The URL can be used to link to this page

2024-07-24 Planning Board Packet1. 2. 3. 4. S. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. OF EDA,,G v ti Agenda Edmonds Planning Board REGULAR MEETING BRACKETT ROOM 121 5TH AVE N, CITY HALL- 3RD FLOOR, EDMONDS, WA 98020 J U LY 24, 2024, 7:00 PM REMOTE MEETING INFORMATION: Meeting Link: https://edmondswa- gov.zoom.us/s/87322872194?pwd=WFdxTWJIQmxITG9LZkc3 KOhuS014QT09 Meeting ID: 873 2287 2194 Passcode:007978 This is a Hybrid meeting: The meeting can be attended in -person or on-line. The physcial meeting location is at Edmonds City Hall 121 5th Avenue N., 3rd floor Brackett R000m Or Telephone :US: +1 253 215 8782 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. Previous Meeting Minutes ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA AUDIENCE COMMENTS For topics not scheduled for a public hearing. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PUBLIC HEARINGS UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. AMD2023-0002 Code Amendment for Legislative Conformance with SB5290 — "Concerning consolidating local permit review processes." NEW BUSINESS A. Green Building Incentives Pilot Code Amendments SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA Edmonds Planning Board Agenda July 24, 2024 Page 1 A. Extended Agenda 11. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS 12. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS 13. ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Planning Board Agenda July 24, 2024 Page 2 2.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/24/2024 Previous Meeting Minutes Staff Lead: Michael Clugston Department: Planning & Development Prepared By: Michelle Martin Background/History Meeting minutes from 6/26 were not available for approval last meeting and are now available. In addition Special meeting minutes February 28th are now available. Staff Recommendation Review and approve meeting minutes from June 26th and minutes from July 10th. Narrative Minutes from February 28th, June 26th & July 10th meeting attached. Attachments: PB 06262024_draft PB 07102024_draft PB 02282024_Draft Special Packet Pg. 3 2.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Hybrid Meeting June 26, 2024 Chair Mitchell called the hybrid meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board 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 Vice Chair Golembiewski. Board Members Present Jeremy Mitchell, Chair Lauren Golembiewski, Vice Chair Judi Gladstone Susanna Martini (online) Nick Maxwell Steven Li (alternate) Board Members Absent Lee Hankins (excused) Staff Present Susan McLaughlin, Development Services Director Mike Clugston, Acting Planning Manager Navyusha Pentakota, Urban Design Planner READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES None ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. AUDIENCE COMMENTS None UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Director McLaughlin gave an overview of the Land Use Element requirements, relevant house bills, public outreach efforts, and community responses. Staff answered questions about the number of responses and the source of those comments. Director McLaughlin reviewed Land Use Element Draft Goals and Policies and responded to a question about what the relationship with the consultant was like. A question was raised about Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 26, 2024 Pagel of 3 Packet Pg. 4 2.A.a the value of the time spent on public outreach which could potentially slow down projects without making any constructive contribution. Director McLaughlin discussed the Equitable Engagement Framework document which provided suggestions for outreach strategies based on the scale of the project. This will ensure they are being both inclusive and efficient. For development projects, some outreach is state mandated. Where possible, staff will be looking at streamlining processes. There was a recommendation to clarify under Equity that the planning and development process isn't necessarily like the private planning and development process. A question was asked about where in the city it was that existing utilities were a constraint that could not be overcome since growth usually pays for growth. A concern was raised that by focusing on existing infrastructure they are setting themselves up to perpetuate legacy problems of inequities in the city and the segregation of the city. Commissioners also debated policies related to Highway 99 development. There was discussion about how to make Highway 99 policies consistent with the rest of the city and the need to focus on encouraging placemaking N strategies. It was noted that with Highway 99, the language related to placemaking will be different because the 2 scale is bigger requiring the right tools and tactics. A concern was raised about Policy LU-8 which talks about E increasing the height of the buildings along Highway 99 without talking about placemaking. The group debated whether there should be increased heights in other areas and its relation to capacity and balancing density. Staff E clarified that there is currently no height limit in some areas along Highway 99. There was a suggestion to concentrate the increased heights in one area as a center with lower heights in between so there isn't a canyon rn of tall buildings all along the corridor. There was some discussion about using tools and incentives to encourage o creating this a sense of place and address transitions. Staff commented on how these policies eventually make L their way to the development code, sub area plans, and land use map. There was interest by several a commissioners in deconstructing the subarea plan into three separate areas. There was a suggestion to add a reference to places expected to be flooded by sea level rise. Staff thought that LU-23 might be the appropriate spot for this. Regarding promoting infiltration, there was a recommendation that areas over the CARA should be treated differently. Staff concurred. There was some discussion about how much language around "Sexually Oriented Businesses" and industrial uses needs to be included in the Comp Plan. Staff will confer with the City Attorney about what is required. There were additional comments about clarifying verbiage related to encouraging live work areas in commercial and retail areas. The group debated the re-evaluation of housing goals for Highway 99 and redirecting growth throughout the rest of the city. Staff explained how the buildable lands report and housing affordability factor into this. Concerns were raised about equity, legacy problems, and economic segregation. Staff felt that growth of hubs and nodes would help to address this and provide a significant difference over time with regard to affordable units. All centers and hubs will be increasing densities with the exception of Highway 99 with the goal of distributing growth more equitably than in the past. There was some discussion about creating a policy statement about the need to balance downtown investment as it has historically been with other neighborhoods as we are growing neighborhood hubs and centers. The need for more walkability in areas outside of downtown was also brought up. Terms such as residual parcels, underutilized or undefined impervious areas, and last -mile connections need to be defined or clarified. A concern was also raised about underground utilities being an equity issues because people in downtown will clamor for it but other areas will not. Staff recommended moving this language to the Utilities Element. There Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 26, 2024 Page 2 of 3 Packet Pg. 5 2.A.a was agreement that undergrounding utilities should be a citywide policy; there was debate about whether this should just be on new development or retroactive. A suggestion was made to organize this document in a way that lays out overarching goals for the city and also prioritizes area -specific goals. Neighborhood action plans and the CIP/CFP were mentioned as ways of prioritizing projects. Another recommendation was to identify which policies are new, which are existing, and which are significant changes. PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA There was agreement to move the draft DEIS to July 24 and pick up the Housing Element at the next meeting along with a site -specific rezone request. They will try to fit Environment and Community Design in elsewhere. If not, it will come back with the rest of the Comp Plan. The group reviewed the timeline for the rest of the Comp Plan process and suggested they might need a subcommittee or pairs of board members meeting outside of regular meetings to get through it all. E 2 tM A concern was raised about the September 25 meeting being too full with the Preferred Plan presentation and a E public hearing on CIP/CFP. There was some discussion about the new budgeting process the City is transitioning to and how the timing of that meshes with the 2025 CIP/CFP which will be based on the Comp rn Plan. The 2026 CIP/CFP will be informed by the new Comp Plan information. The group expressed interest in c hearing about priorities in the 2025 CIP/CFP as well as justification for those priorities and how that aligns with L where they are at with the Comp Plan. There was some discussion about starting meetings a half hour earlier to a. get through more topics. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board members expressed appreciation for the meeting. PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes June 26, 2024 Page 3 of 3 Packet Pg. 6 2.A.b CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Hybrid Meeting July 10, 2024 Chair Mitchell called the hybrid meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board 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 Li. Board Members Present Jeremy Mitchell, Chair Lauren Golembiewski, Vice Chair Judi Gladstone (online) Lee Hankins Susanna Martini (online) Nick Maxwell Steven Li Board Members Absent None Staff Present Susan McLaughlin, Development Services Director Mike Clugston, Acting Planning Manager Amber Brokenshire, Associate Planner Navyusha Pentakota, Urban Design Planner READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 12, 2024 Minutes It was noted that the minutes should reflect the fact that Board Member Li is now a full board member MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER GOLEMBIEWSKI, SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER HANKINS, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 12, 2024 AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED. AUDIENCE COMMENTS Roger Pence commented on the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Draft Goals and Policies. He is disappointed that there is not much focused on the City of Edmonds; they read like generic housing policies that could be applied anywhere. He thinks the uniqueness of the City of Edmonds needs to be recognized. He also Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 10, 2024 Pagel of 5 Packet Pg. 7 2.A.b thinks that civic involvement in the Comprehensive Plan process needs to be addressed. When is the public going to have an opportunity to listen to proposals, ask questions, and get answers in a public forum in real time? Online webinars where people listen and maybe are able to ask a question is not the same as a civic conversation. Vivian Olson encouraged the Planning Board to keep the vision statement, including access to nature (which includes views of water and mountains), in mind as they work through the Housing Element. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS None PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Private Rezone Request at 9514 228 h St SW (PLN2024-0032) c Introductory remarks were made including a description of the project and a summary of hearing procedures. The hearing was opened. Board members were asked if they had engaged in communication with opponents or proponents regarding this rezone application outside of the public hearing processed. All board members stated they had not. Board members were asked if they had any conflicts of interest. All board members stated they rn did not. Board members were asked if they had any objections to any board member's participation in the o hearing. They did not. All hearing participants testified that they would be giving the truth, the whole truth, and L nothing but the truth. a Staff Presentation: Associate Planner Brokenshire reviewed the rezone process, site context, public comments, rezone review criteria, and staff recommendation. Staff finds the rezone request from RS-8 to BC-EW is consistent with the decision criteria and recommends that the Planning Board make a recommendation of approval to City Council. Applicant Testimony: Brian Shibayama of Fairway Apartments LLC had no comments. Public Testimony: Co stated that he and his girlfriend live across the street (228th). They would like consideration be given to protecting residences to the north and other residences from impacts as much as possible. He expressed concern about traffic, noise, trash, and parking. Rachel Ross (online), Edmonds resident who lives in a cul-de-sac just west of this site, stated opposition to rezoning to commercial and expressed concerns about pedestrian and auto safety. 228th Street is a very quiet, residential street with no sidewalks. There are a lot of children in the area who walk along the street which has no sidewalks. 96th and 220 Street down to 100th are other areas that could have pedestrian impacts. They have no sidewalks and are routes frequently used by pedestrians, especially children. She also expressed concerns about pedestrian and auto safety on Highway 104 and 95t' Place due to impacts of the commercial development. Planning Board Questions: Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 10, 2024 Page 2 of 5 Packet Pg. 8 2.A.b Questions were asked about the zoning of the neighboring properties, access requirements in the code, setback requirements when there are two street setbacks, general setback and buffer requirements, and when ADA accessibility requirements would be addressed (upon frontage improvements). There was a question about how the Determination of Non -Significance for the SEPA process relates to future development. Staff explained that this is only for non -project action. Once there is a development action, it would have to be addressed again in a project -specific SEPA document. There was a question about why the application was not provided to the Olympic View Water and Sewer District. Staff explained that the SEPA determination would have been, but the application for rezone was not (and is not usually sent out to them). Staff confirmed that if a development proposal happens, there would be a separate SEPA process which would identify impacts and mitigation. Sidewalk improvements would be considered as part of the development process. Board members asked about traffic impacts and requirements of a hypothetical development that might occur there; staff explained that would be addressed during the regular development process with traffic studies and typical development -related improvements. Anything that goes in would have to meet all the relevant development regulations. Clarification questions were asked about requirements related to the BC-EW zone including ground floor commercial, height limits, and maximum floor area. Mr. Shibayama, the applicant, was asked if he was planning on acquiring the two parcels to the east if this was rezoned. Mr. Shibayama replied that it was unlikely. CM was asked if he still had the same concerns after hearing all the discussion tonight. He replied that he did because he hadn't heard anything that would prevent egress onto 228t'. He still had concerns about traffic, parking, and other impacts on his road. It would nice if access was limited to Edmonds Way. It was noted that those discussions about hypotheticals would need to happen when there is an actual application for development. There was a question about why this is better suited to BC-EW rather than RM 1.5. Staff explained that it was left to the individual property owners to apply for the BC-EW rezone process when the Comprehensive Plan was changed. This is the last RS-zoned property to do that. There was some discussion about potential density and parking requirement differences between BC-EW and RM 1.5. The residential component is very similar between the two; the commercial uses do not seem to be traffic -heavy businesses. Rachel Ross asked about the applicant's intentions with the three lots he owns. She again expressed concern about having commercial in that area on the curve of Highway 104. She also noted that there are a lot of trees that act as a buffer there. She expressed concern about potential removal of trees and again noted her concerns about pedestrian safety. She strongly