiries. PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION- A hybrid public hearing will be held by the Planning Board on November 29, 2023 at 7 p.m. The physical location is Edmonds City Flail, 12l 5th Avenue N, 3rd Floor, Brackett Room Or join the Zoom meeting at: https://edmondswa- gov.zoom.us/1/87322872194?pwd=W FdbtTWJIQmxlTG9LZkc3K OhuS014QT09 Or via phone by dialing 253-205-0468 Meeting ID:87 22872194 Password: 007978 SEPA DETERMINATION: Notice is hereby given Thal the City of Edmonds has issued a Determination of Nonsionificance under WAC 197.11.340 for the above project. DATE OF ISSUANCE, November 9, 2023 PROJECT LOCATION: This is a non-projecl action SEPA COMMENTS: Any comments regarding the SEPA determination are due November 29, 2023. SEPA APPEAL: This SEPA determination may be appealed by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for appeal with the required appeal fee no later than December 6, 2023 by 4:00 p.m. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20 06 020 have standing to initiate an aommistralive appeal to the Hearing Examiner. CITY CONTACT: Mike Clugslon, AICP, Acting Planning Manage( michael clupston@edmon dswa gov 425-771.02g0 Published: November 9, 2023. EDH987156 Proofed by Phillips, Linda, 11/10/2023 10:51:12 am Page: 2 Packet Pg. 66 5.A.c File No.: AMD2023-0004 Applicant: City of Edmonds DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 9th day of November, 2023, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted as prescribed by Ordinance. However, it was not posted at the Edmonds Public Library because it is currently closed for renovation. I, Mike Clugston, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 9th day of November, 2023, at Edmonds, Washington. i n S g ed: Packet Pg. 67 6.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/29/2023 Code Amendment for Implementation of Detached Accessory Dwelling Units in accordance with HB 1337 — "Expanding housing options by easing barriers to the construction and use of accessory dwelling units." Staff Lead: Rose Haas Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Jeff Levy Accessory dwelling units provide additional affordable housing options within existing single family neighborhoods. Edmonds has allowed accessory dwelling units (ADUs) since 2000 but only when they are in or attached to a primary residence (ECDC 20.21). In 2021, the Citizens' Housing Commission stated the following policy recommendation for updating the ADU code to include detached accessory dwelling units (DADUs): Allow either one attached or detached accessory unit on a property in the SFR area, with clear and definitive development requirements such as size, ownership, and parking, under the standard permitting process and not require a conditional use permit. That work is consistent with the Housing Element in the current Comprehensive Plan which recommends the following strategy to promote affordable housing: The City [should substantially revise] its accessory dwelling regulations, providing clearer standards and streamlining their approval as a standard option for any single family lot (2020 Comprehensive Plan, p. 92). In the spring of 2023, the state legislature passed HB 1337 which requires jurisdictions like Edmonds to update their development codes to allow for DADUs and make related code changes to make it easier to create accessory dwelling units (Attachment 1). State legislation mandates that HB 1337 must be implemented no later than six months after the next Comprehensive Plan due date, or by July 1, 2025. The requirements for the City of Edmonds will be as follows: Allow two ADUs per lot (any configuration of ADU and DADU). No owner -occupancy requirements. Allow separate sale of ADUs. No parking required within a half -mile of a major transit stop, as defined in RCW 36.70A.696(8). Maximum size limitation no less than 1,000sf. Allow DADUs to be sited at a rear lot line when the lot line abuts a public alley. Packet Pg. 68 6.A No setback requirements, yard coverage limits, tree retention mandates, restrictions on entry door locations, or aesthetic requirements that are more restrictive than for the principal unit. [The City currently does not have design standards for single family dwellings and they are exempt from design review per ECDC 20.10.020.B.3.] Allow ADUs of at least 24-feet in height. While work on updating the Comprehensive Plan continues, changes to the accessory dwelling unit code can be made now using existing City policy guidance and the ADU guidance provided by the Department of Commerce in Attachment 2. Staff will introduce the code amendment project. No action is required by the Planning Board, but staff requests feedback on the project. For next steps, the topic will be discussed at Planning Board on December 13.2023, with a public hearing on January 10, 2024. The intent is to have full Council review the amendment in Q1 of 2024. HB 1337 has specific requirements for accessory dwelling units that must be met, but staff recommends, not only allowing for DADUs but also modernizing the existing ADU code in ECDC 20.21. The core obiectives are to: 1. Allow DADUs in the City of Edmonds. 2. Align with HB 1337 in terms of development standards. 3. Provide clear and objective guidance for those who choose to add ADUs or DADUs to their property. 4. Provide code standards for height, floor area, parking, utilities, etc. To provide additional context for this work, accessory dwelling unit guidance from the AARP is included as Attachment 3. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Engrossed House Bill 1337 Attachment 2 - Washington Department of Commerce Guidance Attachment 3 - AARP Best Practices Packet Pg. 69 6.A.a CERTIFICATION OF ENROLLMENT ENGROSSED HOUSE BILL 1337 Chapter 334, Laws of 2023 (partial veto) 68th Legislature 2023 Regular Session GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT —ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS —URBAN GROWTH AREAS EFFECTIVE DATE: July 23, 2023 Passed by the House April 14, 2023 Yeas 85 Nays 11 LAURIE JINKINS Speaker of the House of Representatives Passed by the Senate April 6, 2023 Yeas 39 Nays 7 DENNY HECK President of the Senate Approved May 8, 2023 1:13 PM with the exception of section 5, which is vetoed. JAY INSLEE Governor of the State of Washington CERTIFICATE I, Bernard Dean, Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives of the State of Washington, do hereby certify that the attached is ENGROSSED HOUSE BILL 1337 as passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate on the dates hereon set forth. BERNARD DEAN Chief Clerk FILED May 10, 2023 Secretary of State State of Washington Packet Pg. 70 6.A.a ENGROSSED HOUSE BILL 1337 AS AMENDED BY THE SENATE Passed Legislature - 2023 Regular Session State of Washington 68th Legislature 2023 Regular Session By Representatives Gregerson, Barkis, Berry, Christian, Duerr, Fitzgibbon, Taylor, Ramel, Reeves, Simmons, Walen, Graham, Bateman, Reed, Lekanoff, Doglio, Tharinger, Cortes, Macri, and Stonier Read first time 01/16/23. Referred to Committee on Housing. 1 AN ACT Relating to expanding housing options by easing barriers 2 to the construction and use of accessory dwelling units; amending RCW 3 36.70A.696, 43.21C.495, and 36.70A.280; adding new sections to 4 chapter 36.70A RCW; adding a new section to chapter 64.34 RCW; adding 5 a new section to chapter 64.32 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 6 64.38 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 64.90 RCW; creating a new 7 section; and repealing RCW 35.63.210, 35A.63.230, 36.70A.400, 8 36.70.677, and 43.63A.215. 9 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: 10 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. (1) The legislature makes the following 11 findings: E 12 (a) Washington state is experiencing a housing affordability r 13 crisis. Many communities across the state are in need of more housing a 14 for renters across the income spectrum. 15 (b) Many cities dedicate the majority of residentially zoned land 16 to single detached houses that are increasingly financially out of a 17 reach for many households. Due to their smaller size, accessory 18 dwelling units can provide a more affordable housing option in those 19 single-family zones. 20 (c) Localities can start to correct for historic economic and 21 racial exclusion in single-family zones by opening up these p . 1 EH packet Pg. 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 6.A.a neighborhoods to more diverse housing types, including accessory dwelling units, that provide lower cost homes. Increasing housing options in expensive, high -opportunity neighborhoods will give more families access to schools, parks, and other public amenities otherwise accessible to only the wealthy. (d) Accessory dwelling units are frequently rented below market rate, providing additional affordable housing options for renters. (e) Accessory dwelling units can also help to provide housing for very low-income households. More than 10 percent of accessory dwelling units in some areas are occupied by tenants who pay no rent i at all; among these tenants are grandparents, adult children, family members with disabilities, friends going through life transitions, .s and community members in need. Accessory dwelling units meet the = needs of these people who might otherwise require subsidized housing S space and resources. s (f) Accessory dwelling units can meet the needs of Washington's o c growing senior population, making it possible for this population to i age in their communities by offering senior -friendly housing, which z c prioritizes physical accessibility, in walkable communities near i amenities essential to successful aging in place, including transit and grocery stores, without requiring costly renovations of existing r housing stock. (g) Homeowners who add an accessory dwelling unit may benefit a c from added income and an increased sense of security. i (h) Accessory dwelling units provide environmental benefits. On z average they are more energy efficient than single detached houses, c and they incentivize adaptive reuse of existing homes and materials. i (i) Siting accessory dwelling units near transit hubs, employment u centers, and public amenities can help to reduce greenhouse gas s emissions by increasing walkability, shortening household commutes, ` E s and curtailing sprawl. (2) The legislature intends to promote and encourage the creation < w of accessory dwelling units as a means to address the need for additional affordable housing options. i Sec. 2. RCW 36.70A.696 and 2021 c 306 s 2 are each amended to read as follows: The definitions in this section apply throughout RCW 36.70A.697 (())L 36.70A.698, and sections 3 and 4 of this act unless the context clearly requires otherwise. p. 2 EH packet Pg. 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 6.A.a (1) "Accessory dwelling unit" means a dwelling unit located on the same lot as a single-family housing unit, duplex, triplex, townhome, or other housing unit. (2) "Attached accessory dwelling unit" means an accessory dwelling unit located within or attached to a single-family housing unit, duplex, triplex, townhome, or other housing unit. (3) "City" means any city, code city, and town located in a county planning under RCW 36.70A.040. (4) "County" means any county planning under RCW 36.70A.040. 0 E (5) "Detached accessory dwelling unit" means an accessory 0 dwelling unit that consists partly or entirely of a building that is U separate and detached from a single-family housing unit, duplex, triplex, townhome, or other housing unit and is on the same property. _ (6) "Dwelling unit" means a residential living unit that provides 3 complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and that includes permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, v°, cooking, and sanitation. (7) "Gross floor area" means the interior habitable area of a a dwelling unit including basements and attics but not including m garage or accessory structure. o "Major transit stop" means: (a) A stop on a high capacity transportation system funded or M expanded under the provisions of chapter 81.104 RCW; m (b) Commuter rail stops; m (c) Stops on rail or fixed guideway systems, including 0 = transitways; y (d) Stops on bus rapid transit routes or routes that run on high occupancy vehicle lanes; or w (e) Stops for a bus or other transit mode providing actual fixed route service at intervals of at least fifteen minutes for at least E five hours during the peak hours of operation on weekdays. s r ( (+8+) ) 9) "Owner" means any person who has at least 50 percent a ownership in a property on which an accessory dwelling unit is s located. ((+9+)) (10) "Principal unit" means the single-family housing a unit, duplex, triplex, townhome, or other housing unit located on the same lot as an accessory dwelling unit. (11) "Short-term rental" means a lodging use, that is not a hotel or motel or bed and breakfast, in which a dwelling unit, or portion p . 3 EH Packet Pg. 73 6.A.a 1 thereof, is offered or provided to a guest by a short-term rental 2 operator for a fee for fewer than 30 consecutive nights. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 36.70A RCW to read as follows: (1)(a) Cities and counties planning under this chapter must adopt or amend by ordinance, and incorporate into their development regulations, zoning regulations, and other official controls the requirements of this section and of section 4 of this act, to take effect six months after the jurisdiction's next periodic comprehensive plan update required under RCW 36.70A.130. (b) In any city or county that has not adopted or amended ordinances, regulations, or other official controls as required under this section, the requirements of this section and section 4 of this act supersede, preempt, and invalidate any conflicting local development regulations. (2) Ordinances, development regulations, and other official controls adopted or amended pursuant to this section and section 4 of this act must only apply in the portions of towns, cities, and counties that are within urban growth areas designated under this chapter. (3) Any action taken by a city or county to comply with the requirements of this section or section 4 of this act is not subject to legal challenge under this chapter or chapter 43.21C RCW. ( 4 ) Nothing in this section or section 4 of this act requires or authorizes a city or county to authorize the construction of an accessory dwelling unit in a location where development is restricted under other laws, rules, or ordinances as a result of physical proximity to on -site sewage system infrastructure, critical areas, or other unsuitable physical characteristics of a property. (5) Nothing in this section or in section 4 of this act prohibits a city or county from: (a) Restricting the use of accessory dwelling units for short- term rentals; (b) Applying public health, safety, building code, and environmental permitting requirements to an accessory dwelling unit that would be applicable to the principal unit, including regulations to protect ground and surface waters from on -site wastewater; (c) Applying generally applicable development regulations to the construction of an accessory unit, except when the application of p . 4 EH packet Pg. 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 6.A.a such regulations would be contrary to this section or to section 4 of this act; (d) Prohibiting the construction of accessory dwelling units on lots that are not connected to or served by public sewers; or (e) Prohibiting or restricting the construction of accessory dwelling units in residential zones with a density of one dwelling unit per acre or less that are within areas designated as wetlands, m fish and wildlife habitats, flood plains, or geologically hazardous m areas. E NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. A new section is added to chapter 36.70A RCW to read as follows: (1) In addition to ordinances, development regulations, and other official controls adopted or amended to comply with this section and section 3 of this act, a city or county must comply with all of the following policies: (a) The city or county may not assess impact fees on the construction of accessory dwelling units that are greater than 50 percent of the impact fees that would be imposed on the principal unit; (b) The city or county may not require the owner of a lot on which there is an accessory dwelling unit to reside in or occupy the accessory dwelling unit or another housing unit on the same lot; (c) The city or county must allow at least two accessory dwelling units on all lots that are located in all zoning districts within an urban growth area that allow for single-family homes in the following configurations: (i) One attached accessory dwelling unit and one detached accessory dwelling unit; (ii) Two attached accessory dwelling units; or (iii) Two detached accessory dwelling units, which may be comprised of either one or two detached structures; (d) The city or county must permit accessory dwelling units in structures detached from the principal unit; (e) The city or county must allow an accessory dwelling unit on any lot that meets the minimum lot size required for the principal unit; (f) The city or county may not establish a maximum gross floor area requirement for accessory dwelling units that is less than 1,000 square feet; p. 5 EH packet Pg. 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 6.A.a (g) The city or county may not establish roof height limits on an accessory dwelling unit of less than 24 feet, unless the height limitation that applies to the principal unit is less than 24 feet, in which case a city or county may not impose roof height limitation on accessory dwelling units that is less than the height limitation that applies to the principal unit; (h) A city or county may not impose setback requirements, yard m coverage limits, tree retention mandates, restrictions on entry door locations, aesthetic requirements, or requirements for design review E Q for accessory dwelling units that are more restrictive than those for 0 principal units; 0 c� (i) A city or county must allow detached accessory dwelling units to be sited at a lot line if the lot line abuts a public alley, _ unless the city or county routinely plows snow on the public alley; 3 (j) A city or county must allow accessory dwelling units to be converted from existing structures, including but not limited to r°n detached garages, even if they violate current code requirements for 0 setbacks or lot coverage; (k) A city or county may not prohibit the sale or other m CU conveyance of a condominium unit independently of a principal unit o solely on the grounds that the condominium unit was originally built as an accessory dwelling unit; and M (1) A city or county may not require public street improvements m as a condition of permitting accessory dwelling units. m (2)(a) A city or county subject to the requirements of this 0 = section may not: U) (i) Require off-street parking as a condition of permitting 0 development of accessory dwelling units within one-half mile walking w distance of a major transit stop; (ii) Require more than one off-street parking space per unit as a m E condition of permitting development of accessory dwelling units on M r lots smaller than 6,000 square feet before any zero lot line a subdivisions or lot splits; and m (iii) Require more than two off-street parking spaces per unit as M a condition of permitting development of accessory dwelling units on a lots greater than 6,000 square feet before any zero lot line subdivisions or lot splits. (b) The provisions of (a) of this subsection do not apply: (i) If a local government submits to the department an empirical study prepared by a credentialed transportation or land use planning p . 6 EH packet Pg. 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 6.A.a expert that clearly demonstrates, and the department finds and certifies, that the application of the parking limitations of (a) of this subsection for accessory dwelling units will be significantly less safe for vehicle drivers or passengers, pedestrians, or bicyclists than if the jurisdiction's parking requirements were applied to the same location for the same number of detached houses. The department must develop guidance to assist cities and counties on items to include in the study; or (ii) To portions of cities within a one mile radius of a E Q commercial airport in Washington with at least 9,000,000 annual 0 enplanements. U (3) When regulating accessory dwelling units, cities and counties may impose a limit of two accessory dwelling units, in addition to = the principal unit, on a residential lot of 2,000 square feet or 3 less. 0 (4) The provisions of this section do not apply to lots r°n designated with critical areas or their buffers as designated in RCW 0 36.70A.060, or to a watershed serving a reservoir for potable water if that watershed is or was listed, as of the effective date of this m section, as impaired or threatened under section 303(d) of the o federal clean water act (33 U.S.C. Sec. 1313(d)). *NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. A new section is added to chapter 36.70A RCW to read as follows: To encourage the use of accessory dwelling units for long-term housing, cities and counties may adopt ordinances, development regulations, and other official controls which waive or defer fees, including impact fees, defer the payment of taxes, or waive specific regulations. Cities and counties may only offer such reduced or deferred fees, deferred taxes, waivers, or other incentives for the development or construction of accessory dwelling units if: (1) The units are located within an urban growth area; and (2) The units are subject to a program adopted by the city or county with effective binding commitments or covenants that the units will be primarily utilized for long-term housing consistent with the public purpose for this authorization. *Sec. 5 was vetoed. See message at end of chapter. Sec. 6. RCW 43.21C.495 and 2022 c 246 s 3 are each amended to read as follows: p. 7 EH packet Pg. 77 6.A.a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Adoption of ordinances, development regulations and amendments to such regulations, and other nonproject actions taken by a city to implement: The actions specified in section 2, chapter 246, Laws of 2022 unless the adoption of such ordinances, development regulations and amendments to such regulations, or other nonproject actions has a probable significant adverse impact on fish habitat; and the increased residential building capacity actions identified in m RCW 36.70A.600(1), with the exception of the action specified in RCW 36.70A.600(1)(f), are not subject to administrative or judicial E Q appeals under this chapter. (2) Adoption of ordinances, development regulations and U amendments to such regulations, and other nonproject actions taken by a city or county consistent with the requirements of sections 3 and 4 = of this act are not subject to administrative or judicial appeals 3 under this chapter. Sec. 7. RCW 36.70A.280 and 2011 c 360 s 17 are each amended to read as follows: (1) The growth management hearings board shall hear and determine only those petitions alleging either: (a) That, except as provided otherwise by this subsection, a state agency, county, or city planning under this chapter is not in compliance with the requirements of this chapter, chapter 90.58 RCW as it relates to the adoption of shoreline master programs or amendments thereto, or chapter 43.21C RCW as it relates to plans, development regulations, or amendments, adopted under RCW 36.70A.040 or chapter 90.58 RCW. Nothing in this subsection authorizes the board to hear petitions alleging noncompliance (( i F,GW based on a city or county's actions taken to implement the requirements of sections 3 and 4 of this act within an urban growth area; (b) That the ((may—)) 20-year growth management planning population projections adopted by the office of financial management pursuant to RCW 43.62.035 should be adjusted; (c) That the approval of a work plan adopted under RCW 36.70A.735(1)(a) is not in compliance with the requirements of the program established under RCW 36.70A.710; (d) That regulations adopted under RCW 36.70A.735(1)(b) are not regionally applicable and cannot be adopted, wholly or partially, by another jurisdiction; or p. 8 EH packet Pg. 78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 6.A.a (e) That a department certification under RCW 36.70A.735(l)(c) is erroneous. (2) A petition may be filed only by: (a) The state, or a county or city that plans under this chapter; (b) a person who has participated orally or in writing before the county or city regarding the matter on which a review is being requested; (c) a person who is certified by the governor within ((may)) 60 days of filing the request with the board; or (d) a person qualified pursuant to RCW 34.05.530. (3) For purposes of this section "person" means any individual, i partnership, corporation, association, state agency, governmental subdivision or unit thereof, or public or private organization or .s entity of any character. i (4) To establish participation standing under subsection (2)(b) S of this section, a person must show that his or her participation s before the county or city was reasonably related to the person's o c issue as presented to the board. i (5) When considering a possible adjustment to a growth management ` z c planning population projection prepared by the office of financial i management, the board shall consider the implications of any such adjustment to the population forecast for the entire state. r The rationale for any adjustment that is adopted by the board must be documented and filed with the office of financial management a c within ten working days after adoption. i If adjusted by the board, a county growth management planning J z population projection shall only be used for the planning purposes c set forth in this chapter and shall be known as the "board adjusted population projection." None of these changes shall affect the u official state and county population forecasts prepared by the office s of financial management, which shall continue to be used for state E s budget and planning purposes. NEW SECTION. Sec. 8. A new section is added to chapter 36.70A C RCW to read as follows: s (1) By December 31, 2023, the department must revise its a recommendations for encouraging accessory dwelling units to include the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of this act. (2) During each comprehensive plan review required by RCW 36.70A.130, the department must review local government comprehensive plans and development regulations for compliance with sections 3 and p . 9 EH packet Pg. 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 6.A.a 4 of this act and the department's recommendations under subsection (1) of this section. NEW SECTION. Sec. 9. A new section is added to chapter 64.34 RCW to read as follows: (1) Except a declaration created to protect public health and safety, and ground and surface waters from on -site wastewater, a declaration created after the effective date of this section and applicable to a property located within an urban growth area may not impose any restriction or prohibition on the construction, development, or use on a lot of an accessory dwelling unit that the city or county in which the urban growth area is located would be prohibited from imposing under section 4 of this act. (2) For the purposes of this section, "urban growth area" has the same meaning as in RCW 36.70A.030. (3) A city or county issuing a permit for the construction of an accessory dwelling unit may not be held civilly liable on the basis that the construction of the accessory dwelling unit would violate a restrictive covenant or deed restriction. NEW SECTION. Sec. 10. A new section is added to chapter 64.32 RCW to read as follows: (1) Except a declaration created to protect public health and safety, and ground and surface waters from on -site wastewater, a declaration created after the effective date of this section and applicable to a property located within an urban growth area may not impose any restriction or prohibition on the construction, development, or use on a lot of an accessory dwelling unit that the city or county in which the urban growth area is located would be prohibited from imposing under section 4 of this act. (2) For the purposes of this section, "urban growth area" has the same meaning as in RCW 36.70A.030. (3) A city or county issuing a permit for the construction of an accessory dwelling unit may not be held civilly liable on the basis that the construction of the accessory dwelling unit would violate a restrictive covenant or deed restriction. NEW SECTION. Sec. 11. A new section is added to chapter 64.38 RCW to read as follows: P. 10 EH Packet Pg. 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 6.A.a (1) Except governing documents of associations created to protect public health and safety, and ground and surface waters from on -site wastewater, governing documents of associations created after the effective date of this section and applicable to a property located within an urban growth area may not impose any restriction or prohibition on the construction, development, or use on a lot of an accessory dwelling unit that the city or county in which the urban m growth area is located would be prohibited from imposing under section 4 of this act. E Q (2) For the purposes of this section, "urban growth area" has the 0 same meaning as in RCW 36.70A.030. U (3) A city or county issuing a permit for the construction of an accessory dwelling unit may not be held civilly liable on the basis = that the construction of the accessory dwelling unit would violate a 3 restrictive covenant or deed restriction. NEW SECTION. Sec. 12. A new section is added to chapter 64.90 RCW to read as follows: (1) Except declarations and governing documents of common interest communities created to protect public health and safety, and ground and surface waters from on -site wastewater, declarations and governing documents of common interest communities created after the effective date of this section and applicable to a property located within an urban growth area may not impose any restriction or prohibition on the construction, development, or use on a lot of an accessory dwelling unit that the city or county in which the urban growth area is located would be prohibited from imposing under section 4 of this act. (2) For the purposes of this section, "urban growth area" has the same meaning as in RCW 36.70A.030. (3) A city or county issuing a permit for the construction of an accessory dwelling unit may not be held civilly liable on the basis that the construction of the accessory dwelling unit would violate a restrictive covenant or deed restriction. NEW SECTION. Sec. each repealed: (1) RCW 35.63.210 (2) RCW 35A.63.230 (3) RCW 36.70A.400 13. The following acts or parts of acts are (Accessory apartments) (Accessory apartments) (Accessory apartments) and 1993 c 478 s 8; and 1993 c 478 s 9; and 1993 c 478 s 11; EH Packet Pg. 81 1 2 3 6.A.a (4) RCW 36.70.677 (Accessory apartments) and 1993 c 478 s 10; and (5) RCW 43.63A.215 (Accessory apartments —Development and placement —Local governments) and 1993 c 478 s 7. Passed by the House April 14, 2023. Passed by the Senate April 6, 2023. Approved by the Governor May 8, 2023, with the exception of certain items that were vetoed. Filed in Office of Secretary of State May 10, 2023. Note: Governor's explanation of partial veto is as follows: "I am returning herewith, without my approval as to Section 5, Engrossed House Bill No. 1337 entitled: "AN ACT Relating to expanding housing options by easing barriers to the construction and use of accessory dwelling units." Section 5 of the bill gives local governments authority to waive or defer fees, defer payment of taxes, or waive other regulations for the development of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) if specified conditions are met. The specified conditions are that the ADU must be located within an urban growth area, and the ADU must be subject to a locally adopted covenant program ensuring that the ADU will be primarily utilized for long-term housing. Current law allows local governments to waive fees, taxes, and to establish various incentives for the construction of ADUs without requiring the creation of a local covenant program. The administrative costs necessary to administer a new covenant program for ADUs may cause some cities to discontinue current incentive programs. For these reasons I have vetoed Section 5 of Engrossed House Bill No. 1337. With the exception of Section 5, Engrossed House Bill No. 1337 is approved." --- END --- p. 12 EH packet Pg. 82 We strengthen communities * 6' L1ul an el r Acce s sort Dwelling Units irj�'�'"` Washington State '�� GROWTH MANAGEMENT SERVICES v3.4 6.A.b Acknowledgments Washington State Department of Commerce Mike Fong, Director Mark Barkley, Local Government Division, Assistant Director Dave Andersen, Growth Management Services, AICP, Managing Director Editors Anne Aurelia Fritzel, AICP, Housing Programs Manager, Growth Management Services Catherine McCoy, Senior Planner, Growth Management Services Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington (MRSC) Contributors Steve Butler, FAICP, Planning & Policy Manager Ingrid de la Jara, Communications Manager Jill Dvorkin, Esq., Legal Consultant Helen Ippolito, Public Policy Intern Angela Mack, Graphic Designer Lisa Pool, AICP, Public Policy Consultant Oskar Rey, Esq., Legal Consultant Reviewers This publication was developed with support from the land use planners of Washington through Regional Planners' Forums; a panel at the 2022 Washington conference of the American Planning Association; Washington state agency review from the Department of Ecology, Department of Health, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Natural Resources; and through other engagement opportunities. Disclaimer This publication offers guidance for Washington local governments in implementing HB 1337 (laws of 2023) and encourages the creation of new accessory dwelling units (ADUs). It does not constitute legal advice, and is not a substitute for the legal advice of an attorney. Users of this publication should contact their own legal counsel regarding their legal rights or any other legal issue. Also, many of the examples are from current municipal codes which may not yet be consistent with the provisions of HB 1337. Contact For additional information on the GMA housing programs, please visit the GMS Planning for Housing Webpage or contact Anne Fritzel, Housing Programs Manager: Anne. Fritzel@a commerce.wa.gov or 360-259-5216 1011 Plum St. SE P.O. Box 42525 Olympia, WA 98504-2525 www.commerce.wa.gov For people with disabilities, this report is available on request in other formats. To submit a request, please call 360-725-4000 (TTY 360-586-0772) GUIDANCE FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN WASHINGTON STATE, AUGUST 2023 Packet Pg. 84 6.A.b Table of Contents Introduction................................................................................................................................................ 4 Definitions................................................................................................................................................... 5 Legal History of ADU Policy in Washington State.......................................................................................... 6 Requirements for cities and urban growth areas........................................................................................... 8 1. Allow two ADUs per lot......................................................................................................................................... 8 2. Do not require owner occupancy .............................................. 3. Allow separate sale of ADUs..................................................... 4. Set off-street parking requirements consistent with HB 1337 5. Set maximum size limits at no less than 1,000 SF .................. 6. Reduce setbacks for ADUs (especially rear setbacks)............ 7. Limit use of design standards ................................................... 8. Allow ADUs of at least 24 feet in height ................................... 9. Reduce impact fees................................................................... 10. Other Fees and Exactions........................................................ 12 Recommendations for cities and other urban areas.....................................................................................22 1. Allow prefabricated units....................................................................................................................................22 2. Streamline ADU permitting processes............................................................................................................... 23 3. Offer incentives to encourage ADUs that are affordable to lower -income households ................................ 24 Key considerations for counties..................................................................................................................25 1. Unincorporated UGAs and LAMIRDs.................................................................................................................25 2. Rural and natural resource lands....................................................................................................................... 25 Other programmatic elements to consider..................................................................................................27 1. Address the use of ADUs as short-term rentals................................................................................................ 27 2. Provide user-friendly communication materials...............................................................................................28 3. Provide information on landlord -tenant laws for prospective ADU owners and ADU tenants ...................... 29 4. Provide information on ADU financing and funding programs........................................................................29 5. Create a program to encourage legalization of unpermitted ADUs................................................................ 30 6. Provide pre -approved ADU plans....................................................................................................................... 30 Appendix A: Additional examples and resources.........................................................................................31 Appendix B. Relevant GMHB cases for counties..........................................................................................35 Appendix C. Resources for programmatic elements....................................................................................36 Appendix D: Other ADU information and resources......................................................................................38 REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS SEPTEMBER 2023 Packet Pg. 85 6.A.b Introduction Allowing more accessory dwelling units (ADUs) encourages housing construction and increases the overall supply and variety of housing options, helping address the challenges posed statewide by insufficient housing HB 1337, passed in 2023, requires jurisdictions to allow two ADUs per lot within urban growth areas (UGAs) by six months after the next periodic update due date. The Washington State Department of Commerce (Commerce) presents this publication as an update to the agency's 1994 guidance to assist local governments in implementing this requirement. The objective is to provide information on the requirements, local policy choices, and examples of approaches for consideration by cities, towns, and counties, in accordance with the bill. This guidance is structured into the following sections: • Requirements for cities and other urban areas. • Recommendations for cities and other urban areas. • Key considerations for counties (rural and resource lands). • Other programmatic elements to consider. This document provides detail on the state law and local policy choices. Please note that throughout this document quoted state laws are bolded. Benefits of ADUs Construction of new ADUs has many benefits, including to: • Add to the diversity of housing options. • Provide a housing type that blends in well with existing low density residential neighborhoods. • Cater to our state's changing demographics, including more seniors and smaller household sizes. • Provide housing that is typically more affordable than traditional detached single-family homes. • Add housing units without expanding urban growth areas. • Correct historic economic and racial exclusion by opening up single-family neighborhoods to more diverse housing and household types. • Reduce climate impacts because ADUs tend to be smaller and use less energy than traditional single- family homes. • Use existing infrastructure such as sewer, water and streets. For these reasons, ADUs can be an effective and "gentle" way of helping to accommodate the state's growing population. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS SEPTEMBER 2023 Packet Pg. 86 6.A.b Definitions Local governments should review their development regulation definitions to ensure consistency with RCW 36.70A.696, as amended. This will help facilitate consistent implementation of these requirements and reduce the need for interpretation due to missing or outdated definitions. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) A dwelling unit located on the same lot as a single- family housing unit, duplex, triplex, townhome or other housing unit. Attached ADU An ADU located within or attached to a single-family housing unit, duplex, triplex, townhome, or other housing unit. Detached ADU An ADU that consists partly or entirely of a building that is separate and detached from a single-family housing unit, duplex, triplex, townhome or other housing unit and is on the same property. Dwelling Unit A residential living unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and that includes permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation. Exaffq is of Accesmy Dwelling Unds (ADUs) AOUa n OOt mr�� traidm m in OW AVA~ AV (rso 1 , A.artwd AM (m ssftw► A a d" AW J r•r ~ o►40aw - . REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS SEPTEMBER 2023 Packet Pg. 87 6.A.b Basement attached ADU example, with attached ADU entrance on the side of the structure. Credit: Steve Butler. Legal History of ADU Policy in Washington State As required by the 1993 Washington Housing Policy Act, Commerce made recommendations to encourage development and placement of ADUs, published in 1994 as the Model ADU Ordinance Recommendations. The Act required cities of over 20,000 population and counties of over 125,000 population, planning under the Growth Management Act to incorporate the Commerce recommendations into their zoning and development regulations. To allow local flexibility, the recommendations were subject to local regulations, conditions, procedures, and limitations. In 2019, the state Legislature found that Washington State had a housing affordability crisis and sought to promote and encourage the creation of ADUs. Commerce offered a grant program' to encourage cities to adopt regulations to increase housing supply, including to: (1) authorize ADUs in one or more zoning district in which they are currently prohibited; (2) remove minimum parking requirements; (3) remove owner occupancy requirements; (4) adopt new square footage requirements that are less restrictive than existing requirements; and (5) develop a local program that offers homeowners a combination of financing, design, permitting or construction support to build ADUs.2 In 2020, the legislature adopted restrictions on how much off-street parking local governments could require for ADUs near transit stops. As a result, cities that fully plan under the GMA could not require off-street parking for ADUs within a quarter mile of a major transit stop, with certain limited exceptions.' In 2021, the legislature amended RCW 36.70A.070(2)4 to require all cities and counties that fully plan under the GMA to "consider the role of accessory dwelling units in meeting housing needs." In addition, Section 7 of the bill stated that cities and counties "should consider" certain policies to encourage the construction of ADUs. Governor Jay Inslee vetoed this section because it did not specifically limit the policies to lands within urban This is codified in RCW 36.70A.600. 2 RCW 36.70A.600(1)(n), (o), (p), (q) and (x), passed in 2019, and updated in 2020 to this current list of options. 3 RCW 36.70A.698 4 See HB 1220. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS SEPTEMBER 2023 Packet Pg. 88 6.A.b growth areas. The Governor's veto illustrates a fundamental point: While there is little doubt that local governments should encourage ADUs in cities and UGAs, very different considerations come into play with respect to county rural and resource lands. In 2023, HB 1337 amended RCW 36.70A to add significant changes to local government roles for regulating ADUs. Within urban growth areas, cities and counties: • Must allow two ADUs per residential lot. They may be attached, detached, or a combination of both, or may be conversions of existing structures. • May not require the owner to occupy the property, and may not prohibit sale as independent units. • May not charge more than 50% of impact fees charged for the principal unit. • Must allow an ADU of at least 1,000 square feet and must adjust zoning to be consistent with the bill for things such as height, setbacks, and other regulations. • Must set consistent parking requirements based on distance from transit and lot size. If a city or county does not amend its rules to be consistent with the law, the statute will "supersede, preempt and invalidate any conflicting local development regulations."' Other new provisions in HB 1337 • Actions taken by a city or county to comply with new requirements are exempt from legal challenge under GMA or SEPA.6 • Cities and counties are not required to authorize the construction of an ADU where development is restricted under rules as a result of physical proximity to on -site sewage system infrastructure, critical areas, or other unsuitable physical characteristics of a property.' • Cities and counties may restrict the use of ADUs for short term rentals.$ • Cities and counties may apply public health, safety, building code, and environmental permitting requirements to an ADU that would be applicable to the principal unit, including regulations to protect ground and surface waters from on -site wastewater.9 • ADUs are not required to be allowed on lots with critical areas, or around SeaTac airport.10 • Local governments are protected from civil liability if they issue a permit for an ADU on a lot with a covenant or deed restricting ADUs.11 5 RCW 36.70A.680(1)(b), RCW 36.70A.697(2) 6 RCW 36.70A.680(3) RCW 36.70A.680(4) 8 RCW 36.70A.680(5) 9 RCW 36.70A.680(5) 10 RCW 36.70A.681(2) and (4) 11 RCW 64.34.120(3) REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS SEPTEMBER 2023 Packet Pg. 89 6.A.b Detached ADU/"Carriage House" in Portland. Credit: Radcliffe Dacannay, Radworld (Creative Commons). Requirements for cities and urban growth areas 1. Allow two ADUs per lot Allowing ADUs in residential neighborhoods creates additional housing options and gives homeowners greater flexibility by providing rental income or a place for they or their family members to age in place. State law Within urban growth areas, cities and counties must allow two ADUs on all lots in zoning districts that allow for single-family homes.12 The ADUs may be: • Two attached ADUs such as unit in a basement, attic, or garage; • One attached ADU and one detached ADU; or • Two detached ADUs, which may be comprised of either one or two detached structures. • A conversion of an existing structure, such as a detached garage.13 When lots are small Cities and counties must allow an ADU on any lot that meets the minimum lot size required for the principal unit.14 Minimum lot sizes set the base lot size for development as part of a subdivision process. To support more ADU development, local governments should reduce or eliminate minimum lot size requirements for 12 RCW 36.70A.681(1)(c) 13 RCW 36.70A.681(1)(i) 14 RCW 36.70A.681(1)(e) states that an ADU must be allowed if the lot meets minimum size for the principal unit. RCW 36.70A.681(3) states that cities and counties may set a limit of two ADUs, on a residential lot of 2,000 square feet or less. However, if two ADUs are allowed on lots that meet the minimum lot size, 2,000 SF is not generally going to be a standard lot size and may not have space for even one ADU. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS SEPTEMBER 2023 Packet Pg. 90 6.A.b ADUs with existing development and allow ADUs on all lots. Where lots are smaller than the minimum allowed by the zone, cities may choose to rely on the capacity of the lot, sewer, septic, parking, and landscaping or other regulations to set the limits on one or two ADUs. Examples • Enumclaw Municipal Code Sec. 19.34.050: Allows ADUs on lots of any size. • Kenmore Municipal Code Sec. 18.73.100: Does not require a minimum lot size for ADUs. • Renton Municipal Code Sec. 4-2-110C: Permits ADUs on lots 3,000 square feet or less. Restricted development locations Cities and counties are not authorized to allow construction of ADUs in locations where development is restricted under other laws, rules, or ordinances due to physical proximity to on -site sewage system infrastructure, critical areas or other unsuitable physical characteristics of a property.15 This includes critical areas protection standards, such as buffers and setbacks, as well as associated environmental permitting review and process requirements. In short, cities and counties should apply the same public health, safety, building code and environmental permitting requirements to an ADU that would be applicable to the principal unit, including regulations to protect ground and surface waters from on -site wastewater. The provisions of HB 1337 provide no authority to override local ordinances that address public health and safely. Cities and counties may restrict ADU development: • Within areas designated as critical areas (see below). • In shoreline areas so designated under a shoreline master program (see below). • On lots in a watershed serving a reservoir for potable water if that watershed is or was listed, as of July 1, 2023, as impaired or threatened under Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Sec. 1313(d)).16 • In zones with a density of one dwelling unit per acre or less that are in critical areas, designated as wetlands, fish and wildlife habitats, flood plains, or geologically hazardous areas." Generally any zones with such low densities within UGAs are so designated to protect the critical area, so adding additional development in the form of an ADU is not consistent with this exception. • Within a mile radius of SeaTac airport." For areas without sewer • Cities/counties may prohibit ADUs on properties not served by sewers. • Septic and related wastewater rules to protect water -quality located in local health codes and 246-272A and -272B WAC continue to apply to on -site systems for ADUs. • The Department of Health expects attached ADUs to be more likely to be connected to the same septic system as the primary single family residence since they are easier to build compliant with Department of Health rules. The septic system needs to be designed to accommodate this additional wastewater flow. • Detached ADUs could, depending on local rules, be served by a separate septic system. The requirements, including horizontal setback and maximum density requirements of the rule(s) would apply. 15 https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Shoreline-coastal-management/Shoreline-coastal-planning/Shoreline-planners-toolbox 16 RCW 36.70A.681(4) 17 RCW 36.70A.680(5) 18 RCW 36.70A.681(2) REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS SEPTEMBER 2023 Packet Pg. 91 6.A.b In areas where sewers are likely to be built in the future, plan reviewers may want to take measures to accommodate the eventual conversion from septic systems to sewer. Critical areas Cities and counties shall limit ADU development as necessary to meet critical areas protection standards. All ADU development must be reviewed for consistency with critical area protection ordinance provisions, and shall only be allowed when consistent. Critical areas include: Wetlands, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas provide critical ecological functions. They are protected for their intrinsic values and no additional development is appropriate. Internal conversions of existing space to an ADU may be permissible, provided all other protections are observed. Floodplains and geologically hazardous areas are identified as hazard areas that may pose dangers to life safety and property. Most local jurisdictions allow some development in floodplains and geologically hazardous areas. However, the development must go through a detailed review process that provides analysis of the site -specific conditions and the proposed development, supported by reports from certified experts such as geologists and engineers. Critical aquifer recharge areas (CARAs), which are important to allow groundwater to recharge aquifers used for drinking water. In these areas, regulations generally protect against hazardous uses and ensure impervious surfaces do not restrict groundwater recharge. ADU development over CARAs may be allowed if it can be demonstrated they will not impact potable water. While ADUs shall be allowed in residential neighborhoods within the UGA, in geohazard and wetland areas they must be designed and located to avoid critical area impacts consistent with the mitigation sequence,19 which includes to: • Avoid the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. • Minimize impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps to avoid or reduce impacts. • Rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the affected environment. • Reduce or eliminate the impact over time through preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. • Compensate for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments. • Monitor the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. Reasonable use exceptions Detached ADUs are not necessary for reasonable residential use within critical areas and should not be allowed within critical areas or their buffers under reasonable use exceptions. It may be possible to convert space within existing homes to create an ADU if no new exterior construction, expansion of the footprint or additional impervious surface is added. 19 https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Wetlands/Mitigation/Avoidance-and-minimization REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS SEPTEMBER 2023 Packet Pg. 92 6.A.b ADUs in shorelines under a shoreline master program Shorelines and shorelands are governed under the city, town, or county's Shoreline Master Program (SMP). Although residential uses are allowed in many shoreline environment designations (SEDs), ADUs may not be appropriate in all SEDs. The ADU requirements outlined in HB 1337 are intended to apply within the UGA governed under the Growth Management Act and are not automatically applicable within the shoreline jurisdiction governed under the Shoreline Management Act (SMA). Local governments should plan for ADUs located within shoreline jurisdiction during a periodic review of their SMP20. Review and update of an SMP is required every ten years but can be initiated by a local government outside of the required schedule. Chapter 90.58 RCW, Chapter 173-26 WAC, and Ecology approved local shoreline master programs restrict development under SMA goals, policies, purpose and intent. Within shoreline jurisdiction, zoning code provisions can be applied, but they must be reviewed in addition to the bulk, dimensional, performance, and use standards of the SMP, and all new development and uses, including ADUs, can only be authorized through the shoreline permitting system outlined in Chapter 173-27 WAC. If allowed, ADUs within shoreline jurisdiction shoul be outside of buffers and setbacks. Credit: Ecology Each SMP contains residential use regulations and development standards which ensure that allowed uses and development remain compatible with the shoreline environment and SMP and allow no net loss of shoreline ecological function. If allowed under the SMP provisions, ADUs would still need to be located outside of all shoreline buffers and setbacks and would need to meet other SMP critical area, density, impervious surface, and vegetation conservation provisions. ADUs are not necessary for reasonable residential use within shoreline jurisdictions and should not be included as project components in shoreline variance permit applications. Local governments wanting to address ADUs under the authorities of their SMP should consult Washington State Department of Ecology guidance2I and work closely with their Ecology shoreline planner.22 Examples • Black Diamond Municipal Code Sec. 18.56.030 - Allows two ADUs in conjunction with the primary unit provided adequate provisions for water and sewer are met. • Langley Municipal Code Sec. 18.08.095 - Allows one attached and one detached ADU on a lot with a single-family dwelling connected to sewer. • Burien Municipal Code Sec. 19.17.070 - Permits a maximum of two ADUs (one attached and one detached) per detached house. 20 The timetable for local governments to develop or amend master programs is required by RCW 90.58.080, 21 https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Shoreline-coastal-management/Shoreline-coastal-planning/Contacts 22 https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Shoreline-coastal-management/Shoreline-coastal-planning/Shoreline-planners-toolbox REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS 11 SEPTEMBER 2023 Packet Pg. 93 6.A.b 2. Do not require owner occupancy Owner occupancy standards have typically required that a property owner live in either the primary residence or the ADU, however that may limit the ability of the owner to develop or rent and ADU. State law Within UGAs, cities and counties may not require the owner of a lot on which there is an ADU to reside in or occupy the ADU or another housing unit on the same lot.23 RCW 36.70A.696(9) defines owner as any person who has at least 50% ownership in a property on which an ADU is located. Local policy choice When a unit is used as a short-term rental (STR), a local government may choose to require an owner to occupy either the primary or an accessory unit. (See the section on short-term rentals.)24 Examples • Bremerton Accessory Dwelling Units • Kirkland Accessory Dwelling Units Seattle Accessory Dwelling Units • Vancouver Accessory Dwelling Units 3. Allow separate sale of ADUs Because they are smaller and generally more affordable than most typical single-family homes, sales of ADUs as separate units can increase homeownership opportunities for first-time homebuyers and low-income households. State law A city or county may not prohibit the sale or other conveyance of a condominium unit independently of a principal unit solely on the grounds that the condominium unit was originally built as an accessory dwelling unit.25 Washington's Condominium Act, which provides for the creation of condominiums, does not preclude ADUs from being created as a part of a condominium development. Here, the unit is individually owned and the remainder of the property is under common ownership. Local governments wanting to regulate how ADUs are converted to a condominium form of ownership should work closely with their legal counsel in reviewing RCW 64.90.025 and other related laws.26 Zero lot line subdivisions and lot splits are mentioned in Section 4(2) of HB 1337, however, there is currently no authorization for lot splits in Washington, creating true independent units for ADUs. SB 5258 amends RCW 58.17.060 to require all cities and towns to adopt procedures for unit lot subdivisions to allow division of a parent lot into separately owned unit lots, or owned in common by the owners of the lots. However, this is better used for developments such as townhouses. Examples • Seattle Annual ADU Report 2022 — Addresses ADUs sold as condominiums, highlights the benefits of ADUs as condominiums and the increase in ADUs as condominiums in Seattle since 2018. 23 RCW 36.70A.681(1)(b) 24 RCW 36.70A.680(5)(a) 25 RCW 36.70A.681(1)(k) 26 See additional information on ADUs and condo's at ADUs and Condos: Separating Ownership I Accessory Dwellings REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS SEPTEMBER 2023 Packet Pg. 94 6.A.b • City of Snohomish Unit Lot Subdivision - the city provides a handout with criteria and the process for unit lot subdivision. Bellevue unit lot subdivision Web page for townhouses. 4. Set off-street parking requirements consistent with HB 1337 Many lots in established areas aren't large enough to support both an ADU and off-street parking, effectively prohibiting ADU development. This means that ADUs are often limited to larger lots that can accommodate parking and other site features. Removing off-street parking requirements for ADUs can help to open up possibilities for placing ADUs, especially in urban areas with transportation options. State law Parking limits for ADUs are subject to the following: Off street parking may not be required as a condition of permitting ADUs within one half mile of a major transit stop.27_21 On lots smaller than 6,000 square feet, no more than one off-street parking space may be required per ADU before any zero lot line subdivisions or lot splits.29 On lots greater than 6,000 square feet, no more than two off-street parking spaces per ADU may be required before any zero lot line subdivisions or lot splits. Local policy choice While on -site parking cannot be required within a half mile of a major transit stop, a city may not want to require on -site parking in other types of walkable areas or where on -street parking is sufficient. Cities may also choose to reduce parking requirements from the maximum limits in statute. Because ADUs typically are for one or two people, no more than one parking space may be needed for any lot size, especially in areas with on - street parking. A parking study Cities may choose to require more parking if Commerce concurs with a locally -conducted empirical study prepared by a credentialed transportation or land use planning professional that clearly demonstrates that parking consistent with the law would be significantly less safe for pedestrians, bicyclists, or people in vehicles than if the jurisdiction's parking requirements were applied to the same location for the same number of detached houses.30 Commerce is required to develop guidance on the contents of the study by the end of 2023. Related to the issue of off-street parking requirements are garage conversions for ADUs. This type of ADU may be more affordable since the changes are primarily internal to an existing structure, and they're popular with retirees who want to age in place because they generally have "no -step entries." Because HB 1337 requires cities to allow garage conversions, and to reduce parking requirements, Commerce recommends that cities allow any replacement parking for the primary residence and ADU to be on driveways or on the street if 27 Under-RCW 36.70A.681(2), off-street parking for ADUs is prohibited within 1 /2 mile of a major transit stop. 28 Major transit stop is defined in RCW 36.70A.696. 29 This part of statute references zero lot line subdivisions, however, for the purposes of this guidance, this means the ADU is not subject to primary unit parking requirements, even if subdivided from the primary unit. 30 RCW 36.70A.681(2). REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS SEPTEMBER 2023 Packet Pg. 95 6.A.b possible. Low impact development pervious pavement options may be an offset tool to address additional parking, while also reducing overall site impervious surface area. Examples • Fircrest Municipal Code Sec. 22.58.012 - Doesn't require additional off-street parking for ADUs unless the planning director determines there is insufficient on -street parking to satisfy parking demand. • Kenmore Municipal Code Sec. 18.73.100 - No additional off-street parking spaces are required for an ADU. • Sumner Municipal Code Sec. 18.12.030 - ADUs created via garage conversion are not required to have off- street parking, as long as there is available on -street parking and the unit is located within half a mile of the Sumner transit station. • Kirkland Municipal Code Sec. 115.07 - Doesn't require off-street parking for one ADU. On lots with more than one ADU, one space is required, with exceptions (available street parking within 600 feet or property is located within 1 /2 mile of frequent transit). Smith Gillman Cottage converted garage. Credit: CAST architecture. 5. Set maximum size limits at no less than 1,000 SF Local governments typically enact maximum size limits for buildings to ensure there is enough space on a lot for site features like parking and green space. However, maximum size limits that are too restrictive pose design and use limitations. ADU size limits are typically smaller in urban infill areas than they are for larger greenfield sites. Some cities and other urban areas set a single maximum that is based on square footage, while others couple this standard with a percentage of the primary residence. State law ADU size limits must allow a gross floor areas of at least 1,000 square feet within UGAs.31 New amendments to RCW 36.70A.969 define "gross floor area" as the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit including basements and attics but not including a garage or accessory structure. 31 RCW 36.70A.681(1)(f) REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS SEPTEMBER 2023 Packet Pg. 96 6.A.b Examples • Chelan Municipal Code Sec. 17.20.20 - Limits ADUs in its single-family residential district to 1,200 square feet or no more than 5O% of the total square footage of the primary residence, whichever is less. The planning director may approve an increased size to efficiently use all floor area if all other standards are met. • Kenmore Municipal Code Ch. 18.73 - Attached ADUs are limited to 1,000 square feet unless the ADU is proposed for preexisting floor area on a single level of the primary unit. For detached ADUs, maximums are based on lot size. 6. Reduce setbacks for ADUs (especially rear setbacks) State law A city or county may not impose setback requirements, yard coverage limits, tree retention mandates, restrictions on entry door locations, aesthetic requirements, or requirements for design review for ADUs that are more restrictive than those for principal units." A city or county must allow detached ADUs to be sited at a lot line if the lot line abuts a public alley, unless the city or county routinely plows snow on the public alley.33 Setback requirements, which establish the minimum distance from front, side, or rear lot lines, create space between a building and adjacent uses. Some codes establish setbacks for ADUs that mirror those of the principal unit, thereby limiting space for ADUs, especially detached ADUs on small lots. Many urban communities have begun requiring separate, less restrictive setbacks specifically for ADUs. For example, some cities and other urban areas reduce or waive setbacks for detached ADUs alongside and rear lot lines, and alleys. 32 RCW 36.70A.681(1)(h). 33 RCW 36.70A.681(1)(i). REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS SEPTEMBER 2023 Packet Pg. 97 6.A.b Detached ADU over a garage with relaxed rear setback. Credit: Steve Butler. Examples • Bellingham Municipal Code Sec. 20.01.036 — Exempts detached ADUs from side and rear yard setbacks when abutting an alley. • LaCenter Municipal Code Ch. 18.247 — Allows detached ADUs at the rear yard lot line if adjacent to an alley. Zoning codes should clearly describe ADU standards, which should be at most the same as those for the primary unit. When ADUs are added on a lot, they should fit on the lot, and be consistent with yard coverage limits and tree retention provisions. Stormwater low impact development features such as rain gardens and other bioretention options can be used to define setback areas for an ADU and principal lot, and should be features to support additional units, rather than be barriers. 34 7. Limit use of design standards Design standards often involve ensuring ADUs are compatible with the primary residence through features such as architectural style, window placement, roof form and pitch, and building materials. ADU design standards, however, can have the unanticipated impact of increasing project costs by lengthening the time needed for local ADU project review. ADUs can complement, but need not be exactly the same as the principal unit. Design standards must be clear and objective, should be no more prescriptive than those for single-family 34 Commerce's guidebook: Incentivizing Low Impact Development (LID) Beyond Permit Requirements includes tools and outreach materials that local governments can utilize to encourage developers to go beyond existing stormwater requirements and help reduce site impervious areas. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS SEPTEMBER 2023 Packet Pg. 98 6.A.b homes, and may not result in a reduction in density, height, bulk, or scale below the requirements of the underlying zone.as State law on design standards A city or county may not impose setback requirements, yard coverage limits, tree retention mandates, restrictions on entry door locations, aesthetic requirements, or requirements for design review for ADUs that are more restrictive than those for principal units." Local governments should minimize the use of ADU design standards. In some cases, standards may be used to address privacy, for example making sure that the ADU's windows are located to preserve privacy between the ADU and neighboring properties or private open space. HB 1293 (laws of 2023) adds to RCW 36.70A and amends RCW 36.7OB to streamline local design review processes, requiring "clear and objective" standards that don't reduce development capacity otherwise allowed. Any design review process must be conducted concurrently, or otherwise be logically integrated, with the consolidated review and decision process for project permits set forth in RCW 36.7013.120(3). No design review process may include more than one public meeting. A county or city must comply with these requirements beginning six months after its next periodic update required under RCW 36.70A.130. The provisions do not apply to regulations specific to designated landmarks or historic districts established under a local preservation ordinance Examples • Ellensburg Municipal Code Sec. 15.540.040 - Does not require ADUs to match the appearance of the primary structure. • Sedro Woolley Municipal Code Sec. 17.100.030 - Allows the planning director to approve interesting detached ADU designs that are dissimilar from the primary structure. • Lacey Municipal Code Sec. 14.23.071 - Has minimal design criteria for attached and detached ADUs, though duplex -like designs are not allowed. 35 RCW 36.70A.630(2). Design review guidelines must provide only clear and objective requirements, such that an applicant can ascertain whether a particular building design is permissible. 36 RCW 36.70A.681(1)(h). REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS SEPTEMBER 2023 Packet Pg. 99 6.A.b ADU in the Wedgewood neighborhood of Seattle. Credit: Pam MacRae, Siahtline Institute. Used with permission. 8. Allow ADUs of at least 24 feet in height State law The city or county may not establish roof height limits on an ADU of less than 24 feet, unless the height limitation on the principal unit is less than 24 feet, in which case, a city or county may not impose roof height limitation ADUs is less than the height limit that applies to the principal unit.37 Cities and other urban areas typically set building height limits to address issues like views and privacy; however, they also limit design options and use land less efficiently. Some communities set one height limit for both the principal unit and ADUs, while others have a separate maximum for ADUs. Examples • Kenmore Municipal Code Sec. 18.73.100 - Allows ADUs up to 35 feet. 37 RCW 36.70A.681(1 XW. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS SEPTEMBER 2023 Packet Pg. 100 6.A.b Spokane Municipal Code Sec. 17C.300.130 - Has height limits that are more nuanced and relate to the proximity of an ADU to a property line. Larger, taller detached AD — 1130 SF. Credit: Eddie Bojorquez/Crest Backyard Homes. 9. Reduce impact fees Impact fees Impact fees are one-time charges assessed by a local government against a new development project to help pay for new or expanded public capital facilities that will directly address the increased demand for services created by that development. RCW 82.02.050 authorizes counties, cities, and towns planning under the Growth Management Act (GMA) to impose impact fees for: • Public streets and roads; • Publicly owned parks, open space, and recreation facilities; • School facilities; and • Fire protection facilities. Because ADUs are generally smaller than standard single family homes, they typically have fewer people living in them, and likely cause fewer impacts. State law The city or county may not assess impact fees on the construction of accessory dwelling units that are greater than 50 percent of the impact fees that would be imposed on the principal unit.38 38 RCW 36.70A.681(1)(al and SIB 5258 (section 10, laws of 2023) amends RCW 82.02.060 to require local governments to publish a schedule of impact fees which reflects the proportionate impact of new housing units. This includes multifamily and condo units, based on square footage, number of bedrooms or trips generated, to produce a proportionally lower impact fee for smaller housing units. Local governments must adopt this schedule within six months after the periodic update due date. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS SEPTEMBER 2023 Packet Pg. 101 6.A.b Local policy choice Local governments may charge according to the size of the unit, fixture count, or location with the community, or completely waive fees, but in no case should the fees be more than 50% of what would be charged to the principal unit. Examples • Everett 2023 Impact Fees Schedule — Waives transportation and school impact fees for ADUs. • Olympia Municipal Code Ch. 15.08 — Waives school impact fees and reduces transportation and park impact fees for ADUs. • Renton 2019-2020 Fee Schedule (Section XII) — Provides impact fee reductions and waivers for ADUs • Lake Stevens Municipal Code Sec. 9.25.010 — Reduces utilities connection fees for ADUs based on ADU size. Utility connection fees/system development charges System development charges, or connection fees may be charged for area -wide improvements for water, sewer or stormwater. Like impact fees, communities may charge according to the unit's impact on the system. A fundamental feature of ADUs is that the ADU is "accessory to" a primary residential unit. As a result, the ADU will be smaller, typically have fewer people living in it, and have a reduced demand for municipal services. Metering considerations when connecting to the sewer system The Department of Health considers an ADU a separate dwelling unit if it is located outside and separate from the single family residence (detached). An ADU located within the single-family residence, such as a basement or attic unit, is generally not considered a separate connection to the sewer system for the purposes of metering. The total number of service connections is determined by counting each single-family home, each dwelling unit in a multi -family building, and each nonresidential building that the water system serves. Local policy choice There is no specific requirement to reduce charges for sewer, water and stormwater, as there is for impact fees, but a local government has the option of removing, reducing or waiving connection fees or system development charges to meet public purposes. Because of the dependent nature of ADUs, it is recommended that local governments allow shared meters, especially for attached units that are within the capacity of an existing meter. There may be limited cases in which separate meters are necessary because of site configuration or separate sale. They may choose to reduce system development charges to 50% as well because these charges are meant to fund area wide system development improvements, and an ADU generally has a smaller impact. Examples • King County has a detailed system capacity charge system with charges that vary based on the size and form of the housing unit, with addition discounts for affordable units. https://kingcountygov/en/dept/dnrp/waste-services/wastewater-treatment/sewer-system- services/capacity-charge/about Kirkland Accessory Dwelling Units — This webpage provides the following information: ADUs are not subject to water capital facility charges if there are no changes to the water service/meter. ADUs are not subject to sewer capital facility charges. ADUs are not subject to the surface water capital facility charge if the primary residence is already connected to the public storm system. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS 20 SEPTEMBER 2023 Packet Pg. 102 6.A.b • Olympia Municipal Code Ch. 13.04 and Ch. 13.08 - Provides the option of new connections or tie-ins when developing an ADU. There is no charge when the connection occurs on the lot. The Olympia Engineering and Design Standards Section 713.080 addresses the issue of ADUs and side sewers. • Sedro Woolley Municipal Code Sec. 17.100.030 - Utilities may be shared between an ADU and the primary dwelling. Sewer connection fees are collected at a reduced rate depending on the size of the ADU. 10. Other Fees and Exactions State law A city or county may not require public street improvements as a condition of permitting ADUs.39 State law requires that public street improvements must not be required as a condition of permitting ADUs, even if the development of the primary unit can trigger such improvements. Another barrier might be the cost of permit fees. Local governments often attempt to recoup the actual cost of processing land use permits, but there is not a legal requirement that they do so. A city or county could choose, for policy reasons, to charge a lower amount for ADU applications as part of a strategy to encourage property owners to construct new ADUs on their properties. In addition, lowering fees makes sense if a city or county is taking other steps to streamline the ADU process, since those measures may also result in lower permit administration costs. Example • Spokane Municipal Code Sec. 08.02.031 - Waived permit fees for ADUs on lots within half a mile of certain zoning districts. The waiver is set to expire at the end of 2024. • Washougal Municipal Code Sec. 18.46.020 - Does not charge an application fee for detached ADU development. 39 RCW 36.70A.681(1)(1). The GMA does not currently define "public street improvements", however "public facilities" is defined in RCW 36.70A.030 and "public improvements" in RCW 39.114.010; both include street and road construction including sidewalks, street and road lighting systems, storm and sanitary sewer systems, among other public improvements. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS SEPTEMBER 2023 Packet Pg. 103 6.A.b Recommendations for cities and other urban areas The following recommendations are not required but are suggestions to encourage the development of ADUs. They are to apply only to cities, towns, and other urban areas, including unincorporated urban growth areas (UGAs) and limited areas of more intensive development (LAMIRDs). The purpose of applying these ADU recommendations to cities and other urban areas, and not to rural areas or resource lands is to support the GMA's goals of encouraging development in urban areas and reducing sprawl. 1. Allow prefabricated units Prefabricated detached ADUs can provide a degree of cost savings, which may make them more affordable for property owners, especially in more remote areas that may not have access to the tradespeople needed to construct ADUs. Because materials and manufacturing are centralized at an off -site manufacturing facility, prefabricated units require less construction time than conventionally built structures and can be constructed year-round in a climate -controlled factory. RCW 35A.21.312 allows for consumer choice in housing, requiring local government to allow the placement of factory -built homes in any location where site -built homes are permitted. The law was likely developed to apply to primary units, and not necessarily ADUs. However, cities and counties may adopt a set of additional standards, relating to permanent foundation, roof pitch, and design, although not all of those standards should be applied to ADUs. Any prefabricated unit must meet state standards.40 Local codes may refer to larger manufactured homes, and may not be related to small homes, such as park models, more suitable for an ADU. Example • Bremerton Municipal Code Sec. 20.46.010 — Allows for manufactured homes to be used as ADUs Prefab detached ADU: Nanny Flat, Elder Cottage. Credit: Eddie Bojorquez/Crest Backyard Homes. 40 See the Washington Department of Labor & Industries page on Manufactured Home Permits & Inspections. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS SEPTEMBER 2023 Packet Pg. 104 6.A.b Tiny houses Tiny houses, or tiny houses with wheels, as defined in RCW 35.21.686, are not generally allowed as ADUs because they may not meet the standards required for a permanent residential unit, such as a foundation, water supply and sewage disposal. However, some communities are starting to consider allowing tiny homes on wheels as temporary units, with appropriate connections and tie-downs.41 One exception in state law is that tiny homes on wheels and RVs may be used as permanent living quarters only when situated in manufactured/mobile home communities, but they are still subject to certain life/safety and utility hookup requirements per RCW 35.21.684. Tiny houses must be inspected and meet the standards of the Washington State Department of Labor and Industry.42 Prefab ADU travelling from factory to residential site / installed on -site. Credit: Roger Fitzsimons. 2. Streamline ADU permitting processes A local permitting process should be designed to make it as easy as possible for an applicant to prepare and submit a development permit application, and for the permit review staff to review and quickly approve it. This approach should be particularly true for the types of development that a community is actively trying to encourage, such as ADUs. Discretionary project permitting processes, such as those requiring conditional use permits, hearings examiner review, and public hearings add extra time and cost to getting a development project approved. These processes make sense for situations where a proposed project may be large or have a number of potential 41 Port Townsend allows tiny homes on wheels. (THROWS) https://cityofpt.us/planning-community-development/page/new-euly-1 stst- tiny-house-wheels-thows 42 See the Washington Department of Labor & Industries page on Tiny Houses. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS SEPTEMBER 2023 Packet Pg. 105 6.A.b impacts on a neighborhood or community. For small, low -impact development projects that advance adopted public policy such as new ADUs, a discretionary permitting process creates an unnecessary barrier to ADU construction. Local governments should allow ADUs "by -right," with project review and approval to be done administratively. Having an expedited or shorter review process for ADUs can also include preferential review of ADU proposals. Providing pre -approved ADU plans is another method for reducing the time needed to review an ADU proposal (see provide pre -approved ADU plans below). Streamlining can be additionally bolstered by checklists that clarify the ADU approval process (see below on providing user-friendly communication materials). Examples • Pasco Municipal Code Sec. 25.161.030 — ADU applications are approved administratively. • Sequim Municipal Code Sec. 18.66.040 — Requires a single administrative permit for ADU development The application must be processed by the community development director within 30 days of submittal (Sec. 20.01.080). 