Loading...
2021-04-28 Planning Board PacketC)p E 04 � O Planning Board Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda 121 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 www.edmondswa.gov Michelle Martin 425-771-0220 Wednesday, April 28, 2021 12:00 AM Virtual Online Meeting Remote Meeting Information Join Zoom Meeting: https://zoom.us/j/98720508263?pwd=VUhBN090aWQvSkhJNOtTb3NhQytBQT09 Meeting ID: 987 2050 8263. Passcode: 155135. Call into the meeting by dialing: 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. 1. Call to Order Attendee Name Present Absent Late Arrived 2. Approval of Minutes A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5467) Approval of Minutes Background/History Minutes from the March 24th meeting had not yet been approved. Staff Recommendation Approve minutes from March 24th meeting. ATTACHMENTS: • PB210324d (PDF) Planning Board Page 1 Printed 412312021 Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda April 28, 2021 3. Announcement of Agenda 4. Audience Comments 5. Administrative Reports A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5466) Director Report Background/History The Director Report is typically review during each meeting. Staff Recommendation N/A ATTACHMENTS: • Director. Report. 04.23.2021(PDF) 6. Public Hearings 7. Unfinished Business A. Generic Agenda Item (ID # 5458) Tree Regulations Background/History See narrative. Staff Recommendation N/A ATTACHMENTS: • Attachment 1: Upcoming Tree Actions(PDF) • Attachment 2: Tree Regulations adopted under Ordinance 4220 (PDF) • Attachment 3: ECDC 20.75.048 Conservation Subdivision Design (PDF) Planning Board Page 2 Printed 412312021 Remote Zoom Meeting Agenda April 28, 2021 8. New Business 9. Planning Board Extended Agenda 10. Planning Board Chair Comments 11. Planning Board Member Comments 12. Adjournment 13. Generic Agenda Items Planning Board Page 3 Printed 412312021 2.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/28/2021 Approval of Minutes Staff Lead: Rob Chave Department: Planning Board Prepared By: Michelle Martin Background/History Minutes from the March 24th meeting had not yet been approved. Staff Recommendation Approve minutes from March 24th meeting. Narrative March 24th meeting minutes attached. Attachments: PB210324d Packet Pg. 4 2.A.a CITY OF EDMONDS PLANNING BOARD Minutes of Virtual Meeting Via Zoom March 24, 2021 Chair Rosen called the virtual meeting of the Edmonds Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. 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. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Mike Rosen, Chair Alicia Crank, Vice Chair Matthew Cheung Todd Cloutier Nathan Monroe (joined at 7:15 p.m.) Daniel Robles BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT Roger Pence READING/APPROVAL OF MINUTES STAFF PRESENT Rob Chave, Planning Division Manager Mike Clugston, Senior Planner The minutes for the March 10, 2021 meeting were not available for approval. Z ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA The agenda was accepted as presented. AUDIENCE COMMENTS There were no general audience comments. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT TO PLANNING BOARD Chair Rosen referred the Board to the Development Services Director's Report that was provided in the packet. There were no comments or questions. Packet Pg. 5 PUBLIC HEARING ON CODE AMENDMENTS TO BROADEN APPLICABILITY OF THE UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION PROCESS (FILE NUMBER AMD2020-0003) Mr. Clugston advised that this is a code amendment request from a private applicant, Citizen Design Collaborative, who has proposed a 14-unit townhome project at 614/615 5' Avenue S that is currently under review by the Architectural Design Board. He explained that Unit Lot Subdivisions (ULS) are currently only allowed in the General Commercial (CG), Multifamily Residential (RM), and Westgate Mixed -Use (WMU) zones. The applicant's proposed amendment would expand Staff subsequently proposed an alternative amendment that would further broaden the applicability language to include any zone where multifamily residential development is allowed on the ground floor. He pointed to the following attachments that were included in the Staff Report: • Attachment 1 — Cover letter from the request from the applicant, Citizen Design • Attachment 2 — Draft code amendment • Attachment 3 — Minutes from the Planning Board's February 10, 2021 meeting • Attachment 4 — A Map of ULS applicability in Edmonds Mr. Clugston reviewed that the ULS process was adopted in 2017 to provide opportunities to divide fee -simple ownership of land to create townhouses, rowhouses and similar fee -owned dwelling units as an alternative to both condominium ownership and traditional single-family detached subdivisions. At that time, it was felt that the ULS process would apply best to the CG, RM and WMU zones. When the proposed amendment came in, staff agreed that the ULS process could work well in the BD zones, and felt it could be further broadened to include the Office Residential (OR) and Firdale Village Mixed Use (FVMU) zones. He recalled that staff discussed both options with the Planning Board at their February loth meeting, and the Board determined it would be appropriate to move the broader language to a public hearing. Mr. Clugston said that, as he prepared for the hearing, he noticed that some additional clarity was needed. As a result, he proposed the following small change to the language the Board considered at the last meeting. ECDC 20.75.045(B) — Applicability. The first sentence would be changed to read, "The provisions of this section apply exclusively to the subdivision of land for single-family dwelling units, townhomes, and rowhouses in any zone where ground floor dwelling units or live/work units are allowed. " Live/work units are considered a residential building type according to the Building Code, and the change makes the language more specific as to where a ULS could occur. Mr. Clugston referred to the map (Attachment 4) showing the zones where ULS is currently allowed, the proposed zones where ULS would be allowed if the code amendment is adopted, and the location of the five ULS projects that have received approval or are currently under review. He summarized that the amendment would encompass the BD zones, as well as a few parcels in the OR and FVMU zones. He said staff believes the proposed amendment would create the ability for some interesting new projects in those areas. He reminded them that all projects would require design and building permit review before a ULS could be applied over top of them, and a ULS would not change density or allowed uses. It is simply a way to create fee -simple lots that have townhouse -type units on them. Chair Rosen opened the public hearing. Craig Pontius, Citizen Design Collaborative, said Mr. Clugston did a great job presenting the proposed amendment. He said the intent of the amendment is to provide an alternate means of ownership for project types that are already permitted under the code. Presently, the ECDC allows the construction of live/work units and townhomes in the BD zones, but they cannot be subdivided and sold fee simple. This requires them to be condominiumized instead. The intent is to provide some flexibility to property owners in the zone in terms of how the ownership structure of a given project will be put together. Dr. John Hogue, Edmonds, said he is a member of the City's Economic Development Commission (EDC), and serves on the EDC's Neighborhood District Subcommittee, of which Firdale Village is one. However, he was present to speak only as a private citizen. He said he is opposed to expanding the ULS provision to the BD, OR and FVMU zones, as he felt it would further erode existing commercial space set aside for businesses and stifle job creation and business recruitment for the City. If the City truly wants live/work in Edmonds, he suggested they stop prioritizing housing at the expense of commercial space. Q Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2021 Page 2 Packet Pg. 6 He recalled that, at the last Planning Board meeting, Mr. Clugston stated that ULS has worked very well in the Westgate Mixed Use (WMU) zone. However, this is highly debatable, as two commercial spaces are still vacant two years after Westgate Village opened. The housing above restricts the types of businesses that can use the commercial space. Because the housing is maximized, the footprint of the ground floor commercial space is minimized, and the commercial spaces at Westgate Village are small. The lack of tenants is not due to the pandemic; it is due to incentivizing housing. He expressed his opinion that the WMU zoning has not worked well at all, and he is afraid the same situation will play out in the BD and FVMU zones if they start to incentivize housing de facto by making it easier to do a ULS. Michelle Douch, Edmonds, said she has followed this process, along with the Housing Commission's work on the Housing Action Plan. She recalled that, as originally proposed, the amendment would only apply to the BD-3 zone. She only recently learned that it has been expanded to include the entire BD zone, as well as the OR and other zones where ground floor multifamily residential is allowed. She is concerned that the proposal would change the zoning in multiple areas of the City under the cover of a single project. She feels that transparency is lacking for the community to know this is happening. The intent of the Housing Strategy is to create neighborhood village plans, transitional zones, etc. that allow for this type of development, which means there will be other smaller areas in the City that would be allowed to have tract townhome development. Because the proposed amendment would be applied to a much greater area of the City, she suggested that the process be slowed down to allow for greater public involvement. They should consider its impacts beyond just this one project. Mr. Pontius clarified that the proposed amendment is intended to modify an ownership model rather than allowable uses. Regulations related to parking, design, etc. would remain unchanged. The amendment is intended to address how the property is owned post construction, and the City would retain its ability to limit uses in a given zone, require design review, etc. The ULS would occur after all of the permits have been reviewed and approved, rather than something that is done to establish properties in order for entitlement to take place later. Again, he said anything that is constructed would have to be compliant with the current code, but it could be divided and sold off. 0 L As no one else indicated a desire to testify, Chair Rosen closed the public portion of the meeting. a Q Board Member Cloutier observed that a lot of the public concern appears to be that the number of residential units