opposes commercial uses here but is less opposed to residential uses. It was noted that there is a requirement for a commercial use on the ground floor with BC-EW, but they do not know the applicant's intentions. There was a question about differences in traffic volumes in general between commercial/mixed use and multi- family. It was noted that it depends more on the specific type of business you are looking at. Staff remarked that engineering would do a sight distance study for entry and exit of the site when there is a proposal. Safety will be a primary consideration with any proposal; ideally, all of the safety concerns would be mitigated and you U) as 2 tM c as a� rn 0 0 a� L n Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 10, 2024 Page 3 of 5 Packet Pg. 9 2.A.b would actually have a safer frontage than exists today. There was some discussion about the City's working relationship with WSDOT. Dawn Malkowski asked if there were regulations in place that would address the concerns about sidewalks if there were a back entrance off of 228th. Staff replied that there are. Erin, resident across the street, thought that the code only required sidewalks for adjacent properties and not those across the street. She expressed concern about the impacts of this commercial zoning on residential. Staff agreed that sidewalks would not be required across the street. She feels like the code doesn't really look at the impacts. Director McLaughlin spoke to developer responsibilities versus city deficiencies. She commented on things the City is looking at to address situations like expanding sidewalks. There was debate about how the Board could decide on zoning when they don't know what is being planned on the site. Rachel Ross reiterated her concerns with commercial uses on this site. N as The public testimony portion of the hearing was closed at 8:17 p.m. E Deliberation: c as a� The group debated how the application for rezone aligns or does not align with the six criteria. Concerns were U) raised about traffic and access, pedestrian safety, whether BC-EW or RM 1.5 is more appropriate, buffers, and o ADA accessibility. It was stressed that any development that goes in here would have to go through the SEPA L process and do traffic studies. There was a comment about the importance of the Comprehensive Plan to give a. appropriate guidance in providing protection for transition areas. MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER HANKINS, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR GOLEMBIEWSKI, THAT THE PLANNING BOARD ADOPT THE STAFF REPORT IN FULL, BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT, ANALYSIS, AND ATTACHMENT IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND BASED ON THE TESTIMONY HEARD TONIGHT, THE PLANNING BOARD FINDS THE PROPOSED REZONE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REVIEW CRITERIA OF ECDC 20.40.010, AND RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE REZONE OF 9514 228TH STREET FROM RS-8 TO BC-EW. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. A. Housing Element — Draft Goals & Policies The group continued the discussion on draft goals and policies of the Housing Element. Board members raised questions about how this relates to the DEIS and how the goals and policies turn into action. There was some debate about how to best encourage and reflect the unique character of Edmonds and the neighborhood/hubs. Staff responded to a question about the focus on high density housing around high -capacity transit locations including SWIFT BRT and not all the hubs and centers. Staff explained that transit -oriented housing relates to the high -capacity transit and the frequency of the BRT because it is automatically providing the regional employment commuter option. A concern was raised about inequities around where these are being proposed. There was a recommendation to remove the "on Highway 99" in relation to the SWIFT BRT.1 1 Board Member Martini left the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 10, 2024 Page 4 of 5 Packet Pg. 10 2.A.b There was discussion about forming two subcommittees to review the Land Use and Housing Elements Draft Goals and Policies and holding a special early meeting at 6:00 p.m. to review the findings before the next meeting. There was discussion about the Comprehensive Plan timeline and how to fit it all in. Board Member Gladstone, Hankins, and Li will review the Housing Element Draft Goals and Policies. Chair Mitchell, Vice Chair Golembiewski, and Board Member Maxwell? will review the Land Use Element Draft Goals and Policies. Both subcommittees will have their comments ready to be included in the packet by July 19. NEW BUSINESS None SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT None c PLANNING BOARD EXTENDED AGENDA c July 24 — There will be discussion and recommendations made on the Draft DEIS Impacts and Preliminary Mitigations and the Environment and Community Design Element. The CAO Update and Land Use Permit rn Timelines will be in the packet with no briefing or presentation. Green Building Incentives will be coming back n as a draft that incorporates the Board's feedback. There was consensus to start early at 6:00 p.m. for some L meetings as needed. July 24 will be a special meeting at 6:00 p.m. with a regular meeting starting at 7:00 p.m. a. August 14 — Vacation. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS None PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS Chair Mitchell commented that there needs to be some clarification about the Comprehensive Plan process for the public. Staff explained there would be two Planning Board meetings where the Board would see the entire Comprehensive Plan; they would be asked to make a recommendation at the second meeting. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:29 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes July 10, 2024 Page 5 of 5 Packet Pg. 11 2.A.c CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Special Hybrid Meeting February 28, 2024 Board Members Present Staff Present Jeremy Mitchell, Chair Susan McLaughlin, Planning & Development Director Lauren Golembiewski, Vice Chair Mike Clugston, Senior Planner Richard Kuehn Jeff Taraday, City Attorney Susanna Martini (online) Mike De Lilla, Senior Utilities Engineer c Nick Maxwell m as CALL TO ORDER N 7 O The Edmonds Planning Board special meeting was called to order at 6:OOPM by Chair Mitchell in the Brackett >� Room, 3rd Floor City Hall, 121 5th Ave. N, Edmonds, WA, and virtually. a EXECUTIVE SESSION The Planning Board then convened in executive session for approximately 30 minutes to discuss pending or potential litigation per RCW 42.30.110(1)(i). The executive session concluded at approximately 6:50. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION The meeting reconvened at approximately 6:55 p.m. ADJOURNMENT The special meeting was not declared adjourned. The regular meeting was called to order at approximately 7:00 p.m. Planning Board Meeting Minutes February 28, 2024 Pagel of 1 Packet Pg. 12 7.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/24/2024 AMD2023-0002 Code Amendment for Legislative Conformance with SB5290 — "Concerning consolidating local permit review processes." Staff Lead: Amber Brokenshire Department: Planning & Development Prepared By: Amber Brokenshire Background/History This is the first review by the Planning Board. Staff Recommendation This item is to the read -file and for review only. The item will return on August 28 for a public hearing and recommendation. Narrative SB 5290 amends the Local Project Review Act, chapter 36.70B RCW, with the intent to increase the timeliness and predictability of local project review. These amendments are intended to modernize and streamline local project review. SB 5290 is one of several bills that addressed land use and planning during the 2023-2024 legislative sessions. SB 5290 became effective on July 23, 2023, except for section 7, which takes effect on Jan. 1, 2025. SB 5290 includes: M Updated local permit review timelines; Clarifications regarding the determination of completeness process; Id New exemption from site plan review for certain interior projects that contain no exterior alterations; M Updated annual reporting requirements related to permit issuance; and Ifl Provisions requiring partial permit fee refunds for failure to timely process permit applications. Attachments: DRAFT Redline strikethrough Code Amendment v.1 SENATE BILL 5290.S2.SL Washington State Legislature - Bill History Packet Pg. 13 7.A.a DRAFT CODE Update — 5290 v.1 20.01.003 Permit type and decision framework. A. Permit Types. TYPE I TYPE II -A TYPE II-B TYPE III -A TYPE III-B TYPE IV TYPE V Zoning Contingent Essential Site specific compliance critical area public facilities rezone letter review Lot line Formal Shoreline Technological Development Zoning text adjustment interpretation of substantial impracticality agreements amendment; the text of the development waiver for area -wide ECDC by the permit, where amateur radio zoning map director public hearing antennas amendments not required per ECDC 24.80.100 Critical area SEPA Critical area Comprehensive determinations determinations variance plan amendments Shoreline Preliminary Contingent Conditional Annexations exemptions short plat critical area use permits review if public (where public hearing hearing by requested hearing examiner is required) Minor Land Shoreline Variances Development amendments clearing/grading substantial regulations to planned development residential permit, where development public hearing is required per ECDC 24.80.100 Packet Pg. 14 DRAFT CODE Update — 5290 v.1 7.A.a TYPE I TYPE II -A TYPE II-B TYPE III -A TYPE III-B TYPE IV TYPE V Minor Revisions to Shoreline preliminary shoreline conditional use plat management amendment permits Staff design Administrative Shoreline review, variances variance including signs Final short plat Land use permit Design review extension (where public requests hearing by architectural design board is required) Sales Preliminary office/model formal plat (ECDC 17.70.005) Final formal Innocent Preliminary plats purchaser planned determination residential development Final planned Staff design residential review pursuant development to ECDC 20.12.010(B)(2) B. Decision Table. a� E a� E Q a� 0 tU 0 rn N L0 m CO N O 0 0 N O N Q r c d E c m E Q d 0 U s CM 3 0 L t m w N d c m H u_ Q G r c d E s ca Q Packet Pg. 15 7.A.a DRAFT CODE Update — 5290 v.1 PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS (TYPE LEGISLATIVE I — IV) TYPE III - TYPE I TYPE II -A TYPE II-B TYPE III -A TYPE IV TYPE V B Recommendation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Planning board Planning board by: Final decision by: Director Director Director Hearing Hearing City council City council examiner/ADB examiner Notice of No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No application: Open record No Only if (1) If Yes, before Yes, Yes, before Yes, before planning public hearing or appealed, director hearing before planning board board which makes open record open decision is examiner or hearing which makes recommendation to appeal of a final record appealed, board to examiner recommendation council or council decision: hearing open render final or board to council could hold its own before record decision to render hearing hearing hearing final examiner before decision hearing examiner (2) If converted to Type III -A process Closed record No No No No Yes, Yes, before the review: before council the council Judicial appeal: Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes w c a> E c Q E Q a� O U 0 rn N LO M co N O 0 0 N O N Q r c d E c m E Q d O U s CM 3 O L s w m w N d c m H U- Q G r c d E s c� Q Packet Pg. 16 DRAFT CODE Update — 5290 v.1 7.A.a PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PERMIT APPLICATIONS (TYPE LEGISLATIVE I — IV) TYPE III - TYPE I TYPE II -A TYPE II-B TYPE III -A TYPE IV TYPE V B Notice of final 65 days 100 days 100 days 170 days 170 days 170 days 170 days decision: C. Any reference to "Type II" in the Edmonds Community Development Code without expressly being modified as "Type II-B" shall be construed to mean Type II -A for the purposes of this section unless the context clearly suggests otherwise. [Ord. 4360 § 7 (Exh. A), 2024; Ord. 4302 § 2 (Att. A), 2023; Ord. 4299 § 39 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 4154 § 1 (Att. A), 2019; Ord. 4072 § 7 (Att. G), 2017; Ord. 4026 § 4, 2016; Ord. 3982 § 4, 2014; Ord. 3817 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3806 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. 20.01.007 Exempt projects. A. The following projects are specifically excluded from the procedures set forth in this chapter: historic register designations, building permits, street vacations, street use permits, encroachment permits, and other public works permits issued under ECDC Title 18. B. Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.140(2), lot line or boundary adjustments, building and/or other construction permits, or similar administrative approvals categorically exempt from environmental review under SEPA (Chapter 43.21C RCW and the city's SEPA/environmental policy ordinance, Chapter 20.15A ECDC), or permits/approvals for which environmental review has been completed in connection with other project permits, are excluded from the requirements of RCW 36.7013.060 and 36.70B.110 through 36.7013.130, which includes the following procedures: 1. Notice of application (ECDC 20.03.002) unless an open record hearing is allowed on the permit decision; 2. Except as provided in RCW 36.7013.140, optional consolidated permit review processing (ECDC 20.01.002(B)); 3. Joint public hearings (ECDC 20.06.010); 4. Single report stating all of the decisions and recommendations made as of the date of the report that do not require an open public record hearing (ECDC 20.06.050(C)); and :] Packet Pg. 17 DRAFT CODE Update — 5290 v.1 7.A.a 5. Notice of decision (ECDC 20.02.007). [Ord. 4154 § 1 (Att. A), 2019; Ord. 3817 § 1, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. C. Project permits for interior alterations are exempt from site plan review, provided the application does not result in the following: 1. Additional sleeping quarters or bedrooms; 2. Nonconformity with federal emergency management agency substantial improvement thresholds; or 3. Increase the total square footage or valuation of the structure thereby requiring upgraded fire access or fire suppression systems. 4. Nothing in this section exempts interior alterations from otherwise applicable building, plumbing, mechanical, or electrical codes. 5. For purposes of this section, "interior alterations" include construction activities that do not modify the existing site layout or its current use and involve no exterior work adding to the building footprint. 20.02.003 Submission and acceptance of application. A. Determination of Completeness. Within 28 days after receiving an application, the director shall provide a written determination to the applicant. The written determination must state either: 1. The application is complete; or 2. The application is incomplete and that the procedural submission requirements have not been met. The determination shall outline what is necessary to make the application procedurally complete. B. Identification of Other Agencies with Jurisdiction. To the extent known by the city, other agencies with jurisdiction over the project shall be identified in the determination of completeness. C. Additional Information. An application is complete for the purposes of this section when it meets the submission requirements of ECDC 20.02.002, as outlined on the project permit application. Additional information or studies may be required or project modifications may be undertaken l: Packet Pg. 18 7.A.a DRAFT CODE Update — 5290 v.1 subsequent to the procedural review of the application. The determination of completeness shall not preclude the director's ability to request additional information or studies whenever new information is required, or when substantial changes are made to the proposed project. However, if the procedural submission requirements, as outlined on the project permit application have been provided, the need for additional information or studies may not preclude a completeness determination. D. Incomplete Applications. 1. Whenever the applicant receives a determination from the city pursuant to subsection (A)(2) of this section that the application is incomplete, the applicant shall have 90 days to submit the necessary information. Within 14 days after an applicant has submitted the requested additional information, the director shall make a determination of completeness and notify the applicant in the manner provided in subsection (A) of this section. 