3. Offer incentives to encourage ADUs that are affordable to lower income households While ADUs are generally more affordable than a typical single-family home, most aren't affordable to households making less than 80% of the area median income (AMI). To address this issue, some local governments offer incentives for ADUs that are affordable for lower -income households (that is, less than 80% AMI) for a set number of years (such as 50 years). These types of incentives usually involve requiring affordability in exchange for providing a "bonus," like higher densities in the form of an additional ADU. Local governments can also support affordability for low-income residents by incorporating ADUs into their affordable housing funding programs and forming partnerships with community land trusts and other non- profit organizations. Local policy choice There are a number of ways that local governments can offer reductions for affordable housing, most require some kind of assurance that the unit will remain affordable over time. RCW 82.02.060(4) also authorizes local governments to offer impact fee reductions or waivers for affordable housing. An exemption for low-income housing granted under this section, however, must be conditioned upon requiring the developer to record a covenant that prohibits using the property for any purpose other than for low-income housing. RCW 36.70A.540 authorizes local governments to expand affordable housing incentive programs to include, among other things, fee waivers or exemptions provided the local government is committed to continuing affordability for at least 50 years. A local government may offer "tap -in charge" waivers for low-income persons (under RCW 35.92.380 or RCW 36.94.370).43 Examples • CLTplusOne — A pilot program offered by Durham (NC) Community Land Trustees, which pairs a land trust home with ADUs on the same lot. Both the primary residence and rental unit are permanently affordable (see this Shelterforce article on Durham's Community Land Trust). 43 For more information on this topic, see MRSC's Affordable Housing Techniques and Incentives - Reduction/Waiver of Fees. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS SEPTEMBER 2023 Packet Pg. 106 6.A.b Seattle Municipal Code Sec. 23.44.041 — Allows a second ADU on a lot if one of three conditions are met: conversion within an existing structure, green building standards, or affordability for "income - eligible households" for a minimum of 50 years. Key considerations for counties GMA-planning counties must plan and provide regulatory frameworks for four land use categories in decreasing order of ADU intensity: • Unincorporated UGAs.44 • LAMIRDs • Rural lands • Designated natural resource lands 1. Unincorporated UGAs and LAMIRDs Unincorporated urban growth areas In unincorporated UGAs, which are generally intended to have urban services and eventually become or annex into cities, the requirements in this guidance apply within 6 months of the next periodic update.45 LAMIRDs Within Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural Development (LAMIRDs), the outer boundary may not change, but the LAMIRD may be filled in with new development, including ADUs. 2. Rural and natural resource lands ADU regulations outside of urban growth areas require consideration of a different set of factors than ADU regulations in cities and urban growth areas. ADU provisions in rural and resource areas must be accompanied by measures to protect rural character, conserve resource lands, and limit density and sprawl. One of the benefits of ADUs in urban areas is that under HB 1337, the ADUs can be sold separately and add to the supply of attainable housing for moderate on maybe lower income households. The same does not hold true in rural areas, where the ADU cannot be sold separately, and the private cost of transportation and public cost of transportation -related emissions reduces the public benefit of ADUs in rural areas. When developing or amending regulations, counties should consider the potential for: • Increased demand for emergency and other services. • Increased traffic on county roads, which may be built to a lower standard. • More housing and increased population in areas potentially prone to wildfires or other natural hazards. • Impact on water supplies. • Conflict with or decrease in land available for agriculture or other natural resource industries. The Growth Management Hearings Boards (GMHBs) have considered challenges to ADU regulations in rural and resource designated areas in a handful of counties. Three hearings boards have issued decisions 44 See Chapter 36.70A RCW. 45 RCW 36.70A.680(1) REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS SEPTEMBER 2023 Packet Pg. 107 6.A.b disfavoring local regulations allowing detached ADUs where they do not include specific criteria to curtail indiscriminate increased density.46 Rural lands For areas designated as "rural," the regulations must be consistent with "rural character" as established in the rural element of the county's comprehensive plan.47 RCW 36.70A.030(23) defines rural character as "[... j the patterns of land use and development established by a county in the rural element of its comprehensive plan." Importantly, what constitutes rural character in one county may be different than what constitutes rural character in another (RCW 36.70A.011). ADUs should not contribute to sprawl or cause residential uses to predominate over rural uses.48 Given the need to be consistent with and implement their rural, housing, and land use elements of their comprehensive plans (among others), it will be important for counties to "show their work" through the written record, including but not limited to whereas statements, findings of fact, staff reports, and public participation processes; and to articulate legal and policy justifications for their actions. Designated natural resource lands Counties must ensure ADU regulations are consistent with GMA requirements to preserve natural resource lands for resource production. In natural resource lands, the dominant use is to be the agricultural, forestry, or mineral use; residential development must be located to not interfere with the natural resource use, and preserve the majority of land for such use.49 See RCW 36.70A.060. Considerations and examples for rural and resource areas Generally, regulations permitting attached ADUs raise fewer concerns than those permitting detached ADUs. While several counties allow detached ADUs in their rural land designations, most include restrictions related to standards such as: • Size limit on a single ADU. • Minimum lot size to conform to zoning or in some cases, double the minimum lot size. • Proximity to and dependency on the primary residence (such as shared driveway, parking, yard, septic, well, utilities, etc.). • Design standards for consistency with primary unit. • Limitations on number of permits issued annually. 46 Loon Lake Property Owners, et al v. Stevens County, EWGMHB, Case No. 01-1-0002c, Compliance Order (May 30, 2008); Friends of San Juans, et al v. San Juan County, Case No. 3-2-0003c coordinated with Nelson, et al v. San Juan County, Case No. 06-2-0024c, FDO/Compliance Order, at 3 (Feb. 12, 2007). 47 County comprehensive plans must include a rural element. A county's rural element must include policies that are consistent with rural character. RCW 36.70A.070(5)(0 provides, in relevant part: "[The rural element] shall provide for a variety of rural densities, uses, essential public facilities, and rural governmental services needed to serve the permitted densities and uses. To achieve a variety of rural densities and uses, counties may provide for clustering, density transfer, design guidelines, conservation easements, and other innovative techniques that will accommodate appropriate rural economic advancement, densities, and uses that are not characterized by urban growth and that are consistent with rural character." 48 RCW 36.70A.020(2) and RCW 36.70A.110(1) and .070 U5. Friends of San Juans, et al v. San Juan County, Case No. 3-2-0003c coordinated with Nelson, et al v. San Juan County Case No. 06-2-0024c, FDO/Compliance Order, at 3 (Feb. 12, 2007) — Regulations allowing a detached ADU on substandard rural lots allowed residential use to predominate over rural uses and were therefore noncompliant; Loon Lake Property Owners, et al v. Stevens County Case No. 01-1-0002C — Allowing an ADU on all parcels —including substandard lots — can considerably increase density within zone. 49 Futerwise v. Snohomish County, Case 22-3-003, Final Decision and Order. The Board found that the county failed to protect agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance, in violation of RCW 36.70A.177, and was inconsistent with multi -county and countywide planning policies, in violation of RCW 36.70A.210. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS 26 SEPTEMBER 2023 Packet Pg. 108 6.A.b • Restrictions on title. Careful with detached ADUs (attached ADUs preferred) The hearings boards have held that freestanding residential ADUs should be treated as separate dwelling units for purposes of density calculations — although in some cases have found compliant county regulations that allow limited exceptions to detached ADUs triggering such density requirements." Attached ADUs are Preferred Conversely, the boards have held that attached ADUs and ADUs converted from an existing structure in close association with the primary residence (such as a garage) do not count toward density in rural and resource areas.51 ExampleE • Clark County: Accessory Dwelling Unit — Rural (Handout) (2022�— Allows only attached ADUs in rural and resources zones. • Kitsap County: Accessory Dwelling Unit (Handout) (2022) — Requires detached ADUs to be sited within 150 feet of the principal dwelling outside of UGAs. Size limit, 50% of primary unit or 900 square feet, whichever is smaller. Owner occupancy requirements and design standards apply. • San Juan County Code Sec. 18.40.240 — Limits the number of detached ADU permits outside "activity centers" and UGAs in any calendar year to no more than 12% of the total number of building permits for new principal residences issued for the previous calendar year. Further limited to one permit per property owner outside UGAs. • Spokane County: Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (Handout_— Detached ADUs in selected rural zones must be within 150 feet of principal dwelling and meet several other conditions, including that title notice will be placed on the property that the accessory dwelling may not be sold as a separate residence until such time as the accessory dwelling is located as the sole residence on a legally subdivided parcel. • Walla Walla County Code Sec. 17.08.015 — Requires at least four of six "dependency requirements" be shared for a detached ADU (road access, septic system, water system, utility meters, yard, and parking areas). Other programmatic elements to consider The following "programmatic elements" are not recommendations but are instead meant to be additional options to be considered by cities, towns, and other urban areas, including unincorporated UGAs and LAMIRDS. 1. Address the use of ADUs as short-term rentals Construction of ADUs presents an opportunity to increase a community's supply of relatively affordable long- term housing. When an ADU is used as a short-term rental (STR), defined as a housing unit being rented for fewer than 30 consecutive days, that housing unit functions as a lodging unit for visitors and not as a housing 50 Friends of San Juans, et al v. San Juan County, Case No. 3-2-0003c coordinated with Nelson et al v. San Juan County, Case No. 06- 2,0024c, FDO/Compliance Order, at 3 (Feb. 12, 2007). 51 Yanisch v. Lewis County, Case No. 02-2-0007c, Order on Compliance Hearing (Mar. 12, 2004). REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS SEPTEMBER 2023 Packet Pg. 109 6.A.b unit.52 As a result, some local governments completely prohibit the use of ADUs as STRs, while others limit but don't completely prohibit that use. The primary rationale for prohibiting or limiting ADUs being used as STRs is that renting an ADU as a long-term housing unit, defined as being rented for more than 30 consecutive days, will have the dual benefit of providing a positive income stream to a homeowner and adding a new residential unit to the local housing supply. Some studies attempt to make the case that ADUs being used as STRs make up "only a small percentage" of the overall stock of STRs (8%-12%).53 For example, data collected by the City of Seattle shows that 11 % of the total short-term rental units were ADUs. It should be noted, however, that 11 % still represents 418 units that are not contributing to that city's long-term housing supply. Given the significant policy implications, local governments located in areas with high demand for short-term rentals, such as popular tourist destinations, should carefully consider the pros and cons of allowing ADUs to be used as short-term rentals. State law Cities and counties may restrict the use of ADUs for short term rentals.54 Examples • Bellingham Municipal Code Sec. 20.10.037 - Does not allow STRs in detached ADUs in single-family zones but does allow them in detached ADUs in other zones, and in attached ADUs citywide. • Poulsbo Municipal Code Sec. 18.70.070 - Does not allow ADUs to be used as STRs. Sequim Municipal Code Ch. 18.66 - Does not allow ADUs to be used as STRs. 2. Provide user-friendly communication materials To assist applicants in navigating the ADU permitting process, local governments can provide user-friendly ADU webpages, informational handouts, guides, and checklists. These guidance documents can help by clearly articulating ADU requirements to property owners, homeowners, contractors, and developers. Clear materials inform those who are interested in building ADUs and encourage interest in ADU construction. Examples • Bremerton Guide to Establishing an ADU (2021 ) - Includes an overview of the city's ADU standards and links to permit requirements. • Lake Stevens ADU Permit Checklist - Helps applicants understand the city's ADU provisions. • Olympia ADUs & Accessory Structures Guide (2022A- Includes an overview of ADU regulations and standards, including design review requirements and guidelines. • Seattle ADUniverse: The ABCs of ADUs - Includes a step-by-step guide to creating an ADU. • Thurston County ADU Handout (20M- Covers the main elements of the county's three -step ADU permitting process. 52 RCW 36.70A.696(9) defines short-term rental as "a lodging use, that is not a hotel or motel or bed and breakfast, in which a dwelling unit, or portion thereof, is offered or provided to a guest by a short-term rental operator for a fee for fewer than 30 consecutive nights." 53 See, for instance, the Urban Land Institute's report Jumpstarting the Market for ADUs: Lessons Learned from Portland. Seattle. and Vancouver. 54 HB 1337 Section 3(W al. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS 28 SEPTEMBER 2023 Packet Pg. 110 6.A.b 3. Provide information on landlord -tenant laws for prospective ADU owners and ADU tenants For many homeowners renting an ADU on their property, this may be the first time they have served as a landlord. As a result, they may not be familiar with relevant local, state, and federal laws that apply to landlords (such as the Fair Housing Act). Conversely, renters also have certain rights and responsibilities under these laws that both landlords and tenants should know. The Washington Residential Landlord -Tenant Act includes the state's key landlord -tenant laws." Some local governments have created landlord -tenant regulations and programs with additional protections for renters, including rental registration and extra notice of rent increases and/or inspections. To inform both landlords and tenants about these requirements, local governments can develop user-friendly summaries of these resources and provide them to ADU applicants during the permit process. Examples • Bellingham: Landlords and Tenants — Includes information on the city's rental housing regulations, rental registration and safety inspection program, and more. • Benton County: Renter's Resources — Includes information on fair housing and tenant rights in Washington. • Burien: Renting in Burien — Includes information on the city's rental housing inspection program, notice of intent to sell, and eviction law in Washington. • Olympia: Tenant Protections — Includes information on the city's rental housing ordinance, FAQs, and more. • Tacoma: Landlord -Tenant Program — Includes information on the city's landlord -tenant program 4. Provide information on ADU financing and funding programs Lack of funding and financing options is often cited as one of the most prevalent challenges for ADU construction.56 Lending institutions that finance ADU projects generally don't allow homeowners to borrow against a portion of the future value of an unbuilt ADU, further constraining the viability of projects. To support homeowners in financing their ADU projects, local governments can: • Identify other funding and financing opportunities for ADUs and make these resources available at the permit center and online. • Develop programs to facilitate access to ADU funding and financing opportunities. RCW 84.36.400, authorizes counties to provide a three-year property tax exemption for improvements to a single-family dwelling, including the construction of an ADU, as long as it represents 30% or less of the value of the original structure. The program was initiated through Chapter 204, Laws of 2020 (2SSB 6231) and stipulates that dwelling units may be either attached to or within the single-family dwelling or a detached unit located on the same real property. In 2023, additional provisions were added in King County.s' 55 More information on state and federal laws may be found on the Washington Office of the Attorney General's Landlord -Tenant page and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Tenant Rights, Laws and Protections: Washington page. 56 See the UC Berkeley's Terner Center for Housing Innovation's article ADU's for All: Breaking Down Barriers to Racial and Economic Equity in ADU Construction (2022). 57 SB 5045 offers extended property tax exemptions for ADUs in King County if the unit is affordable. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS SEPTEMBER 2023 Packet Pg. 111 6.A.b ADU owners may deduct, for income tax purposes, construction costs over time, annual property taxes, and shared monthly utility costs from rental proceeds, which may help encourage their development. ExampleF • Olympia OlyFed Bank: ADUs Financing — Provides six loan options for ADU construction. See this ADU Loan Options flyer and ADU Financing -presentation for more information. • Spokane Single -Family & Detached ADU Tax Exemption — The City of Spokane highlights the fact that Spokane County provides a tax exemption for ADUs for the three assessment years after the completion of the improvement, to the extent the improvement represents 30% or less of the value of the original structure. 5. Create a program to encourage legalization of unpermitted ADUs A combination of strong demand for new housing and too many barriers have in some Washington communities resulted in unpermitted ADUs. Creating a program to allow legalization of unpermitted ADUs can help promote safe, legal structures and open them up to rental opportunities. Local governments are encouraged to develop programs to promote the legalization of existing housing units, which should be done in a manner that ensures ADUs are safe to inhabit. Examples • Bellingham Municipal Code Sec. 20.10.036 — Allows ADUs existing prior to January 1, 1995, to become legally permitted, as long as ADU owners submit an application that is consistent with current ADU regulations and building codes. • Ferndale Municipal Code Sec. 18.34.060 — Allows owners of ADUs established before June 20, 2017, to submit an application to the city to legally permit the existing unit pursuant to the city's ADU regulations. 6. Provide pre -approved ADU plans After confirming their property is eligible for an ADU, homeowners begin the design process with an architect or designer. Depending on whether the unit is within an existing structure or free standing, the design process can add significant time and expense to a project. To streamline this step, some local governments offer detached ADU plan designs that have been pre -approved for compliance with building codes. ADU applications with pre -approved plans are typically approved in a shorter timeframe and with reduced permit fees since the designs have been vetted by staff. Even though the designs have been pre -approved all other code provisions, like site -specific standards, still apply. Examples • Olympia: Pre -Approved ADU Plans (Guide) (2021) — The cities of Olympia, Lacey, and Tumwater worked together to offer four plans that have been pre -approved for compliance with building codes. Leavenworth: ADU Plans — Offers four pre -approved designs. Each option includes two different styles — modern and traditional. Renton: Permit Ready ADU Program — Includes eight pre -approved, designed, and engineered model base plans, ranging in size from 415 to 1,000 square feet and varying in architectural style. Seattle: Pre -approved Detached ADUs Program — Offers 10 pre -approved plans for detached ADUs, including factory -assembled structures that have been approved by the Washington Department of Labor and Industries. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS 30 SEPTEMBER 2023 Packet Pg. 112 6.A.b Cedar Cottage Seattle ADU Pre -Approved Plan (above and below). Credit: CAST architecture. fTANDNO Noon M*AE ooNam jCT4k OK"AR&MIME GWAT ROOM C[NTNAL Vt O _ CMMATION NPBTFP FNTwr IM: Tic U M"I OPl IT COVE"M PATM) t FNT WV iN WTPt MMOAK r PAVINO Appendix A: Additional examples and resources 1. Allow two ADUs per lot • Bremerton Municipal Code Ch. 20.46 - Allows up to two ADUs per lot (see Sec. 20.46.010). • Kirkland Municipal Code Sec. 115.07 - Allows up to two ADUs (either attached or detached). • Fife Municipal Code Ch. 19.80 - Allows both one attached and one detached ADU on larger city lots. "For lots between 3,200 and 4,356 square feet, only attached ADUs are permitted. For lots larger than 4,356 square feet both attached and detached ADUs are permitted, provided the extra lot area required in the applicable zone is met." • Lake Forest Park Municipal Code Ch. 18.50 - For lots exceeding one acre, one attached and one detached ADU are permitted (see Sec. 18.50.050). REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS SEPTEMBER 2023 Packet Pg. 113 6.A.b 2. Do not require owner occupancy • Seattle Release of Owner Occupancy Covenant for ADUs Forms (Word document) - This form for recording with the King County Recorder's Office releases property from the covenant for owner occupancy entered into as a condition of applying for an ADU permit, as owner occupancy is no longer required by Seattle's Land Use Code per Ordinance No. 125854 (2019). 3. Do not require off-street parking for ADUs • Bainbridge Island Municipal Code Ch. 18.09 - Allows garage conversions for ADUs. • Bellevue Ordinance 6589 - Adopted in 2021 prohibiting requirements for off-street parking for ADUs within one -quarter mile of a major transit stop. For additional background information, see Bellevue's page on Reduced Minimum Residential Parking Standards. • Bremerton Municipal Code Sec. 20.46.010 - One ADU is not required to provide an additional off-street parking space. The second ADU is required, however, to provide an off-street parking space in addition to that which is required for the principal unit. • Spokane Municipal Code Sec. 17C.300.130 - No additional parking is required for studio and one - bedroom ADUs and ADUs within one -quarter mile of certain transit stops. Spokane allows garage conversion for ADUs. • Olympia Municipal Code Sec. 18.38.100 - Doesn't require parking spaces for ADUs (see table 38.01, "Residential" section). • Tacoma Municipal Code Sec. 13.06.080 - No off-street parking is required for ADUs. • University Place Municipal Code Sec. 19.70.010 - No additional off-street parking is required for ADUs. • Vancouver Municipal Code Ch. 20.810 - Doesn't require additional on -site parking in conjunction with the establishment of an ADU. The city allows conversion of an existing garage structure or other outbuilding to be converted to an ADU; however, off-street parking for the primary residence is required to be provided elsewhere on the site. • Seattle Municipal Code Sec. 23.44.041 - Off-street parking is not required for ADUs, except that an existing required parking space may not be eliminated to accommodate an ADU unless it is replaced elsewhere on the lot. 4. Reduce barriers from setbacks and other ADU regulations Reduce setbacks for ADUs (especially rear setbacks) • Brier Municipal Code Sec. 17.24.010 - ADUs must conform to standard setback regulations, though the rear yard setback requirement is reduced to seven feet for ADUs. • Kirkland Municipal Code Sec. 115.115 - Required setbacks are the same as the underlying zone. detached ADUs may be located within five feet of an alley. Detached ADUs without alley access may be located no closer than five feet from the rear property line as long as the portion of the detached ADU in the reduced setback is no taller than 15 feet. • Sequim Municipal Code Sec. 18.66.050 - Exempts existing legally created on -site accessory structures - such as garages - that have been converted to ADUs from complying with setback standards. • Tacoma Municipal Code Sec. 13.06.080 - No setbacks from alleys are required. Reduce minimum lot sizes for ADUs (especially on small urban lots) • La Conner Municipal Code Sec. 15.110.080 - ADUs are allowed on lots that are under 5,000 square feet. • Medina Municipal Code Sec. 16.34.020 - ADUs are excluded from minimum lot area requirements. • Tacoma Municipal Code Sec. 13.06.080 - ADUs are allowed on any legally established lot, regardless of lot size or width. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS SEPTEMBER 2023 Packet Pg. 114 6.A.b Increase height maximums for ADUs La Center Municipal Code Sec. 18.247.050 - ADUs are limited in height to 25 feet or the primary dwelling's height, whichever is lower. Mukilteo Municipal Code Sec. 17.30.060 - ADUs may be two stories high and must comply with maximum building heights for the underlying zoning district; Detached ADUs cannot be taller than the primary unit, except that there is a maximum height of one-story if the detached ADU is located above a garage or similar structure. Pacific Municipal Code Sec. 20.92.060 - ADUs may be up to 25 feet high. 5. Increase maximum size limits for ADUs appropriate to zone and context • Black Diamond Municipal Code Sec. 18.56.030 - Detached ADUs are limited to 1,000 square feet. • Bremerton Municipal Code Sec. 20.46.010 - Limits ADUs to 1,000 square feet or no more than 60% percent of the principal unit's total habitable floor area, whichever is greater. Attached ADUs in residences built prior to 2020 may receive director's approval to increase ADU floor area to equal that of the principal dwelling. • Burien Municipal Code Sec. 19.17.070 - Internal or attached ADUs are limited to 1,000 square feet. The planning director may make exceptions to size limitations to allow for the better utilization of existing spaces. • Leavenworth Municipal Code Sec. 18.36.035 - The total habitable floor area of any ADU is limited to 1,200 square feet. • Kirkland Municipal Code Sec. 115.07 - ADUs are limited to 1,200 square feet. • Roslyn Municipal Code Sec. 18.140.030 - ADUs are limited to 1,000 square feet. • Yakima Municipal Code Sec. 15.09.045 - The ADU's floor area is limited to 1,000 square feet. 6. Limit use of design standards • Bothell Municipal Code Sec. 12.14.135 - Attached ADU entrances are permitted on the front of the primary residence under certain conditions. • Bremerton Municipal Code Sec. 20.46.010 - The city has developed a user-friendly ADU Guide (2021) that summarizes design regulations with visual examples. • Fife Municipal Code Sec. 19.80.040 - Recommended approaches to promote privacy for adjacent properties are included in subsection 19.80.040(A)(6). 7. Remove, reduce or waive permit application fees, impact fees, system development charges, and other ADU-related fees Utility connection fees/system development charges • Chelan Municipal Code Sec. 13.33.020 - Offers utility rate reductions for ADUs. La Center Municipal Code Sec. 18.247.050 - ADUs may share sewer and water connections with the primary dwelling. System development charges are imposed at a reduced rate compared to a single- family home (Sec. 18.247.080). Yakima County Code Sec. 19.18.020 - The ADU and the primary dwelling unit will share a single sewer and water connection, unless the local sewer and/or water purveyor requires separate connections. Impact fees • Bellingham Permit Fees - This webpage offers information establishing that: • ADUs are assessed at half the multi -family rate for park impact fees. • For transportation impact fees, the person trip rate is less than duplexes and townhouses • School impact fees are waived for ADUs. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS 33 SEPTEMBER 2023 Packet Pg. 115 6.A.b • Bellingham Ordinance No. 2018-11-022 - Establishes impact fee reductions related to the city's 2018 ADU code update. • Kirkland Accessory Dwelling Units - Exempts transportation, park, and school impact fees for ADUs in accordance with city code (KMC 27.04.050, KMC 27.06.050, KMC 27.08.050). These fees are assessed on the primary single-family residence only. • Renton 2023-2024 Fee Schedule - Impact and permit fees are waived for ADUs. Stormwater system development charges are reduced by 50% for ADUs. • Tukwila Fee Schedule - Exempts attached ADUs from impact fees (see Figure 16-1 "Fee Schedule"). Everett 2023 Impact Fees Schedule - Waives traffic and school impact fees for ADUs. • Olympia Municipal Code Ch. 15.08 - Waives school impact fees and reduces transportation and park impact fees for ADUs. • Renton 2019-2020 Fee Schedule (Section XII) - Provides impact fee reductions and waivers for ADUs ADU permit application fees • Port Angeles Temporary Building Permit Fee Waiver Form (2022) - A temporary building permit fee waiver is available for construction of housing reserved for families with 80% AMI or below through September 2028; ADUs are included as an acceptable dwelling type for this waiver. 8. Allow prefabricated ADUs Code examples • Richland Municipal Code Sec. 23.42.020 - Allows accessory apartment units that are manufactured off site. Langley Municipal Code Sec. 18.22.115(C) - While not addressing prefabricated housing, "tiny homes" are allowed to be used as ADUs, if they can meet the International Residential Code (IRC) and other specified local standards. Otherresources • Olympia Manufactured Homes (Handout) (2017) - Manufactured homes are allowed to be used as ADUs, particularly to promote affordable housing. Seattle ADUniverse: • The ABCs of ADUs - Mentions factory -built ADUs in the Construction section. • Pre -approved Detached ADUs - References factory -assembled structures in the L&I-approved detached ADUs section. The pre -approved plans include the Urban Cottage Prefab and WOOD Studio design. • Seattle: Guide to Building a Backyard Cottage (2010) - See page 19. • Seattle Tip Sheet 305: Factory -Assembled Structures for Residential and Commercial Use (2023) - Includes a comparison of the three types of factory -assembled structures, local requirements, and fees. • Insider: A new collection of minimalist tiny homes from $37,500 is available in the US for the first time (2023) - Article about affordable tiny homes from Latvia -based firm, MyCabin. • Congress for the New Urbanism: Novel idea - Modular house that's cute (2023) - Article describing a well -designed modular house that received an Urban Guild Award. • HUD Office of Policy Development (PD&R): Factory -Built Accessory Dwelling Units for Affordable Housing Options (2020) - Highlights communities that support factory -built ADU designs. 9. Streamline ADU permitting processes Code examples • Olympia Municipal Code Sec. 18.72.080 - Approves ADUs administratively. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS SEPTEMBER 2023 Packet Pg. 116 6.A.b • Pacific Municipal Code Sec. 20.92.057 - Single, straightforward application requirements for ADU development. • Sequim Municipal Code Sec. 18.66.040 - Approves ADUs administratively. • Other resources • Bellevue: ADU Registration - This webpage notes that ADU registration, a floor plan, and site sketch/site plan are the minimum necessary to proceed with the ADU application process. • Camas: ADU Application Form - Two -page application form that includes applicable development standards and design guidelines. • Lake Stevens: ADU Compliance Checklist - This checklist provides a detailed overview of the permitting process. • MRSC: Streamlining Local Permit Review Procedures - This webpage provides examples of streamlined permit review processes. • Seattle: Construction Permit - Addition or Alteration - This webpage provides that to add within an existing house, a construction addition/alteration permit is needed; to build a detached unit, a construction addition/alteration permit is needed. • Vancouver Municipal Code Sec. 20.920.060(H) - Expedites permit review for infill development. 10.Offer incentives to encourage ADUs that are affordable to lower -income households • Bellingham Housing Development: Guideline and Procedure Handbook (2019) - Housing Levy funds are available to support purchases of homes with ADUs. • Block Project - Nonprofit with a mission to construct and find homeowners in Seattle willing to host an affordable ADU on their residential properties. • Habitat for Humanity (Seattle -King & Kittitas Counties) - South Park Project - This award -winning Habitat for Humanity project, funded in part through Seattle Housing Levy funds, includes ADUs. • Fannie Mae: HomeReady Accessory Unit Income and Boarder Income Flexibilities (2022) - Expands access to creditworthy low-income borrowers. Community land trust (CLT) examples • National League of Cities: How One Colorado Community Land Trust Is Preserving Homeownership and Affordability (2021) - Elevation Community Land Trust operates in partnership with a Denver Housing Authority initiative to support homeowners and prevent displacement. Their approach includes building ADUs to create more living space for family members or a new source of income. • T.R.U.S.T. South LA (& four other California CLTs): Increasing Community Power and Health through Community Land Trusts (2020) - The Community Land Trust Association of West Marin, in collaboration with the Housing Authority of Marin County, offers zero -interest loans, permit fee waivers, and other benefits for homeowners to create ADUs for use as affordable rental units. • Shelterforce: Affordable ADUs: How It's Being Done - Explores pilot programs and other strategies for financing ADUs for low- and moderate -income homeowners. Appendix B. Relevant G M H B cases for counties Futerwise v. Snohomish County, Case 22-3-003, Final Decision and Order. The Board found that the county failed to protect agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance, in violation of RCW 36.70A.177, and was inconsistent with multi -county and countywide planning policies, in violation of RCW 36.70A.210. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS SEPTEMBER 2023 Packet Pg. 117 6.A.b • Loon Lake Property Owners Association, et al V. Stevens County, Case No. 01-1-0002c, Compliance Order (May 30, 2008) — Allowing an ADU on all parcels —including substandard lots-- can considerably increase density in rural areas; regulations should contain specific criteria to curtail indiscriminate increased density. • Friends of San Juans. et al v. San Juan Countv. Case No. 3-2-0003c coordinated with Nelson. et al v. San Juan County, Case No. 06-2-0024c, FDO/Compliance Order (Feb. 12, 2007) — Regulations allowing a detached ADU on substandard rural lots allowed residential use to predominate over rural uses and were therefore noncompliant. Kittitas County Conservation, et al v. Kittitas County, Case No. 07-1-0015, Final Decision Order (Mar. 21, 2008) — County ADU regulations must contain density provisions to preserve rural character —failure to do so would result in "urban -like" density in rural areas. Peninsula Neighborhood Association v. Pierce County, Case No. 95-3-0071, Final Decision and Order (Mar. 20, 1996) — Local governments are required to include ADU provisions in their development regulations, but those regulations must be consistent with the GMA requirement that local governments reduce sprawl in rural areas. • Yanisch v. Lewis County, Case No. 02-2-0007c, Order on Compliance Hearing (Mar. 12, 2004) — County definition of "rural character" must comply with GMA; subdivision or sale of ADU to family member may not be approved if doing so creates lots of less than five acres. Appendix C. Resources for programmatic elements 1. Address the use of ADUs as short-term rentals • La Conner Municipal Code Sec. 15.110.080 — ADUs may not be used as short-term rentals. • Langley Municipal Code Sec. 5.40.030 — A maximum of 50 ADUs can be used as short-term rentals in Langley. • Marysville Municipal Code Sec. 22C.180.030 — ADUs aren't permitted as short-term rentals. • Roslyn Municipal Code Sec. 18.140.030 — ADUs may be rented for a minimum of 60 days. • Tukwila Municipal Code Sec. 18.50.220 — Doesn't allow ADUs to be rented for periods of less than 30 days. 2. Provide user-friendly communication materials • Bellingham: Homeowner's Handbook to Building an ADU — This handbook, developed by the Whatcom Housing Alliance and the City of Bellingham, includes ADU basics and information on permitting, design, construction, and costs. • Jefferson County: The ABCs and 123s of ADUs (2022) — This guide, developed by the Housing Solutions Network, includes information for homeowners considering ADU development, particularly for affordable housing. • Lynnwood ADU Guide — One -page guide with an overview of the city's ADU requirements, including those related to size, design, and setbacks. • Poulsbo Accessory Dwelling Units — This webpage includes ADU basics, benefits of an ADU, code requirements, permitting process, handouts, and flow charts. • Redmond ADU (Handouty(2019) — This one -pager includes an overview of the city's ADU requirements and permit process. • San Juan County Detached ADU Permit Application Checklist (2018) — One -page overview of all permit application requirements. • Seattle: A Guide to Building a Backyard Cottage (2010) Spokane Accessory Dwelling Unit Current Allowances (2022) — Includes quick facts. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS 36 SEPTEMBER 2023 Packet Pg. 118 6.A.b Tacoma ADU Tip Sheet (2022) - Includes development standards, permit requirements, submittal and review process, and more. Tacoma Accessory Dwelling Units Design Guide (2022) - A handbook for building ADUs. Toronto, Canada • Changing Lanes - Laneway Suites in the City of Toronto - Provides requirements, reports, and other information for laneway suites (i.e., detached ADUs abutting a public laneway). • Garden Suites - Offers rules and regulations, key considerations, and other information for garden suites (i.e., detached ADUs that do not about a laneway). • YouTube - City of Toronto Garden Suites Draft Rules - Video discussing the city's draft rules for garden suites. • Vancouver ADU Fact Sheet (2022) -Includes FAQs. 3. Provide information on landlord -tenant laws for prospective ADU owners and ADU tenants • A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH): Renting Out An ADU - Information on finding tenants, rental agreements, landlord -tenant relationship, and more in East King County. • Bellevue: Residential Rental Regulations - Contains general guidelines for ADU rental terms. • Kenmore Ordinance No. 22-0545 (2022) - Adopts tenant protections increasing notice for rent increases, capping late fees, capping move in fees and deposits, and more. The ordinance notes that "dwelling unit" has the same meaning as the state's Residential Landlord -Tenant Act (RCW 59.18.030), which defines it as "...a structure of that part of a structure which is used as a home, residence, or sleeping place by one or two or more persons maintaining a common household..." • Kirkland: Tenant Protections - Includes new tenant protections related to notice of rent increases, maximum security deposit, and enforcement. • Redmond: Living in Redmond - Includes information on the city's new tenant protections. 4. Provide information on ADU financing and funding programs • Fannie Mae: HomeReady Accessory Unit Income and Boarder Income Flexibilities (2022) - Expands access to creditworthy low-income borrowers. • Freddie Mac: Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) FAQ - Includes common questions about Freddie Mac's ADU loan terms. • UC Berkeley's Terner Center for Housing Innovation & USC's Lusk Center for Real Estate: ADU Construction Financina (2022) - Includes product examples and considerations. • A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH): ADU Lending Assistance - Includes information about both private and public financial requirements and assistance. • Local Investing Opportunities Network (LION) - Provides loans for ADU development in Jefferson County. 5. Provide information on ADU condominium conversions Bellevue ADU Reform Land Use Code Amendment (LUCA) - The city is updating its code to remove barriers for the construction of attached ADUs, including removing the prohibition on condominium conversion. 7. Create a program to encourage legalization of unpermitted ADUs Code examples • Burien Municipal Code Sec. 19.17.070 - ADUs without city approval may be legalized if the owner applies for the applicable permits. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS SEPTEMBER 2023 Packet Pg. 119 6.A.b • Enumclaw Municipal Code Sec. 19.34.240 - Allows ADUs that existed as of November 1, 2001, to be legally established with an application, inspection, and affidavit. Permit application fees were waived within the first year of the relevant ordinance being in effect. • Kirkland Municipal Code Sec. 115.07 - An ADU inspection is required for issuance of an ADU permit if it was built without a final building permit. • Langley Municipal Code Sec. 18.22.115 - An ADU that existed as of January 22, 2019, may be legally established and may continue to be used as an ADU with an application, inspection, and affidavit. • Mukilteo Municipal Code Sec. 17.30.040 - ADUs built without proper permitting may become legal if the owners submit an application and fulfill parking and owner occupancy requirements, among others. • Newcastle Municipal Code Sec. 18.31.050 - ADUs may become legal following an application and inspection process. • Roslyn Municipal Code Sec. 18.140.030 - If an ADU was created without a building permit, the city requires a building inspection to determine if the structure is sound, will not pose a hazard to people or property, and complies with the ADU requirements and building code. Otherresources Casita Coalition: Legalizing an Unpermitted ADU (2022) - Provides guidelines for homeowners to legalize existing ADUs. Seattle: Construction Permit - Establishing Use - This webpage provides that to legalize an existing unit, a construction permit is needed to establish use: additionally, there could be a need to apply for electrical service changes or new services from Seattle City Light. Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections • Tip 217 - How to Legalize a Use Not Established by Permit (2022) - Includes the rationale for applying for a permit to establish a use and how to document a use for the record. • Tip 606 - Illegal Dwelling Units (2022) - Defines illegal dwelling units and the process to legalize or remove them. 8. Provide pre -approved ADU plans • Lacey Accessory Dwelling Units - Four pre -approved detached ADU plans are available. • Raleigh. NC: ADU Fast Track Gallery - Provides ADU plans at a lower cost than typical design processes. Appendix D: Other ADU information and resources Definitions RCW 36.70A.696 - Provides statutory definitions. Seattle Office of Planning & Community Development: Encouraging Backyard Cottages - This webpage includes definitions for detached and attached ADUs. • Vancouver Municipal Code Ch. 20.810 -See Sec. 20.810.020 for ADU definition. Adopting ordinances Bremerton Ordinance No. 5410 (2020) - Amends section 20.46.010. in response to HB 1923 (2020). Bremerton Ordinance No. 5416 (2021) - Adopts amendments to the city's ADU regulations, including increasing minimum size, removing parking requirements, removing owner occupancy requirements, and changing design standards. Langley Ordinance No. 1051 (2019) - Amends several sections of the Langley Municipal Code, including section 18.22.155, to encourage housing options and increase housing affordability. REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS 38 SEPTEMBER 2023 Packet Pg. 120 6.A.b • Seattle Ordinance (2019) — Amends multiple sections of the Seattle Municipal Code to remove barriers for attached and detached ADUs and add a floor area ratio requirement in certain single-family zones. Spokane Ordinance No. C36225 (2022)— Amends multiple sections of the Spokane Municipal Code to increase flexibility for ADUs. Changes to the ADU regulations were a Washington State Department of Commerce grant deliverable. Tacoma Ordinance No. 28576 (2019) — Amends multiple sections of the Tacoma Municipal Code to allow detached ADUs in single-family zones, simplify regulatory requirements, reduce regulatory barriers, and increase flexibility in building design, size and location. See also the pre -amble to early versions of HB 1337, which provides a number of finding support ADU ordinances. Code reform processes • Bellevue ADU Code Reform — The city's land use code amendment will remove barriers and encourage the construction of attached ADUs. • Everett ADU Amendments — Includes project documents for process to simplify ADU regulations. • Policies in housing and comprehensive plans • Burien Comprehensive Plan: Chapter 2 - Plan Policies (2022) — See the housing element (2.4) goals specifically focused on ADUs: Pol. HS 1.3, Pol. HS 1.10 and Pol. HS 1.11. • Everett Housing Action Plan (2021) — ADUs are noted as a key strategy to increase housing variety. See section related to ADUs: "Increasing Housing Variety" Recommendation 1.1. • Kent Housing Options Plan (2021) — See information related to ADUs in page 71 (Table 5.3) and pages 146148. • Langley Comprehensive Plan (2018) — See land use (LU), housing (H), and utilities and capital facilities (UCF) goals and policies related to ADUs: LU-4.8, H-1.1, H-4.1, H-4.4, and UCF-1.3. • Olympia Housing Action Plan (2021) — ADUs are a key implementation strategy for increasing the variety of housing choices (see Chapter 2: Strategy 4). • Seattle 2035 Comprehensive Plan (2020) — See the policies related to ADUs: Land Use (LU) policy LU 7.5, Greenwood/Phinney Ridge (G/PR) housing policy G/PR-P11, Queen Anne (QA) policy QA-P13, Wallingford (W) housing policy W-P14, and Westwood Highland Park (W/HP) housing policy W/HP-P21. • Spokane Comprehensive Plan - Housing Chapter (2017) — See H 1.19 (Senior Housing), H 1.20 (ADUs). Regional and national reports and websites • accessorydwellings.org — A one -stop source about ADUs, multigenerational homes, laneway houses, ADUs, granny flats, and in-law units. • American Association of Retired Persons (AARP): All About Accessory Dwelling Units — Free publications, and more, about how ADUs expand housing options for people of all ages. • American Planning Association (APA): Accessory Dwelling Units — Webpage with reports, briefing papers, articles, case studies, videos, and more. • A Regional Coalition for Housing (ARCH): Accessory Dwelling Unit — A comprehensive, user-friendly website from an affordable housing partnership organization focused on serving East King County. • MRSC: Accessory Dwelling Units — Webpage that provides a good summary about ADUs. • Puget Sound Regional Council Housing Innovations Program: Accessory Dwelling Units (2020) — Guide that includes an overview of ADUs in the Puget Sound region, along with model policies and regulations. • Shelterforce: ADUs - Laws and Uses, Do's and Don'ts — Summary of some key debates pertaining to ADU rentals. • University of Toronto: "The Citizen Developer" video (YouTube -- Short video discussing the benefits of small-scale housing. a REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS 39 SEPTEMBER 2023 Packet Pg. 121 6.A.b REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PERMITTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS 40 SEPTEMBER 2023 Packet Pg. 122 WA Ti The ABA � ADUs A guide to Accessory Dwelling Unit and how they expand housing options for people of all ages DETACHED ADU GARAGE -CONVERSION ADU AARP.org/ADUs BASEMENT ADU �n ATTACHED ADU SECOND -STORY ADU Packet Pg. 123 6.A.c 1 VA Websites: AARP.org and AARP.org/Livable Email: Livable@AARP.org Facebook: /AARPLivableCommunities Twitter: @AARPLivable Free Newsletter: AARP.org/LivableSubscribe I* Orange Splot LLC Website: OrangeSplot.net Email: eli@OrangeSplot.net AARP is the nation's largest nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to empowering people 50 or older to choose how they live as they age. With nearly 38 million members and offices in every state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, AARP strengthens communities and advocates for what matters most to families: health security, financial stability and personal fulfillment. The AARP Livable Communities initiative works nationwide to support the efforts by neighborhoods, towns, cities, counties, rural areas and entire states to be livable for people of all ages. Orange Splot LLC is a development, general contracting and consulting company with a mission to pioneer new models of community -oriented, affordable green housing developments. Orange Splot projects have been featured in the New York Times, Sunset magazine and on NBC's Today show. (The detached ADUs on page 3 and the back cover are by Orange Splot.) Company founder Eli Spevak has managed the financing and construction of more than 300 units of affordable housing, was awarded a Loeb Fellowship by the Harvard University Graduate School of Design, cofounded the website AccessoryDwellings.org and serves as chair of Portland, Oregon's Planning and Sustainability Commission. AARP and Accessory Dwelling Units Visit AARP.org/ADU to order or download our free publications and find more resources about ADUs. -JRP The ABCs of ADUs A guide to Accessory Dwelling Units and how they expand housing options for people of all ages -1� AARP.org/ADUs 7ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS Model State Act and Local Ordinance ■� ■• F I�I11 •® ■• ® AARP's ADU Publications (from left): This introductory guide; guidance about creating an ADU model state act or local ordinance; a detailed guide to design and development. Copyright ©AARP 2021, 2nd edition (lstedition published in 2019) 1 AARPisa registered trademark. I All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of AARP, except brief quotations in connection with reviews written specifically for inclusion in magazines, newspapers or websites, or limited excerpts strictly for personal use. Packet Pg. 124 6.A.c Welcome! Come On In Accessory dwelling units are a needed housing option for people of all ages We know from surveys by AARP and others that a majority of Americans prefer to live in walkable neighborhoods that offer a mix of housing and transportation options and are close to jobs, schools, shopping, entertainment and parks. These preferences — coupled with the rapid aging of the United States' population overall, the decrease in households with children and the national housing shortage — will continue to boost the demand for smaller homes and affordable, quality rental housing. As small houses or apartments that exist on the same property lot as a single-family residence, accessory dwelling units — or ADUs — play a major role in serving a national housing need. This traditional home type is reemerging as an affordable and flexible housing option that meets the needs of older adults and young families alike. In fact, in the 2021 AARP Home and Community Preferences Survey, adults age 18 or older who would consider creating an ADU said they'd do so in order to: • provide a home for a loved one in need of care (86%) • provide housing for relatives or friends (86%) • have a space for guests (82%) • create a place for a caregiver to stay (74%) • increase the value of their home (69%) • feel safer by having someone living nearby (67%) • earn extra income from renting to a tenant (63%) Since ADUs make use of the existing infrastructure and housing stock, they're also environmentally friendly and respectful of a neighborhood's pace and style. An increasing number of towns, cities, counties and entire states have been adapting their zoning or housing laws to make it easier for homeowners to create ADUs. ■ A Accessory dwelling units (or ADUs) come in many shapes and styles. The ABCs of ADUs is a primer for elected officials, policymakers, local leaders, homeowners, consumers and others to learn what accessory dwelling units are and how and why they are built. The guide also suggests best practices for how towns, cities, counties and states can support the creation of ADUs as a way to expand and diversify housing options. The ABCs of ADUs I A A RP 1 Packet Pg. 125 6.A.c What ADUs Are — And What They Can Do ADUs are a family -friendly, community -creating type of housing the nation needs more of Although many people have never heard the term, accessory dwelling units have been around for centuries (see page 6) and are identified by many different names. To be clear about what's being discussed: • An ADU is a small residence that shares a single-family lot with a larger, primary dwelling • As an independent living space, an ADU is self-contained, with its own kitchen or kitchenette, bathroom and sleeping area • An ADU can be located within, attached to or detached from the main residence • An ADU can be converted from an existing structure (such as a garage) or built anew • ADUs are found in cities, in suburbs and in rural areas, yet are often invisible from view because they're positioned behind or are tucked within a larger home • Because ADUs are built on single-family lots as a secondary dwelling, they typically cannot be partitioned off to be sold separately • An ADU can enable family members (including family caregivers) to reside on the same property while having their own living spaces • An ADU can provide housing for a hired caregiver • An ADU can provide rental income to homeowners • ADUs are a practical option for tenants seeking small, affordably priced rental housing • For homeowners looking to downsize, an ADU can be a more appealing option than moving into an apartment or, if they're older, an age -restricted community • ADUs can help older residents remain independent and "age in place" • As an adaptable form of housing, ADUs provide flexible solutions for changing needs. ■ ADUs Are Also Known As ... Although most local governments, zoning codes and planners in the United States use the term accessory dwelling unit or ADU, these small homes and apartments are known by dozens of other names. The different terms conjure up different images. (Who wouldn't rather live in a "carriage house" than in an accessory or "ancillary" unit?) a� Even if you've never heard of accessory dwelling units Sivu , or ADUs, you have likely . heard of — and perhaps --- �ni know the locations of — !.=� some of the home types noted in the list at right. ■ A Renting out this 350-square-foot garage -conversion ADU in Portland, Oregon, helps the property owner, who lives in the lot's primary residence, pay her home mortgage. 1 Accessory dwelling units show up in neighborhoods throughout the country — and even in pop culture. One example: In the sitcom Happy Days, Fonzie (right) rents an above -garage ADU from the Cunningham family in 1950s-era Milwaukee, Wisconsin. • accessory apartment • backyard bungalow • basement apartment • casita • carriage house • coach house • English basement • garage apartment • granny flat • guest cottage • guest house • in-law suite • laneway house • multi -generational house • ohana unit • secondary dwelling unit 2 A A RIP I The ABCs of ADUs Packet Pg. 126 6.A.c ADUs Come in Many Shapes and Styles Since ADUs are custom designed and created, they're able to fit discreetly into all sorts of locations, including suburban subdivisions, walkable towns, urban neighborhoods — and, of course, large lots and rural regions. A An ATTACHED ADU connects to an existing house, typically through the construction of an addition along the home's side or rear. Such units can have a separate or shared entrance. In this example, the owners built a connection between the house and what was a detached garage. The addition and the space above the garage contain the ADU, which has its own entrance (pictured at right). Location: Anne Arundel County, Maryland Photo by Melissa Stanton, AARP ► Access to an UPPER -LEVEL ADU can be provided through a stairway inside the main home or directly from an exterior staircase. This 500-square-foot ADU is part of a 1,900-square-foot primary dwelling. Location: Portland, Oregon Photo by Eli Spevak, Orange Splot LLC A DETACHED ADU (aka DADU) is a stand-alone home on the same lot as a larger, primary dwelling. Examples include backyard bungalows and converted outbuildings. Location: Portland, Oregon Photo by David Todd A A GARAGE ADU converts all or part of an attached or detached garage into a residence. Other options: adding an ADU above a garage or building a new unit for both people and cars. Location: Cape May, New Jersey Photo by Melissa Stanton, AARP A A LOWER -LEVEL ADU is typically created through the conversion of a home's existing basement (provided that height and safety conditions can be met) during construction of the house or (above and on page 7) as part of a foundation replacement and house lift. Location: Portland, Oregon I Photo by Chris Nascimento The ABCs of ADUs I A A RID 3 Packet Pg. 127 6.A.c ADUs Are Good for People and Places Communities that understand the benefits of ADUs allow homeowners to create them ADUs are an economical housing option • ADUs can generate rental income to help homeowners cover mortgage payments or simply make ends meet. The income provided by an ADU tenant can be especially important for older people on fixed incomes. • Since the land on which an ADU is built already belongs to the homeowner, the expense to build a secondary residence is for the new structure only. • Many ADUs are created for family members or friends to reside in for free or at a discounted rate. In fact, when a loved one is in need of care or can't live alone, an ADU can be a viable alternative to a costly assisted -living facility. • Although market rate rents for ADUs tend to be slightly more than for similarly sized apartments, they often represent the only affordable rental choices in single-family neighborhoods, which typically contain few or no small or rental housing options at all. • The state of California and some municipalities are boosting ADUs by providing grants and other incentives as part of affordable housing and anti -displacement strategies to help lower -income households build ADUs or reside in them at reliable rents. ADUs are community - compatible • ADUs offer a way to include smaller, relatively affordable homes in established neighborhoods with minimal visual impact and without adding to an area's sprawl. • ADUs provide a more dispersed and incremental way of adding homes to a community than other options, such as multistory apartment buildings. • ADUs are typically managed by homeowners who live on the premises. Such landlords are less likely to tolerate a destructive tenant. ADUs are good for the environment • ADUs require fewer resources to build and maintain than full-sized homes. • ADUs use significantly less energy for heating and cooling. (Of all the ADU types, internal ones tend to have the lowest building and operating costs.) ADUs are just the right size • Generally measuring between 600 and 1,000 square feet, ADUs work well for the one - and two -bedroom homes needed by today's smaller, childless households, which now account for nearly two- thirds of all households in the United States. ADUs are able to house people of all ages • ADUs offer young people entry-level housing choices • ADUs enable families to expand beyond their primary home. • ADUs provide empty nesters and others with the option of moving into a smaller space while renting out their larger house or letting an adult child and his or her family reside in it. • An ADU's use can be adapted for different household types, income levels, employment situations and stages of life. ■ Big houses are being built, small houses are needed Do we really need more than three times as much living space per person as we did in 1950? Can we afford to buy or rent, heat, cool and care for such large homes? FACT. ADUs house more people per square foot of living area than single-family homes do. 4 A A RID I The ABCs of ADUs Packet Pg. 128 *WEE] HOME VISIT #1 Attached ADU Addition Santa Cruz, California Size: 500 square feet A The area with the darker roof shingles is the ADU that was added onto the home of Carrie and Sterling Whitley. V The Whitleys' ADU (that's Carrie showing off the front yard's new paths and plantings) has its own entrance on the side of the home and is being rented to the couple's daughter so she can help her elderly parents when needed. When Carrie and Sterling Whitley bought their house in 1971, they paid less than $15,000. Nearly 50 years later, similar homes on their street have sold for more than $1 million. THE PROBLEM: The Whitleys, who are in their 80s, own the house outright and don't want to move. But the financial and physical demands involved in maintaining the house are a challenge. A SOLUTION: To help low-income homeowners age 62 or older live independently and keep their homes, the Monterey Bay affiliate of Habitat for Humanity and the City of Santa Cruz launched My House My Home: A Partnership for Aging -in -Place. The pilot program builds accessory dwelling units so older homeowners can downsize into a new, aging -friendlier home and earn rental income from their original house. Or such homeowners can remain in their house and rent out the new, smaller residence. Participating homeowners are required to charge an affordable rental rate. REALITY CHECK: When the Whitleys' project broke ground in April 2017, they were the first homeowners to receive an ADU through the program, which worked with them to design the ADU as an addition to their existing home. Since the dwelling was built with accessibility features, Carrie and Sterling know they can downsize into it if they ever need to. Until then, their daughter, Brenda, resides in the addition. REAL LIFE: "I'm right next door to my parents in case they need me or need any help," Brenda says. Design: Historic Sheds I Builder. Historic Sheds I Cost to build. $758,000 in 2077 (not including volunteer labor) I Photos by Michael Daniel I Article adapted from Where We Live: Communities for All Ages (HARP 2078) The ABCs of ADUs , A A RP 5 Packet Pg. 129 6.A.c ADUs Are an American Tradition While today's interest in ADUs may be new, the housing type is centuries old Early settlers often built a small home to live in while constructing their larger, primary house nearby. When farming was a source of survival for most of the nation's households, families routinely constructed additional homes on their land when needed. People with wealth and acreage regularly populated their lands with secondary mansions and ancillary buildings independent of the main estate house. In fact, until the 20th century, people who owned land built as many homes as they wished, often for extended family or workers. There were few or no zoning rules, municipal services or infrastructure needs (utilities, roads, schools, trash collection, first -responders) to consider. A historic precedent for the modern day accessory dwelling unit is the "carriage house," or "coach house." Originally built for horse-drawn carriages, the structures associated with grander homes were frequently large enough to double as living quarters for workers such as stable hands. Decades later, in response to housing shortages and economic needs, many surviving carriage houses were V This carriage house containing a one -bedroom, one -bath ADU above a two -car garage sits behind a six -level, Gilded Age, Hoboken, New Jersey, townhome that was built in 1883. The dual residence property was on the market in 2018 for $5 million. converted into rental homes. By becoming landlords, the owners gained income from their often unused outbuildings. Automobile garages have a similar history. Some were originally built with a housing unit upstairs. Over time, many garages were converted (often illegally or under zoning codes no longer applicable today) into small homes when the spaces became more valuable for housing people than vehicles. With the rise of suburban single-family home developments following World War II, ADUs practically ceased to be built legally in the United States. Then as now, residential zoning codes typically allowed only one home per lot, regardless of the acreage and with no exceptions. Attached and detached garages occupied yard space that might otherwise have been available for ADUs. Some cities, including Chicago, grandfathered in pre-existing "coach house" ADUs — but only if they remained consistently occupied. In Houston's historic and trendy Heights neighborhood, old and new garage apartments are common and desired. Many communities don't allow new ADUs, even if they did in the past. Even in rural areas with ample land, property owners are often prohibited from creating secondary dwellings or continuing to live in preexisting ones. Countless units in single-family homes or yards are technically illegal simply because they date from when such units were not allowed. ADUs began making a comeback in the 1980s as cities explored ways to support smaller and more affordable housing options within single -dwelling neighborhoods. In 2000, in response to a growing demand for ADU- supportive guidelines, AARP and the American Planning Association partnered to release a model state act and local code for ADUs. An updated resource was published by AARP in 2021. (See an image of it on the inside front cover of this guide.) Many state and local governments are legalizing and encouraging the creation of ADUs (see page 8), driven by high housing costs and, in some cases, the belief that homeowners with suitable space shouldn't be so restricted in the use of their property. ■ Packet Pg. 130 6.A.c HOME VISIT #2 Garage Apartment ADU Denver, Colorado Size: 360 square feet A The apartment above the garage can be reached from inside the garage or from an exterior side entrance accessed from the yard it shares with the primary residence. HOME VISIT #3 Basement ADU Portland, Oregon Size: 796 square feet The transformation of this colorful Victorian was both a preservation and expansion project. TEACHING MOMENT: "Here's a very welcome breath of fresh air, especially in the face of so much gentrification that is going on in Portland!" declared Mark Lakeman, principal of Communitecture, an architectural, planning and design firm, about the pictured remodel. Writing on "I see our ADU as something very similar to a student loan," says Mara Owen. "It's somethingyou invest in the future with. It was cheaper than buying a house for Mom, and it lets her have independence. It's great knowing we can check in on her whenever." AH-HA MOMENT: Owen, her partner, Andrew, and their three dogs were sharing a one -bedroom, one -bath house with her mother, Diane. When Owen learned that ADUs were allowed in the city, she decided the best way to get more space for her small home's many residents would be to remove their "leaky and defunct" garage and build a new two -car garage with an apartment above it. WISE ADVICE: "Get a really great builder and architect," says Owen. "Interviewing architects was similar to a first date. It's not just who you feel connected with. That's important, but get to the values. It's a niche market, so see if you can find someone who has built ADUs before, because ADUs are a little different" FUTURE PLANS: The stairs to Diane's apartment are wide enough for a stair lift, if it's ever needed. The roof was built at the correct slope for the eventual installation of solar panels. Design: Hive Architecture I Builder: Hive Architecture I Cost to build: $167,000 in 2016 1 Photo by Mara Owen I Article adapted from `ADU Case Studies" by Lina Menard on AccessoryDwellings.org. Visit the website to read about and see photographs of more ADU projects. A By lifting the house and digging beneath it, designers, engineers and builders turned a two-story, single-family home into a three-story, multifamily residence. (The ADU's entrance is pictured on page 3.) his company's website, he says the project provides a lesson in how to "adapt and reuse our precious historic houses so they can accommodate more people while also providing more income to support the existing home." HOW'D THEY DO IT? To add a basement rental unit, engineers lifted the house. The resulting ADU is roughly four feet underground and four feet above. THE ACHIEVEMENT, Adds Lakeman: "Unlike the seemingly pervasive method of simply tearing down existing buildings so that new, giant ones can be built, this approach achieves upgrades in energy efficient living places and adds density while retaining the continuity of our beloved historical urban environment." Design: Communitecture I Home Lift: Emmert International Builder: Tom Champion I Cost to build: $725,000 in 2015 1 Photos by Communitecture (before) and Chris Nascimento (after) The ABCs of ADUs I AA R P 7 Packet Pg. 131 6.A.c The Time Is Now Rules for ADUs continue to evolve and frequently differ from one town to the next Some communities allow almost any home to be set up with an ADU — so long as size limits, property line setbacks and placement caveats in relation to the primary dwelling are met. Others start with those basic standards and then layer on extra requirements that can make it challenging to create an ADU. (Learn more on pages 14 and 15.) Municipalities nationwide have been relaxing their restrictions against ADUs, and several states now require communities to allow them. Some examples New Hampshire and Vermont allow ADUs nearly everywhere single-family housing is permitted. New Hampshire's 2017 legislation stemmed in large part from the frustration of builders who couldn't construct the backyard cottages and garage apartments their clients desired. In 2020, the California legislature declared that "allowing accessory dwelling units in zones that allow single-family and multifamily uses provides additional rental housing, and is an essential component in addressing California's housing needs." The state allows up to one ADU and one JADU per lot. (What's a JADU? See page 14.) • Oregon requires cities and counties of certain sizes to allow ADUs in all single-family areas within urban growth boundaries. In 2021, the state extended ADU rights to rural residential areas. Other states allowing ADUs include Connecticut, Rhode Island and Utah. Many cities now allow ADUs, including Anchorage, Alaska; Atlanta, Georgia; Annapolis, Maryland; Asheville, North Carolina; Austin, Texas; Denver, Colorado; Honolulu, Hawaii; Houston, Texas; Louisville, Kentucky; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona; Seattle, Washington; and Washington, D.C.■ 1110- Located on the lowest floor of a town house, an English basement is a partially belowground apartment that has its own exterior entrance. They are typically found in older cities such as New York or (pictured) Washington, D.C. In the past, property owners used the space as servant quarters. Today, these essentially built-in ADUs are often used as rental apartments. 8 A A RP I The ABCs of ADUs To Encourage ADUs LOCAL OFFICIALS can ... • allow all ADU types (detached, attached, interior) • simplify the building permit process for ADUs • waive or reduce permit and impact fees • establish funding programs to help homeowners create ADUs • let garages be converted into ADUs without requiring replacement off-street parking • allow for the creation of a second ADU, subject to a combined size cap COMMUNITY PLANNERS can ... • adopt simple, flexible but nondiscretionary ADU rules about setbacks, square footage and design compatibility with the primary dwelling LENDERS can ... • work with homeowners to finance the construction of ADUs by using renovation loans ADVOCATES can ... • organize tours of completed ADUs in order to inform and inspire the community • educate homeowners, real estate agents, architects and builders about local zoning regulations and the permit process REAL ESTATE AGENTS can ... • educate themselves and their clients about rules for the construction of ADUs LOCAL MEDIA can ... • report on how and why homeowners build ADUs HOME VISIT #4 Internal ADU (Main Level) Portland, Oregon Size: 220 square feet Even small homes can have enough space for an ADU. An underused main floor bedroom in this 1.5-story, 1,500-square-foot bungalow was transformed into a studio apartment. AH-HA MOMENT: According to Joan Grimm, who owns the home with Rita Haberman: "What we were looking for in terms of a community and aging in place was right under our noses. Remove a fence and create a shared open space. Build a wall and create a second dwelling unit. It doesn't have to be complicated" REAL LIFE: "Creatively carving out an ADU from the main floor of our house saved on design and construction costs," Grimm adds. "It provides an opportunity for rental income, with no significant compromise to the livability of our home." HOME VISIT #S Internal ADU (Lower Level) Portland, Oregon Size: 795 square feet 1 The steps and side entrance lead to the studio apartment ADU, which was crafted out of an existing space. The covered porch to the right leads to the primary residence. The ADU contains a kitchen, small dining and living area, sleeping area, bathroom and laundry area. (See two interior photos on pages 19 and 20.) Design: Rita Haberman I Builder: RS Wallace Construction Cost to build: $55,000 in 2075 (with some work done by the homeowners) Photos courtesy Billy Ulmer I Article adapted from `ADU Case Studies" by Lina Menard on AccessoryDwellings.org "We were looking for a way to live in our house for the rest of our lives and to generate at least some income in the process," Robert Mercer and Jim Heuer wrote for the program guide of the annual Portland ADU Tour when their home was part of the lineup. "An ADU offers the possibility of caregiver lodging in the future or even a place for us to live while we rent out the main house if we get to the point where we can't handle the stairs any longer." THE SOUND OF SILENCE: Internal ADUs often require that soundproofing insulation be installed between the primary dwelling and the accessory unit that's below, above or beside it. In Portland, the building code for duplex residences requires a sound insulation rating of at least STCC45. To property owners thinking about a similar ADU setup, the duo advise: "Think about how you live in your home and how having downstairs neighbors will change what V The door to the right of the garage leads to a ground -floor ADU with windows along the back and side walls. The upper -level windows are part of the main residence. you can and can't do with your space and what investment you are prepared to make in sound insulation." AN ADDED BONUS: "We are pleased that we have been able to provide more housing density on our property and still be in keeping with the historic character of our home." Design: DMS Architects I Builder. Weitzer Company I Cost to build: $261,000 in 2076 I Photo by Melissa Stanton, AARP Article adapted from the 2017 ADU Tour project profiles on AccessoryDwellings.org The ABCs of ADUs I A A RID 9 Packet Pg. 133 6.A.c BringingBack ADUs The reasons for creating or living in an ADU are as varied as the potential uses ADUs are flexible. Over time, a single ADU might be used in many ways as an owner's needs and life circumstances change. Following are just a few reasons why ADUs are created and by whom: EMPTY NESTERS can build an ADU and move into it, then rent out the main house for supplemental income or make it available to their adult children. FAMILIES WITH YOUNG CHILDREN can use an ADU as housing for a nanny or au pair or even a grandparent or two, who can then help raise their grandkids and be assisted themselves as they age. INDIVIDUALS IN NEED OF CARE can reside in an ADU to be near family members, or they can use the ADU to house a live-in aide. (In fact, ADUs can be an affordable and more comforting alternative to an assisted -living facility or nursing home.) HOME BUYERS can look forward to the rental income from an ADU to help pay their mortgage or finance home improvements, especially in expensive housing markets. HOME -BASED WORKERS can use an ADU as their office or workshop. HOMEOWNERS can use an ADU for guests or as housing for friends or loved ones who: • aren't yet financially independent, such as new high school or college graduates • need temporary housing due to an emergency or while renovating their own home • have disabilities but can live independently if family reside nearby ■ 1 The zoning code in Evanston, Illinois, permits accessory dwelling units, creating an opportunity for the owners of this 1911 home with an outbuilding in the backyard. 10 A A RID I The ABCs of ADUs Packet Pg. 134 A Walt Drake's southern -style, one -bedroom ADU has an outdoor, wraparound porch that can be accessed without C HOME VISIT #6 using steps. The design is in keeping with other buildings in C Detached ADU (One -Story) the neighborhood. u a Decatur, Georgia Size: 800 square feet When Walt Drake decided to downsize, his son Scott purchased his dad's house for himself and his family and built a detached ADU (or DADU) for Walt. "From not finding what we wanted for Dad, we decided to create it," says Scott. "Neighborhoods built in the 1920s have carriage houses. Building an ADU was a modern day version of something people have been doing on their property in this area for a hundred years." NEAR AND FAR: "We wanted the houses to be separate and to feel like we're each on our own property, but we're there for each other," says Scott. AGING -FRIENDLY: Building the ADU meant Walt didn't have to leave his home and neighborhood. "He was able to keep his own stuff and turn over what he didn't need to us," says Scott. "It kept my dad in place, which I think was important." FUTURE PLANS: Scott says the ADU is "serving its intended purpose" but that someday down the road it could be used as a long- or short-term rental. "The ADU could turn into lots of different things over the course of its lifetime." Design: Adam Wall, Kronberg Wall I Builder: Rob Morrell I Cost to build: $350,000 in 2074 1 Photo by Fredrik Brauer I Floor plan by Kronberg Wall Architects I Article adapted from `ADU Case Studies" by Lina Menard on AccessoryDwellings.org The ABCs of ADUs I AA R P 11 Packet Pg. 135 6.A.c ADUs Are Age -Friendly Housing New -construction ADUs can be created with "universal design" features An "age -friendly" home has a zero -step entrance and includes doorways, hallways and bathrooms that are accessible for people with mobility differences. Converted garages (such as the one pictured on page 2) are among the easiest and least expensive ADU solutions for aging in place since they're preexisting structures and generally have no -step entries. To learn more about making a home aging -friendly, download or order the AARP HomeFit Guide at AARP.org/HomeFit. HOME VISIT #7 Detached ADU Two -Story Seattle, Washington Size: 800 square feet Evelyn Brom's plan was to build a backyard cottage and rent it out. She would keep living in her two - bedroom home. AH-HA MOMENT: As the design developed, Brom realized that she wanted to live in the stunning wood -and -glass ADU. It was a good decision. A week before moving in, Brom was laid off from her job. REAL LIFE: The $3,000 a month Brom receives in rent for the main house (which is occupied by a three -generation family) provides a needed income. "Being laid off has made this arrangement a lifesaver," Brom says. If the stairs in the cottage ever become too hard to navigate, she can move back into her original one-story house and rent out the cottage instead. "Now I have options," she says. ----------------------�tsxbe (� IP I 2 STORY 800SF DADU ------------ I I A There's a powder room, open kitchen and living room on the first floor, with a bedroom — and bathroom upstairs. EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Design: Chrystine Kim, NEST Architecture & Design I Builder. Ian Jones, Treebird Construction I Photo by Alex Hayden Cost to build: $250,000 in 2074 1 Article adapted from Where We Live: Communities for All Ages (AARP 2018) Although Brom's property is only 0.13 acres, it's large enough to accommodate two homes, a patio, a lawn and a garage. A slatted wood fence with a gate divides the space between the two houses and provides privacy. 12 A A RID I The ABCs of ADUs Packet Pg. 136 HOME VISIT #8 Detached Bedroom St. Petersburg, Florida Size: 240 square feet Bertha and her son John talked about someday buying a house with a mother-in-law suite. "Then one day someone came along and wanted my house, so I up and sold it," she explains. "But that left me homeless. I asked John if I could build a small house in his backyard and he agreed" CREATIVE THINKING: A detached bedroom is a permanent, accessory structure that, unlike ADUs, lacks a kitchen. But that's what makes these cabin -like homes more affordable to build than many ADUs and even tiny houses. WHAT'S INSIDE: Bertha's home contains a sleeping and living area and a full bathroom. "I paid for the little house and it's on my son's property. So I figured, if I'm cooking I can do it at my son's house," she says. (Her laundry is also done at his house.) 6.A.c A A detached bedroom, which contains a bathroom but no kitchen, can provide housing for a loved one or serve as a home office or guest cottage. REAL LIFE: "Having access to my son's house makes it livable. Otherwise, I personally would not be happy It's very comforting to know that John is close by. Hopefully this will be my home forever." Design: Historic Sheds I Builder: Historic Sheds I Cost to Build: $50,000 in 2077 1 Photo by Historic Sheds I Article adapted from "ADU Case Studies" by Lina Menard on AccessoryDwellings.org Packet Pg. 137 6.A.c Practical Solutions for ADUs Local laws can both allow and appropriately control the creation of accessory dwellings There are more than 19,000 cities, 16,000 towns and 3,000 counties in the United States. ADU regulations are typically adopted at the local level, although several state legislatures have required cities to allow them. Where it's legal to build ADUs, homeowners still need to follow rules about where it can be done, how many square feet they can contain, how they can be used. These rules can be found in the local zoning code. There is a balance to strike between prudent ADU laws and encouraging their construction. For instance, after Portland, Oregon, relaxed its ADU rules in 2010 and waived impact fees (a savings of up to $12,000), the number of ADUs built rose from about 30 per year between 2000 and 2009 to nearly one a day in 2015. Changes in California's ADU rules saw Los Angeles go from 80 applications in 2016 to nearly 2,000 in 2017. Allowing Sonoma County homeowners to add both an ADU and a JADU (see the green box below) were among the policies adopted in the wake of the area's many devastating fires. Rules that discourage ADUs • ADU-specific regulations that don't also apply to primary dwellings (e.g., owner -occupancy requirements) • complex design compatibility criteria and approval steps • off-street parking requirements beyond those required for the primary dwelling • restrictions that limit ADUs to certain areas, particular zoning categories or to large lots • caps on square footage relative to the primary house that make it easy to add an ADU to a large home but hard or impossible to add one to a small home Well-intentioned but burdensome rules can stymie the creation of ADUs. ADU-related zoning codes should be restrictive enough to prevent undesirable development but flexible enough that ADUs get built. When a community is worried about a potentially undesirable outcome, it can — and many do — craft regulations to prevent particular building types, locations or uses. A city concerned about the environmental impact of new structures might prohibit placing detached ADUs in precarious locations, such as on steeply sloping lots. Communities wary of ADUs becoming, for instance, off -campus student housing can establish occupancy rules. Every community has its own priorities and concerns, and there's a wide enough range of regulatory controls that communities can write appropriate ADU rules. This inherent flexibility in the form and function of ADUs allows them to pass political muster and get adopted in a wide range of places. (See page 16 for more about uses and rules.) ■ Are ADUs allowed? Find out by calling your town, city or county office in charge of land use and permits — or stop by in person. You can also search for and read the zoning code through the local government's website. • If ADUs are allowed, ask what conditions, permit needs and impact fees apply. • If ADUs are not allowed and you want them to be, ask an elected official or your community's department of zoning and planning how the codes can be updated. • Then get organized and start advocating! 14 A A RID I The ABCs of ADUs Packet Pg. 138 6.A.c Creating for Understandings an ADU Zoning Code The ADU section of a community's zoning code needn't be overly complicated. it just needs to establish clear, objective and fair rules for the following: 1. A Definition: A good zoning code clearly defines its terminology. Here, for example, is a useful outline for what, in the real world, is a very fluid term: "An ADU is a smaller, secondary home on the same lot as a primary dwelling. ADUs are independently habitable and provide the basic requirements of shelter, heat, cooking and sanitation." 