allowed to M be developed would increase if the amendment is approved. However, based on the Board's discussion at the last meeting, M the density would not change. The number of residential units allowed would not change. The only thing that would change o is the manner in which ownership of the units is handled. Mr. Clugston agreed that is correct. Board Member Cloutier m summarized that, if approved, the amendment would not make more units available for residential use than is allowed under a the current code. Mr. Clugston again agreed that is correct. m Board Member Robles said he understands that condominium development is required to pass certain standards in terms of z building envelope, ceilings, windows, etc. He asked if the ULS process would enable developers to skirt these standards or if the standard of build would be the same. Mr. Clugston said he is not familiar with specific condominium requirements, but Q the Building Division will review all projects to make sure they comply with the applicable building requirements. While he is not an expert on these requirements, it is likely the International Residential Building Code would apply. Again, Board Member Robles observed that the requirements to build a condo include some stringent building standards, and that adds cost to construction. There is also some associated construction liability. He asked if these requirements would be equally applicable to ULS ownership as they are to condominium ownership. Mr. Chave said his understanding is that the multifamily building code standards are applicable to all multifamily development, regardless of ownership. However, he acknowledged that there may be some differences as far as insurance rates, liability, etc. Board Member Monroe asked what problem the proposed amendment is trying to fix. He also questioned if the amendment would allow developers to skirt quality standards. He voiced concern that the Board doesn't have enough information, at this time, to consider the full consequences of the amendment. Mr. Chave said the only difference would be that of ownership. It would be a choice of whether a person wants to own the entire unit separately (fee simple) or be part of a larger condominium organization. Board Member Monroe commented that there are liability requirements that protect condominium owners that would not be required for ULS. He asked if that would have an effect on the quality of construction. Mr. Chave explained that a condominium association would have certain rules for how they operate, and a single owner would operate differently. Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2021 Page 3 Packet Pg. 7 In terms of liability, there might be differences in insurance, whether it is joint insurance for the entire building versus an individual unit, but this would not impact the building standards that apply. He concluded that only the Building Official could provide a definitive answer to address this concern. Chair Rosen suggested the Board could delay its recommendation until the Building Official could answer the Board's questions and concerns, or they could make a recommendation now that is contingent upon the Building Official's response. Board Member Monroe asked why the condominium model has largely failed in Edmonds. If the answer is tied to liability or quality, he felt the Board should explore the issue further before making a recommendation. Mr. Chave responded that staff s understanding is that the proponents would prefer to do a ULS. If that doesn't work, they will simply go ahead with a condominium. Board Member Monroe asked how many condominiums have been constructed in the City over the past 15 years, as his understanding is that condominium development in the State of Washington has been arrested due to liability and quality issues. Mr. Chave said there were particular issues in the 1990s with how certain materials were being used or applied and that is where the issues of liability lawsuits and bank reluctance came into play. A lot of condominiums were being built using this cheap and easy method of construction, but these problems have largely been solved over the intervening years. But again, he said he isn't an expert in this field. He suggested the Board ask the applicant to respond to why he is interested in doing a ULS as opposed to a condominium. Mr. Pontius said he can't speak to this issue directly. The decision was made by the developer, and he was directed to pursue the option. His somewhat limited understanding is that, from the developer's perspective, the target market prefers the fee - simple ownership model to the condominium -association model. Board Member Monroe asked how many condominiums41 the developer has constructed in the State of Washington over the past 15 years. Mr. Pontius said he has only been in the profession for the past 7 years, so he hasn't done very many. He said he could follow up with his colleagues to see how common they are. His firm typically does apartment buildings that are sometimes condominiumized and sometimes held for rental. This decision is made by the owner later in the process. However, their townhouse developments are usually ULS rather than condominiumized. a Q. Vice Chair Crank said she would prefer to delay the Board's recommendation, as she feels that some subject matter expertise Q is missing in order for her to make a definitive recommendation. On a larger scale, she said she is feeling quite M uncomfortable making a recommendation for the whole when the amendment was submitted to address one particular M project. She doesn't want to make a blanket recommendation based on one particular project only to find out later that it isn't o appropriate for some areas. M Board Member Cloutier voiced concern that these questions were not raised at the last meeting, and Board Member Robles answered that they were. Board Member Cloutier said he did a quick search and there are no different rules for construction of condominiums. A condominium is a method of ownership of an apartment, townhouse or other building envelope. The building envelope and how it is subdivided is what determines the rules for construction in the code. Condominium associations can establish their own rules, but that is not the Board's concern. The Board's concern is about the use of land. In this proposal, the use of land would not change in any way except how it is owned. He questioned how changes in how the land is owned would impact the community. Board Member Robles observed that there is a litany of requirements associated with converting apartments to condominiums, including the air tightness, insulation, window quality, door quality, water vapor penetration through the skin of the building, sealants, etc. It is barely feasible, particularly since the new condominium laws were enacted in 2015 to protect the owners. The Planning Board's mandate is to do what is in the best interest of the citizens. The laws are there for a reason, and he isn't entirely sure they have fleshed out the cost and benefit to society in having this one project influence other future projects. While he is not recommending denial at this time, the Board needs some definitive answers to address the concerns. Mr. Chave said the Board could recommend approval of the amendment for must the BD zones, consistent with the applicant's original request. The only reason staff suggested the larger applicability was the desire to avoid piecemeal changes over time. He commented that converting rental units to condominiums is an entirely different issue because it involves a single property owner dividing the building into individual ownerships. With ULS and condominiums situations, there are separate owners for each unit and the building standards do not vary. When converting an older rental building, the Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2021 Page 4 Packet Pg. 8 2.A.a Building Official will look much more carefully at how the building complies with the current building codes. With new construction, developers would have a choice as to the type of ownership they are building for, but the constructions standards would remain the same. Board Member Cheung observed that the proposed amendment would not prohibit condominium development. It would simply open it up to allow townhome development, too. Mr. Clugston said it would allow both fee -simple and condominium ownership. Board Member Cheung questioned the Board's interest in deciding whether one ownership option is better than another. He said he doesn't know how allowing only condominium ownership would benefit the City. Unless he hears that the City has a special interest in only allowing condominiums, he is ready to forward a recommendation to the City Council. Board Member Robles said his concerns are related to building standards. If he was assured that the building standards would be the same for either condominiums or ULS, he would support the proposed amendment. Board Member Cheung noted that staff has indicated that the only change would be related to ownership and all other building standards would apply in either case. Board Member Robles said he wants to make sure that is, in fact, the case. He wants assurance that the proposed amendment would not open the door for a developer to build a lower -quality project than what would be required for a condominium development. Board Member Monroe didn't disagree with the comments provided by Board Members Cloutier and Cheung. However, he felt it would be entirely appropriate for the Board Members to consider the potential consequences. They should acknowledge that condominiums are more difficult to build because they come with strings attached and developers can be held responsible for poor quality. These same requirements would not apply to ULS projects. The amendment would make ULS projects easier to build, and they could presumably have worse quality. Even if the quality were the same, there would be no recompense to sue the developer once they are done. 0 Vice Chair Crank said she is hesitant to make a blanket recommendation based on one particular project. She would feel > better about making a recommendation now if the Board had the ability to come to consensus on the original amendment that 0- would apply only in the BD3 zone. Q. Q Chair Rosen reviewed the Board's potential options as follows: M • Continue the hearing to a future date and request more information from staff. • Make a recommendation on the original amendment proposal, which would only apply to the BD3 zone. • Make a recommendation on the broader amendment, as presented in the Staff Report. • Make a recommendation on either the broader amendment or the original amendment, but make it conditional. Board Member Cloutier referred to Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 64.55 (Multifamily Construction Defect Claims), which applies equally to condominiums, apartments, etc., and simply address how a building is constructed. Again, he said there are no separate laws that only apply to condominiums. In a transfer of ownership, the code name is condominium and the exact same building requirements apply. He said he doesn't see any reason to object to the proposed amendment or postpone a recommendation. He suggested that the Board consider two recommendations. First, they could make a recommendation on the applicant's original proposal, which would only apply to the BD3 zone. Second, the Board could make a recommendation on whether or not the proposed amendment should be applied more broadly, as recommended by staff. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD TAKE ACTION ON THE APPLICANT'S ORIGINAL PROPOSAL FIRST, AND THEN CONSIDER ITS BROADER APPLICATION TO OTHER ZONES IN THE CITY AS A SEPARATE DISCUSSION. VICE CHAIR CRANK SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Clugston clarified that the applicant's original proposal was to apply the ULS process in all of the BD zones throughout the downtown area. It was not specific to the applicant's property or even just the BD3 zone. Staff's proposal was to expand the amendment to also apply to the OR and FVMU zones. Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2021 Page 5 Packet Pg. 9 VICE CHAIR CRANK MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE APPLICANT'S ORIGINAL PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO APPLY THE UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION PROCESS IN ALL OF THE BD ZONING DISTRICTS. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE MOTION. Board Member Robles asked why the applicant's proposal was so broad to include all of the BD zones. Mr. Clugston said the applicant requested to change the applicability of the ULS process to add the BD zones. It was not specific to the BD3 zone. Again, staff suggested that the amendment be expanded to include the OR and FVMU zones. Board Member Monroe said he has environmental concerns regarding the proposed amendment, as well as how it might impact the City's housing strategy. He is also concerned about the points raised by Dr. Hogue about its potential impact to commercial development. The Board has an opportunity to postpone its recommendation to allow more time to get it right. Board Member Cloutier again asked how the amendment would change the density allowed, the number of units or housing availability. The only change would be to ownership. The issue to be addressed in the housing strategy is having units that are affordable, and the amendment would not have any impact. He suggested that the Board Members should have raised all of these issues and requested additional information at their earlier discussion in February. It is not acceptable to raise these concerns late in the process because it appears to be throwing up roadblocks as an excuse not to get things done. Once again, Mr. Clugston referred to the map (Attachment 4) and pointed out that the ULS process can be applied in all of the red areas, which is a mixture of RM zones primarily along 2121h Street SW, 761h Avenue W, 196`h Street SW and m Edmonds Way, as well as the WMU zone in the Westgate area and the CG zones along Highway 99. There haven't been any41 ULS projects in that WMU zone yet, but there have been some in the RM and CG zones throughout the City. The applicant's request is to add the BD zones, and staff added three parcels zoned OR and the FVMU zone. He concluded that the process is already used in a number of locations, and it is just one more option in the toolbox that developers have. Board Member Robles asked why the amendment was not initiated by staff or the Housing Commission. If it is such a great underlying strategy for the City, it should come from the City staff rather than from a developer. He cautioned that it isn't a possible to understand all of the condominium laws based on one Google search. There is more to it than that. Again, he Q asked why staff didn't propose the amendment. Mr. Clugston said the original application of the ULS process came through M a private -developer request in 201647, and the Board reviewed and recommended approval of the request to apply the ULS M process in the CG, WMU and RM zones. While staff could have proposed an amendment to apply the ULS to additional o zones, it wasn't on their radar until it was brought up by a private developer to address his project in the BD3 zone. In both m cases, the ULS amendments were proposed by developers. Mr. Chave added that it is also a question of timing. Staff has a a lot of code amendment issues on their plate, and it hadn't occurred to them to propose the change. The developer felt it was important enough for their project to submit a development code amendment. m Board Member Robles said he supports approving the change for just the project area, but the Board needs to have a broader discussion, as well as more information, before it can be applied to other zones in the City. Board Member Cheung commented that the fact that staff recommended a broader application of the amendment leads him to believe that they think it is a good thing that will allow developers more options. Board Member Monroe asked if staff s intent is to encourage more development in the BD, OR and FVMU zones. Mr. Chave disagreed that the proposed amendment would encourage more development. From staffs perspective, it would provide more housing ownership options, which is a good thing. Staff doesn't believe the only choice for multifamily housing should be apartments or condominiums. It makes sense to allow developers to sell individual units, and it is actually quite common for the townhouse model where units are set up on individual lots. That is basically what the applicant is proposing. In the applicant's case, it would also allow live/work units where the ground floor space is commercial, with residential above. However, each unit would still be owned separately. Chair Rosen recognized that the City is currently undertaking a larger discussion about housing, and the proposed amendment could have potential impacts on that strategy, as well as how the public is engaged in the discussion. CHAIR ROSEN MOVED THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO APPLY TO THE PROJECT AREA ONLY. Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2021 Page 6 Packet Pg. 10 2.A.a Mr. Chave cautioned that the Board could recommend approval of the amendment for the BD3 zone only, but it cannot recommend changing the zoning for an individual property when talking about the overall zoning code. CHAIR ROSEN MOVED THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO APPLY ONLY TO THE BD3 ZONE SPECIFICALLY. BOARD MEMBER CHEUNG SECONDED THE AMENDMENT. Board Member Cloutier questioned if the Board Members have a clear understanding of exactly which properties in the downtown are zoned BD3. If not, then he cautioned against singling them out for the change. Chair Rosen said his motion to amend was intended to draw a smaller circle around the proposal. THE MOTION TO AMEND FAILED BY A UNANIMOUS VOTE. THE MAIN MOTION WAS APPROVED BY A VOTE OF 4-2, WITH CHAIR ROSEN, VICE CHAIR CRANK, AND BOARD MEMBERS CHEUNG AND CLOUTIER VOTING IN FAVOR AND BOARD MEMBERS MONROE AND ROBLES VOTING IN OPPOSITION. Mr. Chave advised that the Board's recommendation will be presented to the City Council for a public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN AMENDMENT TO EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) 17.75, ENTITLED "OUTDOOR DINING," AND A RELATED SECTION IN ECDC 17.70 a) 3 Mr. Chave reviewed that the City Council adopted Interim Ordinance 4210 on December 15, 2020, partially in response to the limitations placed on dining during the pandemic. For several months, outdoor dining was the only way to accommodate patrons, other than take out. It was noticed that the City's codes pertaining to outdoor dining were extremely restrictive and required a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), which could take two or three months to process. The ordinance clarified the > conditions pertaining to outdoor dining and streamlined the process for approving this type of use on a commercial property. 0- Specifically, it eliminated the CUP requirement entirely, but still required that outdoor dining located directly adjacent to Q. residentially -zoned properties must comply with the landscape requirements in the existing code or be screened by a building Q and/or 4-foot wall, hedge or solid fence. -a Mr. Chave advised that, previous to the interim ordinance, seating was limited to 10% of the existing interior seating or 12 seats, whichever was greater. This typically equated to just a few tables, and anything beyond that required a CUP. The interim ordinance increased the seating capacity to 50% of the existing interior seating or 30 seats, whichever was greater. In addition, a requirement was added that any dining area adjacent to vehicle parking had to be separated by landscaping, curb stops, wall or other suitable barrier. Although the CUP requirement was eliminated, the interim ordinance clarifies that building and/or fire permits would still be required for some elements associated with outdoor dining such as canopies, electric heaters, etc. He concluded that the proposed amendment would make the interim ordinance permanent. Chair Rosen opened the public hearing. As no one indicated a desire to provide testimony, Chair Rosen closed the public portion of the hearing. Mr. Chave recalled that, at the Board's last discussion on the proposed amendments, Board Member Pence suggested that some of the provisions in the ordinance could be combined for greater clarity. He observed that ECDC 17.75.010 deals with the land use standards, ECDC 17.75.020 talks about when a building or fire permit would be required, and ECDC 17.75.030 talks about buildings and structures having to comply with the building and fire codes. Perhaps the latter two could be combined, but ECDC 17.75.010 addresses something totally different. Again, he said the way the ordinance is currently constructed is fine, but it might make sense to combine the last two sections. Vice Chair Crank said she would support combining ECDC 17.75.020 and ECDC 17.75.030. BOARD MEMBER CLOUTIER MOVED THAT THE BOARD FORWARD THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ECDC 17.75, ENTITLED "OUTDOOR DINING," AND A RELATED SECTION IN ECDC 17.70 TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AS PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND AMENDED TO COMBINE ECDC 17.75.020 AND ECDC 17.75.030. VICE CHAIR CRANK SECONDED THE Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2021 Page 7 Packet Pg. 11 MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. (Note, Board Member Cheung was having technical