2. Whenever the applicant receives a notice that the contents of the application, which had been previously determined under subsection (A)(1) of this section to be complete, is insufficient, ambiguous, undecipherable, or otherwise unresponsive of the information being sought, the applicant shall have 90 days to submit the necessary information. If circumstances warrant, the applicant may apply in writing to the director requesting a one-time 90-day extension. The extension request must be received by the city prior to the end of the initial 90- day compliance period. 3. If the applicant does not submit the additional information requested within the 90-day period (or within the 90-day extension period, as applicable), the director shall make findings and issue a decision, according to the Type I procedure, that the application has lapsed for lack of information necessary to complete the review. The decision shall state that no further action will be taken on the application. 4. When the director determines that an application has lapsed because the applicant has failed to submit required information within the necessary time period, the applicant may request a refund of the application fee remaining after the city's determination of completeness. E. Director's Failure to Provide Determination of Completeness. An application must be deemed procedurally complete on the 291" day after receiving a project permit application under this section if the director does not provide a written determination to the applicant that the application is incomplete as provided in subsection (A) of this section. Packet Pg. 19 DRAFT CODE Update — 5290 v.1 7.A.a F. Date of Acceptance of Application. Permit applications shall not be officially accepted until complete. When an application is determined to be complete, the director shall note the date of acceptance for continued processing. G. After acceptance, the city shall begin processing the application. Under no circumstances shall the city place any application on "hold" to be processed at some later date, even if the request for the "hold" is made by the applicant, and regardless of the requested length of the "holding" period. This subsection does not apply to applications placed on "hold" upon determination by the city that additional information is required in order to make a decision. [Ord. 4299 § 41 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 3817 § 2, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009]. 20.02.007 Notice of final decision. A. Timefromes for Issuing Final Decisions 1. Decision on Type I applications must be issued as a final decision within 65 days of the determination of completeness. 2. Decision on Type II applications must be issued as a final decision within 100 days of the determination of completeness. 3. Decisions on Type III, IV, or V applications must be issued as a final decision within 170 days of the determination of completeness. B. 1. The notice of final decision shall be mailed or otherwise delivered to the applicant, and to any person who submitted comments on the application or requested a copy of the decision. B. In calculating the notice of final decision, or other decision period specified in subsection (A) of this section, the following periods shall be excluded: 1. Any period during which the applicant has been requested by the director to correct plans, perform required studies, or provide additional required information. The period shall be calculated from the date the director notifies the applicant of the need for additional information until the earlier of the dates the director determines that the additional information provided satisfies the request for information, or 14 days after the date the additional information is provided to the city; 7 Packet Pg. 20 7.A.a DRAFT CODE Update — 5290 v.1 2. If the director determines that the information submitted is insufficient, the applicant shall be informed of the deficiencies and the procedures set forth in subsection (B)(1) of this section for calculating the exclusion period shall apply; 3. Any period during which an environmental impact statement (EIS) is being prepared pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW and Chapter 20.15A ECDC. The time period for preparation of an EIS shall be governed by Chapter 20.15A ECDC; 4. Any period for consideration and issuance of a decision for administrative appeals of development project permits, which shall be not more than 90 days for open record appeals and 60 days for closed record appeals, unless a longer period is agreed to by the director and the applicant; 5. Any extension of time mutually agreed to by the director and the applicant in writing. C. The time limits established in this title do not apply if a permit application: 1. Requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan or a development regulation; 2. Requires siting approval of an essential public facility as provided in RCW 36.70A.200; 3. Is a Type IV permit process identified in ECDC 20.01.003(A); or 4. Is substantially revised by the applicant, in which case the time period shall start from the date that a determination of completeness for the revised application is issued by the director pursuant to ECDC 20.02.003 and RCW 36.70B.070. [Ord. 4154 § 10 (Att. D), 2019]. 20.12.005 Outline of process and statement of intent. The architectural design board (ADB) process has been developed in order to provide for public and design professional input prior to the expense incurred by a developer in preparation of detailed design. In combination, Chapter 20.10 ECDC and this chapter are intended to permit public and ADB input at an early point in the process while providing greater assurance to a developer that his general project design has been approved before the final significant expense of detailed project design is incurred. In general, the process is as follows: Packet Pg. 21 7.A.a DRAFT CODE Update — 5290 v.1 A. Public Hearing (Phase 7). The applicant shall submit a preliminary conceptual design to the city. Staff shall schedule the first phase of the ADB hearing within 30 days of staff's determination that the application is complete. Upon receipt, staff shall provide full notice of a public hearing, noting that the public hearing shall be conducted in two phases. The entire single public hearing on the conceptual design shall be on the record. At the initial phase, the applicant shall present facts which describe in detail the tract of land to be developed noting all significant characteristics. The ADB shall make factual findings regarding the particular characteristics of the property and shall prioritize the design guideline checklist based upon these facts, the provisions of the city's design guideline elements of the comprehensive plan and the Edmonds Community Development Code. Following establishment of the design guideline checklist, the public hearing shall be continued to a date certain requested by the applicant, not to exceed 120 days from the meeting date. The 170-day city review period required by RCW 36.7013.080 commences with the application for Phase 1 of the public hearing. The 170-day review period is suspended, however, while the applicant further develops their application for Phase 2 of the public hearing. This suspension is based upon the finding of the city council, pursuant to RCW 36.7013.080, that additional time is required to process this project type. The city has no control over the length of time needed or taken by an applicant to complete its application. B. Continued Public Hearing (Public Hearing, Phase 2). The purpose of the continuance is to permit the applicant to design or redesign his initial conceptual design to address the input of the public and the ADB by complying with the prioritized design guideline checklist criteria. When the applicant has completed his design or redesign, he shall submit that design for final review. The matter shall be set for the next available regular ADB meeting date. If the applicant fails to submit his or her design within 180 days, the staff shall report the matter to the ADB who shall note that the applicant has failed to comply with the requirements of the code and find that the original design checklist criteria approval is void. The applicant may reapply at any time. Such reapplication shall establish a new 170- day review period and establish a new vesting date. C. After completing the hearing process, the final detailed design shall be presented to the city in conjunction with the applicable building permit application. The city staff's decision on the building permit shall be a ministerial act applying the specific conditions or requirements set forth in the ADB's approval, but only those requirements. A staff decision on the building permit shall be final and appealable only as provided in the Land Use Petition Act. No other internal appeal of the staff's ministerial decisions on the building permit is allowed. [Ord. 4302 § 4 (Att. A), 2023; Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. Packet Pg. 22 7.A.a DRAFT CODE Update — 5290 v.1 20.12.020 Design review by the architectural design board. A. Public Hearing — Phase 1. Phase 1 of the public hearing shall be scheduled with the architectural design board (ADB) as a public meeting. Notice of the meeting shall be provided according to the requirements of ECDC 20.03.003. This notice may be combined with the formal notice of application required under ECDC 20.03.002, as appropriate. 1. The purpose of Phase 1 of the public hearing is for the ADB to identify the relative importance of design criteria that will apply to the project proposal during the subsequent design review. The basic criteria to be evaluated are listed on the design guidelines checklist contained within the design guidelines and this chapter. The ADB shall utilize the urban design guidelines and standards contained in the relevant city zoning classification(s), any relevant district -specific design objectives contained in the comprehensive plan, and the relevant portions of this chapter and Chapter 20.13 ECDC, to identify the relative importance of design criteria; no new, additional criteria shall be incorporated, whether proposed in light of the specific characteristics of a particular tract of land or on an ad hoc basis. 2. Prior to scheduling Phase 1 of the public hearing, the applicant shall submit information necessary to identify the scope and context of the proposed development, including any site plans, diagrams, and/or elevations sufficient to summarize the character of the project, its site, and neighboring property information. At a minimum, an applicant shall submit the following information for consideration during Phase 1 of the public hearing: a. Vicinity plan showing all significant physical structures and environmentally critical areas within a 200-foot radius of the site including, but not limited to, surrounding building outlines, streets, driveways, sidewalks, bus stops, and land use. Aerial photographs may be used to develop this information. b. Conceptual site plan(s) showing topography (minimum two -foot intervals), general location of building(s), areas devoted to parking, streets and access, existing open space and vegetation. All concepts being considered for the property should be submitted to assist the ADB in defining all pertinent issues applicable to the site. c. Three-dimensional sketches, photo simulations, or elevations that depict the volume of the proposed structure in relation to the surrounding buildings and improvements. 3. During Phase 1 of the public hearing, the applicant shall be afforded an opportunity to present information on the proposed project. The public shall also be invited to address which 10 Packet Pg. 23 DRAFT CODE Update — 5290 v.1 7.A.a design guidelines checklist criteria from ECDC 20.12.070 they feel are pertinent to the project. The Phase 1 meeting shall be considered to be a public hearing and information presented or discussed during the meeting shall be recorded as part of the hearing record. 4. Prior to the close of Phase 1 of the public hearing, the ADB shall identify the specific design guidelines checklist criteria — and their relative importance — that will be applied to the project during the project's subsequent design review. In submitting an application for design review approval under this chapter, the applicant shall be responsible for identifying how the proposed project meets the specific criteria identified by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing. 5. Following establishment of the design guidelines checklist, the public hearing shall be continued to a date certain, not exceeding 120 days from the date of Phase 1 of the public hearing. The continuance is intended to provide the applicant with sufficient time to prepare the material required for Phase 2 of the public hearing, including any design or redesign needed to address the input of the public and ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing by complying with the prioritized checklist. 6. Because Phase 1 of the public hearing is only the first part of a two-part public hearing, there can be no appeal of the design decision until Phase 2 of the public hearing has been completed and a final decision rendered. B. Continued Public Hearing — Phase 2. 1. An applicant for Phase 2 design review shall submit information sufficient to evaluate how the project meets the criteria identified by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing described in subsection (A) of this section. At a minimum, an applicant shall submit the following information for consideration during Phase 2 of the public hearing: a. Conceptual site plan showing topography (minimum two -foot intervals), general layout of building, parking, streets and access, and proposed open space. b. Conceptual landscape plan, showing locations of planting areas identifying landscape types, including general plant species and characteristics. c. Conceptual utility plan, showing access to and areas reserved for water, sewer, storm, electrical power, and fire connections and/or hydrants. 11 Packet Pg. 24 DRAFT CODE Update — 5290 v.1 7.A.a d. Conceptual building elevations for all building faces illustrating building massing and openings, materials and colors, and roof forms. A three-dimensional model may be substituted for the building elevation(s). e. If more than one development concept is being considered for the property, the submissions should be developed to clearly identify the development options being considered. f. An annotated checklist demonstrating how the project complies with the specific criteria identified by the ADB. g. Optional: generalized building floor plans may be provided. 2. Staff shall prepare a report summarizing the project and providing any comments or recommendations regarding the annotated checklist provided by the applicant under subsection B 1 of this section, as appropriate. The report shall be mailed to the applicant and ADB at least one week prior to the public hearing. 3. Phase 2 of the public hearing shall be conducted by the ADB as a continuation of the Phase 1 public hearing. Notice of the meeting shall be provided according to the requirements of Chapter 20.03 ECDC. During Phase 2 of the public hearing, the ADB shall review the application and identify any conditions that the proposal must meet prior to the issuance of any permit or approval by the city. When conducting this review, the ADB shall enter the following findings prior to issuing its decision on the proposal: a. Zoning Ordinance. The proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance, or a variance or modification has been approved under the terms of this code for any duration. The finding of the staff that a proposal meets the bulk and use requirements of the zoning ordinance shall be given substantial deference and may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence. b. Design Objectives. The proposal meets the relevant district -specific design objectives contained in the comprehensive plan. c. Design Criteria. The proposal satisfies the specific checklist criteria identified by the ADB during Phase 1 of the public hearing under subsection (A) of this section. When conducting its review, the ADB shall not add or impose conditions based on new, additional criteria proposed in light of the specific characteristics of a particular tract of land or on an ad hoc basis. 