2. The Purpose: This is where the code describes key reasons a community allows ADUs. They should: • increase the number of housing units while respecting the style and scale of the residential neighborhood • bolster the efficient use of existing housing stock and infrastructure • provide housing that's affordable and responds to the needs of smaller, changing households • serve as accessible housing for older adults and people with disabilities 3. Eligibility: Who can build an ADU and on what type of lot? A statement in this part of the code clarifies that an ADU can be placed only on a "residentially zoned lot." (Some communities provide lot size standards.) 4. Creation: The code sets out how an ADU can be built. For instance: "An ADU may be created through new construction, the conversion of an existing structure, as an addition to an existing structure or as a conversion of a qualifying existing house during the construction of a new primary dwelling on the site" S. Quantity: Most municipalities that permit ADUs allow one per lot. Those allowing two typically permit one internal and one external. Some allow duplexes or townhomes to have an ADU, either in the backyard or on the ground floor. 6. Occupancy and Use: A code should state that the use -and -safety standards for ADUs match those used for the main dwelling on the property. (See page 17 for more.) Visit AARP.org/ADU to download Accessory Dwelling Units: Model State Act and Local Ordinance, a free publication that can be used by state and local officials to develop ADU policies. 7. Design Standards: Size and height: A zoning code might specify exactly how large and tall an ADU is allowed to be. For instance: "An ADU may not exceed 1,000 square feet or the size of the primary dwelling, whichever is smaller." Codes often limit detached ADUs to 1.5 or 2 stories in height. An example of that language: "The maximum height allowed for a detached ADU is the lesser of 25 feet at the peak of the roof or the height of the primary dwelling." Parking: Most zoning codes address the amount and placement of parking. Some don't require additional parking for ADUs, some do, and others find a middle ground — e.g., allowing tandem parking in the driveway and/or on -street parking. (See page 16 for more about parking.) Appearance: Standards can specify how an ADU's roof shape, siding type and other features need to match the primary dwelling or neighborhood norms. Some codes exempt one-story and internal ADUs from such requirements. (See page 16 for more.) 8. Additional Design Standards for Detached ADUs: • Building setbacks: Many communities require detached ADUs to either be located behind the primary dwelling or far enough from the street to be discreet. (A code might exempt preexisting detached units that don't meet that standard.) Although such a rule can work well for neighborhoods of large properties with large rear yards, communities with smaller lot sizes may need to employ a more flexible setback -and -placement standard. • Building coverage: A code will likely cap the combined lot coverage of a detached ADU and the primary dwelling to a specific percentage. • Yard setbacks: Most communities have rules about minimum distances to property lines and between buildings on the same lot. ADUs are typically required to follow the same rules. ■ The ABCs of ADUs I A A RP 15 Packet Pg. 139 6.A.c ADU "Hot Topics"" As communities allow ADUs or update existing zoning codes and rules to be more ADU-friendly, they inevitably wrestle with some or all of the following issues: Adding ADUs to neighborhoods Recognizing that ADUs may represent a new housing type for existing neighborhoods, communities often write special rules to ensure they'll fit in well. These guidelines typically address visual compatibility with the primary dwelling, appearance from the street (if the ADU can be seen) and privacy for neighbors. Rules that help achieve these goals include: • height and size caps mandating that ADUs be shorter and smaller than the primary dwelling • requirements that detached ADUs be behind the main house or a minimum distance from the street • mandates that the design and location of detached ADUs be managed the same way as other detached structures (e.g., garages) on the lot • design standards for larger or two-story ADUs so they architecturally match the primary dwelling or reflect and complement neighborhood aesthetics • encouragement for the creation of internal ADUs, which are often unnoticeable from the street Each community can strike its own unique balance between strict rules to ensure that ADUs have a minimal impact on neighborhoods and more flexible rules that make them easier to build. A Providence, Rhode Island, has many homes that were built as or long -ago converted into multidwelling units. (Notice the two front doors.) A homeowner can live in one apartment while renting out the other. Providing places to park ADU regulations often include off -street -parking minimums on top of what's already required for the primary dwelling. Such rules can prevent homeowners from building ADUs if there's insufficient space for added parking. However, the extra parking often isn't needed. Studies of Portland, Oregon, and the San Francisco Bay area found that ADU households own an average of 0.9 cars. That's half the national average of 1.8 cars per household. With just over 2 percent of Portland homes having an ADU (the highest percentage of any large city in the country), there's roughly one extra car parked on the street every six blocks. This suggests that, even in booming ADU cities, any impact on street parking from ADUs is likely to be very small and dispersed. More -realistic parking rules might: • require the creation of new parking only if the ADU displaces the primary dwelling's existing parking • waive off -street -parking requirements at locations within walking distance of transit • allow parking requirements for the house and ADU to be met by using a combination of off-street parking, curb parking and tandem (one car in front of the other) parking in a driveway Dealing with unpermitted ADUs It's not uncommon for homeowners to convert a portion of their residence into an ADU in violation (knowingly or not) of zoning laws or without permits Such illegal ADUs are common in cities with tight housing markets and a history of ADU bans. One example is New York City, which gained 114,000 apartments between 1990 and 2000 that aren't reflected in certificates of occupancy or by safety inspections. Sadly, in 2021, several city residents living in unsafe basement apartments drowned in their homes due to flooding caused by Hurricane Ida. Some cities have found that legalizing ADUs, simplifying ADU rules and/or waiving fees can be effective at getting the owners of illegal housing units to "go legit" — and address safety problems in the process. ■ 16 A A RID I The ABCs of ADUs Packet Pg. 140 6.A.c Allowing and Restricting Uses Communities get to decide whether to let ADUs be used just like any other housing type or to create special rules for them. Some municipalities prefer the simple approach: regulating ADUs like other homes. So if a home -based child-care service is allowed to operate in the primary dwelling, it is also allowed in an ADU. Conversely, communities sometimes adopt ADU-specific regulations in order to avoid undesirable impacts on neighbors. Examples of those regulations include: Limiting short-term rentals ADUs tend to work well as short- term rentals. They're small and the owner usually lives on -site, making it convenient to serve as host. However, if ADUs primarily serve as short-term rentals, such as for Airbnb and similar services, it undermines the objective of adding small homes to the local housing supply and creating housing that's affordable. In popular markets, short-term rentals can be more profitable than long-term ones, allowing homeowners to recoup their ADU expenses more quickly. In addition, short-term rentals can provide owners with enough income that they can afford to occasionally use the ADU for friends and family. A survey of ADU owners in three Pacific Northwest cities with mature ADU and short-term rental markets found that 60 percent of ADUs are used for long-term housing as compared with 12 percent for short-term rentals. Respondents shared that they "greatly value the ability to use an ADU flexibly." For instance, an ADU can be rented nightly to tourists, then someday rented to a long-term tenant, then used to house an aging parent. ADUs intended primarily for visting family are sometimes used as short-term rentals between visits. Cities concerned about short-term rentals can regulate them across all housing types. Doing so might mean that special rules are not needed. An approach employed in Portland, Oregon, is to treat ADUs the same as other residences except that any financial incentives (such as fee waivers) to create them are available only if the property owner agrees not to use the ADU as a short-term rental for at least 10 years. Requiring owner occupancy Some jurisdictions require the property owner to live on -site, either in the primary house or its ADU. This is a common way of addressing concerns that absentee landlords and their tenants will allow homes and ADUs to fall into disrepair and negatively impact the neighborhood. Owner -occupancy rules are usually implemented through a deed restriction and/or by requiring that an annual statement confirming residency be filed. Some cities go further, saying ADUs can be occupied only by family members, child- or adult -care providers, or other employees in service of the family. Owner -occupancy requirements make the financing of ADUs more difficult, just as they would if applied to single-family homes. But as ADUs have become more common, owner -occupancy restrictions have become less so, which is good. Such requirements limit the appraised value of properties with ADUs and reduce options for lenders should they need to foreclose. Enforcing owner -occupancy laws can be tricky, and the rules have been challenged in courts, sometimes successfully. However, according to a study by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, more than two-thirds of properties with ADUs are owner - occupied even without an owner - occupancy mandate. ■ The zoning code of Brevard, North Carolina, a city of fewer than 10,000 residents, allows ADUs, which are referred to as "secondary dwelling units" and are allowed "within residentially -zoned, single-family and duplex lots." The code states that such homes "shall be encouraged and designed to meet housing needs," adding that "[s]econdary dwelling units shall be accessory and subordinate to the primary living quarters." In the image at left, the one-story cottage is the primary dwelling. The apartment above the detached garage is the secondary dwelling. The ABCs of ADUs AARP 17 Packet Pg. 141 6.A.c ode Spoiceir ADUs vary from studio apartment -like spaces to multi -bedroom, multi -story structures. Regardless of size, the result is a needed residence A top floor ADU can be a suitable rental for a student or someone who travels a lot for work. ADU expert Kol Peterson grew up in a home with an attic ADU that was usually rented to law school students. "They had to walk up the primary house's interior stairs in order to access the affordable attic unit," he writes in Backdoor Revolution: The Definitive Guide to ADU Development. "Over the years that each of them lived there, the tenants became part of our family." The alcoves in the ADU area above a garage provide a light -filled work space in one, and a reading nook in the other. (See the attached ADU's exterior on page 3.) This studio apartment internal ADU uses a wardrobe cabinet to separate the bedroom from the living area and kitchen (seen on page 19). 18 A A RP I The ABCs of ADUs Packet Pg. 142 6.A.c As an independent living space, an ADU has its own bathroom and kitchen. Depending on the available square footage — and sometimes on the local zoning code or the property's plumbing and utility connections — an ADU might have a full kitchen with full-sized appliances and a dining area (top) or a smaller but functional kitchenette. This interior is from the detached ADU pictured below right and on the back cover. Fun fact: A coat closet and extra kitchen shelving are built into the base of the circular staircase. In a small home, every bit of space counts! i A The kitchen of this internal ADU (also seen at the top of page 9 and in the bedroom image at left) has a full-sized range but a mini -refrigerator. Some ADU owners install a one- or two -burner electric cooktop and a convection microwave in lieu of an oven. ,-r The second story of this detached ADU is accessed by the spiral staircase shown in the image at top. The space features a bedroom and a sitting area that could be used as a nursery, office or den. A full-sized, stacked washer -dryer is hidden behind a closet door. The ABCs of ADUs , A A RP 19 Packet Pg. 143 6.A.c Just One More While not technically ADUs, tiny houses can serve a similar purpose I Because tiny houses are typically built on a trailer with wheels rather than a fixed foundation, they are usually treated by zoning as recreational vehicles (RVs) or manufactured (aka mobile) homes. In Portland, Oregon, and a growing number of smaller cities, tiny houses can be legally occupied on any residentially -zoned lot. Since they're small — typically under 400 square feet — tiny houses can fit in a space too small for an ADU. Many include a kitchen and bathroom. Some function more like a detached bedroom. A unique plus: Unlike ADUs, tiny houses can move to a new location as needed. M "The Lucky Penny" tiny house measures 8 feet wide by 14 feet, 6 inches long and provides 100 square feet of living space. The home, which is located in the backyard of a single-family residence, features a pullout bed, a kitchenette, a shower, built-in storage, and three large windows plus a skylight to provide lots of nature light. 20 A A RP I The ABCs of ADUs Packet Pg. 144 6.A.c The ABCs of ADUs A guide to Accessory Dwelling Units and how they expand housing options for people of all ages WRITTEN AND EDITED BY: Eli Spevak, Orange Splot LLC I Melissa Stanton, AARP Livable Communities ART DIRECTOR: Mimi Park, Design Park, Inc. COPY EDITOR: Don Armstrong I ART PRODUCTION: Steve Walkowiak PROJECT ADVISERS AND REVIEWERS: Danielle Arigoni, Director, Livable Communities, AARP Government Affairs Karen Chapple, Professor, University of California, Berkeley Lina Menard, Founder, Niche Consulting Heather Peters, Senior Housing and Community Development Policy Analyst, San Mateo County, California Kol Peterson, Cofounder, AccessoryDwellings.org I Owner, Accessory Dwelling Strategies LLC, Portland, Oregon Denise Pinkston, Partner, TMG Partners Harriet Tregoning, (Past) Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, U.S. Housing and Urban Development Jake Wegmann, Assistant Professor, University of Texas at Austin COVER IMAGE CREDITS (clockwise from top left) Front: Alex Hayden I Communitecture: Architecture, Planning, Design I AccessoryDwellings.org I Melissa Stanton, AARP I AccessoryDwellings.org Back: Kol Peterson, BuildingAnADU.com I Eli Spevak, Orange Splot LLC I Schuyler Smith, Polyphon Architecture & Design, LLC A NOTE TO READERS: Many of the photographs and project examples in this publication are from Portland, Oregon, which was one of the first municipalities in the nation to allow and encourage the creation of accessory dwelling units. To learn more about ADUs — and to order or download this guide — visit AARP.org/Livable. Other useful resources include: • AccessoryDwellings.org • BuildingAnADU.com • Planning.org (the website of the American Planning Association) • And the websites of the states, cities and towns mentioned in this guide as allowing and encouraging the creation of accessory dwelling units. Packet Pg. 145 ABOVE -GARAGE ADU DETACHED -BEDROOM ADU DETACHED ADU • An accessory dwelling unit is a small residence that shares a single-family lot with a larger primary dwelling. • As an independent living space, an ADU is self-contained, with its own kitchen or kitchenette, bathroom and living/sleeping area. (Garage apartments and backyard cottages are each a type of ADU.) • ADUs can enable homeowners to provide needed housing for their parents, adult children, grandchildren or other loved ones. • An ADU can provide older adults a way to downsize on their own property while a tenant or family member resides in the larger house. • Since homeowners can legally rent out an ADU house or apartment, ADUs are an often -essential income source. • ADUs help to improve housing affordability and diversify a community's housing stock without changing the physical character of a neighborhood. • ADUs are a beneficial — and needed — housing option for people of all ages. Learn more about ADUs and ARP Liva Communities e-Newslette Be among the first to learn when RP releases more livability Imulff es and resources. .. A, VA D2o473 Packet Pg. 146 7.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/29/2023 Tree Code Amendments (AMD2022-0004) Staff Lead: Mike Clugston Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Michael Clugston Background/History After the tree code was updated in 2021 to promote tree retention during development in ECDC 23.10, Council directed staff to further amend the code to address property owner tree removals not related to development activity. Staff began that work in 2022 and the Planning Board reviewed options for property owner tree removals between April and September 2023, by examining other cities' tree codes, best management practices, and public -stakeholder feedback for the code amendment (minutes from those meetings are included as Attachment 3). A Planning Board subcommittee drafted property owner tree removal recommendations for full Board review and discussion in October 2023 (Attachment 1). The full Board briefly discussed those recommendations on October 11 and November 8, 2023 (minutes from those meetings are included in Attachment 3). Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that Planning Board finalize the discussion of the subcommittee's recommendations. Attachment 2 contains draft code language from the subcommittee (red line edits) together with draft changes complied by staff earlier in the work cycle (blue line edits). The feedback from this meeting will be factored into the tree code amendments once the work recommences. Staff has paused the code amendment work with the intent of establishing a citywide tree canopy target. A subcommittee of members of the Climate Protection Committee, Planning Board and the Tree Board will be established to guide this work. A citywide tree canopy target is critical to understand what the City's goal is in overall tree canopy management so we can analyze the anticipated impacts/outcomes of our tree code legislation - including regulations on private property (with and without development) alongside our street tree plan, which provides guidance and legislation around ROW trees. Staff anticipates recommencing the tree code amendments at the end of Q12024. Narrative A Planning Board subcommittee developed draft code recommendations to address certain metrics related to property owner tree removals. For example, the number of trees that may/may not be removed and the timeframe in which the removals may occur. While the recommendations provided by the subcommittee may help to advance the discussion on certain code language, some proposals Packet Pg. 147 7.A conflict with the existing development code and arboricultural best management practices (definitions for tree size/DBH, multiple-trunked trees). Next Steps Staff will convene a tree canopy target subcommittee in Q4 2023 to review best practice, to agree on an approach and to help establish Edmonds' target. Once established, staff will recommence the tree code amendment work with corresponding analysis that shows the anticipated loss, gain, or retention of tree canopy as a result of proposed legislation. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Planning Board Subcommittee Recommendations Attachment 2 - ECDC 23.10 PB and subcommittee mark ups together Attachment 3 - Planning Board minutes Packet Pg. 148 7.A.a Planning Board Subcommittee Recommendations PROPOSED CODE CHANGES ADDING TREE REMOVAL REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPED PRIVATE PROPERTY I. Public Comment The Edmonds Tree Board has taken public input and deliberated about Edmonds tree code for developed private property for over a year. The Edmonds Planning Board has held a public hearing with multiple in -person comments, and received emails from multiple citizens, about proposed tree code for developed private property Most comments have encouraged the Planning Board to propose legislation that roughly matches the tree regulations of Shoreline, which allow for the removal of up to three mature trees every 36 months. One comment expressed concerns regarding equity, noting that if tree removal is made expensive, it will become out the reach of low income and low wealth families. It is noted that disincentivizing the removal of hazard trees may result in some families failing to remove trees that are dangerous to their neighbors. II. Neighboring municipalities Multiple neighboring municipalities have tree codes limiting tree removal. III. Code considered and reasoning for the current proposal Private Developed Non -Critical Land There was a request to revise the tree code for development. That is a worthwhile task. So far, the planning board has not completed such a code review and improvement. This proposed code is only for private land. These policies are not proposed for Edmonds locations that are defined as "environmentally critical areas" in Edmonds code chapter 23.40. Regulations and policies for environmentally critical areas are defined in chapter 23.40 and nothing in this draft code for 23.10 is proposed to supersede the regulations, requirements, or policies of chapter 23.40. These policies are not proposed for locations that are on a street, right-of-way, parking or planting strip or other public place that are regulated by Edmonds code chapter 18.85. Regulations for those areas are defined by chapter 18.85. These proposed changes to tree policies do not apply to locations that are commercial or multi- family -zoned properties. Tree regulations for those locations are stipulated by Edmonds code 20.13. These policies apply only to IRS zones. The following two tables describe the recommended policies. Packet Pg. 149 7.A.a NON -HAZARD, NON -NUISANCE, & NON-INVASIVE TREES < 6" V - 18" 18" - 30" 30"+ Permit / None Notification Permit w/o fees Notification Allowance No restric- While leaving at least one While leaving at least Prohi- tions 6"+ tree per 3,000 sq. ft. of one 6"+ per 3,000 sq. bited property, ft. of property, 2 trees per 12 months if no 1 per 12 months 18"-30" are removed, or 1 per 12 months if an 18"-30" is removed in the same 12 months Replacements None None required 3 trees, or 2 if conifers required HAZARD TREES, NUISANCE TREES, & INVASIVE TREES < 6" 6" - 18" 18" - 30" 3011+ Permit / None 1-2: Notification. Permit w/o Permit w/o Notification Required 3+: Permit w/o fees fees fees Allowance No No Restrictions No Restrictions No Restrictions Restrictions Replacements None None Required 3 trees, 4 trees, Required or 2 if conifers or 2 if conifers Permit w/o fees We recommend that inspections and permit processing for tree removal be provided by the City without charging fees. Tree maintenance is both a requirement of property ownership in Edmonds and a service to our neighbors. It is important that home owners with limited resources not be incentivized to leave hazardous trees standing. It seems reasonable that tree - removal permit costs would be covered by property taxes. Packet Pg. 150 7.A.a Minimums We recommend that removals require leaving a minimum of one 6"+ tree per 3,000 sq ft of property. This provides an automatic grandfathering: A property that currently has no trees will not be required to add trees. Allowance for trees that are not nuisance trees, not hazard trees, and not invasive trees Each 12 months, property owners may: Remove up to two 6"-18" trees OR up to one 6"-18" tree and one 18"-30" tree. Limits are property related. For example, if someone removes two healthy non -nuisance and non-invasive trees in May and sells the property in July, the new owner is prohibited from removing more healthy non -nuisance and non-invasive trees until June of the following year. Prohibiting the removal of healthy, non -hazard, non-invasive 30"+ trees Planning board discussion focused on smaller trees. When trees of 30" in diameter or larger were discussed, it was recognized that these trees are extraordinary in the Edmonds area and are important historical and environmental assets that add substantial improvements to the beauty of Edmonds. 30"+ trees are almost all trees that were in Edmonds the last time that the Edmonds area was logged over roughly 100 years ago. Another factor is that trees accelerate how fast they grow throughout their lives. Unlike mammals, who slow down in growth and then stabilize, trees generally speed up in terms of how much wood they grow each year throughout their lives. This means that a large and mature tree takes much more carbon dioxide out of the air than a small and young tree. Citizen comments appeared to be in agreement that such trees are special assets that need protecting. One 18"-30" tree and one 6"-18" tree per 12 months We were concerned about the idea of three trees in 36 months, because of how it would limit new homeowners. With a 36-month requirement, if a seller cut the maximum allowance of trees in May and sold in June, the new buyer would have to wait three years before they could cut another tree for landscaping reasons. With the 12-month requirement, the new homeowner might be restricted up to 12 months, which seemed tolerable. Why one smaller and one larger tree per 12 months, when public comments were asking for the equivalent one tree per 12 months? Our judgment was that what mattered most to citizens and mattered most for tree canopy protection was the protection of larger trees. A request to be able to cut down two trees per 12 months was brought up during discussion. A compromise that seemed tolerable was to allow two trees, but not two larger trees. Packet Pg. 151 7.A.a Language simplification This proposed language avoids the tree jargon, "DBH", which stands for "Diameter at Breast Height" and means "54 inches from the ground." This language, which misrepresents the variety of people's heights will have to be replaced everywhere. We might as well be the ones to stop using it in our code. Instead, this code refers to "measured at 54 inches from the ground." The proposed language avoids names for tree sizes that are not precise. Rather than referring to "significant", "heritage", or "landmark" trees to refer to different trees that are defined by their diameters, this code refers to trees by their diameters: "less-than-6" tree", "6"-18" tree", etc. Measurement This code adds direction for how to measure trees that divide into multiple trunks before 54" above the ground. This code also stipulates a measurement methodology that involves less judgment: This method requires measuring the circumference of the tree at 54" and then dividing by 3.14 (pi). IV. Proposed Code changes Proposed additions in underlined preen reigese d deletmORc in str'keth Fo irrh red Any text in black is supposed to match current code. Any difference between the black text here and the current code is a mistake and not a proposed change. Proposal Chapter 23.10 TREE RELATED REGULATIONS Sections: 23.10.000 Intent and purpose. 23.10.010 Administration authority. 23.10.020 Definitions. 23.10.025 Tree removal allowances. 23.10.030 Permits. 23.10.040 Exemptfeps activities. 23.10.050 Tree removal prohibited. Packet Pg. 152 7.A.a 23.10.060 Tree retention associated with development activity. 23.10.070 Tree protection measures during development. 23.10.080 Tree replacement associated with development. 23.10.085 Protected trees — Notice on title. 23.10.090 Bonding. 23.10.100 Violation, enforcement and penalties. 23.10.110 Liability. 23.10.000 Intent and purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish a process and standards to provide for the evaluation, protection, enhancement, preservation, replacement, and proper maintenance of significant trees. This includes the following: A. Implement the goals and objectives of the city's urban forest management plan; B. Implement the goals and objectives of the city's comprehensive plan; C. Implement the goals and objectives of the city's climate action plan; D. Preserve, through design and intention, wildlife corridors and habitat; E. To promote the public health, safety, biodiversity, environmental health and general welfare of the residents of Edmonds, provide greenhouse gas emissions mitigation and preserve the physical and aesthetic character of the city through the prevention of indiscriminate removal or destruction of trees and ground cover on improved or partially improved property; F. Preserve the maximum number of trees that are determined to be appropriate for preservation in the Edmonds urban environment and that have a reasonable chance of long- term survival; G. Promote site planning, building, and development practices that work to avoid removal or destruction of trees and vegetation, that avoid unnecessary disturbance to the city's natural vegetation, and that provide landscaping to buffer the effects of built and paved areas; H. Encourage tree retention efforts by providing design flexibility with respect to certain development requirements; I. Retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site while still allowing the development proposal to move forward in a timely manner and replanting when trees are removed during development; J. Promote building and site planning practices that are consistent with the city's natural topographic and vegetation features while recognizing that certain factors such as condition (e.g., disease, danger of falling, etc.), proximity to existing and proposed structures and improvements, interference with utility services, and the realization of a reasonable enjoyment of property may require the removal of certain trees and ground cover; and Packet Pg. 153 7.A.a K. Mitigate the environmental and aesthetic consequences of tree removal in land development through on -site and off -site tree replacement to help achieve a goal of no net loss of tree canopy coverage throughout the city of Edmonds. L. Promote net ecological gain, a standard for a development project, policy, plan, or activity in which the impacts on the ecological integrity caused by the development are outweighed by measures taken consistent with the new mitigation hierarchy to avoid and minimize the impacts, undertake site restoration, and compensate for any remaining impacts in an amount sufficient for the gain to exceed the loss. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021]. 23.10.010 Administering authority. The development services director ("director") or a designee shall have the authority and responsibility to administer and enforce all provisions of this chapter. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021]. 23.10.020 Definitions. A. "Caliper" means the American Association of Nurserymen standard for trunk measurement of nursery stock. Caliper of the trunk shall be the trunk diameter measured six inches above the ground for up to and including four -inch caliper size and 12 inches above the ground for larger sizes. B. "Canopy" means the leaves and branches of a tree from the lowest branch on the trunk to the top. C. "Critical root zone" means the area surrounding a tree at a distance from the trunk, which is equal to one foot for every one inch of tree DBH. D. "Developable site" means the gross site area of a lot minus critical areas and buffers. E. "Diameter at breast height (DBH)" means the diameter or thickness of a tree trunk measured at four and one-half feet from the ground. DBH is also known as "diameter at standard height (DSH)." F. "Dripline" means the distance from the tree trunk that is equal to the furthest extent of the tree's crown. G. "Feasible" means, for the purpose of this chapter, the project applicant's primary intended legal use may be achieved. In cases where this chapter requires certain actions unless they are infeasible, the burden of proving infeasibility is placed on the applicant. H. "Hazard tree" means a tree that is dead, dying, diseased, damaged, or structurally defective as determined by a qualified tree professional. I. "Grove" means a group of three or more significant trees with overlapping or touching crowns. J. "Improved lot" means a lot or parcel of land upon which a structure(s) is located, and which cannot be further subdivided pursuant to city subdivision regulations and zoning code. K. "Improvement" means and includes, but is not limited to, any building, structure, storm drainage facilities, road, driveway, utility and pedestrian facilities, or other object constituting a physical addition to real property. Packet Pg. 154 7.A.a L. "Limits of disturbance" means the boundary between the area of minimum protection around a tree and the allowable site disturbance. M. Native Tree. Native trees are described in the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) as being well suited to our climate and tending to provide good habitat for local wildlife. The UFMP contains a partial list of species that are considered native trees. N. "Nuisance tree" means a tree that is causing significant physical damage to a private or public structure and/or infrastructure, including but not limited to: sidewalk, curb, road, water or sewer or stormwater utilities, driveway, parking lot, building foundation, or roof. O. "Protected tree" means a tree identified for retention and protection on an approved tree retention and protection plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by easement, tract, or covenant restriction. P. "Pruning" means the proper removal of roots or branches of a tree according to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 pruning standards. Q. "Qualified professional" means an individual with relevant education and training in arboriculture or urban forestry, having two or more of the following credentials: 1. International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist; 2. Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) as established by the ISA TRAQ (or equivalent); 3. American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) registered Consulting Arborist; 4. Society of American Foresters (SAF) Certified Forester for Forest Management Plans. For tree retention associated with a development permit, a qualified professional must have, in addition to the above credentials, a minimum of three years' experience working directly with the protection of trees during construction and have experience with the likelihood of tree survival after construction. A qualified professional must also be able to prescribe appropriate measures for the preservation of trees during land development. R. "Significant tree" means a tree that is at least six inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) as measured at four and one-half feet from the ground. For trees with multiple leaders at four and one-half feet height, the DBH shall be the combined cumulative total of branches greater than six inches diameter at four and one-half feet above the average grade. If a tree has been removed and only the stump remains that is below four and one-half feet tall, the size of the tree shall be the diameter of the top of the stump. S. "Specimen tree" means a tree of exceptional size or form for its species or rarity as determined by the city's qualified tree professional. T. "Tree" means a self-supporting woody plant characterized by one main trunk or, for certain species, multiple trunks, that is recognized as a tree in the nursery and arboricultural industries. U. "Tree fund" refers to the fund created by Chapter 3.95 ECC. V. "Tree removal" means the direct or indirect removal of a tree(s) or vegetation through actions including, but not limited to: clearing, cutting, girdling, topping, or causing irreversible damage to roots or stems; destroying the structural integrity of trees through improper pruning, unless Packet Pg. 155 7.A.a pruning back to the point where the tree has been previously topped; poisoning; filling, excavating, grading, or trenching within the dripline that results in the loss of more than 20 percent of the tree's root system; or the removal through any of these processes of greater than 50 percent of the live crown of the tree. W. "Tree topping" means the significant cutting back of the leader stem or major branches, resulting in severely altering the growth potential of a tree. This definition does not apply when the sole purpose is to create a snag or snags for wildlife habitat. X. "Viable tree" means a significant tree that a qualified professional has determined to be in good health, with a low risk of failure due to structural defects, is windfirm if isolated or remains as part of a grove, and is a species that is suitable for its location. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021]. Y. "Diameter" means tree aiameter measured 54 inches from the ground. Measurerrici IL is done by wrapping a tape measure around the tree at 54 inches and dividing the measured circumference by 3.14. For a tree that rests on a single trunk at ground level and divides into between two and six trunks below 54", the diameter is the sum of the diameters of all the trunks at 54", where each diameter is the circumference divided by 3.14. If a tree has more than 6 trunks at 54". the diameter of the tree is the sum of the diameters of the 6 laraest trunks. Y. "less-than-6" tree" means a tree with a diameter less than 6 inches. Z. "6"-18" tree" means a tree with a diameter between 6 inches and iust under 18 inches. A2. "18"-30" tree" means a tree with a diameter between 18 inches and iust under 30 inches. B2. "30"+ tree" means a tree with a diameter of 30 inches or areater. C2. "Developed property" means a lot that cannot be sub -divided given the requirements of its zone, and that has not had paving of more than 50 square feet installed and that has not had a structure with a footprint of more than 50 sauare feet built on it. 23.10.025 Tree removal allowances for privately owned developed property The tree removal allowances in this section (23.10.025) apply only to developed properties in IRS zones that are privately owned, and that are not in environmentally critical areas (as defined in ECDC 23.40), and that are not on a street, right-of-way, parking or planting strip or other public place that is regulated by ECDC 18.85. Hazard Trees, Nuisance Trees, Invasive Trees, and Less-Than-6" Trees A property owner may remove any hazard trees, nuisance trees, invasive trees, and less-than-6" trees from their property. Non -Hazard. Non -Nuisance. Non -Invasive Trees with Diameters over 6" For trees with diameters over 6" that are not hazard trees, not nuisance trees, and not invasive trees, as long as one such tree with diameter over 6" is left standing per 3,000 square feet, a property owner may remove, every 12 months, either a) up to one 18"-30" tree and one &A 8" tree. or b) uD to two &A 8" trees and no 18"-30" trees. Packet Pg. 156 7.A.a Removal is prohibited for anv 30"+ tree that is not a hazard tree, not a nuisance and not an invasive tree. 23.10.030 Permits, Notification, and Replacement. This section (23.10.030) does not apply to vacant lots or subdividable properties. Tree removal requirements for vacant lots and subdividable properties appear in ECDC 23.10.060-080. Tree removal requirements associated with building permits, subdivision, or other land use approvals appear in ECDC 23.10.060-080. Nothing in this section (23.10.030) supersedes any of the regulations in ECDC 23.10.060-080. This section (23.10.030) applies only to developed properties in RS zones that are privately owned, and that are not in environmentally critical areas (as defined in ECDC 23.40), and that are not on a street, right-of-way, parking or planting strip or other public place that is regulated by ECDC 18.85 A. The following activities require a permit. 1. Removing any tree with a diameter of 18" or greater. 2. Removing three (3) or more 6"-18" trees that are hazard trees, nuisance trees, or invasive trees. B. Notification: Whenever a 6"-18" tree is removed without a permit, the City of Edmonds permitting department must be notified of the removal by reporting the removal date, size of each tree removed. and the Drooerty from which the tree was removed. C. Permit requirements for the removal of hazard and nuisance trees: 1. A permit for removing one or more hazard trees requires with a tree -risk -assessment form prepared by the applicant's qualified professional documenting how the tree meets the definition of a hazard tree. 2. A permit for removing one or more nuisance trees requires documentation of the tree's nuisance damage and any tree work that has been attempted to rectify the nuisance, and/or a statement from the applicant's qualified tree professional explaining why no arboricultural practices can safely rectify the nuisance. D. Replacements 1. Each removed 18"-30" tree must be replaced with 2 conifers, or with 3 trees if one of the replacements is not a conifer. 2. Each removed 30"+ tree must be replaced with 2 conifers, or with 4 trees if one of the replacements is not a conifer 23.10.040 Exemptions v 0 0 0 N N 0 N 0 a y r� _ a� E a) E 0 U a� a� _ 0 r c a� E E 0 as as a� r E 0 U Cn 0 m _ .E CU a r Q Packet Pg. 157 7.A.a r� W.Mr."MmMmPi VPmP.4POW . a71Wi . .. . .. . .. I ree remova, response to situations involving danger to life or property, substantial fire hazards, or interruption of services provided by a utility Joes not require a permit. .. . .... 1 ► 1 r . .. . 1 IN mi-MO-1 .. . . ... . . r . ��e�zrr.Err_r�ns�r_r:rsr:�:�rs-r_�ra .■. 1 1 A. I • 1 1 v 0 0 0 N N O N 0 5 Q W r� C d E (1) E m O U m m L _ O _ � E E O d d d rr rCr E E O v 7 CO L O m _ _ CO a. Q Packet Pg. 158 7.A.a 23.10.050 Tree removal prohibited. A. Protected Trees. Removal of protected trees is prohibited, except as provided for in ECDC 23.10.040, hazard and nuisance trees, or through an approved modification of a landscape plan. B. Vacant Lots. Removal of trees from a vacant lot prior to a project development is prohibited except as provided for in ECDC 23.10.040, hazard and nuisance trees. C. Demolition of Structures. Tree removal shall be prohibited as part of a permitted demolition except as required to reasonably conduct demolition activities subject to approval of the director. Tree replacement shall be required for removed trees. D. In critical areas, critical area buffers, and in all native growth protection easements, tree removal is prohibited except as allowed per Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021]. 