difficulties and did not vote) REVIEW OF EXTENDED AGENDA Chair Rosen reviewed that the Board's next meeting will be a joint meeting with the City Council on April 13'. The Planning Board's regular meeting on April 14' has been cancelled. Mr. Chave suggested that, at the joint meeting, the Planning Board could confirm the City Council's priorities and what they see the Planning Board's role being on some of the hot issues that are coming forward for the remainder of the year. The Board has a particular interest in a time table for implementing the housing strategies, as they are anticipating it will involve some significant code amendments that will come through the Planning Board. The Planning Board's Extended Agenda can be provided as part of the packet for discussion, so the City Council can see what is on their plate. While the City Council has reviewed the Board's extended agenda previously, a lot has changed. In addition to code amendments relative to housing, he also anticipates a lot more tree code issues will come before the Board in the immediate future. The City is hoping to hire a code writing assistant soon, and that means staff will be extremely busy with not only the Board's current agenda items, but the long-term general code rewrite, as well. He anticipates an extremely busy year ahead of them. Vice Chair Crank said she also anticipates there will be some discussion with the City Council related to the Tree Code. They have spent several meetings discussing this issue, and the Board should be prepared to accept and respond to that input. The Tree Code and housing issues might consume the majority of the time allocated for the joint meeting. c Chair Rosen said he intends to stress that the Planning Board exists to help the City Council make good decisions. Specifically, he will ask if there are things the Board could do differently or better to help them in their decision -making processes. He said he would work with Mr. Chave to prepare materials for the joint meeting. > 0 L PLANNING BOARD CHAIR COMMENTS a Q Chair Rosen did not provide any additional comments. M PLANNING BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS Board Member Monroe referred to the earlier public hearing and suggested that the Board could do a better job of inviting experts to share important information with them. Vice Chair Crank noted that the country is going through a rough month, not only with the pandemic, but with Asian hate crimes, too. She is encouraged to see community members across the City and County banding together against hate. Board Member Robles said he is happy with the outcome of the hearings, and he is glad there was some dissenting vote on the first hearing. Whenever the vote is not unanimous, it raises flags that there are issues that need to be considered. Hopefully, the concerns will be addressed. Board Member Robles said he hasn't received any applications for the Student Representative position, but he suggested that the requisition for the position may need to be clarified. He said he notified a few people at the high schools, inviting them to share the opportunity with their students. r�1111"105_1_0101" The Board meeting was adjourned at 8:31 p.m. Planning Board Minutes March 24, 2021 Page 8 Packet Pg. 12 5.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/28/2021 Director Report Staff Lead: Shane Hope Department: Development Services Prepared By: Michelle Martin Background/History The Director Report is typically review during each meeting. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative Director Report attached. Attachments: Director. Re po rt.04.23.2021 Packet Pg. 13 5.A.a Date To From MEMORANDUM April 23, 2021 Planning Board Shane Hope, Development Services Director Subject: Director Report r_ "I believe in plans big enough to meet a situation which we can't possibly foresee now." a W o: -Harry S. Truman, former President a� L_ 6 The next Planning Board meeting is April 28 and will include an introduction to Stage 2 of tree -related regulations. ("Stage 2" refers to requirements, incentives, and programs for tree planting or management N throughout the city. It follows the more targeted Stage 1 focus on trees associated with property M development.) Iq Regional News Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRQ PSRC's Regional Staff Committee met last week regarding: o Regional Housing Strategy —Actions and Tools (draft stage) o Renton's Example for Accessory Dwelling and Cottage Housing Development o School Siting Issues o Regional Transportation Plan Status PSRC won a Puget Sound National Estuary Program grant from the Puget Sound Partnership and the Environmental Protection Agency to help catalyze the development of new stormwater parks. The project will share lessons learned about building stormwater parks. It will also provide technical assistance to jurisdictions for up to four new stormwater parks. More information is at: https://www.psrc.org/our-work/stormwater-parks. Sound Transit • Through April 30, the public is encouraged to provide input to Sound Transit on addressing the funding gap for approved transit projects that are not yet under construction. This can be done via an online survey at: https://www.soundtransit.org/system-expansion/realignment. • Northgate Link will open for service on October 2. Riders can use the new light rail service for 14- minute transportation between Northgate and downtown Seattle. Local News Packet Pg. 14 5.A.a Walkable Main Street The City of Edmonds may offer a "Walkable Main Street" opportunity this summer. This means one area of the downtown would be open entirely to pedestrians for some part of each summer weekend. To learn more and offer your ideas for how or whether this could work, visit: https://www.edmondswa.gov/news/what s new/walkable main street tell us what you think . Emergency Tree -Cutting Ordinance A public hearing was held April 20 on an emergency interim ordinance that had been adopted to prohibit the cutting down of most trees of 24 inches dbh or greater. The temporary ordinance allows time for preparing and considering new regulations affecting already -developed properties. After the public hearing, the City Council approved continuing the ban on cutting such trees for the remaining six-month period (until early September). Planning Board Appointment Terms Planning Board appointment terms have gotten out of synch over the years compared to the ordinance that established them in 1980. An updated schedule is proposed with two options to realign the o appointments to ensure staggered four-year terms. The realignment may result in some terms being W shorter to get back on schedule. If time allows, the proposal may be discussed by the City Council at its o April 27 public meeting. m L North Edmonds Neighborhood Meeting The Mayor is inviting residents of the North Edmonds area (primarily areas of Perrinville, Seaview, and c Meadowdale) to a virtual neighborhood meeting on April 29. For more details, see: 01! M https://edmondswa.gov/cros/one.aspx?portalld=16495016&pageld=17238708. C`! Option for Housing Authority of Snohomish County An option for the Housing Authority of Snohomish County (HASCO) to offer future services in Edmonds was recently considered by the City Council. A final decision will be made later. The agency provides well -maintained housing for low-income households, including seniors and persons with disabilities. It has three sites currently in Edmonds. Under a proposed agreement, if HASCO were to find future funding for another site in Edmonds, it could provide housing there, subject to City zoning and other requirements. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Plan Update The PROS Plan, which is also an element of the city's Comprehensive Plan, is scheduled for an update by February 2022. To help with this, the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services Department is completing a process to hire a qualified consultant team. An agreement is proposed for $143,000 to hire Conservation Technix to do this work. The effort would include outreach to community members who are sometimes less engaged, especially households with lower incomes and those for whom English is not their first language. Update of the PROS Plan will also be a topic for the Planning Board, which will ultimately make a recommendation to the City Council. COMMUNITY CALENDAR The Community Calendar has some updates. 2 1 P a g e Packet Pg. 15 7.A Planning Board Agenda Item Meeting Date: 04/28/2021 Tree Regulations Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Kernen Lien Background/History See narrative. Staff Recommendation N/A Narrative The City of Edmonds adopted an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) in July 2019 which included goals and policy guidance for tree retention within the City of Edmonds. Goal 1.A of the UFMP is to Update tree regulations to reduce clearcutting or other development impacts of the urban forest and consider changes to tree replacement requirements and penalties for code violations. The City of Edmonds began an update of the City's tree regulations in 2020 with the primary focus of having requirements that will result in more trees being retained when properties are developed and to require replanting for trees that are removed. The Planning Board reviewed the draft tree code regulations throughout the final quarter of 2020, holding a public hearing on the draft regulations December 9, 2020 and forwarding a recommendation to the City Council following the January 13, 2021 Planning Board meeting. The City Council began reviewing the Planning Board's recommendation at the January 26, 2021 Council meeting and adopted a version of the tree regulations on March 2, 2021 under Ordinance No. 4218. Throughout March and April, the Council continued to make amendments to the tree regulations adopted under Ordinance No. 4218 and adopted the amendments on April 13, 2021 under Ordinance No. 4220. Regulations adopted under Ordinance No. 4220 are provided in Attachment 2. No amendments were made to the Conservation Subdivision Design regulations in ECDC 20.75.048 adopted under Ordinance 4218. ECDC 20.75.048 is provided in Attachment 3. Another amendment to this ordinance is being drafted for Council consideration in May which would establish a process for when the tree retention requirement cannot be met on a developing property. During the review of the tree regulations, several comments were received on the limited scope of the tree regulations. When the Planning Board forwarded their recommendation on the regulations to the City Council, the Planning Board wanted to acknowledge the public comments received during in Planning Board's review and recommended that the Council continue with a Stage 2 of tree regulations. The City Council also expressed a desire to expand the scope of the regulations