12 Packet Pg. 25 DRAFT CODE Update — 5290 v.1 7.A.a 4. Project Consolidation. Projects may be consolidated in accordance with RCW 36.7013.110 and the terms of the Edmonds Community Development Code. C. Effect of the Decision of the ADB. The decision of the ADB described in subsection (B) of this section shall be used by staff to determine if a project complies with the requirements of these chapters during staff review of any subsequent applications for permits or approvals. The staff's determination shall be purely ministerial in nature and no discretion is granted to deviate from the requirements imposed by the ADB and the Edmonds Community Development Code. The staff process shall be akin to and administered in conjunction with building permit approval, as applicable Written notice shall be provided to any party of record (as developed in Phases 1 and 2 of the public hearing) who formally requests notice as to: 1. Receipt of plans in a building permit application or application for property development as defined in ECDC 20.10.020; and 2. Approval, conditioned approval or denial by staff of the building permit or development approval. [Ord. 4314 § 77 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 4302 § 4 (Att. A), 2023; Ord. 3817 § 10, 2010; Ord. 3736 §§ 43, 44, 2009; Ord. 3636 § 3, 2007]. 20.75.065 Preliminary review. A. Responsibility for Review. The planning and development director, or a designated planning staff member, is in charge of administering the preliminary review of all subdivisions. The public works director and the fire department, and other departments if needed, shall participate in preliminary review by appropriate recommendations on subjects within their respective areas of expertise. B. Repealed by Ord. 4374. Repealed. C. Time Limits for Staff Review. Staff review shall be completed within 100 days from the date of completeness. D. Formal Subdivision Review. The hearing examiner shall review a formal subdivision as a Type III -A decision in accordance with provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC. E. Short Subdivisions — Staff Review. The director of planning and development shall review a short subdivision as a Type II decision (Staff decision — Notice required). 13 Packet Pg. 26 DRAFT CODE Update — 5290 v.1 7.A.a F. Appeal of Staff Decision. Any person may appeal to the hearing examiner a Type II decision of the planning and development director on a short subdivision under the procedure set forth in Chapter 20.06 ECDC. [Ord. 4314 § 85 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 4299 § 57 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 4154 § 4 (Att. C), 2019; Ord. 4070 § 1 (Exh. 1), 2017; Ord. 3817 § 12, 2010; Ord. 3736 § 65, 2009; Ord. 3211 §§ 4, 5, 1998; Ord. 3112 §§ 17, 18, 19, 1996; Ord. 2379 § 2, 19831. 21.80.095 Project permit or project permit application. Project permit or project permit application for purposes of the ECDC means any land use or environmental permit or license required by the ECDC for a project action, including but not limited to subdivisions, binding site plans, planned unit developments, conditional uses, shoreline substantial development permits, site plan review, permits or approvals required by critical areas ordinances, site -specific rezones which do not require a comprehensive plan amendment, but excluding the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan, subarea plan, or development regulations except as otherwise specifically included in this subsection. [Ord. 3112 § 36, 19961. 14 Packet Pg. 27 7.A.b CERTIFICATION OF ENROLLMENT SECOND SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 5290 Chapter 338, Laws of 2023 68th Legislature 2023 Regular Session PROJECT PERMITS —LOCAL PROJECT REVIEW —VARIOUS PROVISIONS EFFECTIVE DATE: July 23, 2023—Except for section 7, which takes effect January 1, 2025. Passed by the Senate April 17, 2023 Yeas 47 Nays 0 DENNY HECK President of the Senate Passed by the House April 10, 2023 Yeas 98 Nays 0 LAURIE JINKINS Speaker of the House of Representatives Approved May 8, 2023 1:17 PM JAY INSLEE Governor of the State of Washington CERTIFICATE I, Sarah Bannister, Secretary of the Senate of the State of Washington, do hereby certify that the attached is SECOND SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 5290 as passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives on the dates hereon set forth. SARAH BANNISTER Secretary FILED May 10, 2023 Secretary of State State of Washington Q E m E Q Q 0 U O a) N m U) N O O O N O N 0 i Packet Pg. 28 7.A.b SECOND SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 5290 AS AMENDED BY THE HOUSE Passed Legislature - 2023 Regular Session State of Washington 68th Legislature 2023 Regular Session By Senate Ways & Means (originally sponsored by Senators Mullet, Kuderer, Fortunato, Liias, Nobles, Saldana, and C. Wilson; by request of Office of the Governor) (D E READ FIRST TIME 02/24/23. E Q aD M 0 tU 0 rn N m N O O O N 1 AN ACT Relating to consolidating local permit review processes; c N 2 amending RCW 36.70B.140, 36.70B.020, 36.70B.070, 36.70B.080, and M Q 3 36.70B.160; reenacting and amending RCW 36.70B.110; adding new V.- 4 sections to chapter 36.70B RCW; creating new sections; and providing c 5 an effective date. An 6 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON: 7 Sec. 1. RCW 36.70B.140 and 1995 c 347 s 418 are each amended to N 8 read as follows: _J 9 (1) A local government by ordinance or resolution may exclude the m w 10 following project permits from the provisions of RCW 36.70B.060 z 11 through 36.70B.090 and 36.70B.110 through 36.70B.130: Landmark U) 12 designations, street vacations, or other approvals relating to the r 13 use of public areas or facilities, or other project permits, whether s 14 administrative or quasi-judicial, that the local government by Q 15 ordinance or resolution has determined present special circumstances 16 that warrant a review process or time periods for approval which are 17 different from that provided in RCW 36.70B.060 through 36.70B.090 and 18 36.70B.110 through 36.70B.130. 19 (2) A local government by ordinance or resolution also may 20 exclude the following project permits from the provisions of RCW 21 36.70B.060 and 36.70B.110 through 36.70B.130: Lot line or boundary P. 1 2 S S packet Pg. 29 7.A.b 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 adjustments and building and other construction permits, or similar administrative approvals, categorically exempt from environmental review under chapter 43.21C RCW, or for which environmental review has been completed in connection with other project permits. (3) A local government must exclude project permits for interior alterations from site plan review, provided that the interior alterations do not result in the following: (a) Additional sleeping quarters or bedrooms; (b) Nonconformity with federal emergency management agency substantial improvement thresholds; or (c) Increase the total square footage or valuation of the structure thereby requiring upgraded fire access or fire suppression systems. (4) Nothing in this section exempts interior alterations from otherwise applicable building, plumbing, mechanical, or electrical codes. (5) For purposes of this section, "interior alterations" include construction activities that do not modify the existing site layout or its current use and involve no exterior work adding to the building footprint. NEW SECTION. Sec. 2 A new section is added to chapter 36.70B RCW to read as follows: (1) Subject to the availability of funds appropriated for this specific purpose, the department of commerce must establish a consolidated permit review grant program. The department may award grants to any local government that provides, by ordinance, resolution, or other action, a commitment to the following building permit review consolidation requirements: (a) Issuing final decisions on residential permit applications within 45 business days or 90 calendar days. (i) To achieve permit review within the stated time periods, a local government must provide consolidated review for building permit applications. This may include an initial technical peer review of the application for conformity with the requirements of RCW 36.70B.070 by all departments, divisions, and sections of the local government with jurisdiction over the project. (ii) A local government may contract with a third -party business to conduct the consolidated permit review or as additional inspection r aD E M c a� a aD W 0 tU 0 rn N LO CO UJ N 0 0 0 N 0 N a p. 2 2 S S packet Pg. 30 7.A.b 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 staff. Any funds expended for such a contract may be eligible for reimbursement under this act. (iii) Local governments are authorized to use grant funds to contract outside assistance to audit their development regulations to identify and correct barriers to housing development. (b) Establishing an application fee structure that would allow the jurisdiction to continue providing consolidated permit review within 45 business days or 90 calendar days. (i) A local government may consult with local building associations to develop a reasonable fee system. (ii) A local government must determine, no later than July 1, 2024, the specific fee structure needed to provide permit review within the time periods specified in this subsection (1)(b). (2) A jurisdiction that is awarded a grant under this section must provide a quarterly report to the department of commerce. The report must include the average and maximum time for permit review during the jurisdiction's participation in the grant program. (3) If a jurisdiction is unable to successfully meet the terms and conditions of the grant, the jurisdiction must enter a 90-day probationary period. If the jurisdiction is not able to meet the requirements of this section by the end of the probationary period, the jurisdiction is no longer eligible to receive grants under this section. (4) For the purposes of this section, "residential permit" means a permit issued by a city or county that satisfies the conditions of RCW 19.27.015(5) and is within the scope of the international residential code, as adopted in accordance with chapter 19.27 RCW. NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 36.70B RCW to read as follows: (1) Subject to the availability of funds appropriated for this specific purpose, the department of commerce must establish a grant program for local governments to update their permit review process from paper filing systems to software systems capable of processing digital permit applications, virtual inspections, electronic review, and with capacity for video storage. (2) The department of commerce may only provide a grant under this section to a city if the city allows for the development of at least two units per lot on all lots zoned predominantly for residential use within its jurisdiction. r aD E M c a� a aD M 0 tU 0 rn N LO m N 0 0 0 N 0 N a p. 3 2 S S packet Pg. 31 7.A.b 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 NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. A new section is added to chapter 36.70B RCW to read as follows: (1) Subject to the availability of amounts appropriated for this specific purpose, the department of commerce must convene a digital permitting process work group to examine potential license and permitting software for local governments to encourage streamlined and efficient permit review. (2) The department of commerce, in consultation with the association of Washington cities and Washington state association of counties, shall appoint members to the work group representing groups including but not limited to: (a) Cities and counties; (b) Building industries; and (c) Building officials. (3) The department of commerce must convene the first meeting of the work group by August 1, 2023. The department must submit a final report to the governor and the appropriate committees of the legislature by August 1, 2024. The final report must: (a) Evaluate the existing need for digital permitting systems, including impacts on existing digital permitting systems that are already in place; (b) Review barriers preventing local jurisdictions from accessing or adopting digital permitting systems; (c) Evaluate the benefits and costs associated with a statewide permitting software system; and (d) Provide budgetary, administrative policy, and legislative recommendations to increase the adoption of or establish a statewide system of digital permit review. Sec. 5. RCW 36.70B.020 and 1995 c 347 s 402 are each amended to read as follows: Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter. (1) "Closed record appeal" means an administrative appeal on the record to a local government body or officer, including the legislative body, following an open record hearing on a project permit application when the appeal is on the record with no or limited new evidence or information allowed to be submitted and only appeal argument allowed. (2) "Local government" means a county, city, or town. p. 4 2 S S packet Pg. 32 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 7.A.b (3) "Open record hearing" means a hearing, conducted by a single hearing body or officer authorized by the local government to conduct such hearings, that creates the local government's record through testimony and submission of evidence and information, under procedures prescribed by the local government by ordinance or resolution. An open record hearing may be held prior to a local government's decision on a project permit to be known as an "open record predecision hearing." An open record hearing may be held on an appeal, to be known as an "open record appeal hearing," if no open r C record predecision hearing has been held on the project permit. M (4) "Project permit" or "project permit application" means any E a land use or environmental permit or license required from a local government for a project action, including but not limited to -(D v ((biailding perFftits,)) subdivisions, binding site plans, planned unit 0 N LO developments, conditional uses, shoreline substantial development m permits, site plan review, permits or approvals required by critical c area ordinances, site -specific rezones (( 0 9 � 1111an er subaEea plan)) which do not require a N N comprehensive plan amendment, but excluding the adoption or amendment 0 a of a comprehensive plan, subarea plan, or development regulations r except as otherwise specifically included in this subsection. _ 0 (5) "Public meeting" means an informal meeting, hearing, T) workshop, or other public gathering of people to obtain comments from m the public or other agencies on a proposed project permit prior to J U? the local government's decision. A public meeting may include, but is N c not limited to, a design review or architectural control board rn C4 meeting, a special review district or community council meeting, or a scoping meeting on a draft environmental impact statement. A public m w meeting does not include an open record hearing. The proceedings at a z public meeting may be recorded and a report or recommendation may be LU Cn included in the local government's project permit application file. r C Sec. 6. RCW 36.70B.070 and 1995 c 347 s 408 are each amended to read as follows: (1) (a) Within ( ( twenty-c- g' t ) ) 28 days after receiving a project permit application, a local government planning pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040 shall ((ra;:1er)) provide ((' )) a written determination to the applicant((, statin ))_ (b) The written determination must state either: ((+a+)) (i) That the application is complete; or p. 5 2 S S packet Pg. 33 7.A.b 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 ((+Ie})) ii That the application is incomplete and that the procedural submission requirements of the local government have not been met. The determination shall outline what is necessary to make the application procedurally complete. (c) The number of days shall be calculated by counting every calendar day. To the extent known by the local government, the local government shall identify other agencies of local, state, or federal governments that may have jurisdiction over some aspect of the application. (2) A project permit application is complete for purposes of this section when it meets the procedural submission requirements of the local government ( (a_r e Is suffie4ment fer eentinueel preeessalmnEff-even itlerz l inf eEfftatien FRay lee EequiEed er Fftedifieatiens Fftay lee unelertaken subsequently) ) , as outlined on the project permit application. Additional information or studies may be required or project modifications may be undertaken subsequent to the procedural review of the application by the local government. The determination of completeness shall not preclude the local government from requesting additional information or studies either at the time of the notice of completeness or subsequently if new information is required or substantial changes in the proposed action occur. However, if the procedural submission requirements, as outlined on the project permit application have been provided, the need for additional information or studies may not preclude a completeness determination. r aD E M _ a� E aD M 0 tU 0 0 N LO m N 0 0 0 N 0 N 0 (3) The determination of completeness may include or be combined � with the following (( tienal inferFftatien)). m W (a) A preliminary