23.10.080 Tree replacement related to development activity. Tree replacement requirements in this section (23.10.080) apply to tree removals associated with development and regulated in ECDC 23.10.060-070. A. Replacement Required. Tree replacement is required for tree cutting permits required by this chapter and/or for tree removal associated with the development types identified in ECDC 23.10.060(A). Each significant tree to be removed shall be replaced as follows: 1. For each significant tree between six inches and 10 inches DBH removed, one replacement tree is required. 2. For each significant tree between 10.1 inches and 14 inches in DBH removed, two replacement trees are required. 3. For each significant tree greater than 14 inches and less the 24 inches in DBH removed, three replacement trees are required. B. No tree replacement is required in the following cases: 1. The tree is hazardous, dead, diseased, injured, or in a declining condition with no reasonable assurance of regaining vigor, for reasons not attributable to the development. 2. The tree is proposed to be relocated to another suitable planting site; provided, that relocation complies with the standards in this section. Packet Pg. 159 7.A.a C. Prior to any tree removal, the applicant shall demonstrate through a tree protection and replacement plan, critical area mitigation plan, or other plans acceptable to the director that tree replacement will meet the minimum standards of this section. D. Replacement Specifications. 1. Minimum sizes for replacement trees shall be: a. One -and -one -half -inch caliper for deciduous trees; b. Six feet in height for evergreen trees. 2. The director may consider smaller -sized replacement trees if the applicant can demonstrate that smaller trees are more suited to the species, the site conditions, and the purposes of this section, and that such trees will be planted in sufficient quantities to meet the intent of this section. 3. Replacement trees shall be primarily native species. 4. Replacement trees must be planted within the city of Edmonds or its urban growth area. E. Tree Replacement Fee In Lieu. After providing clear documentation to planning and development that all replacement options have been considered and are infeasible, including arborist reports as necessary, the developer shall pay a fee -in -lieu for each replacement tree required but not replaced. 1. The amount of the fee shall be $1,000 multiplied by the number of trees necessary to satisfy the tree replacement requirements of this section and shall be deposited into the city's tree fund. 2. The fee shall be paid to the city prior to the issuance of a tree removal permit or associated development permit. 3. For each significant tree greater than 24 inches in DBH removed, a fee based on an appraisal of the tree value by the city tree protection professional using trunk formula method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal shall be required. 4. In no case shall the fee -in -lieu payments required by this subsection exceed $2.00 per square feet of lot area. [Ord. 4299 § 66 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021]. (23.10.085 is regarding development activity and is omitted here.) Packet Pg. 160 7.A.b Blue (*) —staff recommendation Red (**) — PB subcommittee recommendation Chapter 23.10 TREE RELATED REGULATIONS Note: blue/red text correlates to the code issues and sample draft code shown in the right column in Attachment 4. Grey/ghosted sections below are code provisions related to tree retention with development that were not discussed with property owner tree removal codes. Sections: 23.10.000 Intent and purpose. 23.10.010 Administration authority. 23.10.020 Definitions. 23.10.xxx Tree removal allowances M 23.10.030 Permits. 23.10.040 Exempti$;:�s activities N 23.10.050 Tree removal prohibited. 23.10.060 Tree retention associated with development activity. 23.10.070 Tree protection measures during development. 23.10.080 Tree replacement associated with development. 23.10.085 Protected trees - Notice on title. 23.10.090 Bonding. 23.10.100 Violation, enforcement and penalties. 23.10.110 Liability. 23.10.000 Intent and purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish a process and standards to provide for the evaluation, protection, enhancement, preservation, replacement, and proper maintenance of significant trees. This includes the following: A. Implement the goals and objectives of the city's urban forest management plan; B. Implement the goals and objectives of the city's comprehensive plan; C. Implement the goals and objectives of the city's climate action plan; D. Preserve, through design and intention, wildlife corridors and habitat; E. To promote the public health, safety, biodiversity, environmental health and general welfare of the residents of Edmonds, provide greenhouse gas emissions mitigation and preserve the physical and aesthetic character of the city through the prevention of indiscriminate removal or destruction of trees and ground cover on improved or partially improved property; Packet Pg. 161 7.A.b Blue (*) —staff recommendation Red (**) — PB subcommittee recommendation F. Preserve the maximum number of trees that are determined to be appropriate for preservation in the Edmonds urban environment and that have a reasonable chance of long-term survival; G. Promote site planning, building, and development practices that work to avoid removal or destruction of trees and vegetation, that avoid unnecessary disturbance to the city's natural vegetation, and that provide landscaping to buffer the effects of built and paved areas; H. Encourage tree retention efforts by providing design flexibility with respect to certain development requirements; I. Retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site while still allowing the development proposal to move forward in a timely manner and replanting when trees are removed during development; J. Promote building and site planning practices that are consistent with the city's natural topographic and vegetation features while recognizing that certain factors such as condition (e.g., disease, danger of falling, etc.), proximity to existing and proposed structures and improvements, interference with utility services, and the realization of a reasonable enjoyment of property may require the removal of certain trees and ground cover; and K. Mitigate the environmental and aesthetic consequences of tree removal in land development through on -site and off -site tree replacement to help achieve a goal of no net loss of tree canopy coverage throughout the city of Edmonds. L. Promote net ecological gain, a standard for a development project, policy, plan, or activity in which the impacts on the ecological integrity caused by the development are outweighed by measures taken consistent with the new mitigation hierarchy to avoid and minimize the impacts, undertake site restoration, and compensate for any remaining impacts in an amount sufficient for the gain to exceed the loss. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021]. 23.10.010 Administering authority. The development services director ("director") or a designee shall have the authority and responsibility to administer and enforce all provisions of this chapter. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021]. 23.10.020 Definitions. A. "Caliper" means the American Association of Nurserymen standard for trunk measurement of nursery stock. Caliper of the trunk shall be the trunk diameter measured six inches above the ground for up to and including four -inch caliper size and 12 inches above the ground for larger sizes. Packet Pg. 162 7.A.b Blue (*) — staff recommendation Red (**) — PB subcommittee recommendation B. "Canopy" means the leaves and branches of a tree from the lowest branch on the trunk to the top. C. "Critical root zone" means the area surrounding a tree at a distance from the trunk, which is equal to one foot for every one inch of tree DBH. D. "Developable site" means the gross site area of a lot minus critical areas and buffers. x. "Developed property" means any size property with a structure on it. (*) OR "Developed property" means a lot that cannot be sub -divided given the requirements of its zone, and that has not had paving of more than 50 square feet installed and that has not had a structure with a footprint of more than 50 sauare feet built on it. (**) E. "Diameter at breast height (DBH)" means the diameter or thickness of a tree trunk measured at four and one-half feet from the ground. DBH is also known as "diameter at standard height (DSH)." Trees with trunks that split below ground level are considered separate trees. Trees with one trunk at ground level that split into two or more trunks above ground level use the following method to determine DBH: the DBH for a multiple-trunked tree is the square root of the sum of the diameters for each individual trunk, squared. Example with three trunks: DBH = square root of [(stem 1)z + (stem2)z + (stem 3)2]. (*) ^r trove niith mi iltinlo lo�rlorc �+ fni it and one-half foot height the DBH and nno_half foot aheve the average grade. If a tree has been removed and only the stump remains that is below four and one-half feet tall, the size of the tree shall be the diameter of the top of the stump (moved from ECDC23.10.020.R). OR "Diameter" means tree diameter measured 54 inches from the ground. Measurement is done by wrapping a tape measure around the tree at 54 inches and dividing the measured circumference by 3.14. For a tree that rests on a single trunk at ground level and divides into between two and six trunks below 54", the diameter is the sum of the diameters of all the trunks at 54", where each diameter is the circumference divided by 3.14. If a tree has more than 6 trunks at 54", the diameter of the tree is the sum of the diameters of the 6 largest trunks. x. "less-than-6" tree" means a tree with a diameter less than 6 inches. xx. "6"-18" tree" means a tree with a diameter between 6 inches and Must under 18 inches. xxx. 18"-30" tree" means a tree with a diameter between 18 inches and lust under 30 inches. xxxx. "30"+ tree" means a tree with a diameter of 30 inches or greater. (**) F. "Dripline" means the distance from the tree trunk that is equal to the furthest extent of the tree's crown. Packet Pg. 163 Blue (*) — staff recommendation 7.A.b Red (**) — PB subcommittee recommendation G. "Feasible" means, for the purpose of this chapter, the project applicant's primary intended legal use may be achieved. In cases where this chapter requires certain actions unless they are infeasible, the burden of proving infeasibility is placed on the applicant. H. "Hazard tree" means a tree that is dead, dying, diseased, damaged, or structurally defective as determined by a qualified tree professional. I. "Grove" means a group of three or more significant trees with overlapping or touching crowns. J. "Improved lot" means a lot or parcel of land upon which a structure(s) is located, and which cannot be further subdivided pursuant to city subdivision regulations and zoning code. K. "Improvement" means and includes, but is not limited to, any building, structure, storm drainage facilities, road, driveway, utility and pedestrian facilities, or other object constituting a physical addition to real property. x. "Landmark tree" means a tree that is at least twenty-four inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) as measured at four and one-half feet from the ground (*) (NEW). L. "Limits of disturbance" means the boundary between the area of minimum protection around a tree and the allowable site disturbance. M. Native Tree. Native trees are described in the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) as being well suited to our climate and tending to provide good habitat for local wildlife. The UFMP contains a partial list of species that are considered native trees. N. "Nuisance tree" means a tree that is causing significant physical damage to a private or public structure and/or infrastructure, including but not limited to: sidewalk, curb, road, water or sewer or stormwater utilities, driveway, parking lot, building foundation, or roof. O. "Protected tree" means a tree identified for retention and protection on an approved tree retention and protection plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by easement, tract, or covenant restriction. P. "Pruning" means the proper removal of roots or branches of a tree according to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 pruning standards. Q. "Qualified professional" means an individual with relevant education and training in arboriculture or urban forestry, having two or more of the following credentials: 1. International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist; 2. Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) as established by the ISA TRAQ (or equivalent); Packet Pg. 164 7.A.b Blue (*) —staff recommendation Red (**) — PB subcommittee recommendation 3. American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) registered Consulting Arborist; 4. Society of American Foresters (SAF) Certified Forester for Forest Management Plans. For tree retention associated with a development permit, a qualified professional must have, in addition to the above credentials, a minimum of three years' experience working directly with the protection of trees during construction and have experience with the likelihood of tree survival after construction. A qualified professional must also be able to prescribe appropriate measures for the preservation of trees during land development. R. "Significant tree" means a tree that is at least six inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) as measured at four and one-half feet from the ground. For rrooc �niith rn itiple one-half feet tall,thesize At the tree shall be the diarneter of the tep Of the stU A:�R (moved to ECDC 23.10.020. E). (*) S. "Specimen tree" means a tree of exceptional size or form for its species or rarity as determined by the city's qualified tree professional. T. "Tree" means a self-supporting woody plant characterized by one main trunk or, for certain species, multiple trunks, that is recognized as a tree in the nursery and arboricultural industries. U. "Tree fund" refers to the fund created by Chapter 3.95 ECC. V. "Tree removal" means the direct or indirect removal of a tree(s) or vegetation through actions including, but not limited to: clearing, cutting, girdling, topping, or causing irreversible damage to roots or stems; destroying the structural integrity of trees through improper pruning, unless pruning back to the point where the tree has been previously topped; poisoning; filling, excavating, grading, or trenching within the dripline that results in the loss of more than 20 percent of the tree's root system; or the removal through any of these processes of greater than 50 percent of the live crown of the tree. W. "Tree topping" means the significant cutting back of the leader stem or major branches, resulting in severely altering the growth potential of a tree. This definition does not apply when the sole purpose is to create a snag or snags for wildlife habitat. X. "Viable tree" means a significant tree that a qualified professional has determined to be in good health, with a low risk of failure due to structural defects, is windfirm if isolated or remains as part of a grove, is not listed as an invasive species by the State or county noxious weed control boards (*) and is a species that is suitable for its location. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021 ]. Packet Pg. 165 Blue (*) —staff recommendation 7.A.b Red (**) — PB subcommittee recommendation 23.10.xxx Tree removal allowance (NEW) Any private property owner of developed property may remove up to 2 significant trees within a 12-month period with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form. (*) M The tree removal allowances in this section (23.10.xxx) apply only to developed properties in RS zones that are privately owned, and that are not in environmentally critical areas (as defined in ECDC 23.40), and that are not on a street, right-of-way, parking or planting strip or other public place that is regulated by ECDC 18.85. Hazard Trees, Nuisance Trees, Invasive Trees, and Less-Than-6" Trees A property owner may remove any hazard trees, nuisance trees, invasive trees, and less-than-6" trees from their property - Non -Hazard, Non -Nuisance, Non -Invasive Trees with Diameters over 6" For trees with diameters over 6" that are not hazard trees, not nuisance trees, and not invasive trees, as long as one such tree with diameter over 6" is left standing per 3,000 square feet, a property owner may remove, every 12 months, either a) up to one 18"-30" tree and one 6"-18" tree, or b) up to two 6"-18" trees and no 18"-30" trees. Removal is prohibited for any 30"+ tree that is not a hazard tree, not a nuisance tree, and not an invasive tree. (**) 23.10.030 Permit and Tree Replacement Requirements. remove,A. Applicability. No per -se -In sh-all excessively prune, or top any significant tree except s previded by this ch pter A. The following property owner tree removal activities shall require a Type 1 permit and replacements as shown below. (*) Applicability Activity Reference Replacement Requirements ECC Title 18.85, Street See references for Street Trees, trees Pruning, removal, Tree Plan tree replacement located in ROW planting trees (CLARIFICATION) standards CLARIFICATION Critical areas: ECDC 23.40.220.C.8 wetlands, streams The proposed removal of (CLARIFICATION, and associated hazard and nuisance CONSOLIDATED 2:1 (CURRENT) buffers, high trees only FROM 23.10.050.D landslide/erosion AND 23.40.220.C.8). Packet Pg. 166 7.A.b Blue (*) —staff recommendation Red (**) — PB subcommittee recommendation hazard areas and slopes greater than 25% Replacements Outside critical areas: The proposed removal of required only when to exceed the number hazard and nuisance ECDC 23.10.060.C.5 the number of trees of significant tree trees (CURRENT) remaining on lot fall removals below minimums. NEW Outside critical areas: The proposed removal of to exceed the number hazard and nuisance (NEW) 3:1 (CURRENT) of landmark tree landmark trees removals Determined under COMM, MF zoned Removal of any ECDC 20.13 landscaping and properties significant viable trees (CURRENT) buffer requirements CURRENT Vacant lots and/or Determined by the subdividable Removal of any ECDC 23.10.060-080 development code properties significant viable trees (CLARIFICATION)) standards (CURRENT) 1. Hazard tree removal permits require w#h a tree risk assessment form prepared by the applicant's qualified professional documenting how the tree meets the definition of a hazard tree (moved from 23.10.040 Exemptions). 2. Nuisance tree removal permits require w#h documentation of the damage and any tree work that has been attempted to rectify the nuisance, and/or a statement from the applicant's qualified tree professional explaining why no arboricultural practices can safely rectify the nuisance (moved from 23.10.040 Exemptions). B. C—. Procedural l Exemption. Tree removal associated with building permit, subdivision, or other land use approval will be reviewed with the associated project and will not require a separate tree removal permit. All clearing shall be consistent with and apply the standards established by this chapter. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021 ]. 23.10.030 Permits, Notification, and Replacement. This section (23.10.030) does not apply to vacant lots or subdividable Drooerties. Tree removal requirements for vacant lots and subdividable properties appear in ECDC 23.10.060-080. Tree removal requirements associated with building permits, subdivision, or other land use approvals appear in ECDC 23.10.060-080. Nothing in this section (23.10.030) supersedes any of the regulations in ECDC 23.10.060-080. This section (23.10.030) applies only to developed properties in RS zones that are privately owned, and that are not in environmentally critical areas (as defined in ECDC 23.40), and Packet Pg. 167 Blue (*) —staff recommendation 7.A.b Red (**) — PB subcommittee recommendation that are not on a street, right-of-way, parking or planting strip or other public place that is regulated by ECDC 18.85 A. The following activities require a permit. 1. Removing any tree with a diameter of 18" or greater. 2. Removing three (3) or more 6"-18" trees that are hazard trees, nuisance trees, or invasive trees. B. Notification: Whenever a 6"-18" tree is removed without a permit, the City of Edmonds permitting department must be notified of the removal by reporting the removal date, size of each tree removed, and the property from which the tree was removed. C. Permit requirements for the removal of hazard and nuisance trees: 1. A permit for removing one or more hazard trees requires with a tree -risk -assessment form prepared by the applicant's qualified professional documenting how the tree meets the definition of a hazard tree. 2. A permit for removing one or more nuisance trees requires documentation of the tree's nuisance damage and any tree work that has been attempted to rectify the nuisance, and/or a statement from the applicant's qualified tree professional explaining why no arboricultural practices can safely rectifv the nuisance. D. Replacements Each removed 18"-30" tree must be replaced with 2 conifers, or with 3 trees if one of the replacements is not a conifer. 2. Each removed 30"+ tree must be replaced with 2 conifers, or with 4 trees if one of the replacements is not a conifer. (**) 23.10.040 Exempti=Gm activities. The following activities are exempt from the provisions of this chapter per it: .. �� -;rp--;; this cent-ext de -es, Peat iincludde eression hazarddss viitlh slepes less than 25 perc (clarification, moved to 23.10.030 Permits). A. Emergency tree removal (move from 23.40.220.C.8.b.vi and 23.40.220.C.8.c). (*) Packet Pg. 168 Blue (*) — staff recommendation 7.A.b Red (**) — PB subcommittee recommendation B. Public tree and utility maintenance. The maintenance and (*) removal of trees by the public works department, parks department, fire department, and/or franchised utilities for o4e-af-the following purposes: 1. Installation and maintenance of public utilities or motorized or nonmotorized streets or paths. 2. In response to situations involving danger to life or property, substantial fire hazards, or interruption of services provided by a utility. Franchised utilities shall provide notification to the city prior to tree maintenance or removal. A separate right-of-way permit may be required. C.� Removal and maintenance of trees within city of Edmonds' parks at the direction of the parks department. D €. Pruning, routine landscaping, tree maintenance, of vegetation I suc planting, and the removal of invasiveIII!exetie tree species listed under Washington state and county Noxious Weed Control boards, and management of brush and seedling trees are exempt activities except that portion of the property containing a critical areas, ems associated buffers and native growth protection easements. Pruning should comply with ANSI A300 (Part 1 - 2017), Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management - Standard Practices, to maintain long term health. This includes maintenance of trees and vegetation required to be retained or planted under the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. i.hp-- eTte—pitTnecessary for public safety or troo hoAlth (*) F. Trp-p-r-, t-.h-;;t- r-IA- nA-t- MII t-.hp- exemptions in subs -,I n-.n.S (A) through (E) of this section may be removed with supporting dec ime.pt- nn• i1. • • • • _I. • . • r •(moved to 23.10.030. Permits) JN (moved 1 • . Packet Pg. 169 7.A.b Blue (*) — staff recommendation 23.10.040 Exemptions Red (**) — PB subcommittee recommendation is of this nhapter and de Ret req iirn O O O N nvnnnt fnr• N O N 0o nr i±s ossnniated buffer. Critinol Q - -- - -- - ---- - - --- - -- - - - -- - ---- --- - - -- -- . . r • . r •4-0 0• - Mille- I ... r . • 1l � . . .. ... .. .. .. . .. .. . . ..MUM. u ■ . ■ . r . r . . Q Packet Pg. 170 7.A.b Blue (*) — staff recommendation Red (**) — PB subcommittee recommendation . . 23.10.050 Tree removal prohibited. A. Protected Trees. Removal of protected trees is prohibited, except as provided for in ECDC 23.10.040(F), hazard and nuisance trees, or through an approved modification of a landscape plan. B. Vacant Lots. Removal of trees from a vacant lot prior to a project development is prohibited except as provided for in ECDC 23.10.040(F), hazard and nuisance trees. C. Demolition of Structures. Tree removal shall be prohibited as part of a permitted demolition except as required to reasonably conduct demolition activities subject to approval of the director. Tree replacement shall be required for removed trees. D. In critical areas, critical area buffers, and in all native growth protection easements, tree removal is prohibited except as allowed per Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021 ]. 23.10.060 Tree retention associated with development activity. A. Introduction. The city's objective is to retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site while still allowing a feasible development proposal to move forward in a timely manner. To that end, the city requires approval of a tree retention and protection plan in conjunction with the following applications: 1. Short subdivision; 2. Subdivision; 3. New multifamily development; 4. New single-family development on a vacant lot or a demolition and replacement of a single-family house; and 5. Any tree removal on developed sites not exempted by ECDC 23.10.040. In order to make better decisions about tree retention, particularly during all stages of development, tree retention and protection plans will require specific information about the existing trees before removal is allowed. Specific tree retention and protection plan review standards provided in this section establish tree retention priorities, incentives, and variations to development standards in order to facilitate preservation of viable trees. B. Tree Retention and Protection Plan. Packet Pg. 171 7.A.b Blue (*) —staff recommendation Red (**) — PB subcommittee recommendation 1. An applicant for a development identified in subsection (A) of this section must submit a tree retention and protection plan that complies with this section. A qualified professional may be required to prepare certain components of a tree retention and protection plan at the applicant's expense. 2. Tree Retention and Protection Plan Components. The tree retention and protection plan shall contain the following information, unless waived by the director: a. A tree inventory containing the following: i. A number system of all existing significant trees on the subject property (with corresponding tags on trees); ii. Size (DBH) and estimated tree crown diameter; iii. Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained); iv. Brief general health or condition rating of trees (i.e., poor, fair, good, excellent, etc.); v. Tree type or species. b. A site plan depicting the following: i. Location of all proposed improvements, including building footprint, access, utilities, applicable setbacks, critical areas, buffers, and required landscaped areas clearly identified. If a short subdivision or subdivision is being proposed and the location of all proposed improvements has not yet been established, a phased tree retention and protection plan review is required as described in subsection (3)(a) of this section; ii. Accurate location of significant trees on the subject property and adjacent properties where the canopy and/or critical root zone of adjacent significant trees extend onto the subject property (surveyed locations may be required); iii. Trees labeled corresponding to the tree inventory numbering system; iv. Location of tree protection measures; v. Indicate limits of disturbance drawn to scale around all trees potentially impacted by site disturbances resulting from grading, demolition, or construction activities; vi. Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained) noted by an'W' or by ghosting out; vii. Proposed locations of any required replacement trees as outlined in ECDC 23.10.080 and trees required to be planted in accordance with subsection (C)(5) Packet Pg. 172 7.A.b Blue (*) — staff recommendation Red (**) — PB subcommittee recommendation of this section. Where replacement trees are proposed to be planted at a different location than the project site, a description of the alternate site and written approval from the property owner must be provided. c. An arborist report containing the following: i. A complete description of each tree's health, condition, and viability; ii. A description of the method(s) used to determine the limits of disturbance (i.e., critical root zone, root plate diameter, or a case -by -case basis description for individual trees); iii. Any special instructions specifically outlining any work proposed within the limits of the disturbance protection area (i.e., hand -digging, tunneling, root pruning, any grade changes, clearing, monitoring, and aftercare); iv. For trees not viable for retention, a description of the reason(s) for removal based on poor health, high risk of failure due to structure, defects, unavoidable isolation (windfirmness), or unsuitability of species, etc., and for which no reasonable alternative action is possible must be given (pruning, cabling, etc.); v. Description of the impact of necessary tree removal to the remaining trees, including those in a grove; 3. Additional Tree Retention and Protection Plan Standards for Short Subdivisions and Subdivisions. a. Phased Review. i. If during the short subdivision or subdivision review process the location of all proposed improvements, including the building footprint, utilities, and access, have not yet been established, the applicant may submit a tree retention and protection plan that addresses the current phase of development and limits removal to the impacted areas. ii. A new tree retention and protection plan shall be required at each subsequent phase of the project as more information about the location of the proposed improvements is known subject to all of the requirements in this section. C. Tree Retention Requirements. 1. General Tree Retention Requirements. Significant trees on lots proposed for development or redevelopment, except as substituted under subsection (F)(3) of this section, shall be retained as follows: Table 23.10.060.0 Tree Retention Requirements for Proposed Development Packet Pg. 173 Blue (*) —staff recommendation 7.A.b Red (**) — PB subcommittee recommendation Development Retention Required New 30% of all significant single-family, trees in the short subdivision, developable site or subdivision Multifamily 25% of all significant development, trees in the unit lot short developable site subdivision, or unit lot subdivision 2. Trees that are located within native growth protection areas, critical areas and their associated buffers, or that have otherwise been designated for protection shall not be removed except as provided for in ECDC 23.10.040(E), hazard and nuisance trees, and ECDC 23.40.220(C)(8), critical area hazard tree. 3. The director may require the retention of additional trees to meet the stated purpose and intent of this chapter, as required by the critical area regulations (Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC), or the shoreline master program (ECDC Title 24) or as site -specific conditions demand using SEPA substantive authority. 4. In addition to the tree retention requirements in subsection (C)(1) of this section, every significant tree that is removed under this chapter must be replaced consistent with the requirements of ECDC 23.10.080. 5. For developed properties identified in 23.10.030 and (*) developing properties identified in subsection (A) of this section that have fewer than three significant trees, trees shall be retained and/or planted that will result in the site having at least three trees, which will be significant at maturity, per 8,000 square feet of lot area. D. Priority of Tree Retention Requirements. Significant trees to be retained should be retained in the following order of priority: 1. Priority One. a. Specimen trees; b. Significant trees which form a continuous canopy; c. Significant trees on slope greater than 15 percent; d. Significant trees adjacent to critical areas and their associated buffers; and e. Significant trees over 60 feet in height or greater than 18 inches DBH. Packet Pg. 174 Blue (*) — staff recommendation 7.A.b Red (**) — PB subcommittee recommendation 2. Priority Two. a. Healthy tree groupings whose associated undergrowth can be preserved; b. Trees within the required yard setbacks or around the perimeter; c. Trees that have a screening function or provide relief from glare, blight, or commercial development; d. Other significant native evergreen or deciduous trees; and e. Other significant nonnative trees. 3. Priority Three. Alders and cottonwoods shall be retained when all other trees have been evaluated for retention and are not able to be retained except where adjacent to open space, wetlands or creek buffers. E. In considering trees for retention, applicants and the city shall avoid, to the extent known, the selection of trees that are mature and may be a fall hazard, including trees adjacent to utility corridors where falling trees may cause power outages or other damage F. Tree Retention Procedures. 1. If a revised improvement placement would result in the retention of more and/or higher priority trees, the tree retention and protection plan should be adjusted to: a. Maximize the retention of higher priority trees; and b. Satisfy the retention requirement in subsection (C) of this section. 2. This adjustment in subsection (F)(1) of this section must be done unless the applicant can demonstrate that actual compliance with subsection (C) of this section would make the proposed development infeasible. In documenting infeasibility, applicants of subdivision and short subdivision must consider implementing conservation subdivision design as provided for in ECDC 20.75.048. 3. Once the location of on -site improvements has been established through city review and applicant revision of the tree retention and protection plan, existing priority one trees not impacted by the installation of said improvements must be retained at least to the number of trees required by subsection (C) of this section, except for hazard trees and nuisance trees. 4. If there are not enough existing trees outside of the improved areas of the site to satisfy subsection (C) of this section through retention alone, the applicant shall be required to make up the deficiency as follows: Packet Pg. 175 7.A.b Blue (*) — staff recommendation Red (**) — PB subcommittee recommendation a. Planting a number of new trees on -site in accordance with ECDC 23.10.080 that would be sufficient, in combination with the number of trees actually retained, to satisfy subsection (C) of this section; and b. If it is not feasible for planting under this subsection, to achieve the required number of trees, the applicant shall make a fee -in -lieu payment of $2,500 for every tree not planted pursuant to this subsection. G. If a development retains 50 percent of the significant trees on a site, the fee -in -lieu provisions of ECDC 23.10.080(E) do not apply. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021]. 23.10.070 Tree protection measures during development. Prior to development activity or initiating tree removal on the site, vegetated areas, individual trees and soil to be preserved in accordance with ECDC 23.10.060(B) shall be protected from potentially damaging activities pursuant to the following standards: A. Preconstruction Meeting Required. Prior to the commencement of any permitted clearing and grading activity, a preconstruction meeting shall be held on site with the permittee and appropriate city staff. The project site shall be marked in the field as follows: 1. The extent of clearing and grading to occur; 2. Delineation and protection of any critical areas and critical area buffers with clearing limit fencing; 3. Flagging of trees to be removed and tags on trees to be retained; and 4. Property lines. B. Placing Materials Near Trees. No person may conduct any activity within the protected area of any tree designated to remain, including, but not limited to, operating or parking equipment, placing solvents, storing building material or stockpiling any materials, or dumping concrete washout or other chemicals. During construction, no person shall attach any object to any tree designated for protection. C. Protective Barrier. Before development, land clearing, grading, filling or any land alteration, the applicant shall: 1. Erect and maintain readily visible temporary protective tree fencing along the limits of disturbance which completely surrounds the protected area of all retained trees, groups of trees, vegetation and native soil. Tree protective fencing shall be a minimum height of three feet, visible and of durable construction; orange polyethylene laminar fencing is acceptable. 2. Install highly visible signs spaced no further than 15 feet apart along the entirety of the protective tree fencing. Said sign must be approved by the director and shall state, Packet Pg. 176 Blue (*) — staff recommendation 7.A.b Red (**) — PB subcommittee recommendation at a minimum, "Tree and Soil Protection Area, Entrance Prohibited," and provide the city phone number for code enforcement to report violations. 3. Prohibit excavation or compaction of soil or other potentially damaging activities within the barriers; provided, that the director may allow such activities approved by a qualified professional and under the supervision of a qualified professional retained and paid for by the applicant. 4. Maintain the protective barriers in place for the duration of the project until the director authorizes their removal. 5. Ensure that any approved landscaping done in the protected zone subsequent to the removal of the barriers shall be accomplished with machinery from outside the protected zone or by hand. 6. Limit the time period that the critical root zone is covered by mulch, plywood, steel plates or similar materials, or by light soils, to protect the tree's critical root zone. 7. In addition to the above, the director may require the following: a. If equipment is authorized to operate within the protected zone, the soil and critical root zone of a tree must be covered with mulch to a depth of at least six inches or with plywood, steel plates or similar material in order to protect roots and soil from damage caused by heavy equipment. b. Minimize root damage by hand -excavating a two -foot -deep trench, at edge of critical root zone, to cleanly sever the roots of trees to be retained. Never rip or shred roots with heavy equipment. c. Corrective pruning performed on protected trees in order to avoid damage from machinery or building activity. d. Maintenance of trees throughout construction period by watering and fertilizing. D. Grade. 1. The grade shall not be elevated or reduced within the critical root zone of trees to be preserved without the director's authorization based on recommendations from a qualified professional. The director may allow coverage of up to one-half of the area of the tree's critical root zone with light soils (no clay) to the minimum depth necessary to carry out grading or landscaping plans, if it will not imperil the survival of the tree. Aeration devices may be required to ensure the tree's survival. 2. If the grade adjacent to a preserved tree is raised such that it could slough or erode into the tree's critical root zone, it shall be permanently stabilized to prevent soil erosion and suffocation of the roots. Packet Pg. 177 Blue (*) —staff recommendation 7.A.b Red (**) — PB subcommittee recommendation 3. The applicant shall not install an impervious surface within the critical root zone of any tree to be retained without the authorization of the director. The director may require specific construction methods and/or use of aeration devices to ensure the tree's survival and to minimize the potential for root -induced damage to the impervious surface. 4. To the greatest extent practical, utility trenches shall be located outside of the critical root zone of trees to be retained. The director may require that utilities be tunneled under the roots of trees to be retained if the director determines that trenching would significantly reduce the chances of the tree's survival. 5. Trees and other vegetation to be retained shall be protected from erosion and sedimentation. Clearing operations shall be conducted so as to expose the smallest practical area of soil to erosion for the least possible time. To control erosion, it is encouraged that shrubs, ground cover and stumps be maintained on the individual lots, where feasible. 6. The director may approve the use of alternative tree protection techniques if those techniques provide an equal or greater degree of protection than the techniques listed in this subsection. E. Directional Felling. Directional felling of trees shall be used to avoid damage to trees designated for retention. F. Additional Requirements. The director may require additional tree protection measures that are consistent with accepted urban forestry industry practices. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021]. 23.10.080 Tree replacement. A. Replacement Required. Tree replacement is required for tree cutting permits required by ECDC 23.10.030.A, vacant lots and subdividable properties this chapte and/ar for viable tree removal associated with the development types identified in ECDC 23.10.060(A) €ash cirtnificant tree to he removed chll he renlaras follows: ierl 1. For each significant tree between six inches and 4-9 12 inches DBH removed, one replacement tree is required. 2. For each significant tree between 12 4-0.1 inches and 23.9 (*) 4-4 inches in DBH removed, two replacement trees are required. 3. For each significant tree greater than 14 inches ;;nrl less the 24 inches in DBH removed, three replacement trees are required. •M 23.10.080 Tree replacement related to development activity. Packet Pg. 178 7.A.b Blue (*) —staff recommendation Red (**) — PB subcommittee recommendation Tree replacement requirements in this section (23.10.080) apply to tree removals associated with development and regulated in ECDC 23.10.060-070. A. Replacement Required. Tree replacement is required for tree cutting permits required by this chapter and/or for tree removal associated with the development types identified in ECDC 23.10.060(A). Each significant tree to be removed shall be replaced as follows: (**) 1. For each significant tree between six inches and 10 inches DBH removed, one replacement tree is required. 