and explore other actions that can help the City achieve the goal of no net loss of canopy coverage and also provide net Packet Pg. 16 7.A ecological gain. Several tree related actions have been identified for Stage 2 tree actions, which include further regulation updates that apply to developed properties, conducting a tree canopy assessment, updating the City Street Tree Plan, and other tree related activities. Stage 2 topics and estimated timelines are provided in Attachment 1. Staff will provide a recap of the Stage 1 tree regulations update at this Planning Board meeting, and preview Stage 2 tree topics. Planning Board review of tree issues in the coming months will be focused on developing regulations for tree retention on private property which is not being developed (which may include discussions on views and wildlife habitat corridors) and developing a Heritage Tree Program. Attachments: Attachment 1: Upcoming Tree Actions Attachment 2: Tree Regulations adopted under Ordinance 4220 Attachment 3: ECDC 20.75.048 Conservation Subdivision Design Packet Pg. 17 7.A.a Proposed 3/2/20 UPCOMING TREE -RELATED ITEMS & TIMING ITEM Q2 2021 Q3 2021 Inventory of downtown street trees Inventory of other public trees Street Tree Plan update Tree canopy assessment Heritage Tree Program Tree Canopy goal Assessment of staffing & other resource needs Incentive program using stormwater utility fee reductions Exploration of other incentive programs Open space acquisition Tree retention on private property (not related to development) Partnerships with other organizations Annual reports on City tree activities Tree give-away program View corridors Wildlife & habitat corridors Expanded public education & information Stormwater & Watershed Analysis Other tree -related issues Q4 2021 2022 or TBD Q Packet Pg. 18 7.A.b ATTACHMENT A Draft Tree Related Regulations 23.10.000 Intent and Purpose 23.10.010 Administration Authority 23.10.020 Definitions 23.10.030 Permits 23.10.040 Exemptions 23.10.050 Tree Removal Prohibited 23.10.060 Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity 23.10.070 Tree Protection Measures During Development 23.10.080 Tree Replacement 23.10.085 Protected Trees Notice on Title 23.10.090 Bonding 23.10.100 Violation, Enforcement and Penalties 23.10.110 Liability 23.10.000 Intent and Purpose O L The purpose of this chapter is to establish a process and standards to provide for the evaluation, protection, enhancement, preservation, replacement, and proper maintenance of significant trees. This includes the following: m A. Implement the goals and objectives of the City's Urban Forest Management Plan; -0 B. Implement the goals and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan; c C. Implement the goals and objectives of the City's Climate Action Plan; D. Preserve, through design and intention, wildlife corridors and habitat; a a� E. To promote the public health, safety, biodiversity, environmental health and general welfare of the residents of Edmonds, provide greenhouse gas emissions mitigation and preserve the physical and aesthetic character of the city through the prevention of indiscriminate removal or destruction of N trees and ground cover on improved or partially improved property; a� F. Preserve the maximum number of trees that are determined to be appropriate for preservation in E the Edmonds urban environment and that have a reasonable chance of long-term survival; G. Promote site planning, building, and development practices that work to avoid removal or a destruction of trees and vegetation, that avoid unnecessary disturbance to the City's natural vegetation, and that provide landscaping to buffer the effects of built and paved areas; E H. Encourage tree retention efforts by providing design flexibility with respect to certain development r requirements; Q I. Retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site while still allowing the development proposal to move forward in a timely manner and replanting when trees are removed during of development. Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 1 of 15 Packet Pg. 19 7.A.b ATTACHMENT A J. Promote building and site planning practices that are consistent with the city's natural topographic and vegetation features while recognizing that certain factors such as condition (e.g., disease, danger of falling, etc.), proximity to existing and proposed structures and improvements, interference with utility services, and the realization of a reasonable enjoyment of property may require the removal of certain trees and ground cover; and K. Mitigate the environmental and aesthetic consequences of tree removal in land development through on -site and off -site tree replacement to help achieve a goal of no net loss of tree canopy coverage throughout the City of Edmonds; N c L. Promote net ecological gain, a standard for a development project, policy, plan, or activity in which 0 the impacts on the ecological integrity caused by the development are outweighed by measures a� taken consistent with the new mitigation hierarchy to avoid and minimize the impacts, undertake site restoration, and compensate for any remaining impacts in an amount sufficient for the gain to exceed the loss. 23.10.010 Administering Authority The development services director ("director") or a designee shall have the authority and responsibility to administer and enforce all provisions of this chapter. 23.10.020 Definitions A. Caliper — The American Association of Nurserymen standard for trunk measurement of nursery stock. Caliper of the trunk shall be the trunk diameter measured six (6) inches above the ground for up to and including 4-inch caliper size and 12 inches above the ground for larger sizes. B. Canopy — The leaves and branches of a tree from the lowest branch on the trunk to the top. C. Critical Root Zone - The area surrounding a tree at a distance from the trunk, which is equal to one (1) foot for every one (1) inch of tree DBH. D. Developable Site —The gross site area of a lot minus critical areas and buffers. E. Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) - The diameter or thickness of a tree trunk measured at 4.5 feet from the ground. DBH is also known as Diameter at Standard Height (DSH). F. Dripline - The distance from the tree trunk, that is equal to the furthest extent of the tree's crown. G. Hazard tree - A tree that is dead, dying, diseased, damaged, structurally defective as determined by a qualified tree professional. H. Grove — A group of three (3) or more significant trees with overlapping or touching crowns. I. Improved lot— means mean a lot or parcel of land upon which a structure(s) is located, and which cannot be further subdivided pursuant to city subdivision regulations and zoning code. J. Limits of disturbance means the boundary between the area of minimum protection around a tree and the allowable site disturbance. K. Native Tree — Native trees are described in the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) as being well -suited to our climate and tending to provide good habitat for local wildlife. The UFMP contains a partial list of species that are considered native trees. Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 2 of 15 Packet Pg. 20 7.A.b ATTACHMENT A L. Nuisance Tree — is a tree that is causing significant physical damage to a private or public structures and/or infrastructure, including but not limited to: sidewalk, curb, road, water or sewer or stormwater utilities, driveway, parking lot, building foundation, or roof. M. Protected Tree —A tree identified for retention and protection on an approved tree retention and protection plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by easement, tract, or covenant restriction. N. Pruning- means the proper removal of roots or branches of a tree according to the American U) National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 pruning standards. 0 r O. Qualified professional —An individual with relevant education and training in arboriculture or urban forestry, having two (2) or more of the following credentials: a� 1. International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist; L 2. Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) as established by the ISA TRAQ (or equivalent); ~ 0 3. American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) registered Consulting Arborist; N e 4. Society of American Foresters (SAF) Certified Forester for Forest Management Plans; For tree retention associated with a development permit, a qualified professional must have, in addition to the above credentials, a minimum of three (3) years' experience working directly with the protection of trees during construction and have experience with the likelihood of tree survival after construction. A qualified professional must also be able to prescribe appropriate measures for the preservation of trees during land development. P. Significant Tree —A tree that is at least six (6) inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) as measured at 4.5 feet from the ground. For trees with multiple leaders at four and one-half (4.5) feet height, theDBH shall be the combined cumulative total of branches greater than six (6) inches diameter at four and one-half (4.5) feet above the average grade. If a tree has been removed and only the stump remains that is below four and one-half (4.5) feet tall, the size of the tree shall be the diameter of the top of the stump. Q. Specimen Tree — A tree of exceptional size or form for its species or rarity as determined by the city's qualified tree professional. R. Tree - means a self-supporting woody plant characterized by one main trunk or, for certain species, multiple trunks, that is recognized as a tree in the nursery and arboricultural industries. S. Tree Fund — refers to the fund created by Chapter 3.95 ECC. T. Tree removal — means the direct or indirect removal of a tree(s) or vegetation through actions including, but not limited to: clearing, cutting, girdling, topping, or causing irreversible damage to roots or stems; destroying the structural integrity of trees through improper pruning, unless pruning back to the point where the tree has been previously topped; poisoning; filling, excavating, grading, or trenching within the dripline that results in the loss of more than 20 percent of the tree's root system; or the removal through any of these processes of greater than 50 percent of the live crown of the tree. U. Tree topping - The significant cutting back of the leader stem or major branches, resulting in severely altering the growth potential of a tree. This definition does not apply when the sole purpose is to create a snag or snags for wildlife habitat. Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 3 of 15 Packet Pg. 21 7.A.b ATTACHMENT A V. Viable tree - A significant tree that a qualified professional has determined to be in good health, with a low risk of failure due to structural defects, is windfirm if isolated or remains as part of a grove, and is a species that is suitable for its location. 