determination of those development regulations z that will be used for project mitigation; LU Cn (b) A preliminary determination of consistency, as provided under r C RCW 36.70B.040; ( (e-r-) ) E (c) Other information the local government chooses to include; or Q (d) The notice of application pursuant to the requirements in RCW 36.70B.110. (4)(a) An application shall be deemed procedurally complete on the 29th day after receiving a project permit application under this section if the local government does not provide a written determination to the applicant that the application is procedurally incomplete as provided in subsection (1)(b) ii of this section. When p. 6 2 S S packet Pg. 34 7.A.b 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 the local aovernment does not provide a written determination, the may still seek additional information or studies as provided for in subsection (2) of this section. (b) Within ((feu ceen)) 14 days after an applicant has submitted to a local government additional information identified by the local government as being necessary for a complete application, the local government shall notify the applicant whether the application is complete or what additional information is necessary. r (c) The notice of application shall be provided within 14 days C after the determination of completeness pursuant to RCW 36.70B.110. M a� E a Sec. 7. RCW 36.70B.080 and 2004 c 191 s 2 are each amended to -(D read as follows: v 0 (1)(a) Development regulations adopted pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040 N LO must establish and implement time periods for local government CO actions for each type of project permit application and provide c timely and predictable procedures to determine whether a completed 0 9 N project permit application meets the requirements of those N development regulations. The time periods for local government 0 a actions for each type of complete project permit application or r project type should not exceed ((en((ene hunel3Feelelays, idnless the o leeal t ..takes fi that fied--affteunt T) geveL= Ffte w3A:t _n nelings a spee ef m a applieatiens er prejeet)) those specified in this section. J v) ((Tre)) (b) For project permits submitted after January 1, 2025, N c rn the development regulations must, for each type of permit application, specify the contents of a completed project permit � application necessary for the complete compliance with the time m w periods and procedures. a z ((+2+)) (c) A jurisdiction may exclude certain permit types and w v) timelines for processing_ project permit applications as provided for r C in RCW 36.70B.140. s (d) The time periods for local government action to issue a final Q decision for each type of complete project permit application or project type subject to this chapter should not exceed the following time periods unless modified by the local government pursuant to this section or RCW 36.70B.140: (i) For project permits which do not require public notice under RCW 36.70B.110, a local government must issue a final decision within 65 days of the determination of completeness under RCW 36.70B.070; p. 7 2 S S packet Pg. 35 7.A.b 1 (ii) For project permits which require public notice under RCW 2 36.70B.110, a local government must issue a final decision within 100 3 days of the determination of completeness under RCW 36.70B.070; and 4 (iii) For project permits which require public notice under RCW 5 36.70B.110 and a public hearing, a local government must issue a 6 final decision within 170 days of the determination of completeness 7 under RCW 36.70B.070. 8 (e) A jurisdiction may modify the provisions in (d) of this 9 subsection to add permit types not identified, change the permit 10 names or types in each category, address how consolidated review time 11 periods may be different than permits submitted individually, and 12 provide for how projects of a certain size or type may be 13 differentiated, including by differentiating between residential and 14 nonresidential permits. Unless otherwise provided for the 15 consolidated review of more than one permit, the time period for a 16 final decision shall be the longest of the permit time periods 17 identified in (d) of this subsection or as amended by a local 18 government. 19 (f) If a local government does not adopt an ordinance or 20 resolution modifying the provisions in (d) of this subsection, the 21 time periods in (d) of this subsection apply. 22 (q) The number of days an application is in review with the 23 county or city shall be calculated from the day completeness is 24 determined under RCW 36.70B.070 to the date a final decision is 25 issued on the project permit application. The number of days shall be 26 calculated by counting every calendar day and excluding the following 27 time periods: 28 (i) Any period between the day that the county or city has 29 notified the applicant, in writing, that additional information is 30 required to further process the application and the day when 31 responsive information is resubmitted by the applicant; 32 (ii) Any period after an applicant informs the local government, 33 in writing, that they would like to temporarily suspend review of the 34 project permit application until the time that the applicant notifies 35 the local government, in writing, that they would like to resume the 36 application. A local government may set conditions for the temporary 37 suspension of a permit application; and 38 (iii) Any period after an administrative appeal is filed until 39 the administrative appeal is resolved and any additional time period 40 provided by the administrative appeal has expired. a� E m E a a� 0 U 0 0 N LO m U) N 0 0 O N 0 N 0 p. 8 2 S S packet Pg. 36 7.A.b 1 (h) The time periods for a local government to process a permit 2 shall start over if an applicant proposes a chancre in use that adds 3 or removes commercial or residential elements from the original 4 application that would make the application fail to meet the 5 determination of procedural completeness for the new use, as required 6 by the local aovernment under RCW 36.70B.070. 7 (i) If, at any time, an applicant informs the local government, 8 in writing, that the applicant would like to temporarily suspend the 9 review of the project for more than 60 days, or if an applicant is 10 not responsive for more than 60 consecutive days after the county or 11 city has notified the applicant, in writing, that additional 12 information is required to further process the application, an 13 additional 30 days may be added to the time periods for local 14 government action to issue a final decision for each type of project 15 permit that is subject to this chapter. Any written notice from the 16 local government to the applicant that additional information is 17 required to further process the application must include a notice 18 that nonresponsiveness for 60 consecutive days may result in 30 days 19 being added to the time for review. For the purposes of this 20 subsection, "nonresponsiveness" means that an applicant is not making 21 demonstrable progress on providing additional requested information 22 to the local government, or that there is no ongoing communication 23 from the applicant to the local government on the applicant's ability 24 or willingness to provide the additional information. 25 (1) Annual amendments to the comprehensive plan are not subject 26 to the requirements of this section. 27 (k) A county's or city's adoption of a resolution or ordinance to 28 implement this subsection shall not be subject to appeal under 29 chapter 36.70A RCW unless the resolution or ordinance modifies the 30 time periods provided in (d) of this subsection by providing for a 31 review period of more than 170 days for any project permit. 32 (1)(i) When permit time periods provided for in (d) of this 33 subsection, as may be amended by a local government, and as may be 34 extended as provided for in (i) of this subsection, are not met, a 35 portion of the permit fee must be refunded to the applicant as 36 provided in this subsection. A local crovernment may provide for the 37 collection of only 80 percent of a permit fee initially, and for the 38 collection of the remaining balance if the permitting time periods 39 are met. The portion of the fee refunded for missina time periods r a� E _ m E a a� 0 U 0 rn N LO m U) N 0 0 O N 0 N 0 g 40 shall be: P. 9 2 S S packet Pg. 37 7.A.b 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 (A) 10 percent if the final decision of the project permit application was made after the applicable deadline but the period from the passage of the deadline to the time of issuance of the final decision did not exceed 20 percent of the original time period; or (B) 20 percent if the period from the passage of the deadline to the time of the issuance of the final decision exceeded 20 percent of the original time period. (ii) Except as provided in RCW 36.70B.160, the provisions in subsection (1)(i) of this section are not applicable to cities and r counties which have implemented at least three of the options in RCW M 36.70B.160(1) (a) through (1) at the time an application is deemed E a procedurally complete. (2)(a) Counties subject to the requirements of RCW 36.70A.215 and -(D L) the cities within those counties that have populations of at least 0 N LO (( )) 20,000 must, for each type of permit application, m identify the total number of project permit applications for which c decisions are issued according to the provisions of this chapter. For 0 9 N each type of project permit application identified, these counties N 0 and cities must establish and implement a deadline for issuing a a notice of final decision as required by subsection (1) of this r section and minimum requirements for applications to be deemed c complete under RCW 36.70B.070 as required by subsection (1) of this T) m section. (b) Counties and cities subject to the requirements of this J U? subsection also must prepare an annual performance report((-&)) that N U� 0 rn ,,,, : t-, -ell f -ewe^ type ef ( (i n e-ludi , e ern ell e n e C4 i ,1tmac jarej eet perFftitcp��ie�i��ntif ee ±R aeeerdanee J m ram} r ,.,,., e r t s o f ( -, ) of this siabseeti en W Tetal dur z (4:) nufftleer of eeFftplete applieatiens reeeiveel nfhc ( 44 , ~~beef they ) eemplete r J 1 appllea:�=�- n -�eel FkT - = g net Miss,, N rder this , etiear e ,;uEi the €ei= (4:44) Fftbei= ef applieatiensr J yea whieha under this subseetien; e ,;,,a mr the fei==whrsman (4:v)pd,,.beL= ef appi-ieatiens tiFfte ,.,ut,,-,,,,, J ya,L= lupen r r r,; the c�Etensien of was -----1' aE�r ppl P. 10 2 S S packet Pg. 38 7.A.b 1 (�v-) ;Ia = ,teef—ae _ual pe €ea-m r eme, ,,mr; a pIdm -,}; JEer 2 :�4:me have te the whieh atfreed em er_--- - eeerrLL=eEi, —Elea'-1=- - 3 established under the subsec:t---- during the year-; 5 z r-eFft-theFftean . 6 r,.unt' 1jeette the is th'� (e) anel eiitie _ _i ��e j'--------, ef 7 s�ibTee t i eat : 8 gee-, ide lee to 4ch (i) netof a; el - ---ss e are n i:i1 jeeinfe-- - - - 9 r-epe rts thr-e:�igh the—eeun ty ' s e�n e- -y ' s _ e b s d::� e ; 10 (ii) Pest eleetr--ni faesiffiiies of the a~ n:a l pe3F €e 11 thr-e er e is website. Pes4clngs en ' 12 eity's websited---,t-�-J that the Eepa3Fts—are available--y 13 eentaeting the apprepria ity—elepartment er effieiawe 14 net eefftply with the ineqciireFftents e f thissubsL-men. 15 if a eeicinty er e-ity eubj eet t o tl:i e i t s ef th±s 16 L. t F b F e t - h .. �- ��e-etre�eke:�re�� ' ^ pal c�Tt9�rc�e�—czr��e}�Y=t-S-�li13�,�e 18 Fftetheds s p e e iff ied in RGW 36.70B.110(4). 19 4--3+)) includes information outlining time periods for certain 20 permit types associated with housing. The report must provide: 21 (i) Permit time periods for certain permit processes in the 22 county or city in relation to those established under this section, 23 including whether the county or city has established shorter time 24 periods than those provided in this section; 25 (ii) The total number of decisions issued during the year for the 26 following permit types: Preliminary subdivisions, final subdivisions, 27 binding site plans, permit processes associated with the approval of 28 multifamily housing, and construction plan review for each of these 29 permit types when submitted separately; 30 (iii) The total number of decisions for each permit type which 31 included consolidated project permit review, such as concurrent 32 review of a rezone or construction plans; 33 (iv) The average number of days from a submittal to a decision 34 being issued for the project permit types listed in subsection 35 (2)(a)(ii) of this section. This shall be calculated from the day 36 completeness is determined under RCW 36.70B.070 to the date a 37 decision is issued on the application. The number of days shall be 38 calculated by counting every calendar day; 39 (v) The total number of days each project permit application of a 40 type listed in subsection (2)(a)(ii) of this section was in review a� E a� E a a� 0 U 0 N LO m U) N 0 0 O 4 N 0 N 0 p . 11 2 S S packet Pg. 39 7.A.b 1 with the county or city. This shall be calculated from the day 2 completeness is determined under RCW 36.70B.070 to the date a final 3 decision is issued on the application. The number of days shall be 4 calculated by counting every calendar day. The days the application 5 is in review with the county or city does not include the time 6 periods in subsection (1)(a)(i)-(iii) of this section; 7 (vi) The total number of days that were excluded from the time 8 period calculation under subsection (1)(g)(i)-(iii) of this section 9 for each project permit application of a type listed in subsection 10 (2)(a)(ii) of this section. 11 (c) Counties and cities subject to the requirements of this 12 subsection must: 13 (i) Post the annual performance report through the county's or 14 city's website; and 15 (ii) Submit the annual performance report to the department of 16 commerce by March 1st each year. 17 (d) No later than July 1st each year, the department of commerce 18 shall publish a report which includes the annual performance report 19 data for each county and city subject to the requirements of this 20 subsection and a list of those counties and cities whose time periods 21 are shorter than those provided for in this section. 22 The annual report must also include key metrics and findings from 23 the information collected. 24 (e) The initial annual report required under this subsection must 25 be submitted to the department of commerce by March 1, 2025, and must 26 include information from permitting in 2024. 27 (3) Nothing in this section prohibits a county or city from 28 extending a deadline for issuing a decision for a specific project 29 permit application for any reasonable period of time mutually agreed 30 upon by the applicant and the local government. 31 (( , 32 E4celer;=- -} shall we _rk with the ceuits-es cre�er�� .4=e��--4ew 33 pe-�entral imp-l-eFftentatien cests ef the EequiEeFftents e-fs-" se ct (2) + Td�� tF e + eratie1� 'w-a�h : The- l-eeal 4 ez h; � ec�re�he .. , 35 Eje�v--c"=nFft-r} shall pEepaEe a Eepo-Es-u nr, _—ng the pEejctedeests, 36 tege}he—with reeeFFffneneatdmens fer state €�i n ,ng assst ---- fe 37 impleFftentatien eest�.,mnel f)L=er�,. the LepeEtte the—ge�.errer and 38 app r-epri a te—eeFFR:a�rttee s ef the senate r 6 �ieuse of r e p r e s e_m�t, - -mil' 39 january 1, 2005. ) ) a� E m E a a� 0 U 0 0 N LO m U) N 0 0 O N 0 N a a p . 12 2 S S packet Pg. 40 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 Sec. 8. RCW 36.70B.160 and 1995 c 347 s 420 are each amended to read as follows: (1) Each local government is encouraged to adopt further project review and code provisions to provide prompt, coordinated review and ensure accountability to applicants and the public((, _neludli-n expeditedrav w feLn prejeet peLnfftimtapplreatiens fe3n pr=ej ee}-h t are —eensstent with aslepteel elevelepFftent regcilatiens anelwithin the eepae-ity ef systeFftwide inrr-astruetu ) ) by (a) Expediting review for project permit applications for projects that are consistent with adopted development regulations; (b) Imposing reasonable fees, consistent with RCW 82.02.020, on applicants for permits or other governmental approvals to cover the cost to the city, town, county, or other municipal corporation of processing applications, inspecting and reviewing plans, or preparing detailed statements required by chapter 43.21C RCW. The fees imposed may not include a fee for the cost of processing administrative appeals. Nothing in this subsection limits the ability of a county or city to impose a fee for the processing of administrative appeals as otherwise authorized by law; (c) Entering into an interlocal agreement with another jurisdiction to share permitting staff and resources; (d) Maintaining and budgeting for on -call permitting assistance for when permit volumes or staffing levels change rapidly; (e) Having new positions budgeted that are contingent on increased permit revenue; (f) Adopting development regulations which only require public hearings for permit applications that are required to have a public hearing by statute; (g) Adopting development regulations which make preapplication Q E m E a Q M 0 U 0 0 N LO m UJ N O O O N 0 N 0 meetings optional rather than a requirement of permit application cn submittal; _ as (h) Adopting development regulations which make housing types an outright permitted use in all zones where the housing type is a permitted; (i) Adopting a program to allow for outside professionals with appropriate professional licenses to certify components of applications consistent with their license; or (1) Meeting with the applicant to attempt to resolve outstanding issues during the review process. The meeting must be scheduled within 14 days of a second reauest for corrections durina permit p . 