2. For each significant tree between 10.1 inches and 23.9 inches in DBH removed, two replacement trees are required. 3. For each significant tree greater than 14 inches and less the 24 inches in DBH removed, three replacement trees are required. B. No tree replacement is required in the following cases: 1. The tree is hazardous, dead, diseased, injured, or in a declining condition with no reasonable assurance of regaining vigor, for reasons not attributable to the development. 2. The tree is proposed to be relocated to another suitable planting site; provided, that relocation complies with the standards in this section. C. Prior to any tree removal, the applicant shall demonstrate through a tree protection and replacement plan, critical area mitigation plan, or other plans acceptable to the director that tree replacement will meet the minimum standards of this section. D. Replacement Specifications. 1. Minimum sizes for replacement trees shall be: a. One -and -one -half -inch caliper for deciduous trees; b. Six feet in height for evergreen trees. 2. The director may consider smaller -sized replacement trees if the applicant can demonstrate that smaller trees are more suited to the species, the site conditions, and the purposes of this section, and that such trees will be planted in sufficient quantities to meet the intent of this section. 3. Replacement trees shall be primarily native species. 4. Replacement trees must be planted within the city of Edmonds or its urban growth area. Packet Pg. 179 7.A.b Blue (*) — staff recommendation Red (**) — PB subcommittee recommendation E. Tree Replacement Fee In Lieu. After providing clear documentation to development services that all replacement options have been considered and are infeasible, including arborist reports as necessary, the developer shall pay a fee -in -lieu for each replacement tree required but not replaced. 1. The amount of the fee shall be $1,000 multiplied by the number of trees necessary to satisfy the tree replacement requirements of this section and shall be deposited into the city's tree fund. 2. The fee shall be paid to the city prior to the issuance of a tree removal permit or associated development permit. (*) 4. In no case shall the fee -in -lieu payments required by this subsection exceed $2.00 per square feet of lot area. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021 ]. 23.10.085 Protected trees - Notice on title. The owner of any property that included a tree(s) identified for retention and protection on an approved tree retention and protection plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by easement, tract, or covenant restriction shall, as a condition of permit issuance, record a notice on title of the existence of such protected trees against the property with the Snohomish County auditor's office. The notice shall be approved by the director and the city attorney for compliance with this provision. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021 ]. 23.10.090 Bonding. A. The director may require a performance bond for tree replacement and site restoration to ensure the installation of replacement trees, and/or compliance with other landscaping requirements as identified on the approved site plans. B. The bond shall be in the amount of 120 percent of the estimated cost of implementation of the tree replacement and/or site restoration including trees, irrigation and labor. C. A two-year maintenance bond shall be required after the installation of required site improvements and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or finalization of permit and following required landscape installation or tree replacement. The maintenance bond shall be in place to ensure adequate maintenance and protection of retained trees and site improvements. The maintenance bond shall be for an amount of 15 percent of the performance bond or estimate in subsection (B) of this section. D. The director shall exempt individual single-family lots from a maintenance bond, except where a clearing violation has occurred or tree replacement is located within critical areas Packet Pg. 180 7.A.b Blue (*) —staff recommendation Red (**) — PB subcommittee recommendation or critical area buffers. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021 ]. 23.10.100 Violation, enforcement and penalties. A. Noncompliance with any section of this chapter constitutes a violation of this code. B. A violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as provided in Chapter 5.50 ECC. C. Penalties. 1. Aiding or Abetting. Any person who, through an act of commission or omission, procures, aids or abets in the violation shall be considered to have committed a violation for the purposes of the penalty. All persons who have been found to commit a violation under this chapter shall be responsible for an equal share of any penalties imposed under subsection (C)(2) of this section. 2. Civil Penalties. Any person violating any provisions of this chapter shall have committed a civil infraction and may be subject to civil penalties in addition to any criminal penalties. Pursuant to Chapter 64.12 RCW, the city may be entitled to triple the amount of civil damages claimed or assessed. The extent of the penalty shall be determined according to one or more of the following: a. An amount reasonably determined by the director to be equivalent to the costs estimated by the city to investigate and administer the infraction; b. The economic benefit that the violator derives from the violation (as measured by the greater of the resulting increase in market value of the property or the value received by the violator or savings of construction costs realized by the violator performing any act in violation of this chapter); c. Removal of existing 12-inch diameter or larger trees in violation of this chapter will require an appraisal of the tree value by the city tree protection professional using trunk formula method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal. The cost of the appraisal shall be paid by the person(s) who removed existing trees in violation of this chapter; d. Penalty for illegal removal of trees shall be $1,500 per tree less than 12 inches in diameter and the appraised value of trees 12 inches or more in diameter. Penalties shall be paid into the city tree fund. If diameter of removed tree is unknown, determination of the diameter size shall be made by the city arborist by comparing size of stump and species to similar trees in similar growing conditions; e. The cost of replacing and replanting the trees and restoring the disturbed area according to a specific plan approved by the city. Violators of this chapter or of a permit issued thereunder shall be responsible for restoring unlawfully damaged Packet Pg. 181 7.A.b Blue (*) —staff recommendation Red (**) — PB subcommittee recommendation areas in conformance with a plan, approved by the director, that provides for repair of any environmental and property damage, and restoration of the site; and which results in a site condition that, to the greatest extent practical, is equivalent to the site condition that would have existed in the absence of the violation(s); f. If illegal tree topping has occurred, the property owner shall be required to have a certified arborist develop and implement a five-year pruning schedule in addition to monetary fines and/or required tree replacement. 3. Civil penalties under this section shall be imposed by a notice in writing, either by certified mail with return receipt requested or by personal service, to the person incurring the same from the city. The notice shall describe the violation, the approximate date(s) of violation, and shall order the acts constituting the violation to cease and desist, or, in appropriate cases, require necessary corrective action within a specific time. 4. Any fiscal penalty recovered under this section shall be deposited in the city's tree fund as established in Chapter 3.95 ECC. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021 ]. 23.10.110 Liability. A. Liability for any adverse impacts, damages or injury resulting from work performed in accordance with any permit issued by the city under ECDC 23.10.030 shall be the sole responsibility of the permit applicant and/or owner of the property or site for which the permit was issued, and shall not be the responsibility of the city of Edmonds. Issuance by the city of any permit under this chapter shall not be construed as an assumption of any risk or liability by the city of Edmonds, nor as a warranty or guarantee that the work authorized by the permit will have no adverse impact or will cause no damages or injury to any person or property. B. Issuance by the city of a permit under ECDC 23.10.030 and/or compliance by the applicant and/or property owner with any permit conditions therein shall not relieve an applicant and/or property owner from any responsibility otherwise imposed by law for any adverse impacts, injury or damage to persons or property resulting from the work authorized by any permit issued under this chapter. C. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to relieve any property owner within the city limits from the duties imposed under Chapter 9.25 ECC to keep any tree or vegetation upon his property or under his control in such condition as to prevent it from constituting a hazard or a nuisance. D. The amount of any security required as part of any land development permit with which tree removal is associated shall not serve as a gauge or limit to the compensation that may be owed by a property owner as a result of injury or damages to persons or property Packet Pg. 182 7.A.b Blue (*) — staff recommendation Red (**) — PB subcommittee recommendation resulting from any tree removal authorized under this chapter. [Ord. 4227 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4220 § 1 (Att. A), 2021; Ord. 4218 § 1 (Att. A), 2021 ]. Packet Pg. 183 7.A.c Greywater reuse: Mr. Shuster explained that greywater reuse was a question that Mr. Clugston was going to address. Chair Gladstone asked if greywater referred to stormwater runoff or water coming from inside the home. Mr. Shuster commented that stormwater runoff is not considered greywater. He thought it was from inside the home. Chair Gladstone thought this would be problematic, particularly in the Deer Creek Wellfield area or if there are shallow infiltration wells, because greywater is apt to carry PFAS. Mr. Shuster agreed. He said he would not recommend infiltrating greywater. He shared slides related to this that Mr. Clugston was going to talk about on the topic. Board Member Maxwell recalled that the Board had previously discussed this and decided against using greywater and also against allowing rain barrels or allowing people to water their lawns with water from their roofs. Chair Gladstone concurred and noted the draft is not reflective of their discussion. Mr. Shuster explained that one of the slides lists greywater tiers and options; this is something the Board will need to talk with Mr. Clugston about when he returns. Chair Gladstone explained there will be another presentation at the public hearing. She requested that Mr. Clugston bring back the areas that were unaddressed. They can also request information from the OVWSD as part of that discussion. She will work with Mr. Clugston on this. The Board thanked Mr. Shuster for the informative presentation. B. Tree Code Amendments (AMD2022-0004) Susan McLaughlin, Development Services Director, explained the intent of this item was to let the Board discuss the subcommittee recommendations. She noted that Urban Forest Planner Deb Powers had provided feedback in the draft code of instances where staff may have concerns or conflicts. She explained that staff has paused tree code amendments for the time being in order to understand the implications or outcomes of those regulations in relation to an overall city policy on tree canopy loss. Chair Gladstone asked about the work they will be doing to determine the tree canopy target. Director McLaughlin said she didn't think it would take long, and they intend to get started right away. She thought they would be able to pick the tree code up again in Q1 2024. Chair Gladstone asked how the work is going to get done since the department is understaffed. Director McLaughlin noted they just hired a senior planner who will be working on the Comprehensive Plan through 2024 and who has some capacity. Board Member Golembiewski asked if they have any idea what a good target is. If they are at 34% tree canopy now, is that near where they want to be or are they way off base? Director McLaughlin explained determining that would be the first task in the process. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell expressed concern that the citizens of Edmonds have been waiting on this for a year. She feels like the Planning Board should continue rather than allowing the tree code amendments to be pushed down the line. She was concerned that if they are not working on it and actively showing progress, they will be failing in their j ob. Director McLaughlin explained that progress for her is looking at the overall outcome. She is concerned about the potential for a cumulative tree canopy cover loss of 3-6% on an annual basis with two trees per lot being removed. Board Member Martini asked what has happened with the tree canopy in Edmonds in the last 15 years. Ms. Powers explained they have had tree canopy assessments every five years since 2005. Even though there was Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 2023 Page 5 of 8 Packet Pg. 184 an overall gain in the last five years, in the previous assessments there has been a substantial loss. However, because of a lack of detail with the assessments, they don't know what to attribute that to. Chair Gladstone expressed appreciation for the information about the potential loss of tree canopy with the two trees per lot annual removal proposed legislation. She also asked about the results of the attorney review of the work. Director McLaughlin noted there is applicable legislation in the City that they are tracking in relation to the tree code work related to development. Chair Gladstone said she could see where a canopy target would be valuable to gauge whether the code is accomplishing what they want. In her mind, these two things can be parallel, though a recommendation can go forward, and then you come back and see how it fits in relation to the goal. That way they don't lose the work that's been done already, and they don't have to start at square one in the new year. She commented that the work of the Planning Board is an attempt to navigate the tension between environmental protection and property rights. She recommended that the Board complete their work while staff works on the target and then they can come back and compare. Board Member Maxwell agreed that they can be passing a recommendation now and can come back to it later if it turns out it's not working out as well as they like. Also, they are doing this in terms of what they feel is the compromise position that the citizens of Edmonds would support. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell referred to packet pages 75-76 and discussed the subcommittee recommendations. She explained that a comment they heard over and over again from the public was not to touch the largest trees. The recommendation that they put forth is that removal of a 30" or larger tree would be prohibited. She clarified that they were referring to non -hazardous, non -nuisance, non-invasive trees. Trees under six inches would not be regulated. The tree sizes in between 6" and 30" are in 12" diameter increments (6-18" and 18-30"). For 6- 18", the recommendation would be to require notification but not replacements. For 18-30", the recommendation is to require replacements. Property owners could remove up to two trees per year. Other recommendations are to have permits without fees and to require one tree of at least six inches in diameter per 3,000 square feet. Chair Gladstone said she liked the way they have framed this. It makes it simple. However, after further consideration and hearing Director McLaughlin's comments tonight about tree canopy loss, she would prefer that the total number of trees per year be one instead of two. Additionally, she likes the idea of incentivizing certain kinds of trees, but she has learned recently that conifers may not be able to survive the climate in the future. The City of Seattle has put together a list of climate resilient trees they may want to focus on rather than the conifers. Board Member Golembiewski said they need to do everything in their power to deter removal of the largest trees. She isn't sure that prohibiting private property owners completely is within their power. Board Member Maxwell recommended making that part of the legal review. Board Member Golembiewski concurred and added that they should try to make it very unattractive to do. Director McLaughlin noted that they would do a legal review of the draft code. Board Member Nutsch asked if the intent was that replacements happen on the same property or if they would be open to allowing them to happen elsewhere. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell noted the subcommittee had an interesting discussion on that, and it is something she would support proposing. Board Member Nutsch asked if the 3-6% canopy cover loss represents a worst -case scenario. Director McLaughlin explained that it is conservative and represents 20% of homeowners removing the maximum of two trees per year. Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 2023 Page 6 of 8 Packet Pg. 185 7.A.c Board Member Maxwell noted that currently there are no restrictions on homeowners cutting down trees. They are talking about making it more difficult to take down trees, so he doesn't expect the number to increase. Other board members commented that there is no way to know what people are going to do since human nature is complicated. Board Member Golembiewski said at the very least they should be tracking tree removals. She would like to see a notification process required for all private homeowner trees and maybe even a permit just on the big trees. This would allow the City the opportunity to get some baseline data to make future decisions on rather than doing nothing in the interim period. Board Member Kuehn agreed that they should have baseline requirements and spoke in support of Board Member Golembiewski's recommendations in the interim. Chair Gladstone noted there is a lot more to discuss. She recommended that the Board continue the discussion while staff goes down the path of developing canopy targets. Director McLaughlin said she was not opposed to working in parallel on this but pointed out they would reach a point where they would need to have something to analyze that was not a moving target. She challenged the Board to think about equity considerations and the fact that there is a huge void of tree canopy in the Highway 99 area along with heat island impacts. If they treat all things equal, they will end up with more inequities in the tree canopy in certain parts of the city. She also wants to develop a subcommittee for the citywide tree canopy target so they can expedite the efforts. She will distribute more information to the Board. Board Member Mitchell thought there should be some sort of tax or fee on the removal of trees to emphasize the importance of retaining them. Board Member Maxwell clarified that they were thinking of permits with no fees for just the hazard trees. Board Member Golembiewski's suggestion was to have a fee on the larger trees. Board Member Martini raised concerns about equity. Board Member Mitchell pointed out that with the recent property tax increases there were avenues that senior citizens could go through to get relief. They might be able to get something like that in place. Chair Gladstone recommended that they get a briefing from legal staff about the property ownership tree removal portion of this so they are making a recommendation that is legally defendable. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell noted that a discussion on the tree code update was scheduled for November 8. Director McLaughlin would like to hold a joint meeting with the Economic Development Commission on the Comprehensive Plan on November 8 also. This could happen before the regularly scheduled meeting. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell requested that staff provide material to read ahead of only a few days prior to the meeting. She noted they would probably need to move back the detached ADU discussion since they are adding additional items to that meeting. Also, there is an outstanding request from the Council about reviewing the vision statement which was going to be worked on as a subcommittee. Chair Gladstone indicated she, Board Member Kuehn, and Student Representative Distelhorst will try to work together over the weekend so there can be something ready for the Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 25, 2023 Page 7 of 8 Packet Pg. 186 7.A.c GROUP CAME TO BEFORE THE CURRENT FIRST ITEM IN UNFINISHED BUSINESS. THE MOTION PASSED. BOARD MEMBER MAXWELL MOVED, CHAIR GLADSTONE SECONDED, REMOVING THE PARKS, RECREATION & HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT - 2023 Q3 ACCOMPLISHMENTS FROM THE AGENDA IN LIEU OF BOARD MEMBERS READING THE REPORT ON THEIR OWN AND FORWARDING QUESTIONS TO STAFF. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. AUDIENCE COMMENTS None ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS A. Parks, Recreation & Human Services Department - 2023 Q3 Accomplishments - REMOVED PUBLIC HEARINGS None UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Brief Tree Code Discussion Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell explained the subcommittee discussed all the various proposals and public comments on the tree code and submitted a document with suggested language for the code. Board Member Maxwell didn't think it was appropriate to discuss the code language specifically, just the summary table of the guiding principles. There was concern about discussing this at all since it was not included in the packet. Director McLaughlin commented that it was not an accident this item was not included on the agenda. The project is on pause at the staff level for legal review and director review. Chair Gladstone expressed a concern about waiting too long to discuss this and having to start over again. Vice Chair Tragus- Campbell suggested putting it on the agenda for the next meeting so they can stay updated on the staff review. She thinks it is important for this to stay on the agenda every meeting until they can get an answer and move forward. Board Member Maxwell suggested that legal review would be easier if they actually had some clear language to review. He also pointed out that there was no legal review of the step back ordinance. Board Member Martini asked what triggered this. Director McLaughlin said she was not able to answer that. Board Member Martini did not like the prospect of repeatedly pushing this down the road. Board Member Golembiewski expressed the concern about delaying this too long and ending up with a Council that proposes an emergency ordinance. She hopes they get to a point where they stop ruling by emergency ordinance. Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 11, 2023 Page 2 of 8 Packet Pg. 187 7.A.c MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR TRAGUS-CAMPBELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MAXWELL, THEY HAVE A REVIEW OF THE PLANNING BOARD SUBCOMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION MEMO AND RECEIVE AN UPDATE FROM STAFF ABOUT STATUS OF THE REVIEWS PROCESS AT THE OCTOBER 25 MEETING. Board Member Kuehn expressed frustration about the situation. He doesn't understand why they can't even have a discussion about this to keep the ball moving forward. Board Member Maxwell noted that they could continue to share the key concepts tonight. Other board members disagreed because the public didn't have a chance to review the documentation ahead of time. Chair Gladstone expressed concern about having any process violations on this important topic. It was noted there would need to be continued discussion about how all of this would impact the extended agenda. MOTION PASSED WITH BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL ABSTAINING. B. Planning Board Action on 2024-2029 Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) & Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell referred to a memo drafted by another subcommittee regarding the Planning Board's recommendation. The memo states that the Board does not have sufficient information to make a clear recommendation. Chair Gladstone added that in the memo they tried to capture the concerns raised at the last meeting around the CIP/CFP. She explained that they had primarily tried to characterize what the concerns were around equity. They recognized there were gaps in the information that was provided in order to make a solid recommendation. Board Member Mitchell commented that there is a time crunch to present this to Council. It would take significant staff work to provide that backup information in time for the Board to make a formal decision. For that reason, they have left it open and recommended that specific questions be asked. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell thought the memo captured what was discussed at the last meeting and also during the last year. Mainly, they were raising questions about how items were prioritized. The public has consistently brought up concerns around sidewalks, and there was concern about not having any of that in the plan. She encouraged the Council to ask questions around prioritization and how they can make some progress toward addressing inequities in the infrastructure. Board Member Golembiewski asked if the intent was for these priorities to be presented to Council or for this to come back to Planning Board before making a recommendation to Council. Chair Gladstone did not think there was time for this to come back to the Planning Board which is why the memo ends up with things the Board thinks the Council should look at to make an informed decision. Board Member Martini thought that providing the Council with what they collectively agree on would be useful. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell concurred and noted that the memo outlines that. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER MARTINI, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MITCHELL, TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION MEMO TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE CIP/CFP AS WRITTEN. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Planning Board Meeting Minutes October 11, 2023 Page 3 of 8 Packet Pg. 188 7.A.c Draft Sept. 13, 2023 Meeting Minutes Planner Amber Brokenshire pointed out the inclusion of noticing 300 feet around both parcels. She reviewed the proposed project to rezone two parcels along Edmonds Way to BC-EW Community Business. The adjacent PUD substation was added to the proposal. The site to the east is still undeveloped even after being rezoned last year from RM-1.5 to RM-EW. Upon a request by the Planning Board, staff had reached out to the PUD about including the property as part of the rezone proposal. The PUD had no objections to the proposed zoning change. The proposal boundaries have been expanded to include both properties. She reviewed the surrounding area, compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan, zoning analysis, public benefits of BC-EW zoning, public notice, and public comments. Staff is recommending that the Planning Board forward a recommendation to City Council to approve the rezone. Chair Gladstone commented that they had had a pretty thorough discussion at the last hearing; the only issue was the noticing of 300 feet around both parcels. Staff had re -noticed this and received no additional public comments. She asked if there were any other questions. Public Testimony: Shaun Leiser, 2024 NW 190th Street, Shoreline, WA, applicant, said he was available to answer any questions. Seeing no further public testimony, the public hearing was closed. Deliberation: MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER MARTINI TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REZONE TO CITY COUNCIL. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. AMD2022-0004, Tree Code Amendments Urban Forest Planner Deb Powers shared public testimony on the tree code amendments since the last meeting and continued the discussion from the last meeting on property owner tree removals. She shared the following verbiage as a starting point for discussions and stated they would need to determine the number, tree size, and timeframe metrics to fill in the gaps in the draft code. III. Tree removal allowance 4. Any private property owner of developed property may remove up to [number] [tree size] within [timeframe] with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form. No replacement trees are required for trees removed under the tree removal allowance. Ms. Powers explained that they had discussed having mandatory minimums so that when a property owner gets to a certain number of trees left on a lot or if they started with a low number of trees, it could trigger tree replacement requirements. She reminded the Board that the tree removal allowance is meant to be an extremely easy process that does not require extensive review. Staff believes it will still slow the loss of canopy as well as Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 13, 2023 Page 3 of 9 Packet Pg. 189 7.A.c provide a way to track tree removals over time. Prior Planning Board considerations for property owner tree removals are to keep it simple, prohibit tree removal in critical areas, and limit larger tree removals. Board Member Mitchell asked if they are tracking by neighborhood or area. Ms. Powers explained that the TRAKit software tracks permit activity by parcel and would need to check if it can be queried for removal information by area. Ms. Powers reviewed the Planning Board's previous leaning toward allowing two landmark trees (24" DBH or larger) per 12-months. Replacement trees would be triggered when the property owner has the last two or three trees on the property. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell said she strongly supports requiring a permit and replacement (3:1) for removal of any landmark trees. She does not want landmark trees under the allowance. She feels this is where there is consensus with public comments they have heard. Chair Gladstone agreed and asked if there is a way to incentivize the replacement of the types of trees they want to see. Maybe have a 2:1 replacement? Staff replied that 3:1 replacement requirements are consistent with the current development code. Board Member Martini asked who pays for the replacement. Staff replied that the property owner pays for the removal and the replacement. Chair Gladstone brought up the issue of equity. What happens if it's a hazard tree that needs to come down and somebody can't afford the 3:1 replacement. Ms. Powers explained that under the current code, hazardous or a nuisance tree removal outside critical areas do not have replacement requirements. Under the proposed allowance approach, there is no permit or arborist report cost but under a hazard or nuisance tree removal permit, documentation by a certified arborist is required and is subject to staff review. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell clarified that she thought anything that is hazardous or nuisance should not require a permit or replacements. Staff clarified that a permit would be required for hazard or nuisance tree removals over and above the allowance. For trees removed under the allowance, no permit would be involved, and the board has considered mandatory minimums to address replacements. Board Member Golembiewski said her concern about requiring a permit for landmark trees is that it would take away the opportunity for someone to remove a hazard tree without the expense to do so. She thought if they could allow removal of one landmark tree every three or five years as part of the tree allowance it could help with the equity and affordability issue. Board Member Maxwell agreed and added that his understanding of a reason to have an allowance is that it would allow low-income families to remove nuisance and hazard trees without any costs as long as they are within the allowance. On top of that he is concerned that they have a $325 fee for a permit because it involves some sort of evaluation, but what is the evaluation in this situation? Board Member Kuehn suggested they could possibly make it more economically feasible for low-income families if that is something they want to do, but he had concerns about making it easier to remove landmark trees unless they are hazardous or nuisance. Chair Gladstone noted that equity can be achieved in different ways than just code. She suggested that the City could have a fund that pays for permits for low-income residents. She was concerned about just allowing landmark trees to be included in the allowance because of equity because they then forego the balance of taking Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 13, 2023 Page 4 of 9 Packet Pg. 190 7.A.c care of the canopy. Maybe they need to be more creative about how they accomplish the equity and allow for ease of removal of the hazard trees since that is what they are really concerned about. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell agreed with Chair Gladstone. She wondered about having the permit for hazardous trees potentially be free so you have to go through the process but there is no charge for it. The hazard/nuisance tree is a different topic to her than the healthy landmark tree. She asked the Board's thoughts on healthy landmark trees. MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR TRAGUS-CAMPBELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER KUEHN, THAT THE TREE CODE IS UPDATED TO REFLECT THAT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ANY TREES OF 24" DBH OR GREATER ARE NOT INCLUDED IN TREE REMOVAL ALLOWANCES AND WOULD REQUIRE A PERMIT AND REPLACEMENTS IN ORDER TO BE REMOVED. Board Member Maxwell spoke against the motion and said he was in support of having different allowances for the larger trees than they have for the smaller trees. To him, this hasn't dealt with the problems that were brought up about equity. MOTION FAILED. Board Member Golembiewski suggested having an allowance to remove one landmark tree every three years. Board Member Maxwell referred to public comments by Larry Williamson and Bill Phipps and suggested an allowance of three trees that are 12" or larger every 36 months. For larger trees such as landmark trees and up, the allowance would be one tree per 36 months. The landmark tree would count toward the total of three per 36 months. Ms. Powers spoke to the decrease in code effectiveness and difficulty in administration when there are multiple timeframes for different sized trees and when timeframes are over 12 months. She discussed the Shoreline code as an example how 4 trees on an 8,000 square foot lot could be removed all at the same time, even with a 36 month timeframe and discussed various ways to look at this. Board Member Mitchell recommended just starting somewhere, tracking tree removals, and looking at this again in the near future to evaluate how it is working. Board Member Maxwell said it was his understanding that was what they were doing. Board Member Golembiewski recommended allowing three "regulated" trees over 12" DBH every three years or one landmark tree over 24" DBH every three years. There was further discussion about the complexities of having an extended timeline applied to different tree sizes. Would it be a rolling three years or a set three years? Chair Gladstone asked about the tradeoff from a canopy management standpoint of protecting the 6" and above trees versus starting at the 12" and up trees. Ms. Powers explained that Edmonds canopy data wasn't that detailed yet and spoke to the importance of getting something on the books so they can begin to track this. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell spoke in support of the 12-month allowance as opposed to the 36-month allowance. She pointed out you are far more likely to see a change in ownership in a 36-month period versus a Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 13, 2023 Page 5 of 9 Packet Pg. 191 7.A.c one-year period. She thinks a 12-month timeframe would be easier for both the consumer and the City. Ms. Powers noted that the removals, whether as allowance or permit are tied to the parcel and not necessarily the property owner. Board Member Kuehn also was in favor of the 12-month time period. He asked if the system would allow one tree removal per 12-months, but if it's a landmark tree, you can't take another one out for a certain period of time. Ms. Powers noted that could work under a 1-per 12 month allowance that applies to trees at least 6" DBH, without a permit or replacements and that additional landmark tree removals would require a permit with an extended time and replacement requirements. Mr. Clugston thought they could make that work. Board Member Golembiewski suggested increasing the size of landmark trees to something bigger than 24" and still making them permit required. This might be a good compromise. She also asked that the size of landmark trees in the definition be based on a single trunk. She suggested that they also clarify the definition to reflect what they are really concerned about. Do they want to protect conifers? Native trees? Ms. Powers noted that the current DBH definition for multiple-trunked trees is already a proposed code change to follow industry standards. She thought that regulating tree removals based on retaining desired species would increase code complexity and its administration. MOTION MADE BY VICE CHAIR TRAGUS CAMPBELL, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI, TO DEFINE LANDMARK TREES AS 28 INCHES OR GREATER WITHIN A SINGLE TRUNK, THAT THOSE TREES WOULD REQUIRE A PERMIT AND REQUIRE REPLACEMENTS, AND THAT THE BOARD CONTINUE TO EXPLORE OPTIONS IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR FINANCIAL EQUITY TO DEAL WITH THE VARIETY OF ISSUES SUCH AS PERMIT FEES AND REPLACEMENTS. Board Member Maxwell recommended that the permit fee should be used for inspecting the replacement trees. Chair Gladstone did not think the Board had the authority to specify what the City should be charging fees for. Board Member Kuehn thought this was getting closer. Taking care of the landmark trees is a huge issue for the residents of Edmonds. Chair Gladstone said she was weighing the public education needs that would be required with changing the size from 24 to 28 inches and other implications of the size of the tree that may affect the loss of canopy cover. She wondered about including landmark trees in the allowance but only allowing one tree above significant per year. Student Representative Distelhorst asked about the rationale for making the size bigger since it counteracts the goal of trying to prevent people from cutting down larger trees. She thought they should keep the size for landmark trees the same and noted that people are already familiar with this size. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell explained that she agrees that 24 inches is an appropriate size, but her rationale for changing the definition of landmark trees to a larger size is to make it more palatable to everybody. Board Member Kuehn asked how the permit process works. Ms. Powers explained the main difference from the allowance process is that the permit requires staff review and a site visit, which is why a permit fee is charged and that the timeframe can be different from the allowance and it ensures that the replacements happen. Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 13, 2023 Page 6 of 9 Packet Pg. 192 7.A.c Currently, permits for tree removal in critical areas, street trees, commercial, multifamily properties and vacant lots all require a site visit. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell commented on some quick research she had just done that a 24-inch DBH Douglas Fir would be about 120 years old based on a standard growth factor. She commented that there would not be many trees bigger than that since most of Edmonds is second growth forest. In order to get closer to a decision, Chair Gladstone asked if the Board would rather have one tree allowance that allows the landmark trees or have them permitted. Board Member Golembiewski said she would be in favor of two trees per year with a permit required for landmark trees. A big concern she had about landmark trees is adding the multiple trunks together. If that is rectified, she feels better about permitting landmark trees. She thinks a good definition of what they are trying to protect is important. Board Member Nutsch said she really likes separating out the landmark trees into a permit, noting that there are not many of them left. She thinks having landmark trees included in the allowance is inviting people to try to sneak it in. Chair Gladstone recommended concluding the discussion for tonight and asking staff to come back with a definition of landmark trees and the revised development code language regarding measuring multiple trunks. Board Member Maxwell commented that for critical areas if the slope is less than 25% you can cut the trees down, and he doesn't think that is a good idea. Also, in section 23.10.040 it appears to say that the limit for the allowance doesn't apply to invasive trees, and people are welcome to cut down invasive trees as much as they like. He doesn't approve of that either. Ms. Powers explained that "invasive" is defined by Washington State and county noxious weed boards for different levels of control. Board Member Maxwell said he was comfortable with allowing compliance with what is required to be cut down but he is not comfortable cutting down something that is stabilizing landscape and providing canopy just because it is invasive. Chair Gladstone recommended adding this to a list of things to discuss in the future. Board Member Golembiewski asked the difference between developed properties and improved properties. She asked for clarification about if this code applies to property that has a house on it but could be subdividable. Ms. Powers explained the current definitions for improved lot and developable site and noted that we may need a new definition for a property of any size regardless of the presence of critical areas. Board Member Golembiewski said the way she was reading it was if you could subdivide your lot then you don't get an allowance. Ms. Powers noted that is why we need to define "developed property" . Board Member Golembiewski requested clarity on which properties this applies to and how the changing state regulations affect any of it. Are they addressing only what the situation is today or are they thinking about what the changing regulations will mean for developable lots? VICE CHAIR TRAGUS-CAMPBELL RETRACTED HER MOTION. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell offered to chat with Board Member Maxwell offline about his invasive species management concerns. She noted that the way the code is written, it excludes sections of property containing critical areas. She added she has a lot of materials she can share with him on this topic. Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 13, 2023 Page 7 of 9 Packet Pg. 193 7.A.c The discussion was continued to the next meeting. NEW BUSINESS None PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA Mr. Clugston informed the Board they have lost two staff members in the last two weeks — Planning Manager David Levitan and Associate Planner Michele Szafran - so they will need to make some changes in the upcoming schedules. He discussed the impact this will have on topics coming up. September 27 was supposed to be a discussion about the development tree code, but now it will be another discussion about property owner tree removals. The public hearing that was scheduled for October 25 will have to be bumped out. Chair Gladstone recommended trying to wrap up the property owner tree code on September 27 and starting the discussion on the development tree code on October 11. Mr. Clugston thought that would work. Chair Gladstone commented that Councilmember Olsen asked her about trying to have the Planning Board consider the vision statement. She asked Mr. Clugston about the status of that. He was not sure but indicated he could check on it. Mr. Clugston said he would try to adjust the schedule for the next meeting and bring it back with consideration of staffing challenges and all the projects they are juggling. He will be staffing the Planning Board for now. Chair Gladstone said she had been meeting with David Levitan every other week to discuss the upcoming agenda and extended agenda. Mr. Clugston indicated he could continue those meetings with her for now. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Student Representative Distelhorst discussed a scholarship program she did over the summer with Puget Sound Regional Council. Board Member Mitchell expressed appreciation to David Levitan and Michele Szafran and wished them the best in their new positions. Board Member Golembiewski concurred. Board Member Martini also wished David Levitan well. She said she appreciated that the Board had more time for discussion at this meeting. Board Member Maxwell said he appreciated how well they were able to work with people on Zoom tonight. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell welcomed Mr. Clugston back to the Planning Board and thanked him for filling in as staff liaison again. Best of luck to David Levitan. She thanked Ms. Powers for continuing to come back and give them as much information as she can. She felt like this was a really good meeting. She appreciates the Planning Board's patience with her as she tries to move them closer to a determination. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Planning Board Meeting Minutes September 13, 2023 Page 8 of 9 Packet Pg. 194 7.A.c August 23, 2023 Planning Board Meeting UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Work Session on Private Property Tree Regulations (AMD2022-0004) Urban Forest Planner Deb Powers made the presentation on code options related to property owner tree removals. Due to technical difficulties with sharing the PowerPoint, Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell requested that a copy of the presentation be included with the minutes. At the previous meeting there was general agreement to keep the regulations simple, that no healthy trees should be removed in critical areas, and to allow two trees to be removed per 12 months. Does this apply to larger trees? What about replacement requirements? She reviewed public and stakeholder feedback. She stated there was general support for limiting or prohibiting tree removal in critical areas. Additionally, the Tree Board had a strong recommendation to limit landmark tree removals. There was also previously a discussion about allowing a greater number of tree removals on larger properties. She reviewed a table showing options for property sizes with greater numbers of tree removal allowances for larger properties. The Board needs to decide if removal limits based on property size is a preferred approach. She reviewed some draft code options related to tree removal allowances depending on the size of the removed trees and noted that this would also increase the complexity and involvement by both the staff and applicant. Is this consistent with the stated goal of having a simple code? Chair Gladstone asked if there are other jurisdictions that use property size as part of their reporting and notification. Ms. Powers replied that Kirkland, Woodinville, and Bellevue all look at differences in property sizes, but it is up to the community. There was some discussion about the process of code development and how that affects the complexity or simplicity of the resulting code. Chair Gladstone noted it was important to answer the question of which trees to which this would apply. Would they even allow tree removals for trees over 23.9" DBH? Ms. Powers referred to a matrix that showed various code options related to landmark trees available to the Board, staff recommendations and solicited feedback. After landmark trees are defined, that code option is shown under Code Option III, Tree Removal Allowance - applicable tree size, in blue text under number 2. Code Option III.2: Any private property owner of developed property may remove up to one landmark tree within a 12-month period with the submittal of a Tree Removal Notification form. The Board had expressed support for limiting but not prohibiting landmark tree removals. Ms. Powers explained that rather than create a new size definition for trees in between significant and landmark trees, that the removal allowance just applies to landmark trees. The matrix shows the more complex code options in red text. There was some discussion if the number of allowed landmark tree removals should be one or two per 12 months. A permit would be required to exceed that numerical allowance, as shown under Code Option IV. Code Option IV.1: Tree removal scenarios that require a permit. The following activities shall require a Tree Removal Permit and tree replacements: The proposed removal of • Hazard or nuisance trees that exceed allowances (new) • Hazard or nuisance trees located within wetlands, streams and associated buffers, high landslide%rosion hazard areas and slopes greater than 25% critical areas (new) Planning Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 2023 Page 5 of 6 Packet Pg. 195 7.A.c • Trees located on commercial and multi family -zoned properties (current) • Trees located on vacant lots and/or subdividable properties (current) • Healthy landmark trees that exceed the number of tree removal allowances. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell spoke in support of the allowance and not having the graduated sizes because of the cleanliness of it. She likes the idea of the graduated sizes but it feels like it will cause more of a burden from an applicant and processing standpoint. She thinks allowing two landmark trees is too much. If they are going to do an across-the-board allowance of two trees, she thinks they should be 20 inches or smaller. Chair Gladstone said she agrees that landmark trees feel different. She realizes this adds complexity to the code but she thinks they need to figure out a way to differentiate them. Ms. Powers explained that Kirkland has two categories — significant and landmark. Significant is defined as trees at least 6 inches in trunk diameter. If they want to regulate trees of a certain size range between significant and landmark trees (such as over 12 inches), they need to define that category though. There was discussion about how these definitions relate to the development code. Vice Chair Campbell expressed an interest in staying consistent with the development code definitions and possibly increasing the allowance for significant trees. Chair Gladstone acknowledged the late hour and recommended they come back to this at the next work session in order to have enough time to get feedback from everyone. She also requested that staff provide a clear staff preferred recommendation for the tree code as a starting point so they can get through it a little quicker. Board Member Golembiewski suggested jumping right back in where they left off at the next meeting and skipping the introduction. NEW BUSINESS None. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA There was discussion about the extended agenda and agreement to revisit the tree code on September 13 if there is time after the two hearings and then again on September 27. Staff needs to consider how pushing this out impacts everything else on the extended agenda including the Comprehensive Plan, the planned public hearing for the CFP/CIP, and a couple other projects. Staff will review this and come back with a revised schedule on a proposed approach for the tree code. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Gladstone commented that the earlier staff can provide the CFP/CIP to the Board the better. She urged all board members to review the tree code and submit questions to staff ahead of the meeting in order to save time at the meeting. She asked Planning Manager Levitan to pass along her appreciation to Deb Powers for the format of the information she had provided tonight. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:22 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 2023 Page 6 of 6 Packet Pg. 196 7.A.c June 28, 2023 Planning Board/Joint Tree Board Meeting ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Steve W stated that there has been little or no discussion on the negative effects that some trees have on active or passive solar access. Is there any intention to do so? ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS None PUBLIC HEARINGS None UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Joint Work Session with Tree Board on Tree Code Update (AMD2022-00004) Urban Forest Planner Deb Powers made a PowerPoint presentation regarding Property Owner Tree Removals. Under the current code, in most cases on developed single-family lots with no critical areas, it's basically unlimited tree removals. This code amendment is addressing that situation. Key concepts for consideration with this code update: • Number of removals • Frequency • Additional trees that can be removed (exceptions) • Landmark trees • Tree removal in critical areas • Replacement requirements Number of removals: Ms. Powers reviewed that at the April 26 meeting the Planning Board was supportive of allowing a certain number of trees to be removed under a notification process. There had been some question about whether it should depend on the property size and/or what frequency the removals would be allowed. She reviewed some sample code language. Another question was related to the size of the trees. The Planning Board had proposed that only trees 12" to 23.9" DBH would be "regulated" under the allowance. "Landmark" trees would be 24" DBH or greater. Frequency: Is 12 months between allowed tree removals appropriate? The Planning Board had thought that it would depend on the size and number of trees. Additional trees that can be removed: Are hazardous and nuisance trees reasonable exceptions to the number of allowances? These would be allowed to be removed in addition to whatever the allowance is. Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 2023 Page 2 of 8 Packet Pg. 197 Landmark tree removals: Should "Landmark" tree removals be regulated in the same manner as smaller trees? Fewer number of allowed removals? Greater number of months between removals? The Planning Board had indicated that Landmark tree removals (24"+ DBH) should be more limited than smaller trees. Ms. Powers reviewed some sample potential numbers with different allowances for different property sizes. Planning Board Member Mitchell wondered about having different standards for different neighborhoods rather than a one -size -fits -all approach in order to retain characteristics of specific neighborhoods. For example, he noted that the existing tree density in Westgate is way less than Perrinville. Ms. Powers acknowledged that this could raise equity concerns. She noted that they could made the code as complex or as simple as desired, but with greater code complexity there is usually less code compliance. Additionally, staff does not have the resources to deal with administering a complex code. Planning Board Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell recommended not overcomplicating the process. She agreed that there are areas where there is a much greater canopy loss but having the same regulations across the city will be easier for everyone to understand. She said she liked the way the chart shared by Ms. Powers was set up even though she would be in favor of having two trees be the starting point for regulated tree removal allowances per 12 months rather than three trees. Critical areas: Should the same tree removal allowances apply in critical areas? The Planning Board had previously suggested only hazard and nuisance trees should be allowed to be removed in critical areas. A permit would be required to review whether the trees fit that criterion. Ms. Powers explained that the number one code enforcement issue they are having right now is unauthorized tree removals in critical areas. Replacement requirements: Should replacement trees be required for property owner tree removals? The response at the previous meeting was that it depends on the size and number of trees removed. Ms. Powers noted that no replanting is occurring with the current unlimited tree removals and reviewed a proposed matrix showing the removed tree DBH and the required number of replacements. Planning Board Member Maxwell asked the Tree Board their thoughts about regulating tree removals on private property. Tree Board Chair Cass explained that they are all passionate about trees and maintaining the tree canopy but they had mixed opinions about how to go about it. She referred back to a heated 2015 Planning Board public hearing about this topic. The decision then was to make sure there was an Urban Forest Management Plan which should extend at least 20 years out with good goals. She noted there is now a Plan with a good set of goals they haven't done and yet they are jumping to this action which wasn't necessarily in the Plan. She thinks it would be hard to re-engage with the public when they asked for an Urban Forest Management Plan with specific goals. She added that she noticed the consultant's report on the most recent public outreach related to the current code updates didn't go back to 2015 or include all the public input that went into the management plan. Tree Board Vice Chair Phipps commented that he feels they should allow more trees to be removed on larger - sized properties. Tree Board Member Kliment expressed support for not allowing any tree removals in critical areas unless they are hazardous trees. She liked the simplicity of the proposed plan. She is concerned about compliance and whether or not they will lose more trees simply because of the fact that there is a tree code. A lot of people have made it clear they don't want a tree code. Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 2023 Page 3 of 8 Packet Pg. 198 7.A.c Planning Board Member Mitchell asked the Tree Board if the Urban Forest Management Plan aligns with the existing tree code. Tree Board Chair Cass stated that the first goal was to maintain or enhance canopy coverage but there was a whole bunch of sub goals that were supposed to be encouraged. There was also supposed to be some tracking and reassessment after ten years. Planning Board Member Mitchell commented that it seems that there needs to be a regulatory framework aligned with the Urban Forest Management Plan. Tree Board Chair Cass agreed and said she thought that the control of tree removal on private property did not meet the goals of the Urban Forest Management Plan. Tree Board Member Kliment said there is a statement in the Urban Forest Management Plan that says that the Edmonds population did not want any sort of control of tree removal on private property. Even in the current outreach done by the consultant, the number of people that responded is minimal and 19% of them did not even live in Edmonds. Planning Board Member Mitchell wondered about goal number 3 with more of an incentivized approach to protecting and planting trees. Tree Board Member Kliment said she was very supportive of an educational approach. Critical areas are something that they really need to pay attention to and have some sort of regulations around those because of landslides. Planning Board Member Martini asked about focusing on critical areas where environmental impacts would be greatest. Tree Board Member Kliment replied that the Tree Board's idea was to have a computer at the fall market booth where residents can type in their address to see whether their property is in a critical area and get information about what that means. She noted that what people in critical areas do with their trees has an impact on their neighbors. Planning Manager Levitan acknowledged that the public outreach they have done with this current work is not statistically significant but said he would say the same for the 2015 comments at the public hearing. Tree Board Chair Cass said she heard there were close to 300 people in the chambers for that meeting. Planning Manager Levitan said he didn't see the video but based on the minutes there were 15-20 people who provided oral testimony. Planning Board Chair Gladstone asked Ms. Powers what has been undertaken to implement the existing Urban Forest Management Plan from 2019. She also wondered what triggered the notion of having a code that may not have been consistent with the Urban Forest Management Plan. Ms. Powers explained there are quite a few goals in the Urban Forest Management Plan that have been achieved already. hi 2024 there will be a gap analysis of the goals and consideration of the barriers to achieving the goals. She noted that the Urban Forest Management Plan goals are not just for the City to implement but for citizens, volunteer groups, the Tree Board, etc. She noted that Goal I related to development was achieved in 2021. At that point in time there was direction given to look at private property tree removal. Council was concerned that there was no accounting for or tracking of trees that were removed and no requirements for replanting. Planning Board Chair Gladstone asked about the percentage of canopy cover that is on private property. Tree Board Vice Chair Phipps replied that it was 87% - the vast majority of trees in Edmonds are on private property that has already been developed. Tree Board Chair Cass later added that 58% of the city's tree canopy is on single-family residential land. PLANNING BOARD VICE CHAIR TRAGUS-CAMPBELL MOVED TO REMOVE THE OPTION OF DOING NOTHING FROM THE TABLE AND THAT PROPERTY OWNER TREE REMOVALS SHOULD BE RESTRICTED IN SOME MANNER TO BE RECOMMENDED FURTHER ON IN Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 2023 Page 4 of 8 Packet Pg. 199 7.A.c THIS DISCUSSION. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY PLANNING BOARD MEMBER KUEHN. Planning Manager Levitan noted that this was a work session and not the traditional time to make a motion. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell said her goal was to spend time on the analysis and not discussing whether or not they should do the analysis because she feels like that has already been determined. Planning Board Member Maxwell commented that there seems to be general agreement by the group that they would want to restrict tree removals in critical areas. He noted he is sympathetic to Edmonds residents who are concerned about taking away the ability to cut down trees on their own property given that they don't have a canopy problem. Planning Board Member Mitchell asked when the tree canopy would become a problem. Planning Board Member Maxwell replied that the canopy is growing and not shrinking. It may not be growing as fast as they would like but it is not shrinking. He noted that some of the documents indicated that there are concerns but those are about developers and newcomers. In general, Edmonds residents seem to value their trees and do not cut them down. Planning Board Chair Gladstone said it is very difficult to determine at what point they are going to act. She believes they are at a point where the canopy is important for so many things including affecting the urban temperature. She doesn't want to wait until there is a reduction in the tree canopy and a problem; she wants to retain it the way it is. She also wants to do it in an equitable way, understanding that there is a tension between private property ownership and communal good. She thinks they can come to some reasonable compromises in navigating that tension. It may not necessarily be what's recommended in the Urban Forest Management Plan, but it may complement it. She also recommended keeping it as simple as possible. Planning Board Member Kuehn agreed that simple is good. He also supported the motion. He acknowledged there may not be a problem right now with the tree canopy, but their job is to plan for the future before there is a problem. Playing catchup with something like this is a losing battle. He noted that having a nice big tree canopy is important for helping with climate change. MOTION PASSED 4-2. Planning Board Chair Gladstone urged the group to keep the code simple because the simpler it is, the less there is to argue about. Recognizing the strong tension between private property and tree protection and canopy protection she thinks they need to figure out the best way to navigate that and get something reasonable and workable to Council. Ms. Powers suggested that there seems to be a basic agreement that critical areas need to be protected. The next most basic form of regulations would be a simple allowance (a certain number of trees per year with notification) not based on property size. At this simplest level, landmark tree removal would not be distinguished. Nuisance and hazard trees would be over and above that numbers and would be subject to review to make sure they meet the criteria. There was some discussion about how this would be counted and documented. Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 2023 Page 5 of 8 Packet Pg. 200 7.A.c Tree Board Chair Cass asked if they could consider rolling over allowed trees to future years to be more cost effective for property owners. Ms. Powers explained that in Kirkland that was considered "borrowing" from future tree removals. It was hotly debated and there were questions as to whether it was effectively and fairly slowing the loss of canopy. It also complicates tracking tree removals. Tree Board Member Fagerstrom commented that ultimately the Council will decide this following a public hearing and there will probably be a lot of public comments. He asked if the Planning Board had discussed tree replacement or fee -in -lieu requirements. He noted that he is in favor of tree replacement but the current standards are almost a joke because they don't replicate the environmental benefit from the trees that were removed. He wants to maintain people's private property rights but he also wants to do what they can to maintain if not increase the tree canopy to help protect the environment. Planning Board Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell said she was generally in favor of tree replacements but agreed that the current standards are highly inequitable in terms of trying to make sure that they are trying to replace the same volume of impacted tree canopy. She would not be in favor of requiring homeowners to do replacements or fees -in -lieu because it would just add more negativity to the situation. It might be worthwhile to consider the outright allowance only for 12-24" DBH trees. If they want to remove larger trees, they could require a permit and replacements. She stated that she was opposed to allowing fees in lieu in any circumstance. Planning Board Member Mitchell asked about using a green factor metric to alleviate the controversies between how many trees they could remove and replace. He commented that some jurisdictions are doing this to simplify the issue. Ms. Powers agreed that this was a wonderful method, but it is also a much more complex level of code for both the property owner and for staff. Planning Board Member Maxwell commented that the chart showing the number of trees that could be removed at one time (depending on property size) is more complicated than it has to be and doesn't make sense to him. He wondered why it wasn't a simple formula like 1 tree per 3000 square feet. Ms. Powers explained this was similar to the breakdowns in other jurisdictions but it sounds like the left side. (property size) is dropping off anyway in favor of a simplified number of trees. Planning Board Member Maxwell said it should change with the size of the lot. Tree Board Vice Chair Phipps agreed that it should be graduated. He didn't think that was too complex. He also thinks that landmark trees should get special consideration because they are very large trees and hold in tremendous amounts of carbon. When you remove those there needs to be replacement trees. Planning Board Member Kuehn said he agreed that landmark trees should be treated differently because of what it would take to replace those. He thought the proposed chart was pretty simple if you can read a table. Planning Board Chair Gladstone commented that breaking it up by property size is an equity issue because it is a privilege to have a larger piece of land and be able to remove more trees. She wrestles with this because she also recognizes that it is a bigger lot with maybe more trees. She would be interested in discussing this more at a future meeting. She also wondered why staff chose three trees per year instead of the "two -per" trees concept that Kirkland used. Tree Board members departed. Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 28, 2023 Page 6 of 8 Packet Pg. 201 7.A.c April 26, 2023 Planning Board Meeting MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Chair Gladstone thanked Board Members Mitchell and Golembiewski for their work in the subcommittee. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Tree Code Update Phase II — Private Property Tree Removals Urban Forest Planner Deb Powers introduced this topic and reviewed background on the Tree Code. She explained that updates were made to the Tree Code in 2021 (Phase 1) to achieve the goal of reducing development impacts on the urban forest. The goal of Phase II is to consider limits to property owner tree removals that are unrelated to development. Currently, tree removal is unlimited on single-family residential lots that are not subdividable. Board Member Golembiewski raised a question about lots that are developable but not subdividable. Staff explained that the current definition just relates to parcels that cannot be subdivided. Planning Manager Levitan indicated they could look into that as a potential loophole. Board Member Martini asked if being able to add an ADU in the backyard could make the lot subdividable. Staff explained it would just be a secondary use. Ms. Powers said she was seeking guidance on the maximum number of removals and the frequency. She explained how the City of Kirkland addressed this in their code. Two trees were allowed to be removed per 12 months. Hazardous and nuisance trees did not count toward this total. Under Edmonds' current code for tree removals in critical areas, there is no permit required but you would be required to submit documentation that shows it fits the hazard criteria. Usually this is done by an arborist. Chair Gladstone expressed concerns about equity because there may be people who have hazardous trees on their property but cannot afford an arborist. Ms. Powers explained that staff s recommendation is to allow over the counter approval of hazard tree removals if it is evident in a photograph. Chair Gladstone asked if there are analytics done on tree codes in other cities that show what the resulting impact is on the tree canopy. She noted that the whole point of the Tree Code is to slow down the reduction of the tree canopy when 75% of the trees are on private property. Understanding the impact of different policies would be very helpful to her. Ms. Powers explained that a canopy assessment done at regular intervals such as every five or ten years shows trends in canopy gain or loss. Not all cities do that. Kirkland had three canopy assessments in the time she was there, but they also did a boots -on -the -ground analysis of tree removals to see what was going on as well. A canopy assessment is the best way to see trends of gain or loss overall and in different specific areas. Edmonds just did a canopy assessment in 2020. Chair Gladstone said she was interested in looking at anywhere in the world where they have tried different policies and are able to show what the impact of that policy is. Ms. Powers offered to provide links for how that was done in Kirkland. She noted canopy loss is one of the reasons Council said we need to look at property owner tree removals. There has been no account of how many trees are being removed on the property owners' side of things. Requiring permits or requesting a notification of tree removals are some ways to track removals over time. Board Member Golembiewski asked what exactly they count in a canopy study. Ms. Powers explained there are different ways of doing it but they use high resolution satellite and LiDAR technology to get the highest accuracy. They subtract out water, shrubs, meadow, and use various methodologies to get the most accurate assessment. She noted that the technology is constantly changing. Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 26, 2023 Page 5 of 8 Packet Pg. 202 7.A.c Should tree removal on private property be limited? • Board Member Maxwell asked about trends they are seeing. Ms. Powers explained they have done two canopy assessments. The second one showed a slight gain from the last assessment, but the methodology was different than the first time. Also, there were losses in some areas and gains in others. • Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell expressed support for having limits on property owner tree removal. If there aren't limits there is nothing to stop someone from removing all their trees. • There was a suggestion to also look at minimum retentions such as not allowing a property owner to remove the last two trees on their property. • Board Member Maxwell agreed with establishing tree removal limits but wondered if they were trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. He moved here eight years ago and as far as he can tell the canopy has only gotten thicker. People do cut trees down but he thought they were not cutting them down as fast as they are growing. On the other hand, he would not want the tide to turn in the other direction. Whatever they put in place should feel roughly like what they are doing now because it seems to be working in Edmonds for the tree canopy. • Board Member Golembiewski asked how many calls they get about taking trees down. Ms. Powers noted Planning gets frequent calls about tree removals and they get some calls from neighbors about enforcement issues, especially in critical areas. However, they aren't tracking tree removals in general on private property. Planning Manager Levitan explained if someone calls about tree removals on private property and there is no critical area or development happening there it is generally an allowed tree removal. He said he gets several calls a week. • Chair Gladstone commented that the challenge is that they don't know exactly how often this is happening. Without the data it is hard to know the degree of urgency and the level of restraint that is appropriate. She wondered if using a tree retention level, rather than removal allowances, with frequent assessments made over time made more sense. What are they striving for in terms of the canopy cover? What kind of loss are they trying to avoid? • Board Member Martini noted it would be nice to have two studies comparing different years that used similar methods. Ms. Powers explained the first assessment used different imagery but they still did the analysis of gains and loss. The technology will always be changing so it is not likely they will have the same methodology from one canopy assessment to another. They can still get a general idea. She noted in Kirkland, residents were allowed to take out two trees per year. There were no replacements triggered until they go to the minimum on the lot (three trees per lot). This was a simple method. • Board Member Golembiewski said she was in support of having a limitation but was in favor of valuing some sorts of trees over others. Ms. Powers noted that under the definitions anything over 6" DBH (diameter at breast height) is considered a significant tree. They aren't regulating anything under 6" DBH. If they want to define landmark trees (larger trees) they could do so. Board Member Golembiewski said she would be in favor of a larger diameter than 6 inches because there are so many landscape buffers and poorly placed trees that aren't necessarily nuisances or hazards but aren't actually providing the kind of canopy cover they are aiming for. Ms. Powers noted they could determine the exact sizes later. There appeared to be agreement that 6" DBH seemed too small to regulate. • Board Member Mitchell noted that most cities that are 100% urbanized have a code like this to establish single-family residential removal allowances. They can decide on the specificity at a later date. He commented he did not want Edmonds to turn into Innis Arden. • Planning Manager Levitan suggested they focus on landmark trees and any replacements related to that. He gave an overview of the process. • Chair Gladstone commented that the consensus seemed to be "possibly" depending on the specifics. Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 26, 2023 Page 6 of 8 Packet Pg. 203 7.A.c • Board Member Golembiewski agreed and said they agree that there needs to be a tree code for private property. They just don't know what it needs to look like. Is 12 months between allowed tree removals an appropriate length of time? • Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell said she wasn't sure about the timeframe until they knew what size tree they were talking about. • Board Member Kuehn said it depends on how many trees they are talking about for a 12-month period. Does the Planning Boardfeel that landmark tree removal should beprohibited? (except for hazard or nuisance trees) Is minimum 24 " DBH an appropriate landmark tree size? Should landmark tree removal be limited more than smaller trees? Should time between landmark tree removals be longer than what's allowed for smaller trees? • There was general consensus for limiting the removal of landmark trees. • Board Member Maxwell said 24" DBH is a sizeable tree but not what he would consider landmark. He thought 36" DBH was more appropriate. Other board members thought 24" DBH was appropriate. • Chair Gladstone said regardless of what size they establish for a landmark tree she would still be more inclined to go with limited (not prohibited) removals. It should be based on limited frequency or limited per area (based on geographic location, etc.). She doesn't think an out-and-out prohibition would be accepted politically. • Board Member Mitchell asked about the frequency of canopy assessments. Ms. Powers explained it is every five to ten years as resources allow. Chair Gladstone noted that this frequency does not allow for much nimbleness in response. Ms. Powers agreed but noted that canopy assessments done more frequently than every five years wouldn't show changes in a way that shows a trend. • Board Member Golembiewski thought that a notification procedure for larger trees would be a useful metric for shorter term monitoring. She thinks that the general community consensus when they are thinking about tree loss is the 24" DBH and above size. She doesn't think people are concerned about taking out a 12" DBH fruit tree or other decorative landscaping tree. • Chair Gladstone recommended that, as they move forward, staff provide photos depicting what they are talking about because it is difficult to visualize. • Board Member Maxwell said he was fine with limiting 24" DBH and larger trees. He is supportive of prohibiting removal of larger trees such as 36" DBH. Planning Manager Levitan noted that some cities have larger trees designated as heritage trees. • Ms. Powers commented that they are looking for a healthy, sustainable urban forest. They are making decisions now for 20 years from now. This is important to keep in mind for the future. A healthy, sustainable urban forest has diversity not only in species but in age and size. • There was discussion about a desire to preserve certain species of trees over others. Ms. Powers cautioned against this and suggested instead they list things they don't care about because they are invasive, noxious, or weed trees. Board Member Maxwell suggested looking at native versus not native. Ms. Powers commented that because of climate change they need to rethink this. When they think of native, they are thinking of what was native 200 years ago, but this has changed. Should a permit be required for tree removals in critical areas? • Ms. Powers noted that in the public survey there was a lot of support for limiting tree removal in critical areas. The current code is confusing on this topic. • There was consensus that a permit should be required for tree removals in critical areas. Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 26, 2023 Page 7 of 8 Packet Pg. 204 Should the same tree removal allowances (as outside of critical areas) apply in critical areas. • Chair Gladstone commented that it would depend on what the allowances are and how generous they are. Overall, she thought they should be more restrictive in critical areas. • Board Member Maxwell commented that critical areas affect the safety of people who are downhill. He doesn't think it should be the same allowance because they don't want to set up a mudslide for downhill neighbors. Ms. Powers noted that most cities that don't even have a tree code have limitations to tree removal in critical areas. With the exception of hazard and nuisance trees, should tree removal in critical areas (steep slopes, wetland buffers, stream buffers) be prohibited? • Board Member Golembiewski said they should be prohibited without a permit. • Chair Gladstone asked about the difference between hazardous and nuisance trees. Ms. Powers explained that a hazardous tree is a tree that has a defect or disease that predisposes it to failure. A nuisance tree is a tree that is causing significant physical damage, and whatever that nuisance is cannot be mediated by reasonable practices or procedures. There was discussion about the need to take a photo of the tree or provide some sort of documentation and justification for removing trees in critical areas. Vice Chair Tragus-Campbell said she was in favor of heavier restrictions, especially for larger trees and especially in critical areas because of the importance of preserving habitat and preventing landslides. She is also in support of possibly having a larger size than 6" DBH being regulated. She thought 8-10" DBH would be a good starting point. NEW BUSINESS A. Potential Parkland Acquisition: Hurst Property (continued to a future meeting TBD) PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA Planning Manager Levitan noted there are a couple joint meetings proposed in June. Staff is proposing to invite the Tree Board to this meeting on June 14 to discuss the Tree Code. They are also looking at having a joint workshop with the City Council on some of the current housing -related topics at 6:00 preceding the June 14 meeting. Board members expressed concern that this could be too much for that meeting. Planning Manager Levitan will continue to look at alternatives. He added that Multifamily Design Standards is a potential topic for a separate joint meeting with the Architectural Design Board. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS None PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes April 26, 2023 Page 8 of 8 Packet Pg. 205 9.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 11/29/2023 November 29 Extended Agenda Staff Lead: Mike Clugston Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Michael Clugston Staff Recommendation Review and discuss the November 29 version of the Planning Board extended agenda. Narrative Attachments: November 29 Extended Agenda Packet Pg. 206 9.A.a Planning Board Extended Agenda - November 29, 2023 v� D1 .� v1 n N O e-I e4 Ln O N > Z oo > Z N N O Z m W 9 m W n C O C ID C V -0 V -0 oo f6 m r0 n O- O O- 4 >. M N C N C 6 O V Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement D/R D/R Joint Discussion w/EDC on Comp Plan existing conditions D/R High Level Alternatives D/R Draft 3 Alternatives D/R Draft Preferred Plan and Policy D/R Final Plan and Policy D/R Election of Officers D/R Tree Code Update (Property Owner/Development - Code Amendment) D/R Prop D/R Prop Discuss Subcommittee Work Critical Aquifer Recharge (Code Amendment) D/R PH Design Standards and Processes, Impact of HB 1293 1 Highway 99 Community Renewal Program D/R Parks, Recreation & Human Services Quarterly Report (^ Biannual presentations) RA Capital Improvement Program/Capital Facilties Plan I PH D/R Planning Board report to City Council D/R B Detached Accessory Dwelling Units I D/R PH Annual Retreat 1 Retreat Climate Legislative Package E I II Highway 99 Landmark Site I I D/R September 19 Joint Special Meeting with Council (5:00 pm) November 29 special meeting in lieu of November 22 KEY I- Introduction & Discussion PH- Public Hearing 41111111=�� D/R- Discussion/Recommendation B- Briefing R- Report with no briefing/presentation Future Items Neighborhood Center Plans Additional Code Modernization Projects Comp Plan Goal/Policy Review Housing Bills Policy Implementation Packet Pg. 207