23.10.030 Permits A. Applicability: No person shall remove, excessively prune, or top any significant tree except as provided by this chapter. B. Tree removal not specifically exempted in section 23.10.040 will be processed as a Type I permit. 0 C. Procedural exemption. Tree removal associated with building permit, subdivision, or other land use approval will be reviewed with the associated project and will not require a separate tree removal permit. All clearing shall be consistent with and apply the standards established by this chapter. 23.10.040 Exemptions The following activities are exempt from the provisions of this chapter and do not require a permit: A. Removal of trees on an improved single-family lot, except for: 1. That portion of the property containing a critical area or its associated buffer. Critical area in this context does not include erosion hazards with slopes less than 25 percent. B. Removal of non -significant trees that are not protected by any other means. C. Removal of trees by the public works department, parks department, fire department and or franchised utilities for one of the following purposes: 1. Installation and maintenance of public utilities or motorized or non -motorized streets or paths. 2. In response to situations involving danger to life or property, substantial fire hazards, or interruption of services provided by a utility. Franchised utilities shall provide notification to the City prior to tree maintenance or removal. A separate right-of-way permit may be required. D. Removal and maintenance of trees within City of Edmonds' parks at the direction of the Parks Department. E. Routine landscaping and maintenance of vegetation, such as pruning and planting, removal of invasive/exotic species, management of brush and seedling trees. Pruning should comply with ANSI A300 (Part 1— 2017), Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management — Standard Practices, to maintain long term health. This includes maintenance of trees and vegetation required to be retained or planted under the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Pruning existing trees back to the point where they have been previously topped is considered maintenance for these trees alone provided pruning will be undertaken only to the extent necessary for public safety or tree health. F. Trees that do not meet the exemptions in subsections A through E of this section may be removed with supporting documentation: Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 4 of 15 Packet Pg. 22 7.A.b ATTACHMENT A a. Nuisance tree with documentation of the damage and any tree work that has been attempted to rectify the nuisance, and/or a statement from the applicant's qualified tree professional explaining why no arboricultural practices can safely rectify the nuisance. b. Hazard tree located outside a critical area with a tree risk assessment prepared by the applicants qualified professional documenting how the tree meets the definition of a hazard tree. c. Hazard tree removal in a critical area or critical area buffers consistent with the requirements of ECDC 23.40.220.C.8. U) c 0 r 23.10.050 Tree Removal Prohibited a� a� A. Protected Trees: Removal of protected trees is prohibited, except as provided for in ECDC 23.10.040.E Hazard and Nuisance Trees, or through an approved modification of a Landscape Plan. B. Vacant Lots: Removal of trees from a vacant lot prior to a project development is prohibited except c as provided for in ECDC 23.10.040.F, hazard and nuisance trees. N C. Demolition of Structures: Tree removal shall be prohibited as part of a permitted demolition except as required to reasonably conduct demolition activities subject to approval of the director. Tree replacement shall be required for removed trees. L D. In critical areas, critical area buffers, and in all native growth protection easements, tree removal is prohibited except as allowed per Chapters 23.40 — 23.90 ECDC. 23.10.060 Tree Retention Associated with Development Activity A. Introduction. The City's objective is to retain as many viable trees as possible on a developing site while still allowing the development proposal to move forward in a timely manner. To that end, the City requires approval of a tree retention and protection plan in conjunction with the following applications: 1. Short subdivision 2. Subdivision 3. New multi -family development 4. New single-family development on a vacant lot or a demolition and replacement of a single- family house, and 5. Any tree removal on developed sites not exempted by ECDC 23.10.040. In order to make better decisions about tree retention, particularly during all stages of development, tree retention and protection plans will require specific information about the existing trees before removal is allowed. Specific tree retention and protection plan review standards provided in this section establish tree retention priorities, incentives, and variations to development standards in order to facilitate preservation of viable trees. B. Tree Retention and Protection Plan Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 5 of 15 Packet Pg. 23 7.A.b ATTACHMENT A An applicant for a development identified in subsection A must submit a tree retention and protection plan that complies with this section. A qualified professional may be required to prepare certain components of a tree retention and protection plan at the applicant's expense. Tree Retention and Protection Plan Components. The tree retention and protection plan shall contain the following information, unless waived by the director: a. A tree inventory containing the following: i. A number system of all existing significant trees on the subject property (with corresponding tags on trees); G ii. Size (DBH) and estimated tree crown diameter; r a� a� iii. Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained); iv. Brief general health or condition rating of trees (i.e.: poor, fair, good, excellent, etc.) as V. Tree type or species. N b. A site plan depicting the following: N a� i. Location of all proposed improvements, including building footprint, access, utilities, applicable setbacks, critical areas, buffers, and required landscaped areas clearly identified. If a short subdivision or subdivision is being proposed and the location of all 0 proposed improvements has not yet been established, a phased tree retention and a) protection plan review is required as described in subsection (3)(a) of this section; c ii. Accurate location of significant trees on the subject property and adjacent properties where the canopy and/or critical root zone of adjacent significant trees extend onto the subject property (surveyed locations may be required). iii. Trees labeled corresponding to the tree inventory numbering system; iv. Location of tree protection measures; V. Indicate limits of disturbance drawn to scale around all trees potentially impacted by site disturbances resulting from grading, demolition, or construction activities; vi. Proposed tree status (trees to be removed or retained) noted by an 'X' or by ghosting out; vii. Proposed locations of any required replacement trees as outlined in ECDC 23.10.080 and trees required to be planted in accordance with ECDC 23.10.060.C.5. Where replacement trees are proposed to be planted at a different location than the project site, a description of the alternate site and written approval from the property owner must be provided. c. An arborist report containing the following: i. A complete description of each tree's health, condition, and viability; ii. A description of the method(s) used to determine the limits of disturbance (i.e., critical root zone, root plate diameter, or a case -by -case basis description for individual trees); Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 6 of 15 Packet Pg. 24 7.A.b ATTACHMENT A iii. Any special instructions specifically outlining any work proposed within the limits of the disturbance protection area (i.e., hand -digging, tunneling, root pruning, any grade changes, clearing, monitoring, and aftercare); iv. For trees not viable for retention, a description of the reason(s) for removal based on poor health, high risk of failure due to structure, defects, unavoidable isolation (windfirmness), or unsuitability of species, etc., and for which no reasonable alternative action is possible must be given (pruning, cabling, etc.); V. Description of the impact of necessary tree removal to the remaining trees, including those in a grove; 3. Additional Tree Retention and Protection Plan Standards for Short Subdivisions and Subdivisions a. Phased Review i. If during the short subdivision or subdivision review process the location of all proposed improvements, including the building footprint, utilities, and access, have not yet been established, the applicant may submit a Tree Retention and Protection Plan that addresses the current phase of development and limits removal to the impacted areas. A new Tree Retention and Protection Plan shall be required at each subsequent phase of the project as more information about the location of the proposed improvements is known subject to all of the requirements in this section. C. Tree Retention Requirements 1. General Tree Retention Requirements: Significant trees on lots proposed for development or redevelopment shall be retained as follows: ECDC 23.10.060.0 Tree Retention Requirements for Proposed Development Development Retention Required New single-family, short subdivision, or 30% of all significant trees in the developable subdivision site Multi -family development, unit lot short 25% of all significant trees in the developable subdivision, or unit lot subdivision site Trees that are located within Native Growth Protection Areas, critical areas and their associated buffers, or that have otherwise been designated for protection shall not be removed except as provide for ECDC 23.10.040.E hazard and nuisance trees and ECDC 23.40.220.C.8 critical area hazard tree. 3. The director may require the retention of additional trees to meet the stated purpose and intent of this chapter, as required by the critical area regulations (Chapters 23.40 — 23.90 ECDC), or the Shoreline Master Program (Title 24 ECDC) or as site -specific conditions demand using SEPA substantive authority. 4. In addition to the tree retention requirements in subsection C.1 of this section, every significant tree that is removed under this chapter must be replaced consistent with the requirements of ECDC 23.10.080. Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 7 of 15 Packet Pg. 25 7.A.b ATTACHMENT A 5. For developing properties identified in ECDC 23.10.060.A that have fewer than three significant trees, trees shall be retained and/or planted that will result in the site having at least three trees, which will be significant at maturity, per 8,000 square feet of lot area. D. Priority of Tree Retention Requirements: Significant trees to be retained should be retained in the following order of priority: 1. Priority One: a. Specimen trees; 0 b. Significant trees which form a continuous canopy; c. Significant trees on slope greater than 15 percent; d. Significant trees adjacent to critical areas and their associated buffers; and a� L e. Significant trees over sixty (60) feet in height or greater than eighteen (18) inches DBH. 2. Priority Two: a. Healthy tree groupings whose associated undergrowth can be preserved; b. Trees within the required yard setbacks or around the perimeter; c. Trees that have a screening function or provide relief from glare, blight, or commercial development; d. Other significant native evergreen or deciduous trees; and e. Other significant nonnative trees. 3. Priority Three: Alders and cottonwoods shall be retained when all other trees have been evaluated for retention and are not able to be retained except where adjacent to open space, wetlands or creek buffers. E. In considering trees for retention, applicants and the City shall avoid, to the extent known, the selection of trees that are mature and may be a fall hazard, including trees adjacent to utility corridors where falling trees may cause power outages or other damage. If a revised building placement would result in the retention of more and/or higher priority trees, the development plan should be adjusted to maximize the retention of such trees. 23.10.070 Tree Protection Measures During Development Prior to development activity or initiating tree removal on the site, vegetated areas, individual trees and soil to be preserved in accordance with ECDC 23.10.060.E shall be protected from potentially damaging activities pursuant to the following standards: A. Preconstruction Meeting Required. Prior to the commencement of any permitted clearing and grading activity, a preconstruction meeting shall be held on site with the permittee and appropriate City staff. The project site shall be marked in the field as follows 1. The extent of clearing and grading to occur; 2. Delineation and protection of any critical areas and critical area buffers with clearing limit fencing; Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 8 of 15 Packet Pg. 26 7.A.b ATTACHMENT A 3. Flagging of trees to be removed and tags on trees to be retained; and 4. Property lines B. Placing Materials near Trees. No person may conduct any activity within the protected area of any tree designated to remain, including, but not limited to, operating or parking equipment, placing solvents, storing building material or stockpiling any materials, or dumping concrete washout or other chemicals. During construction, no person shall attach any object to any tree designated for protection. C. Protective Barrier. Before development, land clearing, grading, filling or any land alteration, the U) c G applicant shall: r 1. Erect and maintain readily visible temporary protective tree fencing along the limits of a� disturbance which completely surrounds the protected area of all retained trees, groups of trees, vegetation and native soil. Tree protective fencing shall be a minimum height of three feet, visible and of durable construction; orange polyethylene laminar fencing is acceptable. o 2. Install highly visible signs spaced no further than 15 feet apart along the entirety of the N 04 protective tree fencing. Said sign must be approved by the director and shall state at a minimum "Tree and Soil Protection Area, Entrance Prohibited" and provide the City phone number for code enforcement to report violations. 3. Prohibit excavation or compaction of soil or other potentially damaging activities within the barriers; provided, that the director may allow such activities approved by a qualified c professional and under the supervision of a qualified professional retained and paid for by the ' applicant. 4. Maintain the protective barriers in place for the duration of the project until Q. the director authorizes their removal. U) 5. Ensure that any approved landscaping done in the protected zone subsequent to the removal of c the barriers shall be accomplished with machinery from outside the protected zone or by hand. 6. Limit the time period that the critical root zone is covered by mulch, plywood, steel plates or a� similar materials, or by light soils, to protect the trees critical root zone. 4) 7. In addition to the above, the director may require the following: N a. If equipment is authorized to operate within the protected zone, the soil and critical root as zone of a tree must be covered with mulch to a depth of at least six (6) inches or with E plywood, steel plates or similar material in order to protect roots and soil from damage caused by heavy equipment. a b. Minimize root damage by hand -excavating a 2-foot-deep trench, at edge of critical root zone, to cleanly sever the roots of trees to be retained. Never rip or shred roots with heavy E equipment. R r r c. Corrective pruning performed on protected trees in order to avoid damage from machinery Q or building activity. d. Maintenance of trees throughout construction period by watering and fertilizing. D. Grade. Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 9 of 15 Packet Pg. 27 ATTACHMENT A 7.A.b The grade shall not be elevated or reduced within the critical root zone of trees to be preserved without the director's authorization based on recommendations from a qualified professional. The director may allow coverage of up to one-half (1/2) of the area of the tree's critical root zone with light soils (no clay) to the minimum depth necessary to carry out grading or landscaping plans, if it will not imperil the survival of the tree. Aeration devices may be required to ensure the tree's survival. 2. If the grade adjacent to a preserved tree is raised such that it could slough or erode into the tree's critical root zone, it shall be permanently stabilized to prevent soil erosion and suffocation of the roots. 3. The applicant shall not install an impervious surface within the critical root zone of any tree to be retained without the authorization of the director. The director may require specific construction methods and/or use of aeration devices to ensure the tree's survival and to minimize the potential for root -induced damage to the impervious surface. 4. To the greatest extent practical, utility trenches shall be located outside of the critical root zone of trees to be retained. The director may require that utilities be tunneled under the roots of trees to be retained if the director determines that trenching would significantly reduce the chances of the tree's survival. 5. Trees and other vegetation to be retained shall be protected from erosion and sedimentation Clearing operations shall be conducted so as to expose the smallest practical area of soil to erosion for the least possible time. To control erosion, it is encouraged that shrubs, ground cover and stumps be maintained on the individual lots, where feasible. 6. The director may approve the use of alternative tree protection techniques if those techniques provide an equal or greater degree of protection than the techniques listed in this subsection. E. Directional Felling. Directional felling of trees shall be used to avoid damage to trees designated for retention. Additional Requirements. The director may require additional tree protection measures that are consistent with accepted urban forestry industry practices. 23.10.080 Tree Replacement A. Replacement required. Tree replacement is required for tree cutting permits required by this chapter and/or for tree removal associated with the development types identified in ECDC 23.10.060.A. Each significant tree to be removed shall be replaced as follows: For each significant tree between 6 inches and 10 inches DBH removed, one (1) replacement tree is required. For each significant tree between 10.1 inches and 14 inches in DBH removed, two (2) replacement trees are required. 3. For each significant tree greater than 14 inches and less the 24 inches in DBH removed, three (3) replacement trees are required. B. No tree replacement is required in the following cases: Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 10 of 15 Packet Pg. 28 ATTACHMENT A 7.A.b The tree is hazardous, dead, diseased, injured, or in a declining condition with no reasonable assurance of regaining vigor, for reasons not attributable to the development. 2. The tree is proposed to be relocated to another suitable planting site, provided that relocation complies with the standards in this section. C. Prior to any tree removal, the applicant shall demonstrate through a tree protection and replacement plan, critical area mitigation plan, or other plans acceptable to the director that tree replacement will meet the minimum standards of this section. D. Replacement Specifications. 1. Minimum sizes for replacement trees shall be: a. one -and -one -half -inch caliper for deciduous trees; b. Six feet in height for evergreen trees. 2. The director may consider smaller -sized replacement trees if the applicant can demonstrate that smaller trees are more suited to the species, the site conditions, and the purposes of this section, and that such trees will be planted in sufficient quantities to meet the intent of this section. 3. Replacement trees shall be primarily native species. 4. Replacement trees must be planted within the City of Edmonds or its Urban Growth Area. E. Tree Replacement Fee -in -lieu. After providing clear documentation to Development Services that all replacement options have been considered and are infeasible, including arborist reports as necessary, the developer shall pay a fee -in -lieu for each replacement tree required but not replaced. 1. The amount of the fee shall be $1000 multiplied by the number of trees necessary to satisfy the tree replacement requirements of this section and shall be deposited into the City's Tree Fund. The fee shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of a tree removal permit or associated development permit. For each significant tree greater than 24" in DBH removed, a fee based on an appraisal of the tree value by the city tree protection professional using trunk formula method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal shall be required. 23.10.085 Protected Trees Notice on Title The owner of any property that included a tree(s) identified for retention and protection on an approved tree retention and protection plan, replacement in relation to a permit or plan, and/or permanently protected by easement, tract, or covenant restriction shall, as a condition of permit issuance, record a notice on title of the existence of such protected trees against the property with the Snohomish County auditor's office. The notice shall be approved by the director and the city attorney for compliance with this provision. 