13 2 S S packet Pg. 41 7.A.b 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 review. If the meeting cannot resolve the issues and a local government proceeds with a third request for additional information or corrections, the local government must approve or deny the application upon receiving the additional information or corrections. (2)(a) After January 1, 2026, a county or city must adopt additional measures under subsection (1) of this section at the time of its next comprehensive plan update under RCW 36.70A.130 if it meets the following conditions: _ r (i) The county or city has adopted at least three project review C and code provisions under subsection (1) of this section more than M five years prior; and c E a (ii) The county or city is not meeting the permitting deadlines established in RCW 36.70B.080 at least half of the time over the -(D v period since its most recent comprehensive plan update under RCW 0 N LO 36.70A.130. (b) A city or county that is required to adopt new measures under c (a) of this subsection but fails to do so becomes subject to the 0 9 N provisions of RCW 36.70B.080(1)(1), notwithstanding RCW N 36.70B.080 (1) (1) (ii) . 0 a ((+2+)) (3) Nothing in this chapter is intended or shall be .. r construed to prevent a local government from requiring a c preapplication conference or a public meeting by rule, ordinance, or T) resolution. m ((+3})) (4) Each local government shall adopt procedures to J v) monitor and enforce permit decisions and conditions. N U� 0 rn ((+4+)) (5) Nothing in this chapter modifies any independent C4 statutory authority for a government agency to appeal a project -J permit issued by a local government. m w a z NEW SECTION. Sec. 9. A new section is added to chapter 36.70B LU Cn RCW to read as follows: (1) The department of commerce shall develop and provide technical assistance and guidance to counties and cities in setting fee structures under RCW 36.70B.160(1) to ensure that the fees are reasonable and sufficient to recover true costs. The guidance must include information on how to utilize growth factors or other measures to reflect cost increases over time. (2) When providing technical assistance under subsection (1) of this section, the department of commerce must prioritize local p. 14 2 S S packet Pg. 42 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 7.A.b governments that have implemented at least three of the options in RCW 36.70B.160(1). Sec. 10. RCW 36.70B.110 and 1997 c 429 s 48 and 1997 c 396 s 1 are each reenacted and amended to read as follows: (1) Not later than April 1, 1996, a local government planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall provide a notice of application to the public and the departments and agencies with jurisdiction as provided in this section. If a local government has made a threshold determination under chapter 43.21C RCW concurrently with the notice of application, the notice of application may be combined with the threshold determination and the scoping notice for a determination of significance. Nothing in this section prevents a determination of significance and scoping notice from being issued prior to the notice of application. Nothing in this section or this chapter prevents a lead agency, when it is a project proponent or is funding a project, from conducting its review under chapter 43.21C RCW or from allowing appeals of procedural determinations prior to submitting a project permit ( (;j_p , , _,}-_n) ) (2) The notice of application shall be provided within ((men)) 14 days after the determination of completeness as provided in RCW 36.70B.070 and, except as limited by the provisions of subsection (4)(b) of this section, (()) must include the following in whatever sequence or format the local government deems appropriate: (a) The date of application, the date of the notice of completion for the application, and the date of the notice of application; (b) A description of the proposed project action and a list of the project permits included in the application and, if applicable, a list of any studies requested under RCW 36.70B.070 ((er 36.�GB.090)); (c) The identification of other permits not included in the application to the extent known by the local government; (d) The identification of existing environmental documents that evaluate the proposed project, and, if not otherwise stated on the document providing the notice of application, such as a city land use bulletin, the location where the application and any studies can be reviewed; (e) A statement of the public comment period, which shall be not less than fourteen nor more than thirty days following the date of notice of application, and statements of the right of any person to r aD E M _ a� E a aD M 0 tU 0 rn N LO m N 0 0 0 N 0 N a p. 15 2 S S packet Pg. 43 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 7.A.b comment on the application, receive notice of and participate in any hearings, request a copy of the decision once made, and any appeal rights. A local government may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit; (f) The date, time, place, and type of hearing, if applicable and scheduled at the date of notice of the application; (g) A statement of the preliminary determination, if one has been r C made at the time of notice, of those development regulations that M will be used for project mitigation and of consistency as provided in E a RCW 36.70B.030(2) and 36.70B.040; and (h) Any other information determined appropriate by the local -(D v government. 0 N LO (3) If an open record predecision hearing is required for the CO requested project permits, the notice of application shall be c provided at least fifteen days prior to the open record hearing. 0 N (4) A local government shall use reasonable methods to give the N notice of application to the public and agencies with jurisdiction 0 M a and may use its existing notice procedures. A local government may r use different types of notice for different categories of project c permits or types of project actions. If a local government by -T) resolution or ordinance does not specify its method of public notice, m the local government shall use the methods provided for in (a) and J U? (b) of this subsection. Examples of reasonable methods to inform the N c public are: rn C4 (a) Posting the property for site -specific proposals; � (b) Publishing notice, including at least the project location, m w description, type of permit(s) required, comment period dates, and a z location where the notice of application required by subsection (2) LU CO of this section and the complete application may be reviewed, in the r C newspaper of general circulation in the general area where the M proposal is located or in a local land use newsletter published by Q the local government; (c) Notifying public or private groups with known interest in a certain proposal or in the type of proposal being considered; (d) Notifying the news media; (e) Placing notices in appropriate regional or neighborhood newspapers or trade journals; p. 16 2 S S packet Pg. 44 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 7.A.b (f) Publishing notice in agency newsletters or sending notice to agency mailing lists, either general lists or lists for specific proposals or subject areas; and (g) Mailing to neighboring property owners. (5) A notice of application shall not be required for project permits that are categorically exempt under chapter 43.21C RCW, unless an open record predecision hearing is required or an open record appeal hearing is allowed on the project permit decision. r (6) A local government shall integrate the permit procedures in this section with ((4-t-&)) environmental review under chapter 43.21C D RCW as follows: (a) Except for a threshold determination and except as otherwise expressly allowed in this section, the local government may not issue a decision or a recommendation on a project permit until the expiration of the public comment period on the notice of application. (b) If an open record predecision hearing is required, the local government shall issue its threshold determination at least fifteen days prior to the open record predecision hearing. (c) Comments shall be as specific as possible. (d) A local government is not required to provide for administrative appeals of its threshold determination. If provided, an administrative appeal ((shall)) must be filed within fourteen days after notice that the determination has been made and is appealable. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this section, the appeal hearing on a threshold determination ((eznensignif .-nee s a>>)) must be consolidated with any open record hearing on the project a) E a aD 0 tU 0 rn N LO m N 0 0 0 N 0 N a permit. (7) At the request of the applicant, a local government may m w combine any hearing on a project permit with any hearing that may be z held by another local, state, regional, federal, or other agency, if: LU Cn (a) The hearing is held within the geographic boundary of the r local government; and b reeif4eel in Frr 6 'inn, G90 er the) ) The applicant agrees to the schedule in the event that additional time is needed in order to combine the hearings. All agencies of the state of Washington, including municipal corporations and counties participating in a combined hearing, are hereby authorized to issue joint hearing notices and develop a joint format, select a mutually acceptable hearing body or officer, and take such other actions as may be p . 17 2 S S packet Pg. 45 7.A.b 1 necessary to hold joint hearings consistent with each of their 2 respective statutory obligations. 3 (8) All state and local agencies shall cooperate to the fullest 4 extent possible with the local government in holding a joint hearing 5 if requested to do so, as long as: 6 (a) The agency is not expressly prohibited by statute from doing 7 so; 8 (b) Sufficient notice of the hearing is given to meet each of the 9 agencies' adopted notice requirements as set forth in statute, r (D 10 ordinance, or rule; and M 11 (c) The agency has received the necessary information about the E a 12 proposed project from the applicant to hold its hearing at the same 13 time as the local government hearing. -(D v 14 (9) A local government is not required to provide for 0 N LO 15 administrative appeals. If provided, an administrative appeal of the �m 16 project decision and of any environmental determination issued at the c 17 same time as the project decision, shall be filed within fourteen 0 9 N 18 days after the notice of the decision or after other notice that the N 19 decision has been made and is appealable. The local government shall 0 M a 20 extend the appeal period for an additional seven days, if state or r 21 local rules adopted pursuant to chapter 43.21C RCW allow public c 22 comment on a determination of nonsignificance issued as part of the T) 23 appealable project permit decision. m 24 (10) The applicant for a project permit is deemed to be a J U? 25 participant in any comment period, open record hearing, or closed N c rn 26 record appeal. C4 27 (11) Each local government planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall 28 adopt procedures for administrative interpretation of its development m w 29 regulations. z 30 NEW SECTION. Sec. 11. The department of commerce shall develop 31 a template for counties and cities subject to the requirements in RCW 32 36.70B.080, which will be utilized for reporting data. 33 NEW SECTION. Sec. 12. The department of commerce shall develop 34 a plan to provide local governments with appropriately trained staff 35 to provide temporary support or hard to find expertise for timely 36 processing of residential housing permit applications. The plan shall 37 include consideration of how local governments can be provided with 38 staff that have experience with providing substitute staff support or p . 18 2 S S packet Pg. 46 7.A.b 1 2 3 4 5 I that possess expertise in permitting policies and regulations in the local government's geographic area or with jurisdictions of the local government's size or population. The plan and a proposal for implementation shall be presented to the legislature by December 1, 2023. NEW SECTION. Sec. 13. Section 7 of this act takes effect January 1, 2025. r Passed by the Senate April 17, 2023. E E Passed by the House April 10, 2023. Approved by the Governor May 8, 2023. Filed in Office of Secretary of State May 10, 2023. a aD M --- END --- V 0 rn N LO m N 0 0 0 N 0 N a i p . 19 2 S S packet Pg. 47 7/18/24, 4:07 PM Washington State Legislature 7.A.c Help us shape the future of the Legislature website! We are redesigning our website and want your feedback. We are looking for volunteers to participate in research, and some opportunities maybe paid. Sign up to participate here! Reports Home I Bill History I Bill Tracking I Docs I Bills By Citation I Bill Sponsors I Bills In/Out of Committee I Roll Calls Topical Index I Selected Step I Member Directory SB 5290 - 2023-24 Concerning consolidating local permit review processes. Sponsors: Mullet, Kuderer, Fortunato, Liias, Nobles, Saldana, Wilson, C. By Request: Office of the Governor Companion Bill: HB 1296 Bill History `Z1y*1tKCWW_1:X1**1I 6110 IN THE SENATE Jan 11 First reading, referred to Local Government, Land Use & Tribal Affairs. c Jan 24 Public hearing in the Senate Committee on Local Government, Land Use & Tribal Affairs �► at 8:00 AM. Feb 9 Executive action taken in the Senate Committee on Local Government, Land Use & Tribal Affairs at 10:30 AM. LGLT - Majority; 1st substitute bill be substituted, do pass. E And refer to Ways & Means. Feb 10 Referred to Ways & Means. a Feb 20 Public hearing in the Senate Committee on Ways & Means at 9:00 AM. Feb 24 Executive action taken in the Senate Committee on Ways & Means at 9:00 AM. https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5290&Initiative=false&Year=2023 Packet Pg. 48 7/18/24, 4:07 PM Washington State Legislature WM - Majority; 2nd substitute bill be substituted, do pass. Passed to Rules Committee for second reading. Mar 3 Placed on second reading by Rules Committee. Mar 6 2nd substitute bill substituted (WM 23). Rules suspended. Placed on Third Reading. Third reading, passed; yeas, 49; nays, 0; absent, 0; excused, 0. IN THE HOUSE Mar 8 First reading, referred to Local Government. Mar 21 Public hearing in the House Committee on Local Government at 10:30 AM. Mar 24 Executive action taken in the House Committee on Local Government at 10:30 AM. LG - Majority; do pass. Mar 28 Referred to Appropriations. Apr 1 Public hearing in the House Committee on Appropriations at 9:00 AM. Apr 3 Executive action taken in the House Committee on Appropriations at 9:00 AM. APP - Majority; do pass with amendment(s). Apr 4 Referred to Rules 2 Review. Apr 7 Rules Committee relieved of further consideration. Placed on second reading. Apr 10 Committee amendment(s) adopted as amended. Rules suspended. Placed on Third Reading. Third reading, passed; yeas, 98; nays, 0; absent, 0; excused, 0. IN THE SENATE Apr 17 Senate concurred in House amendments. Passed final passage; yeas, 47; nays, 0; absent, 0; excused, 2. Apr 19 President signed. IN THE HOUSE Apr 20 Speaker signed. OTHER THAN LEGISLATIVE ACTION Apr 20 Delivered to Governor. May 8 Governor signed. Chapter 338, 2023 Laws. Effective date 7/23/2023*. https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=5290&Initiative=false&Year=2023 I Packet Pg. 49 8.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/24/2024 Green Building Incentives Pilot Code Amendments Staff Lead: Leif Bjorback Department: Planning & Development Prepared By: Tristan Sewell Background/History Edmonds' 2023 Climate Action Plan includes the development of an incentive program to encourage sustainable development as a necessary action to achieve the City's goal of climate neutrality by 2050. Planning & Development aims to implement this program in 2024. The Planning Board held a public hearing on Planning & Development's proposed green building incentives program on June 121h, 2024. Staff initially introduced the topic to the Planning Board briefly on January 10th, 2024. Additional discussions occurred on February 281h and then April 24th, 2024. Since the June public hearing, staff worked to address Planning Board and public comments regarding enforcement and the Waterfront Commercial (CW) zone. Furthermore, HB 1337-compliant accessory dwelling unit (ADU) regulation adopted by Council via Ordinance 4360 on June 11th, 2024, came into force. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that Planning Board review, discuss and recommend approval of the draft green building incentive program to the City Council. Narrative The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its Sixth Assessment Report one year ago. The Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers <https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC AR6 SYR SPM.pdf> states "[h]uman activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming" and that "[t]here is a rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a livable and sustainable future for all." To secure this future for Edmonds, the City Council adopted the 2023 Climate Action Plan. Edmonds aims to do its part to restrict the global average temperature increase to no more than +1.5°C by achieving climate neutrality by 2050. Most of Edmonds' local climate pollution stems from our built environment. Over a third of our local climate pollution comes from residences. To achieve the Climate Action Plan's goal of climate neutrality by 2050, immediate, rapid, and deep greenhouse gas emissions reductions are necessary within this decade. Market conditions perpetuate construction and renovation of inefficient buildings in Edmonds. The lifecycle climate impact of Edmonds' development could be mitigated by incentivizing better Packet Pg. 50 8.A construction. Among the strategies designated in the plan is BE-2: "Improve energy efficiency of existing buildings and infrastructure". In pursuit of this strategy, the plan establishes Action BE-2.2: "Create and implement a green building incentive program". Planning & Development staff sought public input and practitioner knowledge in developing these draft amendments. The City engaged with the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties, local developers, and the Mayor's Climate Protection Committee to identify what Edmonds needs to see more sustainable development. Staff held a Green Building Incentive Forum to educate the broader public on this opportunity and to receive feedback. Staff also attended a green building conference and learned from other local governments' green building programs. Program Development Staff researched best practices, outcomes, and plans for revisions of the leading green building programs both locally and nationwide prior to developing the proposed incentives. The current code includes some green building land use incentives, such as increased building height, in limited instances. The attached proposal works to integrate these lessons into existing code in a manner that would be easily understood by applicants and staff alike. The proposal relies on industry standards and existing precedent in Edmonds' code to offer attractive incentives capable of motivating the desired environmental outcomes. Attachments: Green Building Incentives Code Draft 7.19.24 Green Building Incentives Program Slides 7.24.24 DRAFT Draft Incentives Table 7.19.24 Packet Pg. 51 Chapter 16.20 ECDC, RS — Single -Family Residential Page 1 of 2 8.A.a Chapter 16.20 RS — SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Sections: 16.20.000 Purposes. 16.20.010 Uses. 16.20.020 Subdistricts. 16.20.030 Table of site development standards. 16.20.040 Site development exceptions. 16.20.045 Site development standards — Single-family master plan. 16.20.050 Site development standards — Accessory buildings. 16.20.060 Green building incentives. 16.20.060 Green building incentives. A. General. New principal residences, as well as additions/remodels to those existing buildings, and accessory dwelling units can earn relaxed site development standards by receiving Built Green 4-Star certification or better. B. Development Type. Only housing proposals receive the below land use incentives. Other uses permitted in this zone, whether primary or secondary uses, outright or conditionally permitted, or legal nonconforming, are ineligible for the following incentives. C. Height. Residences certified Built Green 4-Star or better may extend five feet above the stated height limit of ECDC 16.20.030 if all portions of the roof above the stated height limit have a slope of four inches in twelve inches or greater. D. Setbacks. Residences certified Built Green 5-Star or better may use the setbacks of one RS zone district smaller (i.e. RS-12 site may use RS-10 setbacks - see ECDC 16.20.030). Residences certified Built Green 4-Star or better. Properties zoned RS-6, RSW-12, or RS-MP are ineligible for this incentive. E. Parking. New residential development certified Built Green 4-Star or better requires only one parking space per dwelling unit rather than the standard requirement of ECDC 17.50.020(A)(1)(a). Electric vehicle parking standards of Chapter 17.115 remain calculated off standard parking requirements. The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4314, passed August 2, 2023. Packet Pg. 52 Chapter 16.20 ECDC, RS — Single -Family Residential Page 2 of 2 8.A.a F. Detached Accessory Dwelling Units. Detached accessory dwelling units certified Built Green 4- Star or better in the RS-6 and RS-8 zones may have an additional 5% of structural lot coverage to a maximum of 40% for the lot. G. Enforcement. Development granted these incentives but then unable to achieve the requirements are subject to the enforcement measures of ECDC 17.XX. H. Permit Review. Green buildings are eligible to receive expedited plan review, as established by ECDC 19.00.050. The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4314, passed August 2, 2023. Disclaimer: The city clerk's office has the official version of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Users should contact the city clerk's office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. City Website: www.edmondswa.gov Hosted by Code Publishing Company, A General Code Company. The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4314, passed August 2, 2023. Packet Pg. 53 Chapter 16.30 ECDC, RM — Multiple Residential Page 1 of 2 8.A.a Chapter 16.30 RM — MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL Sections: 16.30.000 Purposes. 16.30.010 Uses. 16.30.020 Subdistricts. 16.30.030 Site development standards. 16.30.040 Site development exceptions. 16.30.050 Green building incentives. 16.30.050 Green building incentives. A. General. New multifamily residential buildings, as well as additions/remodels to existing residential buildings, can earn relaxed site development standards by receiving LEED Gold certification or better. B. Incentive Options. Multifamily residential development certified LEED Gold or better may choose to use one of the following incentives. Multifamily residential development certified LEED Platinum or better may use both of the following incentives. 1. Height. Structures are allowed an additional five feet above the stated height limit of ECDC 16.30.030(A). This is in addition to pitched roof height bonus of ECDC 16.30.030(A)(1). 2. Density. The dwelling unit density may increase one zoning district (i.e., a property zoned RM-2.4 may apply the lot area per unit requirement of the RM-1.5 zone - see ECDC 16.30.030(A)). Properties zoned RM-1.5 or RM-EW receive no additional density. C. Parking. Multifamily residential development certified LEED Gold or better must provide a minimum of one off-street parking space per dwelling unit rather than the requirements of ECDC 17.50.020(A)(1)(b). D. Enforcement. Development granted green building incentives but then unable to achieve the requirements are subject to the enforcement measures of ECDC 17.XX. The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4314, passed August 2, 2023. Packet Pg. 54 Chapter 16.30 ECDC, RM — Multiple Residential Page 2 of 2 8.A.a E. Permit Review. Green buildings are eligible to receive expedited plan review, as established by ECDC 19.00.050. The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4314, passed August 2, 2023. Disclaimer: The city clerk's office has the official version of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Users should contact the city clerk's office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. City Website: www.edmondswa.gov Hosted by Code Publishing Company, A General Code Company. The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4314, passed August 2, 2023. Packet Pg. 55 Chapter 16.43 ECDC, BD — Downtown Business Page 1 of 2 8.A.a Chapter 16.43 BD — DOWNTOWN BUSINESS Sections: 16.43.000 Purposes. 16.43.010 Subdistricts. 16.43.020 Uses. 16.43.030 Site development standards. 16.43.035 Design standards — BD zones. 16.43.040 Operating restrictions. 16.43.050 Green building incentives. 16.43.050 Green building incentives. A. General. New buildings, as well as additions/remodels to those existing buildings, can earn relaxed site development standards by receiving LEED Gold certification or better. B. Eligibility. Development of new single-family residences cannot receive these green building incentives in the BD zone. Remodel projects for existing single-family residences can earn the incentives for the RS zone instead (see ECDC 16.20.060). C. Height. Development certified LEED Gold or better in the BD1 - 4 zones is allowed an additional five feet above the stated height limit in ECDC 16.43.030(A). Properties zoned BD5 receive no additional benefit. D. Enforcement. Development granted these incentives but then fails to achieve the requirements are subject to the enforcement measures of ECDC 17.XX. E. Permit Review. Green buildings are eligible to receive the expedited plan review, as established by ECDC 19.00.050. The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4314, passed August 2, 2023. The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4314, passed August 2, 2023. Packet Pg. 56 Chapter 16.43 ECDC, BD — Downtown Business Page 2 of 2 8.A.a Disclaimer: The city clerk's office has the official version of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Users should contact the city clerk's office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. City Website: www.edmondswa.gov Hosted by Code Publishing Company, A General Code Company. The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4314, passed August 2, 2023. Packet Pg. 57 Chapter 16.45 ECDC, BN — Neighborhood Business Page 1 of 2 8.A.a Chapter 16.45 BN — NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS Sections: 16.45.000 Purposes. 16.45.010 Uses. 16.45.020 Site development standards. 16.45.030 Operating restrictions. 16.45.040 Green building incentives. 16.45.040 Site development exceptions — green building incentives. A. General. New buildings, as well as additions/remodels to existing buildings, can earn relaxed site development standards by receiving LEED Gold certification or better. B. Eligibility. Development of new single-family residences cannot receive these green building incentives in the BN zone. Remodeled existing single-family residences can earn the incentives for the RS zone instead (see ECDC 16.20.060). C. Height. Development certified LEED Gold or better is allowed an additional five feet above the stated height limit of ECDC 16.45.020(A) where all portions of the roof above 25 feet are sloped four inches in twelve inches or greater. D. Parking. Development certified LEED Gold or better must provide at least one parking space per 500 square feet of leasable floor area. E. Enforcement. Development granted these incentives but then fail to achieve the requirements are subject to the enforcement measures of ECDC 17.XX. F. Permit Review. Green buildings are eligible to receive expedited plan review, as established by ECDC 19.00.050. The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4314, passed August 2, 2023. Packet Pg. 58 Chapter 16.45 ECDC, BN — Neighborhood Business Page 2 of 2 8.A.a The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4314, passed August 2, 2023. Disclaimer: The city clerk's office has the official version of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Users should contact the city clerk's office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. City Website: www.edmondswa.gov Hosted by Code Publishing Company, A General Code Company. The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4314, passed August 2, 2023. Packet Pg. 59 Chapter 16.50 ECDC, BC — Community Business Page 1 of 2 8.A.a Chapter 16.50 BC — COMMUNITY BUSINESS Sections: 16.50.000 BC and BC — Edmonds Way. 16.50.005 Purposes. 16.50.010 Uses. 16.50.020 Site development standards. 16.50.030 Operating restrictions. 16.50.040 Green building incentives. 16.50.040 Green building incentives. A. General. New buildings, as well as additions/remodels to those existing buildings, can earn relaxed site development standards by receiving LEED Gold certification or better. B. Eligibility. Development of new single-family residences cannot receive these green building incentives in the BC zone. Remodeled existing single-family residences can earn the incentives for the RS zone instead (see ECDC 16.20.060). C. Height. Development certified LEED Gold or better is allowed an additional five feet above the stated height limit of ECDC 16.50.020(A) in addition to the standard pitched roof height bonus of ECDC 16.50.020(A)(2). D. Parking. Development certified LEED Gold or better must provide at least one parking space per 500 square feet of leasable commercial floor area. E. Enforcement. Development granted these incentives but then unable to achieve the requirements are subject to the enforcement measures of ECDC 17.XX. F. Permit Review. Green buildings are eligible to receive expedited plan review, as established by ECDC 19.00.050. The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4314, passed August 2, 2023. Packet Pg. 60 Chapter 16.50 ECDC, BC — Community Business Page 2 of 2 8.A.a The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4314, passed August 2, 2023. Disclaimer: The city clerk's office has the official version of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Users should contact the city clerk's office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. City Website: www.edmondswa.gov Hosted by Code Publishing Company, A General Code Company. The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4314, passed August 2, 2023. Packet Pg. 61 Chapter 16.53 ECDC, BP — Planned Business Page 1 of 2 8.A.a Chapter 16.53 BP — PLANNED BUSINESS Sections: 16.53.000 Purpose. 16.53.010 Uses. 16.53.020 Site development standards. 16.53.030 Green building incentives. 16.53.030 Site development exceptions — green building incentives. A. General. New buildings, as well as additions/remodels to those existing buildings, can earn relaxed site development standards by receiving LEED Gold certification or better. B. Eligibility. Development of new single-family residences cannot receive these green building incentives in the BP zone. Remodeled existing single-family residences can earn the incentives for the RS zone instead (see ECDC 16.20.060). C. Height. Development certified LEED Gold or better receive an additional five feet to the height maximum, in addition to the standard pitched roof height bonus of ECDC 16.53.020(A)(2). D. Parking. Development certified LEED Gold or better may use the lesser requirement of Chapter 17.50.020(B) or a parking study. Electric vehicle parking standards of Chapter 17.115 remain calculated off standard parking requirements. E. Enforcement. Development granted these incentives but then fails to achieve the requirements are subject to the enforcement measures of ECDC 17.XX. F. Permit Review. Green buildings are eligible to receive expedited plan review, as established by ECDC 19.00.050. The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4314, passed August 2, 2023. Packet Pg. 62 Chapter 16.53 ECDC, BP — Planned Business Page 2 of 2 8.A.a The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4314, passed August 2, 2023. Disclaimer: The city clerk's office has the official version of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Users should contact the city clerk's office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. City Website: www.edmondswa.gov Hosted by Code Publishing Company, A General Code Company. The Edmonds Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4314, passed August 2, 2023. Packet Pg. 63 8.A.a Green Building Incentives — Expedited Plan Review Chapter 19.00 BUILDING CODE Sections: 19.00.000 Purpose. 