23.10.090 Bonding Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 11 of 15 Packet Pg. 29 7.A.b ATTACHMENT A A. The director may require a performance bond for tree replacement and site restoration to ensure the installation of replacement trees, and/or compliance with other landscaping requirements as identified on the approved site plans. B. The bond shall be in the amount of 120 percent of the estimated cost of implementation of the tree replacement and/or site restoration including trees, irrigation and labor. C. A two-year maintenance bond shall be required after the installation of required site improvements and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or finalization of permit and following required landscape installation or tree replacement. The maintenance bond shall be in place to 0 ensure adequate maintenance and protection of retained trees and site improvements. The maintenance bond shall be for an amount of 15% of the performance bond or estimate in subsection B. D. The director shall exempt individual single-family lots from a maintenance bond, except where a as clearing violation has occurred or tree replacement is located within critical areas or critical area ~ buffers. N 23.10.100 Violation, Enforcement and Penalties A. Noncompliance with any section of this chapter constitutes a violation of this Code. A violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as provided in Chapter 5.50 ECC. C. Penalties: 1. Aiding or Abetting: Any person who, through an act of commission or omission, procures, aids or abets in the violation shall be considered to have committed a violation for the purposes of the penalty. All persons who have been found to commit a violation under this chapter shall be responsible for an equal share of any penalties imposed under subsection C.2. Civil Penalties: Any person violating any provisions of this chapter shall have committed a civil infraction and may be subject to civil penalties in addition to any criminal penalties. Pursuant to Chapter 64.12 RCW, the City may be entitled to triple the amount of civil damages claimed or assessed. The extent of the penalty shall be determined according to one or more of the following: An amount reasonably determined by the Director to be equivalent to the costs estimated by the City to investigate and administer the infraction; b. The economic benefit that the violator derives from the violation (as measured by the greater of the resulting increase in market value of the property or the value received by the violator or savings of construction costs realized by the violator performing any act in violation of this chapter); c. Removal of existing 12" diameter or larger trees in violation of this chapter will require an appraisal of the tree value by the city tree protection professional using trunk formula method in the current edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal. The cost of the appraisal shall be paid by the person(s) who removed existing trees in violation of this chapter. Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 12 of 15 Packet Pg. 30 7.A.b ATTACHMENT A Penalty for illegal removal of trees shall be $1,500 per tree less than 12" Diameter and the appraised value of trees 12" or more in diameter. Penalties shall be paid into the city Tree Fund. If diameter of removed tree is unknown, determination of the diameter size shall be made by the City Arborist by comparing size of stump and species to similar trees in similar growing conditions. e. The cost of replacing and replanting the trees and restoring the disturbed area according to a specific plan approved by the City. Violators of this chapter or of a permit issued thereunder shall be responsible for restoring unlawfully damaged areas in conformance N c with a plan, approved by the Director, that provides for repair of any environmental and r property damage, and restoration of the site; and which results in a site condition that, to the greatest extent practical, is equivalent to the site condition that would have existed in a0i the absence of the violation(s). as a� f. If illegal tree topping has occurred, the property owner shall be required to have a certified arborist develop and implement a five (5) year pruning schedule in addition to monetary04 o fines and/or required tree replacement. N Civil penalties under this section shall be imposed by a notice in writing, either by certified mail with return receipt requested or by personal service, to the person incurring the same from the City. The notice shall describe the violation, approximate the dates) of violation, and shall order the acts constituting the violation to cease and desist, or, in appropriate cases, require necessary corrective action within a specific time. 4. Any fiscal penalty recovered under this section shall be deposited in the City's tree fund as established in Chapter 3.95 ECC. 23.10.110 Liability A. Liability for any adverse impacts, damages or injury resulting from work performed in accordance with any permit issued by the city under ECDC 23.10.030 shall be the sole responsibility of the permit applicant and/or owner of the property or site for which the permit was issued, and shall not be the responsibility of the city of Edmonds. Issuance by the city of any permit under this chapter shall not be construed as an assumption of any risk or liability by the city of Edmonds, nor as a warranty or guarantee that the work authorized by the permit will have no adverse impact or will cause no damages or injury to any person or property. B. Issuance by the city of a permit under ECDC 23.20.030 and/or compliance by the applicant and/or property owner with any permit conditions therein shall not relieve an applicant and/or property owner from any responsibility otherwise imposed by law for any adverse impacts, injury or damage to persons or property resulting from the work authorized by any permit issued under this chapter. C. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be deemed to relieve any property owner within the city limits from the duties imposed under Chapter 9.25 ECC to keep any tree or vegetation upon his property or under his control in such condition as to prevent it from constituting a hazard or a nuisance. D. The amount of any security required as part of any land development permit with which tree removal is associated shall not serve as a gauge or limit to the compensation that may be owed by a Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 13 of 15 Packet Pg. 31 7.A.b ATTACHMENT A property owner as a result of injury or damages to persons or property resulting from any tree removal authorized under this chapter. Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 14 of 15 Packet Pg. 32 7.A.b ATTACHMENT B 3.95 Tree Fund 3.95.010 Tree Fund Established There is hereby created and established a fund known as the "Tree Fund." 3.95.020 Funding Sources Monies for the Tree Fund shall come from the following sources: A. All revenue, mitigation fees, civil fines, and penalties received by the city under Chapter 23.10 ECDC. B. All civil penalties received under Chapter 23.40 ECDC. C. Donations and grants for tree purposes; and D. Other monies allocated by the City Council 3.95.040 Funding Purposes A. Monies in the Tree Fund may be used for the following purposes, as reviewed and approved by the city: 1. Providing tree vouchers to individuals purchasing and planting trees in the City of Edmonds; 2. Paying for services provided by a qualified tree professional; 3. Paying for services that support the urban forest management and health; 4. Acquiring, maintaining, and preserving wooded areas within the city; 5. Purchasing supplies and materials for the city's observance of Arbor Day or other educational purchases; 6. Purchasing and planting of trees by the City of Edmonds, including planting street trees within the right-of-way. 7. Other purposes relating to trees as determined by the city. B. Monies from the Tree Fund must not be used to purchase trees required for replacement under the conditions Chapter 23.10 ECDC, nor used to purchase trees required for replacement under the conditions of a violation. Further, they cannot be used in any manner that will profit the grantee. C. Monies deposited into the tree fund for a fee -in -lieu of tree replacements as provided for in ECDC 23.10.080.E must be used to purchase trees for planting or acquiring and preserving wooded areas and open space. Amendments to Code adopted by City Council on March 2, 2021 Page 15 of 15 Packet Pg. 33 7.A.c Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code 20.75.048 Conservation subdivision Page 1 of 1 design. 20.75.048 Conservation subdivision design. A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to promote retention of significant trees or specimen trees and to protect natural resources through some amount of flexibility in lot layouts of subdivisions in order to preserve trees and provide for low impact development. The director and the applicant shall work in good faith to find reasonable solutions. c B. Applicability. Administrative design flexibility in residential zones is limited to the following development ° standards: a� as 1. Setbacks. Street, side and rear setbacks may be reduced in all residential zones; provided, that: LL r a. No street setback shall be less than 15 feet; C b. No rear setback shall be less than 10 feet; c. No required side setback shall be less than five feet; and d. Street and rear setbacks in the RSW-12 zone shall not be reduced. 2. Lot Size and Width. Lots within a subdivision may be clustered in a way that allows dwelling units to be shifted to the most suitable locations potentially reducing individual lot sizes and widths; provided, that the overall density of the project complies with the density requirements of the zoning district in which it is located. 3. Coverage. Structural coverage may be increased on individual lots; provided, that, in total, coverage of the area within the subdivision does not exceed the lot coverage allowed for the zoning district in which it is located. 4. Access. Variations in parking lot design and/or access driveway requirements may be granted when the public works, fire and planning officials determine the variations to be consistent with the intent of city codes and standards. C. Properties which include trees that are identified for retention and protection in association with design flexibility approved under this section must record a notice on title consistent with ECDC 23.10.085. [Ord. 4218 § 2 (Att. B), 2021]. -he Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code is current through Ordinance 4218, passed March 3, 2021 Packet Pg. 34