19.00.005 Referenced codes. 19.00.010 Conflict between codes. 19.00.015 Administrative provisions. 19.00.020 International Building Code adopted. 19.00.025 International Building Code section amendments. • 19.00.030 Architectural design review - Optional vesting. • 19.00.040 Excluding nonconforming religious building from certain requirements. • 19.00.045 Reconstruction of damaged buildings. • 19.00.050 Green Building Incentives. The following is a stand-alone code section proposed to be included at the end of ECDC Chapter 19.00 Building Code. 19.00.050 Green Building Incentives. Projects qualifying for Green Building Incentives as allowed in Chapter 16 ECDC shall be eligible for expedited plan review as administered by the Planning and Development Department. Packet Pg. 64 8.A.b Green Building Incentives Program Leif Bjorback, Building Official Tristan Sewell, Planner Planning & Development Dept. City of Edmonds Planning Board Meeting July 24, 2024 Packet Pg. 65 8.A.b Enforcement — Case Studies Examples from other jurisdictions: • Proof of certification required within 6 to 30 months of issuance of Certificate of Occupancy by peer municipalities • Financial penalty models: • Flat rate • Percentage of work valuation • Per square foot • Any waived or reduced fees are to be remitted in full. • Liens may be issued against the property title for the value of the penalty or abatement needed to comply. 7/24/2024 Packet Pg. 66 8.A.b Proposed Enforcement Measures • Proof of certification required prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, otherwise two 2-year performance bond required: • Requires registration of the project with the certifying organization • Expedited permit review bond valued at 50% of building permit fee • Land use incentive bond valued at 5% of the project valuation • Bonds released upon approval of certification • Failure to certify within 2 years surrenders the bonds to Planning & Development. • Expedited permit review bond processed as permit fee revenue • Land use incentive bond funds the Green Building Incentives Program 7/24/2024 Packet Pg. 67 8.A.b Bond Example — Single -Family Residence Monetary penalties for failure to achieve certification Expedited Permit Review Fee • For a 3,000 sq. ft. SFR • Valuation = $522,000 • Building permit fee = $3,615 • Expedited permit review bond = 50% BLD permit fee ($1,808) 7/24/2024 Land Use • Land use performance bond = 5% valuation ($26,100) Packet Pg. 68 8.A.b Bond Example —Commercial Mixed Use Monetary penalties for failure to achieve certification Expedited Permit Review Fee • 10,000 sq. ft. • Valuation = $1.5M • Building permit fee = $9,500 • Expedited permit review bond = 50% BLD permit fee ($4,750) 7/24/2024 Land Use • Land use performance bond = 5% valuation ($75,000) Packet Pg. 69 8.A.b Bond Example — Large Commercial Mixed Use Monetary penalties for failure to achieve certification Permit Review Fee • 100,000 sq. ft. • Valuation = $14.8M • Building permit fee = $74,450 • Expedited permit review bond = 50% BLD permit fee ($37,225) 7/24/2024 Land Use • Land use performance bond = 5% valuation ($740,000) Packet Pg. 70 8.A.b Commercial Zones Waterfront (CW) General (CG) • Governed by the Shoreline Master • Can offer expedited permitting Program (SMP) while determining how to offer • SMP has use -specific development valuable site development standards independent of zoning standard incentives • SMP due for an update by 2028 • Amending the SMP to integrate green building incentives would be a very heavy lift. • Potential may be limited by the Shoreline Management Act (RCW Chapter 90.58) 7/24/2024 Packet Pg. 71 8.A.b Previous Presentation Starts Here 7/24/2024 Packet Pg. 72 8.A.b Brief Recap • Buildings emit most of Edmonds' local climate pollution. Residences emit over a third. • Offering permitting and land use incentives can reduce development's environmental impacts. • The proposed incentives expand upon examples already in our code. • Need to consider the 2024 Comprehensive Plan update, 2021 State building and energy codes, 2023 State housing bills, etc. • Learn how to expand and adapt to more contexts, zones, etc. 7/24/2024 Packet Pg. 73 8.A.b Policy Context 2020 Comprehensive Plan Climate Change Element • B.1: City takes lead reducing Edmonds' GHG emissions • E.2: Programs and incentives for (re)development to reduce GHG emissions 7/24/2024 2023 Climate Action Plan • Climate neutrality by 2050 • Action BE-2.2: Develop and implement a green building incentives program Packet Pg. 74 8.A.b Program Objectives VALUABLE • Desirable to homeowners and developers, motivating the environmental outcomes • Greater incentives in exchange for `greener' certification 7/24/2024 SIMPLE • Expand upon code precedent, specifically Titles 16 & 22 • Use industry standards to avoid creating unique criteria • Minimize impacts on City staff Packet Pg. 75 8.A.b Incentives • Additional building height — can be necessary for efficiency • Reduced property line setbacks — onsite location flexibility • Increased lot coverage — more developable lot area • Density —number of units, floor area ratio • Reduced off-street parking — specific needs vs. one -size -fits -most • Expedited plan review —time is money 7/24/2024 Packet Pg. 76 8.A.b Existing Incentives Extra height for LEED Gold in: • Multifamily Residential and Community Business — Edmonds Way districts • Westgate Mixed Use • Firdale Village Mixed Use District 2 (Multifamily Residential) 7/24/2024 JO' 9ErgADc aF DDiRKT J Ai ETiEET TO AiJv�DE ADOrtCN4L 9WLIbR TO DIBIfeCT 1 �dltLllE Oi E%IBR1O Mg19E ON ODJIGEM FA F£RIY �o�`s0•�Op ►�i�i�000i i 1d...♦ Packet Pg. 77 8.A.b Market Influence Edmonds — 25 Built Green projects 7/24/2024 Shoreline —100s of Built Green Projects r Q Packet Pg. 78 8.A.b Program Development • Researched incentives programs • Master Builders of King and in the region and nationally Snohomish Counties (MBAKS) • American Institute of Architects • Built Green Program • American Planning Association • Developer Builder Issues Council • Compared peer and neighboring municipalities' goals, methods, outcomes, and next steps • Cities of Bellevue, Kirkland, Seattle, Shoreline, and Tacoma 7/24/2024 Public forum seeking input from both industry reps and public Packet Pg. 79 8.A.b Construction Standards Established Certifications • Single -Family Residential: Built Green 4-Star • Commercial, Multifamily, and Mixed Use: LEED Gold 7/24/2024 • Flexible, point -based systems — not prescriptive • Periodically updated in response to the market and regulation • Widely used and recognized in our region • Third -party verified Packet Pg. 80 8.A.b Points Categories Built Green • Site and Water • Energy Efficiency • Health and Indoor Air Quality • Materials Efficiency • Equity and Social Justice • Operation, Maintenance, and Homeowner Education • Built Green Brand Promotion 7/24/2024 LEED • Integrative Process • Location and Transportation • Sustainable Sites • Water Efficiency • Energy and Atmosphere • Materials and Resources • Indoor Environmental Quality • Innovation • Regional Priority Packet Pg. 81 8.A.b Draft Permit Review Incentives DRAFT - EDMONDS TARGET TIMES FOR PERMIT PROCESSING (WEEKS) Actual Review times may vary Permit Type Review Type New Single Regular Family Expedited Single Family Regular Addition or Remodel Expedited Commercial/ MF Regular New Expedited Commercial/MF Regular Additions Expedited Commercial Regular Remodel (Tenant Improvement) Expedited 1st Review 6 3 3to5 2nd Review 3 2 2to3 3rd Review 2 1 1to2 Total Target Review Time 11 6 6 to 10 2to3 1to2 1 4to6 8 5 3 16 4 3 2 9 4 3 2 9 2 2 1 5 4 2 1 7 2 1 1 Expedited review for single family not available in RM or B zones Re�24m dimes may vary depending on staff work volumes and complexity of project. Review Time Savings 5 weeks 2-4 weeks 7 weeks 4 weeks 3 weeks Packet Pg. 82 8.A.b Built Green LEED Gold' Built Green 5-Star or better projects may use setbacks one zone smaller N/A (i.e., RS-10 to RS-8)3 +5' plus the 5' pitched roof bonuses below Choose one4 of the following: 3-in-12 BC • +5' plus existing 5' 4-in-12 BN6, BP +5' where all portions above 25' are pitched roof bonus sloped at least 4-in-12 6-in-12 BD5 • Maximum unit density increased one tier (i.e., RM-3 to RM-2.4)5 N/A BD1-4 1 per dwelling unit 1 per dwelling unit 1 per 500 sq. ft. leasable commercial floor area 1. New Single -Family Residences ineligible in RM, OR, B, or C zones. Remodels, duplexes, and ADUs are eligible in these zones. 2. Appropriate LEED rating system depends on project 3. RSW-12, RS-6, and RS-MP projects ineligible 4. LEED Platinum projects may use both incentives 5. RM-1.5 and RM-EW projects ineligible 6. Previously lacked pitched roof bonus 7. Pending review for interactions with Shoreline Master Program —Title 24 ECDC 7/24/2024 +3-5', Pending' Pending Packet Pg. 83 8.A.b Important Notes • Incentives never supersede relevant building, design, land use, fire, environmental, utilities, or engineering regulations. Other regulations that may limit a site's ability to utilize available incentives include: • Critical Areas • Stormwater • Design review, including landscaping • Street frontage improvements and right-of-way access 7/24/2024 Packet Pg. 84 8.A.b Other Zones • Westgate and Firdale Village Mixed Use zones already have green building incentives for additional height. • The design requirements of these and the CG zone complicate implementation. Integration of green building techniques with their design standards could be challenging. • WMU, FVMU, and CG should be implemented later after gaining experience and further research. They may also be good candidates for required green building for projects above a certain size. • Commercial Waterfront (CW) potential is impacted by the Shoreline Master Program. 7/24/2024 Packet Pg. 85 8.A.b Single -Family Residential — Built Green 4-Star Includes remodels, duplexes, and ADUs Excludes new SFRs in Business, Commercial, and Mixed -Use zones — remodels, ADUs OK Built Green 4-Star or better Parking One per dwelling unit 5' 25' 7/24/2024 Height Pitched Roof Incentive Std. Height Max. Images to scale Built Green 5-Star or better Setbacks As one zone smaller (not applicable in RS-6, Ssetback RSW-12, and RS-MP) 114.3' 8,000 sq. f I. clot area _ 2,800 sq. ft. Max. lot 7. I' I coverage LL__ _-44 Single -Family Residential (RS-8) 1:240 22 Packet Pg. 86 8.A.b Multifamily Residentia Gold — Pick One Platinum — Both Pitched Roof Bonu 5' iii, :ntive Max 5' Std. Height M< 25 7/24/2024 Height LEED Density As one subdistrict smaller: • RM-3 to RM-2.4, etc. • RM-1.5 and RM-EW ineligible. Fractions round down Always Applicable: One parking space per dwelling unit or 500 sq. ft. leasable floor area for conditionally permitted uses. Images to scale Fractions • 0.5 round up Packet Pg. 87 8.A.b Business Zones — LEED Gold Parking: One per 500 sq. ft. leasable floor area or 1 per dwelling unit, except in BD — no requirement for commercial uses. BN/BP BC BD5 Pitched Roof Bonus 5 Incentivized Max. 5 Std. Height Max. 25 Images to scale 7/24/2024 3-in-12 6-in-12 5' 30' BD1-4 Packet Pg. 88 8.A.b Ongoing Work • Incentives for the Waterfront Commercial (CW) zone — compatibility with the Shoreline Master Program. • No conflict with IRS setback reduction for Green Built 5-Star or better, as it is wholly independent. • Should DADUs be eligible for the +5' height bonus for all portions sloped 4-in-12 or steeper? • Should incentives be per -dwelling in the IRS zone? Each primary or accessory dwelling would need to earn Built Green certification for per -dwelling incentives. 7/24/2024 Packet Pg. 89 8.A.b Hard Questions • How might these incentives impact housing affordability? May it contribute to displacement? • Who would benefit most from these incentives? Who might face unintended negative outcomes? Who is left out? • Do the land use incentives reflect the community's best interest? Are they meaningful to development professionals and homeowners? • Can staff successfully implement accelerated review? • What's the best way to address multiple incentives applying to one project (e.g., ADU setback incentives for height)? 7/24/2024 Packet Pg. 90 8.A.b Thank you Questions? 7/24/2024 LL a 0 N NT N ti Packet Pg. 91 8.A.b • Minimum RS-8 Lot Depicted • 70' width, 8,000 sq. ft. • Most common Single -Family zoning • Footprint is 53' x 53' 7/24/2024 5'setback 114.3' Street 70' 8,000 sq. ft. v lot area r— — — — — — — — II II II 2,800 sq. ft. II II II Max. lot 7.5' I coverage II II II II II II Single -Family Residential (RS-8) 1:240 *�2 Packet Pg. 92 8.A.b How does Ord. 4360 interact with incentives? Setbacks • Minimum -dimensions standard RS-8 lot • Maximized lot 35% coverage • Two DADUs • One single -story with the 5' setback incentive • One two-story with the standard 10' ADU setback Height • All could benefit from +5' 4-in-12 incentive. Should ADUs be ineligible, or have other conditions or limitations on this bonus? Parking • No change — 3 spaces, one per dwelling 7/24/2024 1.5'setback 114.3' Y set bac k Street 70' N y r— I I 4FQ I Primary Dwelling 1,450 sq. ft. Footprint II I II ■ 2,800 sq. ft. = 35% 8,000 sq. h. max lot coverage lot area 0 II I I •oo�q.ti L Funk— •IOK�.MgY1 Y A A N N 5'setback �+ a Single -Family Residential (RS-8) 29 1:240 Packet Pg. 93 8.A.b Built Green Resources • Built Green Remodel Checklist, Handbook • Built Green Single -Family and Townhomes Checklist, Handbook 7/24/2024 LL a 0 N NT N ti Packet Pg. 94 8.A.c Edmonds Green Building Incentives Multifamily Residential, Commercial, and Mixed Use Development Single -Family Residential� z Multifamily Residential Commercial (C) Type (RM) Zones Business (B) Zones Zones Certification Built Green 4-Star LEED Gold' Minimum Built Green 5-Star or better projects may use setbacks one zone smaller Setbacks (i.e., RS-10 to RS-8. RS-6 as -is. RSW- N/A 12, RS-6, and RS-MP ineligible). Lot Coverage +5% for DADUs in RS-6 and RS-8 N/A +5' plus the 5' pitched roof Choose one* of the following: bonuses below 3-in-12 BC +5' plus existing pitched roof Height and +5' where all portions above 25' are bonus (4-in-12) � Maximum unit density increased [+3-5' in CW`'] 4-in-12 BNS, BP Density sloped at least 4-in-12 one tier (i.e., RM-3 to RM-2.4) *LEED Platinum projects may use 6-in-12 BDS both incentives. No roof pitch bonus BD1-4 Parking 1 per dwelling unit 1 per dwelling unit N/A 1 per 500 sq. ft. leasable commercial floor area Expedited See Review Timeline Table — Targeting 50% reduction Review 1 Subject to revision after adoption of zoning regulation compliant with HB 1110 2 Unavailable to new single-family residences in zones other than RS. Remodels, ADUs, and conversion to multiplex housing OK. 3 Appropriate LEED rating system depends on project a Depending on Shoreline Management Act regulation. Would require amending the Shoreline Master Program. 5 Previously lacked the 5' pitched roof bonus Last revised July 19, 2024 Packet Pg. 95 10.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 07/24/2024 Extended Agenda Staff Lead: Michael Clugston Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Michael Clugston Background/History N/A Staff Recommendation Discuss the attached extended agenda. Of note, there is a joint meeting with the City Council scheduled at 5:00 in the Brackett Room for an introduction to the Comprehensive Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Narrative N/A Attachments: July 24 Extended Agenda Packet Pg. 96 10.A.a Planning Board Extended Agenda - July 24, 2024 Plan Joint Discussion w/EDC Final Review Draft Alternatives Housing Policy Discussiion TransportationComprehensive ��AA��■ Land Use and Housing Draft DEIS Impacts and Preliminary Mitigations Environment and Community Design Waterfront Vision Draft EIS Comments Summary FEIS/Preferred Plan Framework Preferred Plan Recommendation Code Updates Critical Aquifer Recharge Tree Code Update Detached Accessory Dwelling Units (H13 1337 - mid 2025) Green Building Incentives Climate Legislative Package Land use permit timelines (SB 5290 - end 2024) Middle Housing (HB 1110 - mid 2025) Design standards and processes (HB 1293 - mid 2025), including Capital Improvement Program/Capital Faciffies Plan -------------0®-------------��■ Tree Canopy Policy Administrative Site specific rezone request Election of Officers Planning & Development ---------------------------�--■ Annual Retreat Planning Board report to City Council Parks, Recreation & Human Services Report KEY Future Items I- Introduction & Discussion Neighborhood Center/Hub Plans PH- Public Hearing Code Modernization Projects: D/R- Discussion/Recommendation 1. Unified Development Code (late 2025 - 2026) B- Briefing/Q&A Comp Plan Implementation R- Report with no briefing/presentation Highway 99 Community Renewal Program Regular meeting cancelled August 6, 2024 is a joint meeting with Council December 16, 2024 is a special meeting January 28, 2025 is a presentation to Council w Q Packet Pg. 97